So all the top tier for the 2020 Democratic nomination lead Trump but while Biden and Sanders beat Trump comfortably, Trump is able to run Harris and Warren much closer
So all the top tier for the 2020 Democratic nomination lead Trump but while Biden and Sanders beat Trump comfortably, Trump is able to run Harris and Warren much closer
There were three Conservative MP's who voted for every piece of "permissive" legislation in the 1960's.
To nobody's surprise, one was Sir Ian Gilmour. But, I'm sure everyone is surprised that the other two were Enoch Powell and Ronald Bell.
Enoch Powell?
I am indeed knocked down with a feather. I wonder if he was one of those types who simply enjoy confounding expectations. You think you know what my position on (X) is bound to be? - well think again sucker! Because, you know what, I'm a free thinker, I am, a free thinker.
Powell was a man possessed by the belief that every principle should be followed to its conclusion, however uncomfortable to his other beliefs. For example, he supported mass immigration by Asians from Uganda because he said we'd promised to let them come, and keeping our word was essential, irrespective of any other considerations.
By the way, there's a really good standup show at the Soho Theatre about the 70s, including the first EU referendum:
- excellent impersonations of Macmillan, Heath, Powell, Wilson, Benn, Pompidou and others, enthusiastically appreciated by an audience almost entirely too young to remember the originals. I do remember them and although I didn't think he always gets the accent exactly right, the tone is spot on. Although he's telling the tale from a mildly pro-EU standpoint, it's very mild satire, treating everyone with some affection. A 90-minute tour de force on an unlikely theme.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
In political terms, I would draw a distinction between 'soft' and 'hard' progressives.
(i) A soft one tends to be your classic North London liberal, although they do not need to live in North London if they can't afford it. The softy believes in the mixed economy, with high tax & spend to favour the less affluent, also positive discrimination to favour women and minorities, and on social issues is highly laissez-faire and live and let live. Probably atheist.
(ii) A hard one is definitely atheist, and believes in the ruthless pursuit of complete economic and social equality, where the ends justify the means.
An example of (i) would be Barry Gardiner. And of (ii) would be Pol Pot.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
In political terms, I would draw a distinction between 'soft' and 'hard' progressives.
(i) A soft one tends to be your classic North London liberal, although they do not need to live in North London if they can't afford it. The softy believes in the mixed economy, with high tax & spend to favour the less affluent, also positive discrimination to favour women and minorities, and on social issues is highly laissez-faire and live and let live. Probably atheist.
(ii) A hard one is definitely atheist, and believes in the ruthless pursuit of complete economic and social equality, where the ends justify the means.
An example of (i) would be Barry Gardiner. And of (ii) would be Pol Pot.
I’m not sure everyone would accept the equation of the absolute pursuit of equality with ‘progressive’. As I said, it’s a slippery term... a bit like ‘liberal’ in the US.
Reading down the 538 article, the other interesting thing is that Trump is on the wrong side of the wedge issues where there is a strong public opinion in a particular direction. I continue to lay him for the Republican nomination.
Me too, Nigel, and I'm surprised more punters aren't wading into this one.
I honestly don't think the Republicans have much chance with him as their candidate next time round, and I think the GOP leaders know that. They would surely have a pretty decent chance with somebody like Pence.
So all the top tier for the 2020 Democratic nomination lead Trump but while Biden and Sanders beat Trump comfortably, Trump is able to run Harris and Warren much closer
Does it not look similar to Hilary v trump polls trump won big on?
Surely its only EV swing polls that matter between now and November 20?
The Rust Belt swing states saw quite big polling fails last time. They may just be hard to poll. At this point the national polling is probably providing better data.
It is a complete myth that nobody thought Corbyn was in with a shout in 2017. That was largely true for the three weeks or so following May's announcement on 18th April but was far from being the case by the last week of May. I have spent a few days reading the PB Archives of that campaign , and it was very apparent that a week to ten days before Polling Day there was real fear and panic in Tory ranks - although many were also dismissive of the narrowing poll lead.
All the evidence of my own eyes was that the Tories were in for a pasting. Funnily enough the thing that kept me believing it would actually turn out all right for them was pasting my observations on here. The dismissals seemed very authoritative and were often from people who were involved in the actual campaign. The one that sticks in my memory was reporting seeing a large group of very organised looking Labour activists working a Tory part of Hastings. I was told that the local Tories were so confident in Hastings that their foot soldiers were being deployed in more vulnerable seats. (I suppose they meant Eastbourne rather than Canterbury.)
I won't make the mistake of thinking that this forum is especially well informed about politics again. Quite apart from anything else, I think I might well have had a punt on a hung parliament.
I think you are being harsh on this forum
I suspect that the Hastings report posted on here was an accurate piece of intelligence.
The problem is you took it at face value and assumed - reasonably - that Tory high command weren’t a bunch of f*****g idiots
It is a complete myth that nobody thought Corbyn was in with a shout in 2017. That was largely true for the three weeks or so following May's announcement on 18th April but was far from being the case by the last week of May. I have spent a few days reading the PB Archives of that campaign , and it was very apparent that a week to ten days before Polling Day there was real fear and panic in Tory ranks - although many were also dismissive of the narrowing poll lead.
I will be voting Labour in the hope of witnessing a determined and successful attack on inequality and unearned privilege. It's such an exciting prospect. It gets me all pumped up.
I do have concerns about Jeremy though. My biggest one is whether his temperament will hold up to being PM. He seems a bit tetchy at times when faced with sharp scrutiny.
Do you not think?
Inequality is currently the lowest for over thirty years.
It is a complete myth that nobody thought Corbyn was in with a shout in 2017. That was largely true for the three weeks or so following May's announcement on 18th April but was far from being the case by the last week of May. I have spent a few days reading the PB Archives of that campaign , and it was very apparent that a week to ten days before Polling Day there was real fear and panic in Tory ranks - although many were also dismissive of the narrowing poll lead.
All the evidence of my own eyes was that the Tories were in for a pasting. Funnily enough the thing that kept me believing it would actually turn out all right for them was pasting my observations on here. The dismissals seemed very authoritative and were often from people who were involved in the actual campaign. The one that sticks in my memory was reporting seeing a large group of very organised looking Labour activists working a Tory part of Hastings. I was told that the local Tories were so confident in Hastings that their foot soldiers were being deployed in more vulnerable seats. (I suppose they meant Eastbourne rather than Canterbury.)
I won't make the mistake of thinking that this forum is especially well informed about politics again. Quite apart from anything else, I think I might well have had a punt on a hung parliament.
Then your eyes were wrong - the Conservatives weren't pasted nationally.
There were certainly some very poor individual Conservative results but counter-balanced by some very good individual Conservative results. Sometimes these even happened in adjacent constituencies.
What we need to remember though is that personal anecdotes should always have warnings attached and that opinion polls you don't like are not necessarily wrong.
Some Conservative results were brilliant, as others were terrible. If you had been campaigning in the West Midlands or NE Scotland, you would have expected a very big win.
Ditto Torbay!
Do you think Labour will beat the LibDems in Torbay next time?
Possibly, although the LibDems picked a real duff candidate last time.
"One idea floating around the Berlaymont in recent days would extend the article 50 deadline not just for a few months but for two years to allow Britain to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the EU.
The withdrawal agreement would not be abandoned but would be placed in a quiet corner while Britain and the EU negotiated their future economic relationship.
Advocates of the proposal acknowledge that it creates problems for both sides but argue that most can be resolved"
Extending A50 by 2 years is equivalent to a 2 year no change transition period but we wouldn't be a "rule-taker" and the backstop issue can be put back two years. Too sensible a proposal I guess.
Apart from the delay this will cause to actually leaving, it’s not a bad idea at all. Good to see some in Brussels recognise that not having the FT talks at the same time was a mistake.
It was all done on purpose. The sequencing was a deliberate strategy. Imagine we had a meeting with a three hour limit, five items on the agenda. In which we couldnt move onto the next item without agreeing the previous one. We spend a huge amount of time on the financial agreement. When it looks like we might be running out, someone says 'tick tock' winks and says the more you argue about this the less time you have for the others.
I don’t know specifically - Fred Hohler told me when he did the Public Art Catalogue he was very surprised by the quality of the collections. Hartlepool got very wealthy on the wool trade (I assume) and the burghers bought good paintings which were subsequently left to the council
It is a complete myth that nobody thought Corbyn was in with a shout in 2017. That was largely true for the three weeks or so following May's announcement on 18th April but was far from being the case by the last week of May. I have spent a few days reading the PB Archives of that campaign , and it was very apparent that a week to ten days before Polling Day there was real fear and panic in Tory ranks - although many were also dismissive of the narrowing poll lead.
All the evidence of my own eyes was that the Tories were in for a pasting. Funnily enough the thing that kept me believing it would actually turn out all right for them was pasting my observations on here. The dismissals seemed very authoritative and were often from people who were involved in the actual campaign. The one that sticks in my memory was reporting seeing a large group of very organised looking Labour activists working a Tory part of Hastings. I was told that the local Tories were so confident in Hastings that their foot soldiers were being deployed in more vulnerable seats. (I suppose they meant Eastbourne rather than Canterbury.)
I won't make the mistake of thinking that this forum is especially well informed about politics again. Quite apart from anything else, I think I might well have had a punt on a hung parliament.
I think you are being harsh on this forum
I suspect that the Hastings report posted on here was an accurate piece of intelligence.
The problem is you took it at face value and assumed - reasonably - that Tory high command weren’t a bunch of f*****g idiots
Yes, this is an excellent forum full of useful insights and the anecdotes are generally helpful and genuine. The problem is sometimes that the reality is hard to assess.
I remember my own anecdote on the day of the previous election. Emerging from Hampstead Heath station I was approached by some keen young Labour activists. I'd had some bets on Tulip Siddiq to hold the local highly marginal seat, so I was eager to hear how they thought things were going. They didn't seem to have much of a clue but were plainly nervous. When I mentioned PB and my interest in betting they desperately wanted to know what was being said on the forum and how the punters saw it. I told them she was a slight favorite. They seemed mightily relieved to hear it, so much so that it caused me to hedge my bets when I got back.
She romped home.
The anecdote was genuine, as was their response. It just shows you though how difficult it can be to pick up the right clues.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Reading down the 538 article, the other interesting thing is that Trump is on the wrong side of the wedge issues where there is a strong public opinion in a particular direction. I continue to lay him for the Republican nomination.
Me too, Nigel, and I'm surprised more punters aren't wading into this one.
I honestly don't think the Republicans have much chance with him as their candidate next time round, and I think the GOP leaders know that. They would surely have a pretty decent chance with somebody like Pence.
Good to know I’m not a lone voice in the wilderness. I think it 50/50 at best that he’ll be the candidate next year.
I’m not sure everyone would accept the equation of the absolute pursuit of equality with ‘progressive’. As I said, it’s a slippery term... a bit like ‘liberal’ in the US.
No, I agree that they probably wouldn't. I think when most people use the word progressive (either as compliment or insult or neither) it is the 'soft' sort that they have in mind. They perhaps don't picture Barry Gardiner in particular, I could picked a better example, but certainly they would not think of Pol Pot.
Liberal in America? Yes, that is a very tricky term indeed. I don't think I'll attempt a definition of that. It does seem to be a more loaded term than progressive is. Perhaps that is simply because the culture wars are more vivid across the pond than they are here (although we are trying our best to catch up).
Reading down the 538 article, the other interesting thing is that Trump is on the wrong side of the wedge issues where there is a strong public opinion in a particular direction. I continue to lay him for the Republican nomination.
Me too, Nigel, and I'm surprised more punters aren't wading into this one.
I honestly don't think the Republicans have much chance with him as their candidate next time round, and I think the GOP leaders know that. They would surely have a pretty decent chance with somebody like Pence.
Good to know I’m not a lone voice in the wilderness. I think it 50/50 at best that he’ll be the candidate next year.
I reckon he is sharp enough to know he is in very considerable trouble. And he is vain enough not to want to be beaten. I can envision him wanting to bow out as "the best one-term President America ever had."
His rationale will be something like "My work is done. America is great again...."
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
Small c conservatism is different again from my description, IMO. (And who knows what Conservatism is these days...) I’m happy to stipulate that all political terms are slippery. Just that some are more so than others.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
I’m not sure everyone would accept the equation of the absolute pursuit of equality with ‘progressive’. As I said, it’s a slippery term... a bit like ‘liberal’ in the US.
No, I agree that they probably wouldn't. I think when most people use the word progressive (either as compliment or insult or neither) it is the 'soft' sort that they have in mind. They perhaps don't picture Barry Gardiner in particular, I could picked a better example, but certainly they would not think of Pol Pot.
Liberal in America? Yes, that is a very tricky term indeed. I don't think I'll attempt a definition of that. It does seem to be a more loaded term than progressive is. Perhaps that is simply because the culture wars are more vivid across the pond than they are here (although we are trying our best to catch up).
Liberal - or Lib'rul? That defines who is using the term.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
It defies all logic. There are a multitude of issues with our rail network, but theyre better than what existed in the past, one of the bigger criticisms are the few areas that are still using the old rolling stock. It's a reminder of what public service used to be. Slow, cold and unreliable.
I don’t know specifically - Fred Hohler told me when he did the Public Art Catalogue he was very surprised by the quality of the collections. Hartlepool got very wealthy on the wool trade (I assume) and the burghers bought good paintings which were subsequently left to the council
Coal trade, surely. And it was a feature of Northern industrial towns that the local magnates, bastards to their workforce though they could be, often took a pride in their towns and enriched them artistically and culturally. Arab and Chinese entrepreneurs just don't have the same civic pride!
I'd be surprised, frankly. I think he knows that Kevin Foster will be very difficult to move from Torbay. It should be a Tory seat, and only became a seat in play because of many years of taking the electorate for granted by previous incumbents. Kevin has learnt from the LibDems and is working the seat as hard as they would.
His move to say that he would take the MP's salary increase, but would give it to worthy causes in the Bay proved very popular. He is thought to be a genuine guy. A very prominent member of the local church. His views on Brexit are somewhat softer than his voters, but supporting May's Deal might still look to have been the shrewdest move, when it gets signed.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
When I was at what is now Sunderland University at the end of the 50's I could get a train from Sunderland straight through to Kings Cross on a Friday night. Can't do that now. And the service on the Greater Anglia line where I now live is 'comparable' with that I experienced on what was the notorious Fenchurch St line in the 6 or so years before.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
Yet rail nationalisation polls well, even with Conservative voters as I recall.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
Yet rail nationalisation polls well, even with Conservative voters as I recall.
I saw the other day somewhere ...... think it was Facebook...... where someone had saved a significant amount on fares by buying four tickets for segments of a cross country journey, rather than one straight through. Same train or trains all the way.
Add. Just checked on the full journey I would have made. 5 changes as opposed to two and the fares vary from £64.40 to £148 for the same journey.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
When I was at what is now Sunderland University at the end of the 50's I could get a train from Sunderland straight through to Kings Cross on a Friday night. Can't do that now. And the service on the Greater Anglia line where I now live is 'comparable' with that I experienced on what was the notorious Fenchurch St line in the 6 or so years before.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
Yet rail nationalisation polls well, even with Conservative voters as I recall.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
Pretty sure an inclination towards railways under full public ownership is more based on a 'they can't have been as shit as they are today, can they?' attitude than full blown romanticisation. Perhaps experience of publicly owned railways on the continent may also colour that view, though curtailing of freedom of movement should sort out those unrealistic expectations.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
It’s based on a “someone else will pay” view of the world. A rule with general application across tax and spend policies.
I don’t know specifically - Fred Hohler told me when he did the Public Art Catalogue he was very surprised by the quality of the collections. Hartlepool got very wealthy on the wool trade (I assume) and the burghers bought good paintings which were subsequently left to the council
Coal trade, surely. And it was a feature of Northern industrial towns that the local magnates, bastards to their workforce though they could be, often took a pride in their towns and enriched them artistically and culturally. Arab and Chinese entrepreneurs just don't have the same civic pride!
There was a fantastic exhibition a few years ago on that precise theme
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
When I was at what is now Sunderland University at the end of the 50's I could get a train from Sunderland straight through to Kings Cross on a Friday night. Can't do that now. And the service on the Greater Anglia line where I now live is 'comparable' with that I experienced on what was the notorious Fenchurch St line in the 6 or so years before.
my own alma mater.
And my wife's. Very good for a middle class youth from Essex to go to live in the North East.
There’s a lot of smarts in your tin, Kin. {don’t tell anyone else but you are my favourite poster} But to me the FA, nebulous though it is, sets us on path to hard brexit.
:-)
And there's no grease on your pots, dots. No I won't tell anyone - especially cos I know you're snowing me.
As to soft or hard, post WA, I guess you think the latter because you think (unlike me) that the EU are going to cave on the backstop.
But anyway, yes, TM prevails with her deal by threatening to have (and maybe having) a general election this spring. That's the essence of our treaty.
Let's hope we don't end up looking like a pair of herberts on the day after she either pivots to Labour or calls a deal v remain referendum.
Just doing a report for a client on the impact of Brexit. So I know there is one small company that is running up expenses as a result of the lack of clarity of the situation. Even though in this case the money is going into my pocket, I still really think this whole thing should be cancelled right now even at this late stage. (Though leaving it until my invoice has been paid would be acceptable.)
I reckon he is sharp enough to know he is in very considerable trouble. And he is vain enough not to want to be beaten. I can envision him wanting to bow out as "the best one-term President America ever had."
His rationale will be something like "My work is done. America is great again...."
"And I would have won a landslide anyway, so there."
Yes I can easily envisage that scenario. It's a better one than another term but it would be a touch disappointing nonetheless.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
Pretty sure an inclination towards railways under full public ownership is more based on a 'they can't have been as shit as they are today, can they?' attitude than full blown romanticisation. Perhaps experience of publicly owned railways on the continent may also colour that view, though curtailing of freedom of movement should sort out those unrealistic expectations.
Supporting a publicly owned railways is not reactionary in itself. As you point out many continental train services are publicly owned (but ironically been forced into competition along a franchised model like we have by SM rules), and are very good in many places. If that is your reason, thats not reactionary. But if your desire to public owned is a return to the good old days then, that is reactionary.
Inequality is currently the lowest for over thirty years.
On income, arguably and possibly, but surely not on wealth.
In any case, I think there is still much scope for 'progress' - to use the slippery word.
The bosses earned 10-20x what the 'lower orders' earned. Now they may earn 100-500x. That's not reduced inequality.
Also the new benefit called Universal Cruelty is worse than those it replaced. It pays less and the system penalises all sorts of behaviour - often reasonable, or not the claimant's fault - by leaving them destitute and even causing them to become homeless.
Anyway UC fails in its main goal because the effective marginal tax rate on the v. poor is 65%. On CEOs and Vice-Chancellors it's 47%. For those who use today's loopholes to turn business owners from partners or proprietors into company directors, the marginal rate is <<47%.
The USA had a marginal income tax rate of ~85% in the 1960s. We were much more all in it together.
I don't object to vast fortunes being accumulated if those earning them give it all away. But Buffett is rare in planning to give 99% away and John Spedan Lewis was unique in the UK by giving his company away to the workforce.
In the Corbyn succession stakes, I think the time and manner of his departure will be key, possibly to a greater extent than David alludes. If he loses another election, however pluckily, there’ll be a bigger push for a clear change in direction. The party may well remain further left than Blair or Brown (or Miliband), but it’ll need to modernise its language and stop going on about a few Corbyn sacred cows (eg Palestine; widespread nationalisation) to look relevant. In short, something to take out the Corbyn-prompted ceiling on Lab’s popularity.
I think the only way he anoints a leader is by winning an election, then not breaking the country, then retiring gracefully at the time of his choosing.
None of which changes the likely runners (or maybe outcomes), but i think the Dawn Butlers of this world need a fresh-sounding platform and not look like they’re the Continuity Corbyn candidate.
I especially think David’s right about the advantage held by a credible woman/BAME candidate. “Male, pale and stale” is not a good look for an allegedly progressive and inclusive party, not least after the mud flung over misogyny and anti-semitism in recent years.
Just doing a report for a client on the impact of Brexit. So I know there is one small company that is running up expenses as a result of the lack of clarity of the situation. Even though in this case the money is going into my pocket, I still really think this whole thing should be cancelled right now even at this late stage. (Though leaving it until my invoice has been paid would be acceptable.)
The best way to ease the pressure is for mps to vote for TM deal, amended or otherwise, as that will take away any idea of no deal, referendum, or revoking A50. However, on passing the HOC, a short extension to the end of May for parliamentary process would be practical and does not run us into the EU elections
Interesting report that 40 or more labour mps are looking to back the deal as they want to 'turn the page' and move onto the domestic agenda. JRM last night softened his approach and accepts the £39 billion is not now an obstacle
On top of that, Polish and Germany mps of their own Parliaments are demanding a change in the EU stance and the Irish are heading for talks in Brussels under pressure to agree a compromise.
I am of the opinion that support amongst mps is rising to get over the line and I am more confident that we will see a deal agreed in the next few weeks
No deal has to be stopped and the only way now is a deal
Just doing a report for a client on the impact of Brexit. So I know there is one small company that is running up expenses as a result of the lack of clarity of the situation. Even though in this case the money is going into my pocket, I still really think this whole thing should be cancelled right now even at this late stage. (Though leaving it until my invoice has been paid would be acceptable.)
The best way to ease the pressure is for mps to vote for TM deal, amended or otherwise, as that will take away any idea of no deal, referendum, or revoking A50. However, on passing the HOC, a short extension to the end of May for parliamentary process would be practical and does not run us into the EU elections
Interesting report that 40 or more labour mps are looking to back the deal as they want to 'turn the page' and move onto the domestic agenda. JRM last night softened his approach and accepts the £39 billion is not now an obstacle
On top of that, Polish and Germany mps of their own Parliaments are demanding a change in the EU stance and the Irish are heading for talks in Brussels under pressure to agree a compromise.
I am of the opinion that support amongst mps is rising to get over the line and I am more confident that we will see a deal agreed in the next few weeks
No deal has to be stopped and the only way now is a deal
I think May will get her deal through , especially with some barrel politics.
Supporting a publicly owned railways is not reactionary in itself. As you point out many continental train services are publicly owned (but ironically been forced into competition along a franchised model like we have by SM rules), and are very good in many places. If that is your reason, thats not reactionary. But if your desire to public owned is a return to the good old days then, that is reactionary.
I'm not sure a wish to return to the past is automatically reactionary. A hankering after the anarchist communities of Republican Spain for example could certainly be described as romantic, but I don't think it's reactionary.
Inequality is currently the lowest for over thirty years.
On income, arguably and possibly, but surely not on wealth.
In any case, I think there is still much scope for 'progress' - to use the slippery word.
The bosses earned 10-20x what the 'lower orders' earned. Now they may earn 100-500x. That's not reduced inequality.
Also the new benefit called Universal Cruelty is worse than those it replaced. It pays less and the system penalises all sorts of behaviour - often reasonable, or not the claimant's fault - by leaving them destitute and even causing them to become homeless.
Anyway UC fails in its main goal because the effective marginal tax rate on the v. poor is 65%. On CEOs and Vice-Chancellors it's 47%. For those who use today's loopholes to turn business owners from partners or proprietors into company directors, the marginal rate is <<47%.
The USA had a marginal income tax rate of ~85% in the 1960s. We were much more all in it together.
I don't object to vast fortunes being accumulated if those earning them give it all away. But Buffett is rare in planning to give 99% away and John Spedan Lewis was unique in the UK by giving his company away to the workforce. </p>
Evidence that UC was causing homelessness, or that it was even worse than what it replaced. There are a few situations in which you would be worse off, for example if you were doing the fake self employed scam to maximise tax credits while working 16 hours, or if you were living off income from multiple homes. UC despite it faulst has marginal rates much better than what replaced it and removes the disincentives to not be in work.
Most importantly it is flexible to cope with changing employment status. I feel you might have a romantacised view of just how awful the welfare system was before the multitude of changes over the last decade, most of them starting in about 2008.
Yes - In the 1980s Crown Colonies we’re renamed BOTs because, to modern wars, the term colony is offensive
Not the 1980s but the previous decade to this one.
Honestly this is political correctness gone mad.
You can’t call a colony a colony these days even though that’s what we called them up to the mid 2000s.
No. Terms change.
When I was a kid there were certain terms used for gays that today are deemed extremely offensive. It’s not good enough to say “but it was ok when I was a kid”
If Gibraltar doesn’t want to be called a colony you should respect that
Just doing a report for a client on the impact of Brexit. So I know there is one small company that is running up expenses as a result of the lack of clarity of the situation. Even though in this case the money is going into my pocket, I still really think this whole thing should be cancelled right now even at this late stage. (Though leaving it until my invoice has been paid would be acceptable.)
The best way to ease the pressure is for mps to vote for TM deal, amended or otherwise, as that will take away any idea of no deal, referendum, or revoking A50. However, on passing the HOC, a short extension to the end of May for parliamentary process would be practical and does not run us into the EU elections
Interesting report that 40 or more labour mps are looking to back the deal as they want to 'turn the page' and move onto the domestic agenda. JRM last night softened his approach and accepts the £39 billion is not now an obstacle
On top of that, Polish and Germany mps of their own Parliaments are demanding a change in the EU stance and the Irish are heading for talks in Brussels under pressure to agree a compromise.
I am of the opinion that support amongst mps is rising to get over the line and I am more confident that we will see a deal agreed in the next few weeks
No deal has to be stopped and the only way now is a deal
I think this is correct. We must avoid No Deal, and I have pretty much reached the point where any deal will do. All I care about now is my wife's meds and avoiding the social disorder/anarchy on the streets that No Deal will entail.
This is a change for me. In the past I have thought a new referendum was the only way out of this mess, but that ship has sailed I think.
Just doing a report for a client on the impact of Brexit. So I know there is one small company that is running up expenses as a result of the lack of clarity of the situation. Even though in this case the money is going into my pocket, I still really think this whole thing should be cancelled right now even at this late stage. (Though leaving it until my invoice has been paid would be acceptable.)
The best way to ease the pressure is for mps to vote for TM deal, amended or otherwise, as that will take away any idea of no deal, referendum, or revoking A50. However, on passing the HOC, a short extension to the end of May for parliamentary process would be practical and does not run us into the EU elections
Interesting report that 40 or more labour mps are looking to back the deal as they want to 'turn the page' and move onto the domestic agenda. JRM last night softened his approach and accepts the £39 billion is not now an obstacle
On top of that, Polish and Germany mps of their own Parliaments are demanding a change in the EU stance and the Irish are heading for talks in Brussels under pressure to agree a compromise.
I am of the opinion that support amongst mps is rising to get over the line and I am more confident that we will see a deal agreed in the next few weeks
No deal has to be stopped and the only way now is a deal
I think this is correct. We must avoid No Deal, and I have pretty much reached the point where any deal will do. All I care about now is my wife's meds and avoiding the social disorder/anarchy on the streets that No Deal will entail.
This is a change for me. In the past I have thought a new referendum was the only way out of this mess, but that ship has sailed I think.
Fine if you are scared by the FUD mongering by these lying s**mbags
Just doing a report for a client on the impact of Brexit. So I know there is one small company that is running up expenses as a result of the lack of clarity of the situation. Even though in this case the money is going into my pocket, I still really think this whole thing should be cancelled right now even at this late stage. (Though leaving it until my invoice has been paid would be acceptable.)
The best way to ease the pressure is for mps to vote for TM deal, amended or otherwise, as that will take away any idea of no deal, referendum, or revoking A50. However, on passing the HOC, a short extension to the end of May for parliamentary process would be practical and does not run us into the EU elections
Interesting report that 40 or more labour mps are looking to back the deal as they want to 'turn the page' and move onto the domestic agenda. JRM last night softened his approach and accepts the £39 billion is not now an obstacle
On top of that, Polish and Germany mps of their own Parliaments are demanding a change in the EU stance and the Irish are heading for talks in Brussels under pressure to agree a compromise.
I am of the opinion that support amongst mps is rising to get over the line and I am more confident that we will see a deal agreed in the next few weeks
No deal has to be stopped and the only way now is a deal
I think this is correct. We must avoid No Deal, and I have pretty much reached the point where any deal will do. All I care about now is my wife's meds and avoiding the social disorder/anarchy on the streets that No Deal will entail.
This is a change for me. In the past I have thought a new referendum was the only way out of this mess, but that ship has sailed I think.
I wasn't so bothered about a third Referendum, but Mr RB is right; we must avoid No Deal. I'm for signing May's agreement and getting on with things, although I suspect ..... and hope ..... that once everything's quietened down it'll be Rejoin before too long.
This is a change for me. In the past I have thought a new referendum was the only way out of this mess, but that ship has sailed I think.
Rare in my experience for a poster on a politics forum to announce a change of mind at any point prior to their previous view becoming objectively untenable - which is not yet quite the case with the 2nd referendum.
Yes - In the 1980s Crown Colonies we’re renamed BOTs because, to modern wars, the term colony is offensive
Not the 1980s but the previous decade to this one.
Honestly this is political correctness gone mad.
You can’t call a colony a colony these days even though that’s what we called them up to the mid 2000s.
No. Terms change.
When I was a kid there were certain terms used for gays that today are deemed extremely offensive. It’s not good enough to say “but it was ok when I was a kid”
If Gibraltar doesn’t want to be called a colony you should respect that
Gibraltar is lobbying the UN to be removed from the list of non-self-governing territories. I'm not sure being pulled out of the EU against the wishes of 96% of the population helps their case.
Just doing a report for a client on the impact of Brexit. So I know there is one small company that is running up expenses as a result of the lack of clarity of the situation. Even though in this case the money is going into my pocket, I still really think this whole thing should be cancelled right now even at this late stage. (Though leaving it until my invoice has been paid would be acceptable.)
The best way to ease the pressure is for mps to vote for TM deal, amended or otherwise, as that will take away any idea of no deal, referendum, or revoking A50. However, on passing the HOC, a short extension to the end of May for parliamentary process would be practical and does not run us into the EU elections
Interesting report that 40 or more labour mps are looking to back the deal as they want to 'turn the page' and move onto the domestic agenda. JRM last night softened his approach and accepts the £39 billion is not now an obstacle
On top of that, Polish and Germany mps of their own Parliaments are demanding a change in the EU stance and the Irish are heading for talks in Brussels under pressure to agree a compromise.
I am of the opinion that support amongst mps is rising to get over the line and I am more confident that we will see a deal agreed in the next few weeks
No deal has to be stopped and the only way now is a deal
I'd say that was the second best option. Just saying we've gone into it and it can't be done in less than 10 years would be the best way out.
If we really want to be out of the EU we need to do a lot more work. There's nothing dishonourable in admitting that.
Yes - In the 1980s Crown Colonies we’re renamed BOTs because, to modern wars, the term colony is offensive
Not the 1980s but the previous decade to this one.
Honestly this is political correctness gone mad.
You can’t call a colony a colony these days even though that’s what we called them up to the mid 2000s.
No. Terms change.
When I was a kid there were certain terms used for gays that today are deemed extremely offensive. It’s not good enough to say “but it was ok when I was a kid”
If Gibraltar doesn’t want to be called a colony you should respect that
Gibraltar is lobbying the UN to be removed from the list of non-self-governing territories. I'm not sure being pulled out of the EU against the wishes of 96% of the population helps their case.
There was a single electorate for the referendum
But we’ve had this discussion before
The difference is I stick to the rules agreed before where you - as someone on the losing side - are seeking to cherry pick an advantage
The bosses earned 10-20x what the 'lower orders' earned. Now they may earn 100-500x. That's not reduced inequality.
Also the new benefit called Universal Cruelty is worse than those it replaced. It pays less and the system penalises all sorts of behaviour - often reasonable, or not the claimant's fault - by leaving them destitute and even causing them to become homeless.
Anyway UC fails in its main goal because the effective marginal tax rate on the v. poor is 65%. On CEOs and Vice-Chancellors it's 47%. For those who use today's loopholes to turn business owners from partners or proprietors into company directors, the marginal rate is <<47%.
The USA had a marginal income tax rate of ~85% in the 1960s. We were much more all in it together.
I don't object to vast fortunes being accumulated if those earning them give it all away. But Buffett is rare in planning to give 99% away and John Spedan Lewis was unique in the UK by giving his company away to the workforce. </p>
I very much agree. We have an elite who have floated off into the stratosphere, financially, such that there is a total disconnect between them and the rest. There is then a large number of people at the other end who cannot aspire to much more than getting by day to day.
Things have always been this way to a certain extent, of course, and always will be, but I do think the nature of our economy these days is actively fueling gross inequality, therefore that it should be one of the highest priorities of government to pursue policies which act against the grain of this.
An interesting discussion on what makes a progressive MP. One who votes against the majority view. Does that not make Jezza progressive? He wants to make us into Venezuela even though the 'populists' disagree.
In thirty years time, after feasting on our daily dead-rat ration, we'll hail the foresight of the British Trotskyite Party who pushed against the old ways.
Let's be honest, 'populist' is a fancy word for popular things you don't agree with.
A more logical definition of 'progressive' would be things that promote unity. Identity politics doesn't spring to mind, and hatred of people who don't agree with you doesn't either. I'd suggest the 'Golden Rule' as a rough guide but that would be wasted on some.
Edit, Yes, I don't always observe it but then I never claim to be a Saint.
Reactionary is fairly easy to define; progressive, on the other hand, first requires a definition of what constitutes progress.
But surely you can't define 'reactionary' until you've defined 'progressive'.
Reactionary means not wanting stuff to change - often as a result of having an outsize stake (material or emotional) in the established order. Or simply a temperamental aversion to change.
Progressive is a much more slippery term.
I dont think that is an accurate description of reactionary, maybe of conservatism. Reactionary would describe a desire to return to a previous better (as perceived) time. So the desire to have the railways under full public ownership is a reactionary response, to a romanticised view of what British Rail was like. The desire to leave the EU can be reactionary, a desire to return to the perceived better status as a free trading nation that existed before our membership.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I still find it staggering that anyone can have a romanticised view of British Rail. It would be like having a romanticised view of the Winter Vomiting Bug.
Yet rail nationalisation polls well, even with Conservative voters as I recall.
Comments
As Alastair often asserts, Brexit has poisoned British politics.
By the way, there's a really good standup show at the Soho Theatre about the 70s, including the first EU referendum:
https://sohotheatre.com/shows/kieran-hodgson-75/
- excellent impersonations of Macmillan, Heath, Powell, Wilson, Benn, Pompidou and others, enthusiastically appreciated by an audience almost entirely too young to remember the originals. I do remember them and although I didn't think he always gets the accent exactly right, the tone is spot on. Although he's telling the tale from a mildly pro-EU standpoint, it's very mild satire, treating everyone with some affection. A 90-minute tour de force on an unlikely theme.
(i) A soft one tends to be your classic North London liberal, although they do not need to live in North London if they can't afford it. The softy believes in the mixed economy, with high tax & spend to favour the less affluent, also positive discrimination to favour women and minorities, and on social issues is highly laissez-faire and live and let live. Probably atheist.
(ii) A hard one is definitely atheist, and believes in the ruthless pursuit of complete economic and social equality, where the ends justify the means.
An example of (i) would be Barry Gardiner. And of (ii) would be Pol Pot.
As I said, it’s a slippery term... a bit like ‘liberal’ in the US.
Thanks for that link. Sounds right up my alley. Might well check it out one evening.
I honestly don't think the Republicans have much chance with him as their candidate next time round, and I think the GOP leaders know that. They would surely have a pretty decent chance with somebody like Pence.
I suspect that the Hastings report posted on here was an accurate piece of intelligence.
The problem is you took it at face value and assumed - reasonably - that Tory high command weren’t a bunch of f*****g idiots
https://artuk.org/shop/art-books/product/northumberland-tees-valley-and-tyne-and-wear.html
I remember my own anecdote on the day of the previous election. Emerging from Hampstead Heath station I was approached by some keen young Labour activists. I'd had some bets on Tulip Siddiq to hold the local highly marginal seat, so I was eager to hear how they thought things were going. They didn't seem to have much of a clue but were plainly nervous. When I mentioned PB and my interest in betting they desperately wanted to know what was being said on the forum and how the punters saw it. I told them she was a slight favorite. They seemed mightily relieved to hear it, so much so that it caused me to hedge my bets when I got back.
She romped home.
The anecdote was genuine, as was their response. It just shows you though how difficult it can be to pick up the right clues.
Trump's MAGA, is the ultimate in reactionary.
I think it 50/50 at best that he’ll be the candidate next year.
Liberal in America? Yes, that is a very tricky term indeed. I don't think I'll attempt a definition of that. It does seem to be a more loaded term than progressive is. Perhaps that is simply because the culture wars are more vivid across the pond than they are here (although we are trying our best to catch up).
His rationale will be something like "My work is done. America is great again...."
I’m happy to stipulate that all political terms are slippery. Just that some are more so than others.
In any case, I think there is still much scope for 'progress' - to use the slippery word.
Arab and Chinese entrepreneurs just don't have the same civic pride!
His move to say that he would take the MP's salary increase, but would give it to worthy causes in the Bay proved very popular. He is thought to be a genuine guy. A very prominent member of the local church. His views on Brexit are somewhat softer than his voters, but supporting May's Deal might still look to have been the shrewdest move, when it gets signed.
Same train or trains all the way.
Add. Just checked on the full journey I would have made. 5 changes as opposed to two and the fares vary from £64.40 to £148 for the same journey.
https://twotempleplace.org/exhibitions/cotton-to-gold/
Did I mention that they are celebrating Ruskin’s bicentenary with an exhibition at the moment?
And there's no grease on your pots, dots. No I won't tell anyone - especially cos I know you're snowing me.
As to soft or hard, post WA, I guess you think the latter because you think (unlike me) that the EU are going to cave on the backstop.
But anyway, yes, TM prevails with her deal by threatening to have (and maybe having) a general election this spring. That's the essence of our treaty.
Let's hope we don't end up looking like a pair of herberts on the day after she either pivots to Labour or calls a deal v remain referendum.
Honestly this is political correctness gone mad.
You can’t call a colony a colony these days even though that’s what we called them up to the mid 2000s.
Yes I can easily envisage that scenario. It's a better one than another term but it would be a touch disappointing nonetheless.
Supporting a publicly owned railways is not reactionary in itself. As you point out many continental train services are publicly owned (but ironically been forced into competition along a franchised model like we have by SM rules), and are very good in many places. If that is your reason, thats not reactionary. But if your desire to public owned is a return to the good old days then, that is reactionary.
Also the new benefit called Universal Cruelty is worse than those it replaced. It pays less and the system penalises all sorts of behaviour - often reasonable, or not the claimant's fault - by leaving them destitute and even causing them to become homeless.
Anyway UC fails in its main goal because the effective marginal tax rate on the v. poor is 65%. On CEOs and Vice-Chancellors it's 47%. For those who use today's loopholes to turn business owners from partners or proprietors into company directors, the marginal rate is <<47%.
The USA had a marginal income tax rate of ~85% in the 1960s. We were much more all in it together.
I don't object to vast fortunes being accumulated if those earning them give it all away. But Buffett is rare in planning to give 99% away and John Spedan Lewis was unique in the UK by giving his company away to the workforce.
I think the only way he anoints a leader is by winning an election, then not breaking the country, then retiring gracefully at the time of his choosing.
None of which changes the likely runners (or maybe outcomes), but i think the Dawn Butlers of this world need a fresh-sounding platform and not look like they’re the Continuity Corbyn candidate.
I especially think David’s right about the advantage held by a credible woman/BAME candidate. “Male, pale and stale” is not a good look for an allegedly progressive and inclusive party, not least after the mud flung over misogyny and anti-semitism in recent years.
Interesting report that 40 or more labour mps are looking to back the deal as they want to 'turn the page' and move onto the domestic agenda. JRM last night softened his approach and accepts the £39 billion is not now an obstacle
On top of that, Polish and Germany mps of their own Parliaments are demanding a change in the EU stance and the Irish are heading for talks in Brussels under pressure to agree a compromise.
I am of the opinion that support amongst mps is rising to get over the line and I am more confident that we will see a deal agreed in the next few weeks
No deal has to be stopped and the only way now is a deal
They eventually rise up against their masters.
Cf The Thirteen Colonies.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/02/mcdonnell-accuses-pm-of-pork-barrel-p
Most importantly it is flexible to cope with changing employment status. I feel you might have a romantacised view of just how awful the welfare system was before the multitude of changes over the last decade, most of them starting in about 2008.
When I was a kid there were certain terms used for gays that today are deemed extremely offensive. It’s not good enough to say “but it was ok when I was a kid”
If Gibraltar doesn’t want to be called a colony you should respect that
This is a change for me. In the past I have thought a new referendum was the only way out of this mess, but that ship has sailed I think.
So, a very heartfelt and genuine Hats Off.
THIS THREAD IS NO MORE
If we really want to be out of the EU we need to do a lot more work. There's nothing dishonourable in admitting that.
But we’ve had this discussion before
The difference is I stick to the rules agreed before where you - as someone on the losing side - are seeking to cherry pick an advantage
Things have always been this way to a certain extent, of course, and always will be, but I do think the nature of our economy these days is actively fueling gross inequality, therefore that it should be one of the highest priorities of government to pursue policies which act against the grain of this.
So come on Jez! - the time is right.