The forgotten by-elections – politicalbetting.com

System · 8:21AM

The forgotten by-elections – politicalbetting.com

Because of Andy Burnham there hasn’t been the attention that should be due to the two Scottish by-elections also taking place on June the 18th, which could be quite the Waterloo for the SNP (or indeed Labour or the Conservatives.)

Read the full story here

Benpointer · 8:23AM

First like... the by-election winners.

I'm guessing Burnham, SNP and SNP

Benpointer · 8:31AM

O/T with apologies for diverting a thread right away but the Guardian have now published their readers' list of 100 greatest novels and it looks a lot better to me than the authors' and critics' list from a few weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time

Burgessian · 8:33AM

On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Casino_Royale · 8:36AM

You have to look at the constituency-level data, and bear in mind Scottish politics is different.

Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine, which overlaps heavily with Aberdeen South, was extremely close between the SNP and Conservatives at Holyrood last month, with just over 1,000 votes in it. The combined Conservative and Reform vote was over 48%.

In a two-horse Westminster by-election, with different voter motivations, oil and gas policy front and centre, and the SNP carrying the baggage of recent scandals, with potentially more to come, I think the Conservatives represent genuine value here.

Theuniondivvie · 8:44AM

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.

SandyRentool · 8:46AM

Two unnecessary by-elections.

Will voters punish the SNP for the inconvenience of an extra trip to the polling place?

Luckyguy1983 · 8:47AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.

What's your position on whether we should allow new oilfields to be drilled?

Casino_Royale · 8:50AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.

Remarkable that the SNP made such a big thing of it being "Scotland's Oil" and central to the case for independence then.

Nigelb · 8:54AM

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
What's your position on whether we should allow new oilfields to be drilled?

Pragmatists should be in favour, IMO.

It's not the most significant of issues facing us, by some distance (which is a flaw in the arguments of most of those most vocally in favour) but the arguments in favour are pretty clearcut.

Theuniondivvie · 8:54AM

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
What's your position on whether we should allow new oilfields to be drilled?

Leave it in the ground as long as possible, and all the 'our gas and oil' British nationalists can actually work out some constructive strategy to prop up a faltering economy.

Richard_Tyndall · 8:55AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.

It wasn't and isn't virtually exhausted. And it wasn't the Tories who banned new drilling.

Nigelb · 8:56AM

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
Remarkable that the SNP made such a big thing of it being "Scotland's Oil" and central to the case for independence then.

That was over a decade ago.
A lot of oil and gas has flowed since then.

FF43 · 8:56AM

I think the Conservatives need to do three things demographically to win Aberdeen South: Convert a bunch of former SNP voters presumably on the O&G issue; get Con to Reform switchers to switch back again; prevent SNP to Labour switchers from switching back again.

Which seems challenging.

MarqueeMark · 8:58AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.

Will Labour be getting Ed Miliband to campaign in Aberdeen South?

And what is the point of voting Reform in this by-election?

MattW · 8:59AM

FPT:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.

You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)

Richard_Tyndall · 8:59AM

Nigelb said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
What's your position on whether we should allow new oilfields to be drilled?
Pragmatists should be in favour, IMO.

It's not the most significant of issues facing us, by some distance (which is a flaw in the arguments of most of those most vocally in favour) but the arguments in favour are pretty clearcut.

It is not really a flaw. We are supposedly capable of dealing with more than one issue at once.

Nigelb · 9:00AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
What's your position on whether we should allow new oilfields to be drilled?
Leave it in the ground as long as possible, and all the 'our gas and oil' British nationalists can actually work out some constructive strategy to prop up a faltering economy.

As Richard T has often pointed out, that would effectively obsolete a lot of very costly and still useful pipeline infrastructure which would no longer be economic to maintain, and restarting exploration would be problematic.

In a real sense, for much of the reserves, it's use it or lose it.

Theuniondivvie · 9:00AM

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
Remarkable that the SNP made such a big thing of it being "Scotland's Oil" and central to the case for independence then.

Whoosh.
12 years ago people like the Con candidate for Aberdeen South were telling everyone that Scotland couldn't be indy because North sea oil was finished. Much like they were telling people that voting No would secure EU membership for Scots, Boris Johnson could never be PM and Holyrood would become the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

Casino_Royale · 9:02AM

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
Remarkable that the SNP made such a big thing of it being "Scotland's Oil" and central to the case for independence then.
That was over a decade ago.
A lot of oil and gas has flowed since then.

Er, yeah. That was the irony of my post.

The IndyRef was only 2 years before that.

Richard_Tyndall · 9:02AM

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.

LostPassword · 9:03AM

Benpointer said:
O/T with apologies for diverting a thread right away but the Guardian have now published their readers' list of 100 greatest novels and it looks a lot better to me than the authors' and critics' list from a few weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time

In general it looks like a list where it is safer to choose a book from it and you won't end up hating the experience of reading the book.

But fecking Middlemarch is still second. And To Kill A Mockingbird at number five?

I also think the list still lacks breadth. Three Austen novels, Two by Orwell. Multiple Dickens. The list would be a lot more interesting if it was limited to one book per author.

Casino_Royale · 9:03AM

FF43 said:
I think the Conservatives need to do three things demographically to win Aberdeen South: Convert a bunch of former SNP voters presumably on the O&G issue; get Con to Reform switchers to switch back again; prevent SNP to Labour switchers from switching back again.

Which seems challenging.

When there's only a few hundred votes in it, perhaps not.

Nigelb · 9:03AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
What's your position on whether we should allow new oilfields to be drilled?
Pragmatists should be in favour, IMO.

It's not the most significant of issues facing us, by some distance (which is a flaw in the arguments of most of those most vocally in favour) but the arguments in favour are pretty clearcut.
It is not really a flaw. We are supposedly capable of dealing with more than one issue at once.

The flaw in the argument is their hyperbole.
If you're not honest about the magnitude of the benefits, it casts into doubt the rest of the case.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be making the argument; for once, they are right to do so.

Casino_Royale · 9:03AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
What's your position on whether we should allow new oilfields to be drilled?
Leave it in the ground as long as possible, and all the 'our gas and oil' British nationalists can actually work out some constructive strategy to prop up a faltering economy.

What about the 'our gas and oil' Scottish nationalists?

Theuniondivvie · 9:04AM

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
Will Labour be getting Ed Miliband to campaign in Aberdeen South?

And what is the point of voting Reform in this by-election?

You're being unecessarily restrictive in limiting the pointlessness of voting reform to a single by-election.

Nigelb · 9:06AM

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

Also FPT, this was a non issue for voters at the time.
(Despite Ed Davey making a fuss along with Lucky and Casino.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy03zy1lr8go
..A YouGov poll of more than 5,000 people last July suggested 34% of Lib Dems wanted nature on notes, compared with 19% wanting notable British historical figures.
It was close among Conservative and Reform supporters. Some 30% of Tories and Reform voters wanted historical figures, compared with 26% for the Conservatives and 25% for Reform favouring nature...

Casino_Royale · 9:06AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
Remarkable that the SNP made such a big thing of it being "Scotland's Oil" and central to the case for independence then.
Whoosh.
12 years ago people like the Con candidate for Aberdeen South were telling everyone that Scotland couldn't be indy because North sea oil was finished. Much like they were telling people that voting No would secure EU membership for Scots, Boris Johnson could never be PM and Holyrood would become the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

You genuinely don't realise how hilarious your posts are on this subject, do you?

But, then again, I suppose you have to be a master in cognitive dissonance to be an SNP supporter for this long.

LostPassword · 9:07AM

FF43 said:
I think the Conservatives need to do three things demographically to win Aberdeen South: Convert a bunch of former SNP voters presumably on the O&G issue; get Con to Reform switchers to switch back again; prevent SNP to Labour switchers from switching back again.

Which seems challenging.

Differential turnout potentially covers most of those bases.

There won't be many more promising by-elections for the Tories.

ydoethur · 9:07AM

Also FPT, to show willing:

MattW said:

Battlebus said:
A bonus for any England supporters visiting Texas for World Cup games. The one thing you don't want 'coming home',

When the eggs hatch, hundreds of larvae burrow through living flesh with sharp mouths, eventually killing their host if left untreated.

Bonus point: White or Brown?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevpv3r7jmpo
That does not seem to cover the detail, which seems to have slightly unfortunate timing.

1950s+ USA spent tens of millions of $ on eradication programmes, using "sterile flies". North American eradication by 2000.
2024/2025 New world screwworm detected in Mexico.
Mid 2025: DOGE cuts funding for project to monitor the New world screwworm in Mexico/Central America.
Slightly further on in Mid 2025: US Govt ended temporary ban on import of cattle from Mexico.
Mid 2026: Screw worm cases detected in Texas.

That's still arguably circumstantial, but it won't help the Republicans in Texas unless they nail it down. It will perhaps appear in Democrat campaign adverts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/06/04/screwworm-in-texas-cattle-could-drive-up-beef-prices-after-doge-axed-prevention-efforts/

Have a good day everyone.

They have been screwed by an unexpected comeback of a parastical worm mired in bullshit.

And there's problems with cattle as well.

BlancheLivermore · 9:10AM

Surely we should have a grey squirrel on a banknote, to show how successful immigration can be

TheScreamingEagles · 9:12AM

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)

As the UK transitions to a cashless society these arguments become redundant.

I've been to London three times in the last month and not once did I take cash with me.

One time I visited London without my wallet*.

*Technically it is a card holder.

bondegezou · 9:15AM

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)

Manufactured outrage is central to the radical right's approach. It's all about generating clicks on social media. We've seen this with MAGA. The only problem comes when you try to run a country, you're still manufacturing outrage, but people start to notice that you don't actually have a foreign policy that works, and you don't have a response for human and animal health risks, etc.

OldKingCole · 9:16AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.

Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!

ThomasNashe · 9:18AM

LostPassword said:

Benpointer said:
O/T with apologies for diverting a thread right away but the Guardian have now published their readers' list of 100 greatest novels and it looks a lot better to me than the authors' and critics' list from a few weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time
In general it looks like a list where it is safer to choose a book from it and you won't end up hating the experience of reading the book.

But fecking Middlemarch is still second. And To Kill A Mockingbird at number five?

I also think the list still lacks breadth. Three Austen novels, Two by Orwell. Multiple Dickens. The list would be a lot more interesting if it was limited to one book per author.

While it wouldn't be my number 1, or even number 2, Middlemarch is undoubtedly a great novel. But LOTR at number 1? Jeez.

HYUFD · 9:18AM

Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.

Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberdeen_Deeside_and_North_Kincardine

Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held

Theuniondivvie · 9:20AM

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
Remarkable that the SNP made such a big thing of it being "Scotland's Oil" and central to the case for independence then.
Whoosh.
12 years ago people like the Con candidate for Aberdeen South were telling everyone that Scotland couldn't be indy because North sea oil was finished. Much like they were telling people that voting No would secure EU membership for Scots, Boris Johnson could never be PM and Holyrood would become the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.
You genuinely don't realise how hilarious your posts are on this subject, do you?

But, then again, I suppose you have to be a master in cognitive dissonance to be an SNP supporter for this long.

Since you're one the most humourless, unselfaware posters on here, I take that as a great compliment.

ThomasNashe · 9:20AM

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.
Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!

Cloudy. Off on and on drizzle in Greenwich. Lords would at my guess be a further seven miles west - or about 10 stops on the Jubilee. Ideal conditions for skittling out the remaining seven wickets before lunch.

ThomasNashe · 9:23AM

On topic. Aberdeen South is interesting. A Tory win (don't personally think it'll happen) would be a considerable fillip for Badenoch.

OldKingCole · 9:24AM

ThomasNashe said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.
Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!
Cloudy. Off on and on drizzle in Greenwich. Lords would at my guess be a further seven miles west - or about 10 stops on the Jubilee. Ideal conditions for skittling out the remaining seven wickets before lunch.

Thanks. Must have a look at the Met Office site, but in spite of all the technology still isn't 100% accurate.

Nigelb · 9:25AM

A cautionary tale.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/06/starbucks-south-korea-tank-day-promotion-blunder
...Hours after launching a marketing campaign called “Tank Day” for its new “Tank” coffee tumbler range on 18 May, Starbucks Korea found itself at the centre of a cultural storm that would force a billionaire chairman to apologise on national television, and see a chief executive sacked. The controversy reverberated all the way to the South Korean president’s office.

Starbucks’ Tank Series tumblers and discount campaign was designed to promote “spacious volume” for bigger coffees. But the specific date of the promotion’s launch, and its imagery and wording, reopened the painful wounds of a 46-year-old massacre in South Korea and dictatorship-era torture scandal.

Starbucks cancelled the promotion hours after it launched, and its CEO, Son Jeong-hyun, was fired that same day. But it was too late. The anger had already spread, with videos of people smashing the Starbucks mugs and tumblers circulated on social media.

Known locally as 5/18, the 18th of May is the anniversary of a 1980 massacre in Gwangju. Over 10 violent days, paratroopers crushed pro-democracy protests against military strongman Chun Doo-hwan. Victims’ groups say hundreds were killed.

There was also a problem with a slogan the Starbuck campaign used: “thwack on the desk”. It echoed a notorious cover story used by police after the 1987 torture death of student activist Park Jong-chul. Authorities at the time initially claimed Park died because an officer had used his fist to “hit the desk with a thwack”.

Marketers chose the slogan after consulting an AI tool, looking for suggestions, Shinsegae Group said. It turned out some managers who approved the campaign never opened the email attachments showing the marketing material.

In a statement issued before his dismissal, Son apologised and pledged company-wide education on historical awareness and ethics.

Following the controversy, card payment volumes at Starbucks stores plunged 26% in a week, according to market data, with May card payments down 10% on the previous month. And customers began demanding refunds from an estimated 400bn won ($260m) held in Starbucks prepaid cards...

TheScreamingEagles · 9:25AM

I just found out tennis player Steffi Graff has a sister called Polly.

I'm not lying.

bondegezou · 9:25AM

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.
Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!

Some UK banknotes already use nature:

TheScreamingEagles · 9:26AM

bondegezou said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.
Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!
Some UK banknotes already use nature:

I loved the Scottish notes with otters on them.

HYUFD · 9:26AM

FF43 said:
I think the Conservatives need to do three things demographically to win Aberdeen South: Convert a bunch of former SNP voters presumably on the O&G issue; get Con to Reform switchers to switch back again; prevent SNP to Labour switchers from switching back again.

Which seems challenging.

Getting some Reform tactical votes to beat the SNP likely would be enough

ydoethur · 9:28AM

Nigelb said:
A cautionary tale.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/06/starbucks-south-korea-tank-day-promotion-blunder
...Hours after launching a marketing campaign called “Tank Day” for its new “Tank” coffee tumbler range on 18 May, Starbucks Korea found itself at the centre of a cultural storm that would force a billionaire chairman to apologise on national television, and see a chief executive sacked. The controversy reverberated all the way to the South Korean president’s office.

Starbucks’ Tank Series tumblers and discount campaign was designed to promote “spacious volume” for bigger coffees. But the specific date of the promotion’s launch, and its imagery and wording, reopened the painful wounds of a 46-year-old massacre in South Korea and dictatorship-era torture scandal.

Starbucks cancelled the promotion hours after it launched, and its CEO, Son Jeong-hyun, was fired that same day. But it was too late. The anger had already spread, with videos of people smashing the Starbucks mugs and tumblers circulated on social media.

Known locally as 5/18, the 18th of May is the anniversary of a 1980 massacre in Gwangju. Over 10 violent days, paratroopers crushed pro-democracy protests against military strongman Chun Doo-hwan. Victims’ groups say hundreds were killed.

There was also a problem with a slogan the Starbuck campaign used: “thwack on the desk”. It echoed a notorious cover story used by police after the 1987 torture death of student activist Park Jong-chul. Authorities at the time initially claimed Park died because an officer had used his fist to “hit the desk with a thwack”.

Marketers chose the slogan after consulting an AI tool, looking for suggestions, Shinsegae Group said. It turned out some managers who approved the campaign never opened the email attachments showing the marketing material.

In a statement issued before his dismissal, Son apologised and pledged company-wide education on historical awareness and ethics.

Following the controversy, card payment volumes at Starbucks stores plunged 26% in a week, according to market data, with May card payments down 10% on the previous month. And customers began demanding refunds from an estimated 400bn won ($260m) held in Starbucks prepaid cards...

No tanks for AI from Starbucks.

Sweeney74 · 9:28AM

It’s always amusing how North Sea oil is simultaneously:

1. A hugely valuable national asset when arguing for independence.
2. A virtually exhausted irrelevance when someone suggests producing more of it.

The resource hasn’t changed nearly as much as the political convenience of the argument.

If oil and gas really are so insignificant now, that raises some awkward questions about a decade of “Scotland’s Oil” campaigning. If they’re still economically important enough for Aberdeen jobs and tax revenues to matter, then perhaps they’re not quite the exhausted relic we’re suddenly told they are.

Consistency remains the rarest natural resource in Scottish politics.

OldKingCole · 9:28AM

bondegezou said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.
Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!
Some UK banknotes already use nature:

Hare today and gone tomorrow? Prices being what they are?

Casino_Royale · 9:28AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Will the Tories be mentioning who was in charge of oil and gas for 14 years?
Remarkable that such a big thing is being made of a resource that was virtually exhausted 12 years ago.
Remarkable that the SNP made such a big thing of it being "Scotland's Oil" and central to the case for independence then.
Whoosh.
12 years ago people like the Con candidate for Aberdeen South were telling everyone that Scotland couldn't be indy because North sea oil was finished. Much like they were telling people that voting No would secure EU membership for Scots, Boris Johnson could never be PM and Holyrood would become the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.
You genuinely don't realise how hilarious your posts are on this subject, do you?

But, then again, I suppose you have to be a master in cognitive dissonance to be an SNP supporter for this long.
Since you're one the most humourless, unselfaware posters on here, I take that as a great compliment.

Lol!

Casino_Royale · 9:29AM

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.
Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!

CASH

HYUFD · 9:30AM

Burgessian said:
On Abdn S bear in mind the Tories are turning this into a referendum on oil and gas. It's an approach which worked surprisngly well in Uxbridge when Boris stood down.

And they came close in the equivalent (sort of) Holyrood seat.

It'll be close.

Labour have zero chance in Arbroath.

Ironically Labour's only chance in Arbroath may be to squeeze Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP as they did in the Hamilton by election last year

Casino_Royale · 9:31AM

Sweeney74 said:
It’s always amusing how North Sea oil is simultaneously:

1. A hugely valuable national asset when arguing for independence.
2. A virtually exhausted irrelevance when someone suggests producing more of it.

The resource hasn’t changed nearly as much as the political convenience of the argument.

If oil and gas really are so insignificant now, that raises some awkward questions about a decade of “Scotland’s Oil” campaigning. If they’re still economically important enough for Aberdeen jobs and tax revenues to matter, then perhaps they’re not quite the exhausted relic we’re suddenly told they are.

Consistency remains the rarest natural resource in Scottish politics.

Well, exactly.

That's why I find it hilarious.

Anyway, the day beckons. have a good weekend all.

Taz · 9:31AM

Guardian going into bat for man deported to Egypt. His crime. Apparently Wanking in front of people on a bus !!!

🤣🤣

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/05/botched-deportation-home-office-taxpayer-bill

Richard_Tyndall · 9:33AM

Sweeney74 said:
It’s always amusing how North Sea oil is simultaneously:

1. A hugely valuable national asset when arguing for independence.
2. A virtually exhausted irrelevance when someone suggests producing more of it.

The resource hasn’t changed nearly as much as the political convenience of the argument.

If oil and gas really are so insignificant now, that raises some awkward questions about a decade of “Scotland’s Oil” campaigning. If they’re still economically important enough for Aberdeen jobs and tax revenues to matter, then perhaps they’re not quite the exhausted relic we’re suddenly told they are.

Consistency remains the rarest natural resource in Scottish politics.

They are not by any means an exhausted relic. And to be honest, even if they were, we are still paying close to £3 billion a year in additional fees, over and above the actual cost of the product, to import O&G from overseas whilst ignoring our own resources. That is before you start looking at the lost revenue. It is a genuinely stupid policy on all fronts.

There were many stupid arguments being perpetuated by the SNP during the last Independence campaign. The Oil and Gas argument and what happens to the revenue was not one of them.

Tres · 9:34AM

ThomasNashe said:
On topic. Aberdeen South is interesting. A Tory win (don't personally think it'll happen) would be a considerable fillip for Badenoch.

I don't think it going happen. Too much of the headbanger Tory/unionist vote in Aberdeen is in love with Farage.

ydoethur · 9:36AM

Taz said:
Guardian going into bat for man deported to Egypt. His crime. Apparently Wanking in front of people on a bus !!!

🤣🤣

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/05/botched-deportation-home-office-taxpayer-bill

He got tossed out for those?

Richard_Tyndall · 9:37AM

On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.

HYUFD · 9:39AM

Tres said:

ThomasNashe said:
On topic. Aberdeen South is interesting. A Tory win (don't personally think it'll happen) would be a considerable fillip for Badenoch.
I don't think it going happen. Too much of the headbanger Tory/unionist vote in Aberdeen is in love with Farage.

The Tories still beat Reform in the Aberdeen South area last month and Reform voters still far prefer Kemi to Swinney, it only takes a third of the them to tactically vote Tory to beat the SNP for a Tory win

kle4 · 9:39AM

Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.

rottenborough · 9:40AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

bondegezou said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.
Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!
Some UK banknotes already use nature:

I loved the Scottish notes with otters on them.

Indeed. Apparently we can't have otters on BoE new notes as the Scots have them already.

Tres · 9:40AM

Richard_Tyndall said:
On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.

aberdeen's economy has always been reliant on oil price and completely out of kilter with the rest of the Scottish/UK economy. Look at the GE results in Aberdeen South in 87 and 92.

kle4 · 9:40AM

Tres said:

ThomasNashe said:
On topic. Aberdeen South is interesting. A Tory win (don't personally think it'll happen) would be a considerable fillip for Badenoch.
I don't think it going happen. Too much of the headbanger Tory/unionist vote in Aberdeen is in love with Farage.

Even places that didn't have massive Reform votes in 2024 will have half it's Tory vote doing so now.

TheScreamingEagles · 9:41AM

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.

Indeed, I'd say the Makerfield by-election is the most important by-election in 63 years.

bondegezou · 9:42AM

Richard_Tyndall said:
On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.

Because of the contraction in oil & gas jobs?

HYUFD · 9:42AM

kle4 said:

Tres said:

ThomasNashe said:
On topic. Aberdeen South is interesting. A Tory win (don't personally think it'll happen) would be a considerable fillip for Badenoch.
I don't think it going happen. Too much of the headbanger Tory/unionist vote in Aberdeen is in love with Farage.
Even places that didn't have massive Reform votes in 2024 will have half it's Tory vote doing so now.

A quarter to a third of its 2024 Tory vote at most actually

kle4 · 9:43AM

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Tres said:

ThomasNashe said:
On topic. Aberdeen South is interesting. A Tory win (don't personally think it'll happen) would be a considerable fillip for Badenoch.
I don't think it going happen. Too much of the headbanger Tory/unionist vote in Aberdeen is in love with Farage.
Even places that didn't have massive Reform votes in 2024 will have half it's Tory vote doing so now.
A quarter to a third of its 2024 Tory vote at most actually

I'll take your word for it, that's still fatal for theit chances here.

bondegezou · 9:43AM

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.

Against a scandal-hit SNP, there should be the potential for a change in winner. It's a testament to something that the SNP remain favourites in both.

Northern_Al · 9:43AM

It's all too much. I spent all day yesterday fretting about the colour of eggs, and today I'm totally stressed about the pictures on banknotes that I never use.

Malmesbury · 9:44AM

Sweeney74 said:
It’s always amusing how North Sea oil is simultaneously:

1. A hugely valuable national asset when arguing for independence.
2. A virtually exhausted irrelevance when someone suggests producing more of it.

The resource hasn’t changed nearly as much as the political convenience of the argument.

If oil and gas really are so insignificant now, that raises some awkward questions about a decade of “Scotland’s Oil” campaigning. If they’re still economically important enough for Aberdeen jobs and tax revenues to matter, then perhaps they’re not quite the exhausted relic we’re suddenly told they are.

Consistency remains the rarest natural resource in Scottish politics.

On the subject of Aberdeen jobs. A considerable nukbe of local firms were built up over the years. With a reputation for quality and prompt work.

Even after the decision on North Sea oil, they were doing a significant amount of work, supplying equipment for export.

High energy costs are driving them into the ground.

kle4 · 9:45AM

bondegezou said:

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.
Against a scandal-hit SNP, there should be the potential for a change in winner. It's a testament to something that the SNP remain favourites in both.

Indeed, the SNP had a bad 2024 but have had fortune with opponents since.

Theuniondivvie · 9:46AM

Richard_Tyndall said:
On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.

Aberdeen house prices have always been boom and bust, they may have finally come to the point where the market realises there is going to be no more boom. Without oil Aberdeen prices should have been on a par with those of Dundee, and they’re probably now converging.

HYUFD · 9:46AM

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Tres said:

ThomasNashe said:
On topic. Aberdeen South is interesting. A Tory win (don't personally think it'll happen) would be a considerable fillip for Badenoch.
I don't think it going happen. Too much of the headbanger Tory/unionist vote in Aberdeen is in love with Farage.
Even places that didn't have massive Reform votes in 2024 will have half it's Tory vote doing so now.
A quarter to a third of its 2024 Tory vote at most actually
I'll take your word for it, that's still fatal for theit chances here.

It isn't given the Tories were still second to the SNP in the Aberdeen South area last month and it only needs a few Reform voters to tactically vote Tory to beat the SNP for a Tory win

Richard_Tyndall · 9:47AM

bondegezou said:

Richard_Tyndall said:
On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.
Because of the contraction in oil & gas jobs?

Because of the complete collapse. Though it is fair to say that Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire were way overpriced anyway so it only took a loss of confidence in the main industry to cause the shock. But when many of the main players are in the process of pulling out completely and those remaining are rapidly cutting jobs, house prices are only going to go one way. Not sure how much this will play into the by-election but it will certainly be a factor. Aberdeen is the late 80s negative equity shock distilled.

Richard_Tyndall · 9:48AM

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

bondegezou said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
It is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.
Agree with this. We are continually changing the style and look ofbour bank notes - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I don't see any issue at all with changing a picture on a banknote for a decade or two.
Morning all. Raining, our at least drizzling here. What's it doing at Lords; not suitable for cricket here; if this keeps up the local game will be "rained off".

On (this) topic when I was young banknotes had fancy designs, which showed the value, except, as fas as I recall for the £5 which was a large piece of tissuey paper with lots of writing on it. Must admit I rarely saw one If there was a banknote of greater value I never saw one.

And anyway we'll none of us use banknotes for much longer, except in 'dubious circumstances'. I suspect that before long the possession of large sums of 'cash money' will be a cause for suspicion!
Some UK banknotes already use nature:

I loved the Scottish notes with otters on them.
Indeed. Apparently we can't have otters on BoE new notes as the Scots have them already.

Thats a genuinely stupid argument (by the BoE, not you)

algarkirk · 9:50AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)
As the UK transitions to a cashless society these arguments become redundant.

I've been to London three times in the last month and not once did I take cash with me.

One time I visited London without my wallet*.

*Technically it is a card holder.

About 30,000,000 UK people still use cash. Millions still mostly use it for retail.

Richard_Tyndall · 9:50AM

Theuniondivvie said:

Richard_Tyndall said:
On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.
Aberdeen house prices have always been boom and bust, they may have finally come to the point where the market realises there is going to be no more boom. Without oil Aberdeen prices should have been on a par with those of Dundee, and they’re probably now converging.

I wonder if the people of Dundee regret or are relieved that their leadership screwed up the arrival of the Oil industry in the early 70s? The original plan was for Dundee to be the main centre for UK O&G but the local politicians rejected the plans and hence it all went to Aberdeen.

OldKingCole · 9:51AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.
Indeed, I'd say the Makerfield by-election is the most important by-election in 63 years.

Do you mean since the Leyton on when Patrick Gordon-Walker failed to be elected?

ThomasNashe · 9:53AM

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)
As the UK transitions to a cashless society these arguments become redundant.

I've been to London three times in the last month and not once did I take cash with me.

One time I visited London without my wallet*.

*Technically it is a card holder.
About 30,000,000 UK people still use cash. Millions still mostly use it for retail.

In this discussion, we sorely miss the contributions of Anabob

Theuniondivvie · 9:54AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Richard_Tyndall said:
On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.
Aberdeen house prices have always been boom and bust, they may have finally come to the point where the market realises there is going to be no more boom. Without oil Aberdeen prices should have been on a par with those of Dundee, and they’re probably now converging.
I wonder if the people of Dundee regret or are relieved that their leadership screwed up the arrival of the Oil industry in the early 70s? The original plan was for Dundee to be the main centre for UK O&G but the local politicians rejected the plans and hence it all went to Aberdeen.

Interesting question. After a very tough post-industrial decline Dundee seems at least to be scrabbling its way out of the grave while Aberdeen now appears to be in a semi-permanent slough of despond.

Benpointer · 9:55AM

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)
As the UK transitions to a cashless society these arguments become redundant.

I've been to London three times in the last month and not once did I take cash with me.

One time I visited London without my wallet*.

*Technically it is a card holder.
About 30,000,000 UK people still use cash. Millions still mostly use it for retail.

A minority pursuit then ;-)

Edit: Actually I'd be surprised if the number of UK citizens who use cash is anywhere near as low as 30m. I always choose phone payments if I can but still carry a few tenners around for those rare vendors who won't take electronic payments. So strictly speaking, I still use cash (occasionally).

algarkirk · 9:56AM

ThomasNashe said:

LostPassword said:

Benpointer said:
O/T with apologies for diverting a thread right away but the Guardian have now published their readers' list of 100 greatest novels and it looks a lot better to me than the authors' and critics' list from a few weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time
In general it looks like a list where it is safer to choose a book from it and you won't end up hating the experience of reading the book.

But fecking Middlemarch is still second. And To Kill A Mockingbird at number five?

I also think the list still lacks breadth. Three Austen novels, Two by Orwell. Multiple Dickens. The list would be a lot more interesting if it was limited to one book per author.
While it wouldn't be my number 1, or even number 2, Middlemarch is undoubtedly a great novel. But LOTR at number 1? Jeez.

At a quick glance two stand out missing people are Trollope and Greene.

TheScreamingEagles · 9:58AM

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.
Indeed, I'd say the Makerfield by-election is the most important by-election in 63 years.
Do you mean since the Leyton on when Patrick Gordon-Walker failed to be elected?

No, the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election that saw Alec Douglas-Home become an MP despite him already being Prime Minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Kinross_and_Western_Perthshire_by-election

ThomasNashe · 10:00AM

algarkirk said:

ThomasNashe said:

LostPassword said:

Benpointer said:
O/T with apologies for diverting a thread right away but the Guardian have now published their readers' list of 100 greatest novels and it looks a lot better to me than the authors' and critics' list from a few weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time
In general it looks like a list where it is safer to choose a book from it and you won't end up hating the experience of reading the book.

But fecking Middlemarch is still second. And To Kill A Mockingbird at number five?

I also think the list still lacks breadth. Three Austen novels, Two by Orwell. Multiple Dickens. The list would be a lot more interesting if it was limited to one book per author.
While it wouldn't be my number 1, or even number 2, Middlemarch is undoubtedly a great novel. But LOTR at number 1? Jeez.
At a quick glance two stand out missing people are Trollope and Greene.

Yes, interesting how out of fashion GG has very quickly become. I recently reread Brighton Rock: it's a really chilling mediation on the nature of evil - and still relevant.

algarkirk · 10:00AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.
Indeed, I'd say the Makerfield by-election is the most important by-election in 63 years.
Do you mean since the Leyton on when Patrick Gordon-Walker failed to be elected?
No, the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election that saw Alec Douglas-Home become an MP despite him already being Prime Minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Kinross_and_Western_Perthshire_by-election

Both minor compared with Makerfield.

rottenborough · 10:03AM

ThomasNashe said:

algarkirk said:

ThomasNashe said:

LostPassword said:

Benpointer said:
O/T with apologies for diverting a thread right away but the Guardian have now published their readers' list of 100 greatest novels and it looks a lot better to me than the authors' and critics' list from a few weeks ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time
In general it looks like a list where it is safer to choose a book from it and you won't end up hating the experience of reading the book.

But fecking Middlemarch is still second. And To Kill A Mockingbird at number five?

I also think the list still lacks breadth. Three Austen novels, Two by Orwell. Multiple Dickens. The list would be a lot more interesting if it was limited to one book per author.
While it wouldn't be my number 1, or even number 2, Middlemarch is undoubtedly a great novel. But LOTR at number 1? Jeez.
At a quick glance two stand out missing people are Trollope and Greene.
Yes, interesting how out of fashion GG has very quickly become. I recently reread Brighton Rock: it's a really chilling mediation on the nature of evil - and still very relevant.

Glad to see the readers are sensible enough to put Camus on the list. Not on the original top 100 iirc.

rottenborough · 10:05AM

Also, on the list of novels - the readers were asked for favourites but I think the experts were asked for the "best".

There's a difference.

Sunil_Prasannan · 10:07AM

ThomasNashe said:

algarkirk said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)
As the UK transitions to a cashless society these arguments become redundant.

I've been to London three times in the last month and not once did I take cash with me.

One time I visited London without my wallet*.

*Technically it is a card holder.
About 30,000,000 UK people still use cash. Millions still mostly use it for retail.
In this discussion, we sorely miss the contributions of Anabob

C
A
S
H

Battlebus · 10:10AM

Richard_Tyndall said:
On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.

Looks about right. A house near me on the South Coast listed for £895K. Sold for £750K. Not just Aberdeen but a general downturn in prices. OH used to spend her summers in Duthie Park.

Sunil_Prasannan · 10:10AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.
Indeed, I'd say the Makerfield by-election is the most important by-election in 63 years.

Depends on Andy Burnham winning, of course.

Casino_Royale · 10:14AM

rottenborough said:
Also, on the list of novels - the readers were asked for favourites but I think the experts were asked for the "best".

There's a difference.

It's the Guardian.

OldKingCole · 10:16AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.
Indeed, I'd say the Makerfield by-election is the most important by-election in 63 years.
Do you mean since the Leyton on when Patrick Gordon-Walker failed to be elected?
No, the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election that saw Alec Douglas-Home become an MP despite him already being Prime Minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Kinross_and_Western_Perthshire_by-election

Ah yes, recall that now. Very busy time in my personal life,18 months married, just moved house, running my own, newly acquired, pharmacy, eldest son not long out of hospital (he was premature, so not allowed home until two months old).
So outside events rather passed me by.

MarqueeMark · 10:18AM

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Richard_Tyndall said:
On the subject of Aberdeen. I am currently staying 3 days a week at the house of a friend (a South African) in the city whilst I work on decomm jobs up there. His house is in one of the nicer parts of the city close to Duthie Park. He had intended selling up last year and moving back to South Africa with his family.

He bought his house in 2012 for £600,000. He has had about £150,000 in work done on the place. When he tried to sell in spring last year he priced it at £500,000 on the recommendation of various estate agents and got no interest at all. He has now taken it off the market. The collapse in house prices in Aberdeen in the last 2 years has been remarkable.
Aberdeen house prices have always been boom and bust, they may have finally come to the point where the market realises there is going to be no more boom. Without oil Aberdeen prices should have been on a par with those of Dundee, and they’re probably now converging.
I wonder if the people of Dundee regret or are relieved that their leadership screwed up the arrival of the Oil industry in the early 70s? The original plan was for Dundee to be the main centre for UK O&G but the local politicians rejected the plans and hence it all went to Aberdeen.

Dundee University still retained it centre of excellence role for oil and gas studies. But thin gruel compared to what Aberdeen bagged.

DecrepiterJohnL · 10:23AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)
As the UK transitions to a cashless society these arguments become redundant.

I've been to London three times in the last month and not once did I take cash with me.

One time I visited London without my wallet*.

*Technically it is a card holder.

Yes, we have not had a banking and payments outage ~~for years now~~ since Wednesday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d37gdxp7xo

DecrepiterJohnL · 10:27AM

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:
Also, on the list of novels - the readers were asked for favourites but I think the experts were asked for the "best".

There's a difference.
It's the Guardian.

One interesting thing about the Guardian readers' list is not the books but their readers' demographics with a great many contributors from America and Australia, and aged in their 20s or 60s and over with not so many in the middle.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time

MattW · 10:29AM

bondegezou said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Dai
ly Mail.

(Edited)
Manufactured outrage is central to the radical right's approach. It's all about generating clicks on social media. We've seen this with MAGA. The only problem comes when you try to run a country, you're still manufacturing outrage, but people start to notice that you don't actually have a foreign policy that works, and you don't have a response for human and animal health risks, etc.

Dropping back in briefly, one thing I would like to see some serious study on is how much of the UK's radical right outrage bubble is actually an influence operation whether from elements in the USA, previously from Hungary, or from Russia - and what the routes of that influence have been.

International untraceable funding is one issue for the Govt to pick up in their funding overhaul, alongside many others.

I wonder if someone like the group at Sheffield Hallam who dug into online of MPs have been on it?

DecrepiterJohnL · 10:30AM

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:
Hate to blaspheme, but not sure the other by-elections are very interesting.
Indeed, I'd say the Makerfield by-election is the most important by-election in 63 years.
Depends on Andy Burnham winning, of course.

I did not care about Burnham until finding last week that I'd backed him ages ago for next PM, so come on Andy! But Makerfield voting for the plumber would be almost as seismic.

rottenborough · 10:31AM

Anyone else use Severn Trent???

I don't know when this happened but they seem to have a new or newish "online portal" for billing etc.

As far as I can see it is totally unusable.

I can't even set or change the password. I've never been give a password or a username for the new portal. All it will do is send email links to log in.

Totally unsecure imho.

MarqueeMark · 10:32AM

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:
FPT:
Luckyguy1983 said:

MattW said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Andy_JS said:
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
The way round this is to "Woke it up" to the powers that be, so they get all excited instead.

Thus, Turing is Gay, Austen a feminist icon and Churchill, with his dual British-American heritage, an internationalist and global citizen; you could try and put on there advocacy for a united Europe as well.

Watch how they lap it up.
It's quite funny. The Daily Mail and Bobajob Jenners are trying a bit too hard in the outrage fluffing department.

The Bank of England's version is 'we held a consultation and the public said they wanted British natural heritage on our banknotes.' It's a bit of an open and shut case.

Aren't populists supposed to want to follow the voters?
What's funny is the tendency of our hip and trendy progressives (average age 62) to leap on any unjustifiable shite as long as it's anti-traditional and Farage wouldn't like it.

I'll give you at least a small amount of credit for not demeaning your own intelligence by going on the 'security' angle, as if dots arranged on a substrate are somehow more secure when they are arranged in the shape of a hedgehog than Winston Churchill.

But the 'public consultation' isn't much better as a figleaf. Focus groups are not a plebiscite, and I think we all know you can get them to say whatever you like. The public are allowed to vote on which animal of farthing wood they want on the notes - if the Bank is so confident that public opinion is behind them, why not allow them to vote for Churchill and the rest too, to test their theory?

These figures from our history have not diminished. Europe still enjoys the freedom from Nazism that Churchill helped to give it. Readers worldwide still fall in love with Austen's books. It is not that our history has become irrelevant, it is that in some quarters we're clearly doing a shit job of teaching it. If young people don't find Churchill relevant, we realise we need to teach them better, we don't welcome their complacent ignorance and change everything to fit around it.
You will not be surprised that I disagree slightly.

The practice is not even traditional. Traditionally UK banknotes have been plain.

We have only had historical figures on our banknotes since 1970, and Churchill has only been on there since 2016.

There is no attack on tradition, nor is there any attempt to marginalise historic figures. Rather this is an attempt to fabricate a Potemkin tradition out of whole cloth in order to have something to complain about.

It is a manufactured, attention-seeking fuss about a complete non-issue. This is peak snowflake.

Jenrick needs to find something useful to say rather than indulge in his displacement activity of making up nonsense. The Daily Mail is ... the Daily Mail.

(Edited)
As the UK transitions to a cashless society these arguments become redundant.

I've been to London three times in the last month and not once did I take cash with me.

One time I visited London without my wallet*.

*Technically it is a card holder.

But if you did need £500 cash in a hurry, surely you could always sell your footwear?

Nigelb · 10:36AM

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:
Also, on the list of novels - the readers were asked for favourites but I think the experts were asked for the "best".

There's a difference.
It's the Guardian.

What would your picks be, Casino ?

Wulfrun_Phil · 10:36AM

rottenborough said:
Anyone else use Severn Trent???

I don't know when this happened but they seem to have a new or newish "online portal" for billing etc.

As far as I can see it is totally unusable.

I can't even set or change the password. I've never been give a password or a username for the new portal. All it will do is send email links to log in.

Totally unsecure imho.

Sort of, in the sense that Severn Trent use me.

Nigelb · 10:38AM

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:
Also, on the list of novels - the readers were asked for favourites but I think the experts were asked for the "best".

There's a difference.
It's the Guardian.
One interesting thing about the Guardian readers' list is not the books but their readers' demographics with a great many contributors from America and Australia, and aged in their 20s or 60s and over with not so many in the middle.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/ng-interactive/2026/jun/06/readers-top-100-novels-of-all-time

That's their selected commenters' demographics, which isn't quite the same thing.

The forgotten by-elections – politicalbetting.com

Comments