It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
Yet it has its own rugby team, football team and netball team. Noted it doesn't have its own cricket team so perhaps cricket = banknotes?
Cricket was the earliest of the sports to become codified and organised, so I assume that happened before a modest resurgence of Welsh Nationalism that was accommodated with later sports.
I thought the Scottish and Irish cricket teams were inaugurated many decades later. Why not have a Welsh one? There are many good Welsh cricketers and the team would be very competitive in a global sense.
If you want to assert a stronger Welsh identity by establishing a Welsh cricket team then be my guest, but I rather think you will be facing a bit of a struggle - the ECB haven't exactly been strong supporters of Irish cricket.
I do think it's strange that the British manage to cope reasonably well with having one state and many nations and yet felt very uneasy working towards something similar in the EU. I would have thought that we would find holding multiple identities quite natural.
If the Conservatives had remained opposed to a referendum on EU membership, it's likely that UKIP would now be polling 20-25%.
Perversely, It's always been my belief Cameron offered the Referendum on the basis he had nothing to lose and he wasn't going to get a majority at the 2015 GE. Perhaps he hoped for Coalition 2.0 with the LDs and Nick Clegg - now there's a counterfactual for another day.
The condition specifically stated an overall majority, not simply being the largest party and that seemed the more likely contingency, I would argue, right up to the election campaign.
Had Cameron not gone with the referendum pledge, who knows? A Lab minority or a Con minority Government were both conceivable in 2015 - the latter more so. I always thought a CON-SNP deal likely based on the introduction of DevoMax and a commitment from both sides to stay off the other's lawn.
Whither or wither UKIP in that scenario? I suppose they could have polled 17-18% but how many seats would that have got them? 2 or 3 at most as their vote was spread so evenly. Paul Nuttall might have won Boston & Skegness I suppose.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
Imagine putting Jimmy Savile on a note for his services to charity when he was alive.
You need distance to properly understand an individuals role and impact, and for things that would disqualify then to potentially emerge.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
Imagine putting Jimmy Savile on a note for his services to charity when he was alive.
You need distance to properly understand an individuals role and impact, and for things that would disqualify then to potentially emerge.
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I think both rather wild exaggerations. You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
My own nomination was for Hooke. Seems pretty harsh to leave him out, having recognised Newton and Wren.
I've argued for Hooke in the past as well. A true genius, of a very different kind to Newton.
What about Hooke's mentor Robert Boyle (he of Boyle's Law)? His list of 24 inventions to improve life have held up well
"The predictions, which also include submarines, genetically modified crops and psychedelic drugs, were unveiled as the centre piece of an exhibition celebrating the society's 350th anniversary."
If the Conservatives had remained opposed to a referendum on EU membership, it's likely that UKIP would now be polling 20-25%.
Perversely, It's always been my belief Cameron offered the Referendum on the basis he had nothing to lose and he wasn't going to get a majority at the 2015 GE. Perhaps he hoped for Coalition 2.0 with the LDs and Nick Clegg - now there's a counterfactual for another day.
The condition specifically stated an overall majority, not simply being the largest party and that seemed the more likely contingency, I would argue, right up to the election campaign.
Had Cameron not gone with the referendum pledge, who knows? A Lab minority or a Con minority Government were both conceivable in 2015 - the latter more so. I always thought a CON-SNP deal likely based on the introduction of DevoMax and a commitment from both sides to stay off the other's lawn.
Whither or wither UKIP in that scenario? I suppose they could have polled 17-18% but how many seats would that have got them? 2 or 3 at most as their vote was spread so evenly. Paul Nuttall might have won Boston & Skegness I suppose.
If Cameron hoped for Coalition 2, then why did his party attack the Lib Dems so much at the 2015 GE? Durely he would have soft-pedalled on those constituencies; instead AFAICR they did the opposite.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
Yet it has its own rugby team, football team and netball team. Noted it doesn't have its own cricket team so perhaps cricket = banknotes?
Cricket was the earliest of the sports to become codified and organised, so I assume that happened before a modest resurgence of Welsh Nationalism that was accommodated with later sports.
I thought the Scottish and Irish cricket teams were inaugurated many decades later. Why not have a Welsh one? There are many good Welsh cricketers and the team would be very competitive in a global sense.
If you want to assert a stronger Welsh identity by establishing a Welsh cricket team then be my guest, but I rather think you will be facing a bit of a struggle - the ECB haven't exactly been strong supporters of Irish cricket.
I do think it's strange that the British manage to cope reasonably well with having one state and many nations and yet felt very uneasy working towards something similar in the EU. I would have thought that we would find holding multiple identities quite natural.
If we are having a scientist, it would be great to see one of the foremost scientists of our time, Professor Richard Dawkins, honoured on the banknote. One of the very few senior individuals prepared to fight for humanism and the miracle of being born in the first place – and draw attention to the flaws of organised superstition, without fear or favour for any particular strand of such superstition. Given the strong case, it won't be him.
Dawkins is more famous for being a noted militant atheist than a first rate Scientist.
Hawking would be far more appropriate and although he was also an atheist he was more tolerant of the religious and focused on his science first
Dawkins is a strident atheist precisely because he is a first-rate scientist. He is tolerant of the religious, indeed he spends much of his leisure time enjoying religious artifacts and architecture. He simply points out that religious people are misguided and celebrates the miracle of humanity instead. It is a shame that there aren't more like him.
What scientific contribution has he made?
Read his book "The Selfish Gene" and it will give you an insight to his work on evolution and his concept of "Memes". It is an excellent read and only surpassed by another of his books "The Greatest Show on Earth"
[Edit: Dawkins cannot appear on a UK banknote because he is not dead. The monarch is the only living person allowed on a UK banknote]
What an another absolutely stupid rule that is.
Imagine putting Jimmy Savile on a note for his services to charity when he was alive.
You need distance to properly understand an individuals role and impact, and for things that would disqualify then to potentially emerge.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
1536? Act of Union between England and Wales. HenryVIII and all that.
If Cameron hoped for Coalition 2, then why did his party attack the Lib Dems so much at the 2015 GE? Durely he would have soft-pedalled on those constituencies; instead AFAICR they did the opposite.
Neither Party could or would accept a "coupon" election. The 2010-15 Coalition was a one-off. Whether the LDs realised until too late the route to a Conservative majority lay not through Labour seats but through their seats I'm not sure.
I also think the fear of a Lab-SNP coalition with Alex Salmond pulling the strings was a powerful incentive for voters to desert the LDs and support the Conservatives as the one way of making sure it wouldn't happen.
The LDs were nowhere on this - they couldn't guarantee they would back Cameron again, they couldn't guarantee they wouldn't back Miliband, they couldn't or wouldn't say anything. By the spring of 2015 the Party was virtually incoherent and its campaigning indecisive and lacking in direction. They were like the fighter up against the ropes trying in vain to fend off the blows.
Kudos to the Conservatives that day - they were utterly and spectacularly ruthless and it's an experience and lesson not lost on the LDs now or hopefully in the future.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
1536? Act of Union between England and Wales. HenryVIII and all that.
Wouldn't be surprised if some version of the story was true, ie MI5 offer to basically dig dirt on Banks, and were refused (as would be appropriate, tbh).
Rather different from "suppress an investigation", which is possibly what's being denied now.
If Cameron hoped for Coalition 2, then why did his party attack the Lib Dems so much at the 2015 GE? Durely he would have soft-pedalled on those constituencies; instead AFAICR they did the opposite.
Neither Party could or would accept a "coupon" election. The 2010-15 Coalition was a one-off. Whether the LDs realised until too late the route to a Conservative majority lay not through Labour seats but through their seats I'm not sure.
I also think the fear of a Lab-SNP coalition with Alex Salmond pulling the strings was a powerful incentive for voters to desert the LDs and support the Conservatives as the one way of making sure it wouldn't happen.
The LDs were nowhere on this - they couldn't guarantee they would back Cameron again, they couldn't guarantee they wouldn't back Miliband, they couldn't or wouldn't say anything. By the spring of 2015 the Party was virtually incoherent and its campaigning indecisive and lacking in direction. They were like the fighter up against the ropes trying in vain to fend off the blows.
Kudos to the Conservatives that day - they were utterly and spectacularly ruthless and it's an experience and lesson not lost on the LDs now or hopefully in the future.
Quite so. The Tories ran rings round the Lib Dems in the formation of the coalition and throughout its period in power. The naivety of the Lib Dems was extraordinary throughout, they offered themselves to the Tories on a plate and were duly devoured. and it was largely, though not entirely, due to the personal vanity of Clegg and Cable.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
1536? Act of Union between England and Wales. HenryVIII and all that.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
My guess is that Welsh banks were simply not large enough to make note production worthwhile once proper regulation took effect.
From memory, I don't think there was any legal reason why English banks had to stop issuing their own notes; they just did so as business decisions. Likewise, 'Scotland' and 'Northern Ireland' do not issue notes: it's banks in Scotland and N Ireland that issue them.
Wikipedia has information about legal changes in the 19th century that restricted banknote printing in England (& Wales).
So, Scottish banknotes are backed by a supply of physical B of E million and hundred million pound notes sitting in the vaults of RBS, BoS &c. I wonder if Fred the Shred ever sat down there, looking at them and getting the horn?
Sad news, Paddy Ashdown is being treated for bladder cancer.
Ex-Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown is being treated for bladder cancer.
The former MP for Yeovil told Somerset Live that he had been diagnosed three weeks ago and while the outcome was "unpredictable" he had "every confidence" in the care he was getting at the Somerset town's hospital.
The ex-marine commando led the party between 1988 and 1999, during which it became a growing force in UK politics.
"I've fought a lot of battles in my life," he told the website.
"This time I am lucky enough to have the magnificent help of our local hospital, my friends and family, and that gives me great confidence".
It will depend on how early they caught it. I was diagnosed with bladder cancer nearly ten years ago and have had a few recurrences, but most of the problems I’ve had have been caused by the treatment.
If Cameron hoped for Coalition 2, then why did his party attack the Lib Dems so much at the 2015 GE? Durely he would have soft-pedalled on those constituencies; instead AFAICR they did the opposite.
Neither Party could or would accept a "coupon" election. The 2010-15 Coalition was a one-off. Whether the LDs realised until too late the route to a Conservative majority lay not through Labour seats but through their seats I'm not sure.
I also think the fear of a Lab-SNP coalition with Alex Salmond pulling the strings was a powerful incentive for voters to desert the LDs and support the Conservatives as the one way of making sure it wouldn't happen.
The LDs were nowhere on this - they couldn't guarantee they would back Cameron again, they couldn't guarantee they wouldn't back Miliband, they couldn't or wouldn't say anything. By the spring of 2015 the Party was virtually incoherent and its campaigning indecisive and lacking in direction. They were like the fighter up against the ropes trying in vain to fend off the blows.
Kudos to the Conservatives that day - they were utterly and spectacularly ruthless and it's an experience and lesson not lost on the LDs now or hopefully in the future.
Quite so. The Tories ran rings round the Lib Dems in the formation of the coalition and throughout its period in power. The naivety of the Lib Dems was extraordinary throughout, they offered themselves to the Tories on a plate and were duly devoured. and it was largely, though not entirely, due to the personal vanity of Clegg and Cable.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
Sky reporting that Arlene Foster has said today, following a meeting with Dominic Rabb, that an agreement between the UK and EU over Northern Ireland is close.
It does seem to add to the mood music that the WDA is not far off
In 2011, an investigation by the Chilean water authority found at least 65 examples of avocado farms illegally diverting rivers and other water sources to their plantations.
That, in turn, was blamed for causing droughts, forcing local villagers to choose between drinking and washing.
I very much doubt the Security Services pop into the Home Secretary or PM's office and say "you cool with us investigating your political opponents?"
Indeed. But what if the individual in question had a Russian wife, some interesting Russian connections, and was having meetings at the time with the Russian ambassador?
Perhaps said security service types might be seeking cover for something that was extremely politically sensitive at the time.
If Cameron hoped for Coalition 2, then why did his party attack the Lib Dems so much at the 2015 GE? Durely he would have soft-pedalled on those constituencies; instead AFAICR they did the opposite.
Neither Party could or would accept a "coupon" election. The 2010-15 Coalition was a one-off. Whether the LDs realised until too late the route to a Conservative majority lay not through Labour seats but through their seats I'm not sure.
I also think the fear of a Lab-SNP coalition with Alex Salmond pulling the strings was a powerful incentive for voters to desert the LDs and support the Conservatives as the one way of making sure it wouldn't happen.
The LDs were nowhere on this - they couldn't guarantee they would back Cameron again, they couldn't guarantee they wouldn't back Miliband, they couldn't or wouldn't say anything. By the spring of 2015 the Party was virtually incoherent and its campaigning indecisive and lacking in direction. They were like the fighter up against the ropes trying in vain to fend off the blows.
Kudos to the Conservatives that day - they were utterly and spectacularly ruthless and it's an experience and lesson not lost on the LDs now or hopefully in the future.
Quite so. The Tories ran rings round the Lib Dems in the formation of the coalition and throughout its period in power. The naivety of the Lib Dems was extraordinary throughout, they offered themselves to the Tories on a plate and were duly devoured. and it was largely, though not entirely, due to the personal vanity of Clegg and Cable.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
They made a significant contribution and difference in government, but were far better on the detail than on the presentation.
Electorally they thought their track record as good constituency MPs would see them through, failing to appreciate the extent to which getting third party candidates elected under our voting system depended upon tactical voting.
If Cameron hoped for Coalition 2, then why did his party attack the Lib Dems so much at the 2015 GE? Durely he would have soft-pedalled on those constituencies; instead AFAICR they did the opposite.
Neither Party could or would accept a "coupon" election. The 2010-15 Coalition was a one-off. Whether the LDs realised until too late the route to a Conservative majority lay not through Labour seats but through their seats I'm not sure.
I also think the fear of a Lab-SNP coalition with Alex Salmond pulling the strings was a powerful incentive for voters to desert the LDs and support the Conservatives as the one way of making sure it wouldn't happen.
The LDs were nowhere on this - they couldn't guarantee they would back Cameron again, they couldn't guarantee they wouldn't back Miliband, they couldn't or wouldn't say anything. By the spring of 2015 the Party was virtually incoherent and its campaigning indecisive and lacking in direction. They were like the fighter up against the ropes trying in vain to fend off the blows.
Kudos to the Conservatives that day - they were utterly and spectacularly ruthless and it's an experience and lesson not lost on the LDs now or hopefully in the future.
Quite so. The Tories ran rings round the Lib Dems in the formation of the coalition and throughout its period in power. The naivety of the Lib Dems was extraordinary throughout, they offered themselves to the Tories on a plate and were duly devoured. and it was largely, though not entirely, due to the personal vanity of Clegg and Cable.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
What the Coalition did force on Government was a refusal to countenance any discussion of our EU relationship with the voters. So giving us the UKIP surge - and ultimately, Brexit.
Good job, Clegg. If it had been confronted head on in 2011, then almost certainly we would be locked in to a very much ever closer union.
They all fail at the first hurdle because they are not yet dead.
Einstein had the portraits of 3 scientists in his study. They were all British (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell).
The first two have been on banknotes. It is time for James Clerk Maxwell.
I believe that RBS held a public poll for the Scottish ten-pound note, & James Clerk Maxwell limped home behind a nonentity, Mary Somerville. Typical RBS, they get nothing right.
One point: should a Scot appear on English banknotes when they have their own to appear on?
What a narrow, dare-I-say-it, almost xenophobic view.
Only pure-bred Englishmen can appear on "British" bank notes.
No Scots, No Irish, No dogs. They have their own banknotes.
Erm that isn’t what I said. But once again you decide to take a deranged view in order to lay into me.
The question is at least as much about whether Scots would be offended by English appropriation of Scots onto English notes, stealing their culture when they have their own notes to display them on.
They are not English notes.
It is the UK's central bank.
You have made the patronising assumption that England == UK.
Scotland has its own notes. I really don't see why that is a controversial assertion. Far from being patronising, I am concerned about treading on Scots toes.
If it weren't for the fact that you see it as your bounden duty to take offence at anything that you can that I write, I would be perplexed. But your tedious grievance-mongering has a long history.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
1536? Act of Union between England and Wales. HenryVIII and all that.
Turing for the £50?
ITYM the Laws in Wales Acts, 1536 and 1542.
Indeed.
So, not in fact Acts of Union, rather of incorporation.
Sky reporting that Arlene Foster has said today, following a meeting with Dominic Rabb, that an agreement between the UK and EU over Northern Ireland is close.
It does seem to add to the mood music that the WDA is not far off
Although last time Raab said that, he was shot down by the EU immediately afterwards.
I very much doubt the Security Services pop into the Home Secretary or PM's office and say "you cool with us investigating your political opponents?"
The interesting thing is why the Mail would choose to run with such a flimsy story.....
I thought the Mail reserved flimsy stories for the side-bar of shame...normally relating to flimsy outfits some reality tv show "star" decided to wear at some no-mark party.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
IMO the LIb Dems got too close to the Tories, they should have offered them confidence and supply and not taken posts in the government. This need not have made any difference in policy terms but it would have allowed the Lib Dems to retain more of their status as the NOTA party which would have curbed the rise of UKIP, who became the NOTA party by default during the coalition years.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
That's not necessarily how it works. For SS, the Home Secretary will often, but not always, authorise measures against TOIs, but a lot of the governance effort happens at lower levels.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
IMO the LIb Dems got too close to the Tories, they should have offered them confidence and supply and not taken posts in the government. This need not have made any difference in policy terms but it would have allowed the Lib Dems to retain more of their status as the NOTA party which would have curbed the rise of UKIP, who became the NOTA party by default during the coalition years.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
At least two wrong choices were made by the LD’s. First, Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices. Whether he’d have been any good as Home Sec we’ll never of course know, but a side effect would have been to have blighted Theresa May’s career. Secondly, after two years they coalition should have been brought to an end. Either would have been better than what we had.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
That's the inequality which went down, right?
In a way I agree - it was the success of the coalition in repairing the economy so effectively that gave voters confidence to take a big economic risk.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
IMO the LIb Dems got too close to the Tories, they should have offered them confidence and supply and not taken posts in the government. This need not have made any difference in policy terms but it would have allowed the Lib Dems to retain more of their status as the NOTA party which would have curbed the rise of UKIP, who became the NOTA party by default during the coalition years.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
I think that economic policy was not optional in 2010. Brown and Darlings wasn't going to be much different.
I don't think we will see LDs in coalition again, but confidence and supply may be on the cards.
It's never been clear to me why Wales is the only one of the four UK nations not to issue its own notes. It should do, perhaps.
Historically Wales has been considered part of England. There was no Act of Union between England and Wales. Wales was simply conquered and became part of the Kingdom of England.
Therefore, no banknotes, no cross on the Union flag, no emblem on the Royal Standard, etc, etc.
1536? Act of Union between England and Wales. HenryVIII and all that.
Turing for the £50?
ITYM the Laws in Wales Acts, 1536 and 1542.
Indeed.
So, not in fact Acts of Union, rather of incorporation.
One important distinction is that the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland were passed by both Parliaments in Westminster and Scotland/Ireland. The relationship with Wales was entirely different.
Don't these piddling little association have better things to do than vote 'motions' on nothing which directly concerns them.
Not to minimise the attack, but it seems silly they're doing anythings of this kind of nature.
I would guess that given the mass of bad stories about Labour party members and their opinion of Jews, that the individual bringing the motion thought it might be a good idea to show that their local association were on their side....but it seems not all his fellow members thought so.
Don't these piddling little association have better things to do than vote 'motions' on nothing which directly concerns them.
Not to minimise the attack, but it seems silly they're doing anythings of this kind of nature.
I would guess that given the mass of bad stories about Labour party members and their opinion of Jews, that the individual bringing the motion thought it might be a good idea to show that their local association were on their side....but it seems not all his fellow members thought so.
I would be interested in seeing the detail of the motion. It's possible that it had some stuff tacked on about internal Labour Party politics.
It's the sort of thing that happens in factional battles.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
IMO the LIb Dems got too close to the Tories, they should have offered them confidence and supply and not taken posts in the government. This need not have made any difference in policy terms but it would have allowed the Lib Dems to retain more of their status as the NOTA party which would have curbed the rise of UKIP, who became the NOTA party by default during the coalition years.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
I think that economic policy was not optional in 2010. Brown and Darlings wasn't going to be much different.
I don't think we will see LDs in coalition again, but confidence and supply may be on the cards.
A Party led by Charlie Kennedy would have struck a different deal!
If Cameron hoped for Coalition 2, then why did his party attack the Lib Dems so much at the 2015 GE? Durely he would have soft-pedalled on those constituencies; instead AFAICR they did the opposite.
Neither Party could or would accept a "coupon" election. The 2010-15 Coalition was a one-off. Whether the LDs realised until too late the route to a Conservative majority lay not through Labour seats but through their seats I'm not sure.
I also think the fear of a Lab-SNP coalition with Alex Salmond pulling the strings was a powerful incentive for voters to desert the LDs and support the Conservatives as the one way of making sure it wouldn't happen.
Kudos to the Conservatives that day - they were utterly and spectacularly ruthless and it's an experience and lesson not lost on the LDs now or hopefully in the future.
Quite so. The Tories ran rings round the Lib Dems in the formation of the coalition and throughout its period in power. The naivety of the Lib Dems was extraordinary throughout, they offered themselves to the Tories on a plate and were duly devoured. and it was largely, though not entirely, due to the personal vanity of Clegg and Cable.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
What the Coalition did force on Government was a refusal to countenance any discussion of our EU relationship with the voters. So giving us the UKIP surge - and ultimately, Brexit.
Good job, Clegg. If it had been confronted head on in 2011, then almost certainly we would be locked in to a very much ever closer union.
I don't think the LDs have any blame due for the unsatisfactory Brexit mess that the current government is fighting over.
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
IMO the LIb Dems got too close to the Tories, they should have offered them confidence and supply and not taken posts in the government. This need not have made any difference in policy terms but it would have allowed the Lib Dems to retain more of their status as the NOTA party which would have curbed the rise of UKIP, who became the NOTA party by default during the coalition years.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
At least two wrong choices were made by the LD’s. First, Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices. Whether he’d have been any good as Home Sec we’ll never of course know, but a side effect would have been to have blighted Theresa May’s career. Secondly, after two years they coalition should have been brought to an end. Either would have been better than what we had.
Yes on (1); no on (2). Clegg should have insisted on a Great Office and practically that had to be the Home Office - which he'd shadowed anyway - because the Treasury was always going to be reserved for a Tory, and Con backbenchers would never have trusted a Lib Dem as Foreign Sec. The Lib Dems should also have insisted on a spending department; Health would have been a good choice. Failing to get either a great office or a big spender meant that they would have punched well below their weight had the Quad not been so powerful (which happened largely by chance, due to compatible personalities).
But the coalition had to be a five-year deal. The big job was on the economy and that couldn't be done in just two.
The other serious error that they made was on constitutional reform. Rather than agreeing a referendum on AV - a system they didn't really want, with a good chance of it never being delivered - they should have traded boundary reform for either a firm commitment on a fully-elected Lords or, if that wasn't doable, PR for local government. At least then they'd have been able to bank something.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
IMO the LIb Dems got too close to the Tories, they should have offered them confidence and supply and not taken posts in the government. This need not have made any difference in policy terms but it would have allowed the Lib Dems to retain more of their status as the NOTA party which would have curbed the rise of UKIP, who became the NOTA party by default during the coalition years.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
At least two wrong choices were made by the LD’s. First, Clegg should have insisted on one of the Great Offices. Whether he’d have been any good as Home Sec we’ll never of course know, but a side effect would have been to have blighted Theresa May’s career. Secondly, after two years they coalition should have been brought to an end. Either would have been better than what we had.
Yes on (1); no on (2). Clegg should have insisted on a Great Office and practically that had to be the Home Office - which he'd shadowed anyway - because the Treasury was always going to be reserved for a Tory, and Con backbenchers would never have trusted a Lib Dem as Foreign Sec. The Lib Dems should also have insisted on a spending department; Health would have been a good choice. Failing to get either a great office or a big spender meant that they would have punched well below their weight had the Quad not been so powerful (which happened largely by chance, due to compatible personalities).
But the coalition had to be a five-year deal. The big job was on the economy and that couldn't be done in just two.
The other serious error that they made was on constitutional reform. Rather than agreeing a referendum on AV - a system they didn't really want, with a good chance of it never being delivered - they should have traded boundary reform for either a firm commitment on a fully-elected Lords or, if that wasn't doable, PR for local government. At least then they'd have been able to bank something.
Sky reporting that Arlene Foster has said today, following a meeting with Dominic Rabb, that an agreement between the UK and EU over Northern Ireland is close.
It does seem to add to the mood music that the WDA is not far off
Although last time Raab said that, he was shot down by the EU immediately afterwards.
Don't these piddling little association have better things to do than vote 'motions' on nothing which directly concerns them.
Not to minimise the attack, but it seems silly they're doing anythings of this kind of nature.
I would guess that given the mass of bad stories about Labour party members and their opinion of Jews, that the individual bringing the motion thought it might be a good idea to show that their local association were on their side....but it seems not all his fellow members thought so.
I would be interested in seeing the detail of the motion. It's possible that it had some stuff tacked on about internal Labour Party politics.
It's the sort of thing that happens in factional battles.
Had a look at the motion. It does seem unexceptional. Sounds like part of a tedious personal battle between this individual and others in the branch. Not surprised that the meeting was poorly attended.
If Cameron hoped for Coalition 2, then why did his party attack the Lib Dems so much at the 2015 GE? Durely he would have soft-pedalled on those constituencies; instead AFAICR they did the opposite.
I also think the fear of a Lab-SNP coalition with Alex Salmond pulling the strings was a powerful incentive for voters to desert the LDs and support the Conservatives as the one way of making sure it wouldn't happen.
The LDs were nowhere on this - they couldn't guarantee they would back Cameron again, they couldn't guarantee they wouldn't back Miliband, they couldn't or wouldn't say anything. By the spring of 2015 the Party was virtually incoherent and its campaigning indecisive and lacking in direction. They were like the fighter up against the ropes trying in vain to fend off the blows.
Kudos to the Conservatives that day - they were utterly and spectacularly ruthless and it's an experience and lesson not lost on the LDs now or hopefully in the future.
Quite so. The Tories ran rings round the Lib Dems in the formation of the coalition and throughout its period in power. The naivety of the Lib Dems was extraordinary throughout, they offered themselves to the Tories on a plate and were duly devoured. and it was largely, though not entirely, due to the personal vanity of Clegg and Cable.
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
What the Coalition did force on Government was a refusal to countenance any discussion of our EU relationship with the voters. So giving us the UKIP surge - and ultimately, Brexit.
Good job, Clegg. If it had been confronted head on in 2011, then almost certainly we would be locked in to a very much ever closer union.
Weird logic. Just how would Cameron have discussed Europe with the voters if he had won a majority?
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
IMO the LIb Dems got too close to the Tories, they should have offered them confidence and supply and not taken posts in the government. This need not have made any difference in policy terms but it would have allowed the Lib Dems to retain more of their status as the NOTA party which would have curbed the rise of UKIP, who became the NOTA party by default during the coalition years.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
I think that economic policy was not optional in 2010. Brown and Darlings wasn't going to be much different.
I don't think we will see LDs in coalition again, but confidence and supply may be on the cards.
A Party led by Charlie Kennedy would have struck a different deal!
And yes, I know.
I don't think either Kennedy or Ashdown would have entered into an agreement with one of the major parties without a clear exit strategy. Clegg, remember, had only been an MP for 5 years and he ascended to the leadership much too quickly (as did Cameron). He had very little experience to draw on and his meteoric rise clouded his judgement. Cable, another politician not known for hiding his light under a bushel, should have counselled caution but he also seems to have taken the view that his presence at the cabinet table was of vital national importance.
I don't think the LDs have any blame due for the unsatisfactory Brexit mess that the current government is fighting over.
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
With respect that is too simplistic. Everyone shoulders blame from the ultra Brexiteers to the remainers who never accepted the result and have tried everything they can to prevent Brexit. If a consensus and respect for the vote had taken place a cross party position should have been agreed and pursued. It is not a conservative mess. It is a seriously divided Country's mess
I don't think that fair on the LDs. When you look at the periods of government both before and after the coalition it really does shine as an era of good government. That is not to say it was perfect (tuition fees!) but it really did show a positive commitment to coalition by the LDs. We see now the effects of removing the calming and rational influence of the LDs on government, allowing the swivel eyed loons take control.
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
IMO the LIb Dems got too close to the Tories, they should have offered them confidence and supply and not taken posts in the government. This need not have made any difference in policy terms but it would have allowed the Lib Dems to retain more of their status as the NOTA party which would have curbed the rise of UKIP, who became the NOTA party by default during the coalition years.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
I think that economic policy was not optional in 2010. Brown and Darlings wasn't going to be much different.
I don't think we will see LDs in coalition again, but confidence and supply may be on the cards.
A Party led by Charlie Kennedy would have struck a different deal!
And yes, I know.
I don't think either Kennedy or Ashdown would have entered into an agreement with one of the major parties without a clear exit strategy. Clegg, remember, had only been an MP for 5 years and he ascended to the leadership much too quickly (as did Cameron). He had very little experience to draw on and his meteoric rise clouded his judgement. Cable, another politician not known for hiding his light under a bushel, should have counselled caution but he also seems to have taken the view that his presence at the cabinet table was of vital national importance.
Ashdown was a huge supporter of the coalition and for it to go the whole five years.
When it was time to sell it to the membership in 2010 it was Ashdown who argued passionately for it.
I don't think the LDs have any blame due for the unsatisfactory Brexit mess that the current government is fighting over.
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
With respect that is too simplistic. Everyone shoulders blame from the ultra Brexiteers to the remainers who never accepted the result and have tried everything they can to prevent Brexit. If a consensus and respect for the vote had taken place a cross party position should have been agreed and pursued. It is not a conservative mess. It is a seriously divided Country's mess
If May had taken the position that Brexit needed to be negotiated by an all party team, with representation by all countries then there may be some truth to that.
She chose not to do so, chose her own redlines without consultation and as a consequence owns the mess.
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I think both rather wild exaggerations. You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
My own nomination was for Hooke. Seems pretty harsh to leave him out, having recognised Newton and Wren.
I've argued for Hooke in the past as well. A true genius, of a very different kind to Newton.
What about Hooke's mentor Robert Boyle (he of Boyle's Law)? His list of 24 inventions to improve life have held up well
I don't think the LDs have any blame due for the unsatisfactory Brexit mess that the current government is fighting over.
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
With respect that is too simplistic. Everyone shoulders blame from the ultra Brexiteers to the remainers who never accepted the result and have tried everything they can to prevent Brexit. If a consensus and respect for the vote had taken place a cross party position should have been agreed and pursued. It is not a conservative mess. It is a seriously divided Country's mess
If May had taken the position that Brexit needed to be negotiated by an all party team, with representation by all countries then there may be some truth to that.
She chose not to do so, chose her own redlines without consultation and as a consequence owns the mess.
And those actively trying to stop Brexit have no responsibility
Hopefully the House will do just that. Of course the Senate won't carry through the process - which should allow a nice framing for both sides come 2020.
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I think both rather wild exaggerations. You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
My own nomination was for Hooke. Seems pretty harsh to leave him out, having recognised Newton and Wren.
I've argued for Hooke in the past as well. A true genius, of a very different kind to Newton.
What about Hooke's mentor Robert Boyle (he of Boyle's Law)? His list of 24 inventions to improve life have held up well
At least in part, the Cavendish family endowed the Chair and funded the laboratory that Maxwell had in Cambridge. So, no wonder Maxwell was enthusiastic ...
Boyle was born in Waterford (no problem for me)
After Maxwell, the next scientist should be William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (who was Ulster-Scots and born in Belfast). But, he may be on Northern Irish bank notes.
I don't think the LDs have any blame due for the unsatisfactory Brexit mess that the current government is fighting over.
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
With respect that is too simplistic. Everyone shoulders blame from the ultra Brexiteers to the remainers who never accepted the result and have tried everything they can to prevent Brexit. If a consensus and respect for the vote had taken place a cross party position should have been agreed and pursued. It is not a conservative mess. It is a seriously divided Country's mess
If May had taken the position that Brexit needed to be negotiated by an all party team, with representation by all countries then there may be some truth to that.
She chose not to do so, chose her own redlines without consultation and as a consequence owns the mess.
And those actively trying to stop Brexit have no responsibility
Hang on, Mr G. Those of us opposing Brexit do so for good reason. We, if I can be so bold, regard this decision as likely to do immense harm. As Dr F said, if Mrs May had sought support of a negotiating team for the project on a cross party basis, we might have been more accepting. Further, she called a GE specifically to give her almost dictatorial powers which the country very sensibly declined to do.
As a Republican I get triggered by the notes, and ordinarily I love money.
For the field of science, how about Roger Bacon?
Incidentally it's mildly amusing that I refer to Dawkins as a voodoo scientist on a previous thread and immediately somebody pops up to declaim, with a touching blindness to reality, that he is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived.
I think both rather wild exaggerations. You are perhaps judging his work four decades ago by the standards of today. Not all scientists stay relevant throughout their careers.
My own nomination was for Hooke. Seems pretty harsh to leave him out, having recognised Newton and Wren.
I've argued for Hooke in the past as well. A true genius, of a very different kind to Newton.
What about Hooke's mentor Robert Boyle (he of Boyle's Law)? His list of 24 inventions to improve life have held up well
I don't think the LDs have any blame due for the unsatisfactory Brexit mess that the current government is fighting over.
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
With respect that is too simplistic. Everyone shoulders blame from the ultra Brexiteers to the remainers who never accepted the result and have tried everything they can to prevent Brexit. If a consensus and respect for the vote had taken place a cross party position should have been agreed and pursued. It is not a conservative mess. It is a seriously divided Country's mess
If May had taken the position that Brexit needed to be negotiated by an all party team, with representation by all countries then there may be some truth to that.
She chose not to do so, chose her own redlines without consultation and as a consequence owns the mess.
And those actively trying to stop Brexit have no responsibility
If May had adopted the consensual approach that Foxy suggests far fewer people would be trying to stop Brexit. My MP is now a prominent backer of a People's Vote but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum he took the view that the decision was irreversible. May's divisive and unrealistic approach is the key factor driving division.
Other suggestions for British scientists who also had a wider impact on society
Elizabeth Fulhame - Chemist who first wrote about catalyst and reaction pathways.
Jane Sharp - wrote an important book on midwifery in 17th century.
Rather than really, really obscure women, it would be better to drop the arbitrary 100 years rule and have either Rosalind Franklin or Katherine Lonsdale (born in Ireland).
I don't think the LDs have any blame due for the unsatisfactory Brexit mess that the current government is fighting over.
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
With respect that is too simplistic. Everyone shoulders blame from the ultra Brexiteers to the remainers who never accepted the result and have tried everything they can to prevent Brexit. If a consensus and respect for the vote had taken place a cross party position should have been agreed and pursued. It is not a conservative mess. It is a seriously divided Country's mess
If May had taken the position that Brexit needed to be negotiated by an all party team, with representation by all countries then there may be some truth to that.
She chose not to do so, chose her own redlines without consultation and as a consequence owns the mess.
And those actively trying to stop Brexit have no responsibility
How exactly are they stopping it? Did Remainers invent the NI issue? As far as I can see we are still on course to leave the EU next March.
Mr. Nick, disregarding arguments for and against, and so forth, mechanically, how would a theoretical second referendum end up being proposed and passed by Parliament?
If May had adopted the consensual approach that Foxy suggests far fewer people would be trying to stop Brexit. My MP is now a prominent backer of a People's Vote but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum he took the view that the decision was irreversible. May's divisive and unrealistic approach is the key factor driving division.
No, the key factor driving division is that she's weak because of the GE2017 result, which not only forced her into a minority government but also clobbered her personal political authority. Unsurprisingly, every Tom Dick & Harry (or at least every Adonis and Rees Mogg) think that if they make enough trouble they can bully her into changing course in their favoured direction. Multiple attempts at bullying in various incompatible directions is what gives the sense of division.
If May had adopted the consensual approach that Foxy suggests far fewer people would be trying to stop Brexit. My MP is now a prominent backer of a People's Vote but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum he took the view that the decision was irreversible. May's divisive and unrealistic approach is the key factor driving division.
No, the key factor driving division is that she's weak because of the GE2017 result, which not only forced her into a minority government but also clobbered her personal political authority. Unsurprisingly, every Tom Dick & Harry (or at least every Adonis and Rees Mogg) think that if they make enough trouble they can bully her into changing course in their favoured direction. Multiple attempts at bullying in various incompatible directions is what gives the sense of division.
I don't think the LDs have any blame due for the unsatisfactory Brexit mess that the current government is fighting over.
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
With respect that is too simplistic. Everyone shoulders blame from the ultra Brexiteers to the remainers who never accepted the result and have tried everything they can to prevent Brexit. If a consensus and respect for the vote had taken place a cross party position should have been agreed and pursued. It is not a conservative mess. It is a seriously divided Country's mess
If May had taken the position that Brexit needed to be negotiated by an all party team, with representation by all countries then there may be some truth to that.
She chose not to do so, chose her own redlines without consultation and as a consequence owns the mess.
And those actively trying to stop Brexit have no responsibility
Hang on, Mr G. Those of us opposing Brexit do so for good reason. We, if I can be so bold, regard this decision as likely to do immense harm. As Dr F said, if Mrs May had sought support of a negotiating team for the project on a cross party basis, we might have been more accepting. Further, she called a GE specifically to give her almost dictatorial powers which the country very sensibly declined to do.
Yes, but - that's a perfectly respectable position to hold, but the outcome is that we still leave but we end up with a poorer deal than had the UK been united in seeking a deal. When you're negotiatingm you want to give the impression that you are united, and that you do not NEED a deal (even if you desperately do). Due to the rather chaotic position the UK has found itself in (a fairly even split of leavers and remainers and a minority government, and a civil service not excatly squarely behind the policy of Brexit) this hasn't been possible.
If May had adopted the consensual approach that Foxy suggests far fewer people would be trying to stop Brexit. My MP is now a prominent backer of a People's Vote but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum he took the view that the decision was irreversible. May's divisive and unrealistic approach is the key factor driving division.
No, the key factor driving division is that she's weak because of the GE2017 result, which not only forced her into a minority government but also clobbered her personal political authority. Unsurprisingly, every Tom Dick & Harry (or at least every Adonis and Rees Mogg) think that if they make enough trouble they can bully her into changing course in their favoured direction. Multiple attempts at bullying in various incompatible directions is what gives the sense of division.
And who called the 2017 election, and why?
Ah, well that's a different question. Actually her mistake wasn't calling the election, it was screwing it up having called it.
Mr. Nick, disregarding arguments for and against, and so forth, mechanically, how would a theoretical second referendum end up being proposed and passed by Parliament?
Parliament is sovereign as we know. If it wanted to call a referendum a week on Thursday it could do so. All it would need would be a bill stating the question and setting aside the usual rules about timeline of campaigns etc.
But I doubt it would happen like that - the most likely scenario would be the approach of no deal, either through the rejection of May's deal or because May hasn't got a deal. If we are in this position in, say, February I think the pressures on parliament to break the logjam would be immense and I can't see how this could be done without either a referendum or general election.
If May had adopted the consensual approach that Foxy suggests far fewer people would be trying to stop Brexit. My MP is now a prominent backer of a People's Vote but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum he took the view that the decision was irreversible. May's divisive and unrealistic approach is the key factor driving division.
No, the key factor driving division is that she's weak because of the GE2017 result, which not only forced her into a minority government but also clobbered her personal political authority. Unsurprisingly, every Tom Dick & Harry (or at least every Adonis and Rees Mogg) think that if they make enough trouble they can bully her into changing course in their favoured direction. Multiple attempts at bullying in various incompatible directions is what gives the sense of division.
The Lancaster House speech and May's conference attack on "citizens of nowhere" were before the general election. She has been stoking division since day 1.
Thanks! Decent Lab/Lib results taking the 3 wards together, though nothing astonishing. It's always interesting to see what happens when UKIP doesn't stand - the Tories benefit, but not as much as one might think.
If May had adopted the consensual approach that Foxy suggests far fewer people would be trying to stop Brexit. My MP is now a prominent backer of a People's Vote but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum he took the view that the decision was irreversible. May's divisive and unrealistic approach is the key factor driving division.
No, the key factor driving division is that she's weak because of the GE2017 result, which not only forced her into a minority government but also clobbered her personal political authority. Unsurprisingly, every Tom Dick & Harry (or at least every Adonis and Rees Mogg) think that if they make enough trouble they can bully her into changing course in their favoured direction. Multiple attempts at bullying in various incompatible directions is what gives the sense of division.
And who called the 2017 election, and why?
Ah, well that's a different question. Actually her mistake wasn't calling the election, it was screwing it up having called it.
Given her awkwardness in interviews she might well have screwed it up anyway.
Counter-factual writers must be licking their lips at the spectacle of Britain from about 2014 onwards.
If May had adopted the consensual approach that Foxy suggests far fewer people would be trying to stop Brexit. My MP is now a prominent backer of a People's Vote but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum he took the view that the decision was irreversible. May's divisive and unrealistic approach is the key factor driving division.
No, the key factor driving division is that she's weak because of the GE2017 result, which not only forced her into a minority government but also clobbered her personal political authority. Unsurprisingly, every Tom Dick & Harry (or at least every Adonis and Rees Mogg) think that if they make enough trouble they can bully her into changing course in their favoured direction. Multiple attempts at bullying in various incompatible directions is what gives the sense of division.
And who called the 2017 election, and why?
Ah, well that's a different question. Actually her mistake wasn't calling the election, it was screwing it up having called it.
Given her awkwardness in interviews she might well have screwed it up anyway.
Counter-factual writers must be licking their lips at the spectacle of Britain from about 2014 onwards.
If May had adopted the consensual approach that Foxy suggests far fewer people would be trying to stop Brexit. My MP is now a prominent backer of a People's Vote but in the immediate aftermath of the referendum he took the view that the decision was irreversible. May's divisive and unrealistic approach is the key factor driving division.
No, the key factor driving division is that she's weak because of the GE2017 result, which not only forced her into a minority government but also clobbered her personal political authority. Unsurprisingly, every Tom Dick & Harry (or at least every Adonis and Rees Mogg) think that if they make enough trouble they can bully her into changing course in their favoured direction. Multiple attempts at bullying in various incompatible directions is what gives the sense of division.
The Lancaster House speech and May's conference attack on "citizens of nowhere" were before the general election. She has been stoking division since day 1.
Well, as we've rehearsed many times, the 'citizens of nowhere' line unambiguously referred to rich people who don't pay their taxes, and had nothing to do with Brexit. The fact that so many people shamelessly twist it to imply she was saying something completely different doesn't alter that.
As for the Lancaster House speech, it was an excellent speech, widely praised by all sides, which set out a sensible, unifying vision for the implementation of Brexit. Of course those who don't accept the result of the democratic referendum have a problem with that, but that's hardly her fault.
Thanks! Do we know what happened at the other two by-elections?
Interesting thing is this is quite a localised effect in the West of West Yorkshire. The marginal wards tend to be in industrial villages, valley isolated and a bit chapel methodist and swings to Labour have been decent both in May and now. Calderdale will fall Labour next year for sure. Good for Labour in places like Colne Valley, Calder Valley, High Peak, Hyndburn, Keighley, Oldham E and their successors. And possibly relevant to places further from cities, your Copeland's etc.
And yet more plain sitting coal villages from Wakefield to Notts and beyond trend blue - similar travel to work patterns and relationship to neighbouring cities, similar industrial village vibes.
Coal and cloth do not seem to be trending the same way and the narrative of Labour losing the small towns is a little bit more variable and segmented than stated.
Other suggestions for British scientists who also had a wider impact on society
Elizabeth Fulhame - Chemist who first wrote about catalyst and reaction pathways.
Jane Sharp - wrote an important book on midwifery in 17th century.
Rather than really, really obscure women, it would be better to drop the arbitrary 100 years rule and have either Rosalind Franklin or Katherine Lonsdale (born in Ireland).
I don't think there is a 100 year rule. Churchill died in 1965 as I recall, though it does seem that the treasury likes characters who have stood the test of time.
I suppose the first world war is slipping far enough into history now that it becomes more acceptable to see things like this that might have been thought distasteful when there were still people alive who experienced the trenches first hand.
It brings to mind things like the civil war re-enactors and similar.
Comments
I do think it's strange that the British manage to cope reasonably well with having one state and many nations and yet felt very uneasy working towards something similar in the EU. I would have thought that we would find holding multiple identities quite natural.
The condition specifically stated an overall majority, not simply being the largest party and that seemed the more likely contingency, I would argue, right up to the election campaign.
Had Cameron not gone with the referendum pledge, who knows? A Lab minority or a Con minority Government were both conceivable in 2015 - the latter more so. I always thought a CON-SNP deal likely based on the introduction of DevoMax and a commitment from both sides to stay off the other's lawn.
Whither or wither UKIP in that scenario? I suppose they could have polled 17-18% but how many seats would that have got them? 2 or 3 at most as their vote was spread so evenly. Paul Nuttall might have won Boston & Skegness I suppose.
You need distance to properly understand an individuals role and impact, and for things that would disqualify then to potentially emerge.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7798012/Robert-Boyles-prophetic-scientific-predictions-from-the-17th-century-go-on-display-at-the-Royal-Society.html
"The predictions, which also include submarines, genetically modified crops and psychedelic drugs, were unveiled as the centre piece of an exhibition celebrating the society's 350th anniversary."
Sometimes you have to turn right Corbyn even if you find it impossible
Turing for the £50?
I also think the fear of a Lab-SNP coalition with Alex Salmond pulling the strings was a powerful incentive for voters to desert the LDs and support the Conservatives as the one way of making sure it wouldn't happen.
The LDs were nowhere on this - they couldn't guarantee they would back Cameron again, they couldn't guarantee they wouldn't back Miliband, they couldn't or wouldn't say anything. By the spring of 2015 the Party was virtually incoherent and its campaigning indecisive and lacking in direction. They were like the fighter up against the ropes trying in vain to fend off the blows.
Kudos to the Conservatives that day - they were utterly and spectacularly ruthless and it's an experience and lesson not lost on the LDs now or hopefully in the future.
Rather different from "suppress an investigation", which is possibly what's being denied now.
The interesting thing is why the Mail would choose to run with such a flimsy story.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46070037
You don't know what you've got until it is gone, but LDs forced a sanity on the Tories that has since been abandoned.
Sanity in government is not currently electorally popular of course. At the moment people want simple easy answers to some very intricate problems, and that is not likely to end well. The LDs will be appreciated again in time, but not while Vince is in charge.
It does seem to add to the mood music that the WDA is not far off
In 2011, an investigation by the Chilean water authority found at least 65 examples of avocado farms illegally diverting rivers and other water sources to their plantations.
That, in turn, was blamed for causing droughts, forcing local villagers to choose between drinking and washing.
Not that difficult a choice, surely.
Indeed. But what if the individual in question had a Russian wife, some interesting Russian connections, and was having meetings at the time with the Russian ambassador?
Perhaps said security service types might be seeking cover for something that was extremely politically sensitive at the time.
Electorally they thought their track record as good constituency MPs would see them through, failing to appreciate the extent to which getting third party candidates elected under our voting system depended upon tactical voting.
Good job, Clegg. If it had been confronted head on in 2011, then almost certainly we would be locked in to a very much ever closer union.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46071747
Map of challengers in US contests, with some measure of significance and likely success. Apparently.
Hope it's true though.
The coalition was obviously a much better government than we have had since but its economic policy was partly responsible for the alienation and inequality which fuelled the fires of Leave.
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/law-and-governance
GCHQ has an analogous process.
Either would have been better than what we had.
In a way I agree - it was the success of the coalition in repairing the economy so effectively that gave voters confidence to take a big economic risk.
Not to minimise the attack, but it seems silly they're doing anythings of this kind of nature.
I don't think we will see LDs in coalition again, but confidence and supply may be on the cards.
Con 43.0 (-4.2)
LD 7.4 (+4.7)
Grn 3.0 (-4.1)
4.0% swing Con to Lab
It's the sort of thing that happens in factional battles.
And yes, I know.
The US Labor Department said wages grew at an annual rate of 3.1% in October, accelerating from a rate of 2.8% the month before.
The economy also added 250,000 jobs last month, beating expectations, while the jobless rate remained at 3.7%.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46072979
It is a Tory dogs dinner, no one else is responsible.
But the coalition had to be a five-year deal. The big job was on the economy and that couldn't be done in just two.
The other serious error that they made was on constitutional reform. Rather than agreeing a referendum on AV - a system they didn't really want, with a good chance of it never being delivered - they should have traded boundary reform for either a firm commitment on a fully-elected Lords or, if that wasn't doable, PR for local government. At least then they'd have been able to bank something.
When it was time to sell it to the membership in 2010 it was Ashdown who argued passionately for it.
She chose not to do so, chose her own redlines without consultation and as a consequence owns the mess.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1058138660833509376
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish
Elizabeth Fulhame - Chemist who first wrote about catalyst and reaction pathways.
Jane Sharp - wrote an important book on midwifery in 17th century.
Boyle was born in Waterford (no problem for me)
After Maxwell, the next scientist should be William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (who was Ulster-Scots and born in Belfast). But, he may be on Northern Irish bank notes.
At his death, he was the largest depositor in the Bank of England.
When you're negotiatingm you want to give the impression that you are united, and that you do not NEED a deal (even if you desperately do). Due to the rather chaotic position the UK has found itself in (a fairly even split of leavers and remainers and a minority government, and a civil service not excatly squarely behind the policy of Brexit) this hasn't been possible.
But I doubt it would happen like that - the most likely scenario would be the approach of no deal, either through the rejection of May's deal or because May hasn't got a deal. If we are in this position in, say, February I think the pressures on parliament to break the logjam would be immense and I can't see how this could be done without either a referendum or general election.
https://twitter.com/JamesOfNazareth/status/1058386479385321472
The National Union of Students is in crisis and teetering on the verge of bankruptcy
https://order-order.com/2018/11/02/national-union-students-verge-bankruptcy/
Counter-factual writers must be licking their lips at the spectacle of Britain from about 2014 onwards.
As for the Lancaster House speech, it was an excellent speech, widely praised by all sides, which set out a sensible, unifying vision for the implementation of Brexit. Of course those who don't accept the result of the democratic referendum have a problem with that, but that's hardly her fault.
https://twitter.com/IanSteve1967_/status/1058144818000547840
And yet more plain sitting coal villages from Wakefield to Notts and beyond trend blue - similar travel to work patterns and relationship to neighbouring cities, similar industrial village vibes.
Coal and cloth do not seem to be trending the same way and the narrative of Labour losing the small towns is a little bit more variable and segmented than stated.
It brings to mind things like the civil war re-enactors and similar.