The use of Swing Low in England rugby is errrr, a touch more complicated than people are making out.
Are you saying the cognoscenti sing it for one particular reason while the broad mass of unknowing fans sing it for another?
What are you talking about?
No, I'm saying the reason players/fans started singing it at all is a bit cringe inducing in its 'white guy singing the only "black" song they know' way.
Fans only knowing the first 2 lines as well is pretty naff.
I think the only reason they sing it is the word 'chariot' which picks up on the phrase 'chariots of fire' from Jerusalem and the movie.
The use of Swing Low in England rugby is errrr, a touch more complicated than people are making out.
Are you saying the cognoscenti sing it for one particular reason while the broad mass of unknowing fans sing it for another?
What are you talking about?
No, I'm saying the reason players/fans started singing it at all is a bit cringe inducing in its 'white guy singing the only "black" song they know' way.
Fans only knowing the first 2 lines as well is pretty naff.
Ah thanks. I had not known the origin of players/fans singing it so am grateful you explained it.
Excellent piece by Fraser Nelson in Telegraph on need to stop being so cautious.
"Germany has been more sensible. Its route out of lockdown has been to relax controls as long as the virus stays below a certain level in each region: 50 infections in a week for every 100,000 people."
Running at about one quarter of that limit in England on my (hopefully correct) calculations. I think the German 50 infections per 100 000 week regulation is the point at which you need to slam on the emergency brakes. The target should be much lower than that.
I would say this means the UK has some limited room for easing off, but not a lot. Bear in mind Germany has eased off its lockdowns already and it still has lower infection rates.
Is it infections tested and found, or is it infections supposed?
If i recall, Govt think there are 50k+ new infections a week, which would be well above the limit.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
I am just relieved that in the midst of this potential economic armageddon we can still spend a million pounds to paint the tail of Boris' aircraft. It's reassuringly optimistic.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
I am just relieved that in the midst of this potential economic armageddon we can still spend a million pounds to paint the tail of Boris' aircraft. It's reassuringly optimistic.
Bit more than the tail, to make the kind of shagadelic Austin Powers style wings he may well turn out to want. All that nice newish expensive mil-spec grey paint will have to be stripped off as well.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Priti is good value next PM. The others are all flopping.
Patel is 50/1, and lengthening. I’d say 100/1 is more like it. The Tories are daft, but they’re not that daft
To be fair it is hard for cartoonists to create a caricature of Raab, when a photo is already 90% of the way there.
If you speak to cartoonists, they will tell you that some politicians are much more difficult to do than others. Cameron was notoriously difficult. Have a look at a picture of him; it's a very bland face with no distinguishing characteristic.
I should say Raab presents a similar problem.
Presumably Gove is a gift to cartoonists.
Just checked with one and the answer was definitely! Raab not easy but not the worst.
Edit: Apparently Cummings is a gift too, so there is at least one part of the community that regrets his current disappearance from the front pages.
Part of the trouble is that, as a matter of policy, Johnson is surrounded by mediocrities.
Cameron must of been a pain to draw, but he had personality quirks which were easy enough to caricature; the pink cheek, the Eton uniform and so on. Major was grey, Maggie was a gift, Blair was a mad overenthusiastic trendy vicar. Brown was brooding, Hezza was Tarzan, Cook was a garden gnome.
Now Bozza is parody of himself, and Dom is a cartoonist's gift. Gove has possibilities, but the rest of them? Broadly interchangeable nothings in suits. Rory Stewart had possibilities, but he's gone now.
I'm not saying that Labour are any better, but it's got to be a problem for cartoonists. And if iSams personality theory is right, it's a problem for the government when Boris becomes unavailable.
(BBC) Coronavirus was already present in northern Italy in December 2019, some two months before the first known case was diagnosed, according to a study by Italy's national health institute, the ISS.
Traces of the virus were detected in samples of waste water in the cities of Milan and Turin at the end of last year, and in Bologna in January, the ISS said.
The institute carried out an analysis of waste water collected from October 2019 to February 2020 before Covid-19 officially hit Italy.
Samples from October and November 2019 were negative, showing the virus had yet to arrive, ISS water quality expert Giuseppina La Rosa said.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
I am just relieved that in the midst of this potential economic armageddon we can still spend a million pounds to paint the tail of Boris' aircraft. It's reassuringly optimistic.
It looks like the BA logo on steroids. I can live with it.
The use of Swing Low in England rugby is errrr, a touch more complicated than people are making out.
Are you saying the cognoscenti sing it for one particular reason while the broad mass of unknowing fans sing it for another?
What are you talking about?
No, I'm saying the reason players/fans started singing it at all is a bit cringe inducing in its 'white guy singing the only "black" song they know' way.
Fans only knowing the first 2 lines as well is pretty naff.
Ah thanks. I had not known the origin of players/fans singing it so am grateful you explained it.
It's like, associating it with Martin Offaih, cool, no problem Chariots of Fire, Martin Offaih. Nice word play I like it. Maybe humming the Vangelis theme tune would have been better but what evs.
But then to have it taken off with singing it at/for Chris Oti suddenly makes it "dudes, what the heck are you doing?"
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
All major media platforms spouted non-stop Better Together propaganda during the 6 months leading up to the independence referendum in 2014.
Scotland would have won but for that.
Scottish independence wasn't torpedoed by the dastardly MSM, it was undone by money - primarily the Barnett subsidy, and secondarily the lack of a convincing plan for what currency Scotland was going to use. Your floating voters broke for No because they thought independence would hit them hard in their wallets (possibly through major cuts to public services, so that goodies like free prescriptions, university tuition fees and elderly social care would have to go; more likely through hefty tax rises.)
There are some committed Unionists out there, but I'm convinced that the main thing holding the UK together now is cash. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury, rather than a net beneficiary of it, then the 2014 vote would probably have gone the other way.
I agree that pushed transactional arguments very hard, and effectively tried (and partially succeeded) in bribing Scots to stay in the Union. It was not Britain’s finest hour.
Barnett? Nope. Zero leverage among ordinary voters. The type of thing PBers think tremendously important but has zilch effect on actual voter behaviour.
But you are on stronger ground re currency, pensions and floating voters. (Many British Nationalists fail to understand that most Scots are neither pro-independence nor pro-subjugation but rather are persuadable.)
Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, and the fact that this is not widely understood is 100% down to the major media outlets pushing The Big Lie. Even though an increasing number of Scots have seen through the Unionists’ last party trick, enough remain in doubt to keep VI on a 50/50 knife edge. One day the mirage will lift and clarity will bring the decisive pro-sovereignty vote.
I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? )
I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.
But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.
As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.
So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!
Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.
It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.
Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.
And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
Retiral due to ill-health.
The obesity, confusion, hangover and comic-character dishevelment can be carried off when you’re in your forties, but combined with his recent brush with death, the act has lost Suspension of Disbelief as he nears sixty. He comes across as a daft, fat, smelly, irresponsible, repugnant old arse. And one who has allowed a lot of people to die due to gross incompetence. And who has moreover created mass unemployment and a collapse in international trade.
Ill-health is his get-out clause. The eternal public schoolboy’s excuse for the mountain of homework eaten by the dog.
We are not far off the time that no one will admit to having voted for the mendacious buffoon.
Possibly, although this depends whether or not said persons have conveniently forgotten that there were two realistic choices available for Prime Minister in 2019 and the other one was Corbyn.
Boris Johnson is far more popular with the public than he is on this forum. The people who absolutely loathe him are those who will never forgive him for his role in the EU Referendum.
Both statements are mostly true but he is also far less popular than he was at the time of the election, and the people who loathe him may well loathe him for his actions and failure re Brexit post the referendum rather than during it.
Shamelessly picking his Brexit side by which is better for his career was one thing, sabotaging and knifing May in the back another which I would view as the far more serious act of disloyalty.
But, I would also still vote for his government if they can show they are effective, and am happy to praise them when they get things right, like the u-turn on school meals or the furlough policy. The problem is there are far too many areas where they have been incompetent so far, the app, testing, communication, schools, care homes just some recent examples.
"he is also far less popular than he was at the time of the election..."
Yes, but he's not really a political cartoonist. Of those that are I rate Martin Rowson very highly. Bell's ability and power cannot be questioned but personally I find himtoo acerbic, brutal and at times unpleasant.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
I am just relieved that in the midst of this potential economic armageddon we can still spend a million pounds to paint the tail of Boris' aircraft. It's reassuringly optimistic.
It looks like the BA logo on steroids. I can live with it.
Yes, but he's not really a political cartoonist. Of those that are I rate Martin Rowson very highly. Bell's ability and power cannot be questioned but personally I find himtoo acerbic, brutal and at times unpleasant.
Generally the standard is not high, I'm afraid.
And Marf, she's a lot better than most who find their way into national newspapers!
Excellent piece by Fraser Nelson in Telegraph on need to stop being so cautious.
"Germany has been more sensible. Its route out of lockdown has been to relax controls as long as the virus stays below a certain level in each region: 50 infections in a week for every 100,000 people."
Running at about one quarter of that limit in England on my (hopefully correct) calculations. I think the German 50 infections per 100 000 week regulation is the point at which you need to slam on the emergency brakes. The target should be much lower than that.
I would say this means the UK has some limited room for easing off, but not a lot. Bear in mind Germany has eased off its lockdowns already and it still has lower infection rates.
Is it infections tested and found, or is it infections supposed?
If i recall, Govt think there are 50k+ new infections a week, which would be well above the limit.
From the Guardian article: the German leader said relaxing physical distancing rules would only be possible if the country adhered to a new “emergency mechanism”, whereby hospitals, care homes or entire municipalities would be put under lockdown if they accumulatively registered more than 50 new infections per 100,000 inhabitants within seven days.
Bit more than the tail, to make the kind of shagadelic Austin Powers style wings he may well turn out to want. All that nice newish expensive mil-spec grey paint will have to be stripped off as well.
ZZ336 is getting on for ten years old. Having said that Crab Air have traditionally had no inhibitions about having very low standards of aircraft husbandry and flying around in ratty looking crap boxes.
I'm still reeling from that poll from last night showing Trump is actually relatively popular with blacks and hispanic voters.
His problem is with whites.
Not that much of a surprise TBH. There are a fairly large amount of social media feeds out there from younger Black activists who say it is time for the community to stop relying on the Democrats who have done nothing for the Black community in urban areas and just view them as a pool of votes.
Re Hispanics, many view themselves as white and there is a huge social difference depending on how light your skin colour, your ancestry etc between the different groups.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned much about what is happening with BLM is that it risks - for the Democrats - fracturing the Black / Hispanic coalition. The two communities don't have the best relations. Check out what is happening in New Mexico at the moment with BLM and Native Indian activists on one side and Hispanics on the other side fighting over the statues to the Conquistadores.
Re whites, it is an issue for Trump but I suspect he will be secretly very happy with the two Supreme Court decisions this week. It will fire up his base and strengthen his argument to evangelicals and Catholics (the latter are particularly worried about lawsuits in the light of the LGBTQ decision) that more works needs to be done on the Supreme Court with Roberts having gone "rogue". It is entirely possible you could have four Justices need to be replaced in the next Presidential term.
Alternatively, if they can't even rely on his pretty extreme picks for the court, then there's even less point in turning out for him. Which is an argument the Federalist Society hardliners have been making.
Bit more than the tail, to make the kind of shagadelic Austin Powers style wings he may well turn out to want. All that nice newish expensive mil-spec grey paint will have to be stripped off as well.
ZZ336 is getting on for ten years old. Having said that Crab Air have traditionally had no inhibitions about having very low standards of aircraft husbandry and flying around in ratty looking crap boxes.
So it would have likely needed a repaint anyway, the *marginal* cost of choosing one colour over another being almost incidental to the exercise, limited to the cost of the design and masking work?
Bit more than the tail, to make the kind of shagadelic Austin Powers style wings he may well turn out to want. All that nice newish expensive mil-spec grey paint will have to be stripped off as well.
ZZ336 is getting on for ten years old. Having said that Crab Air have traditionally had no inhibitions about having very low standards of aircraft husbandry and flying around in ratty looking crap boxes.
So it would have likely needed a repaint anyway, the *marginal* cost of choosing one colour over another being almost incidental to the exercise, limited to the cost of the design and masking work?
Good points. Multicolour scheme by definition - possibly only on the tail fin, if Mr J is as tasteful as M Macron Le President's wings as seen yesterday. But we will see.
Edit: but the price quoted seems v. high for a simple scheme like that.
But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.
Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
All major media platforms spouted non-stop Better Together propaganda during the 6 months leading up to the independence referendum in 2014.
Scotland would have won but for that.
Scottish independence wasn't torpedoed by the dastardly MSM, it was undone by money - primarily the Barnett subsidy, and secondarily the lack of a convincing plan for what currency Scotland was going to use. Your floating voters broke for No because they thought independence would hit them hard in their wallets (possibly through major cuts to public services, so that goodies like free prescriptions, university tuition fees and elderly social care would have to go; more likely through hefty tax rises.)
There are some committed Unionists out there, but I'm convinced that the main thing holding the UK together now is cash. If Scotland were a net contributor to the UK Treasury, rather than a net beneficiary of it, then the 2014 vote would probably have gone the other way.
I don't like it but I accept that's probably true.
You could argue of course that is what led to the creation of the Union in the first place.
No argument needed. It is a universally accepted fact that bribery was absolutely central to negotiating the Treaty of Union and the passing of the Acts of Union, and their enforcement.
New Dylan album is excellent. Probably his best since the 1990s.
But he should probably be cancelled, since he has appropriated stuff from everywhere - from William Blake and the King James Bible to bluesman Jimmy Reed.
Fake news once you take into account "debt" to the Bank of England the reality is very different.
That entire months borrowing was paid for by the BoE yesterday.
Weird how we can suddenly lend money to ourselves after so long being told it was impossible and we would be saddling our grandchildren with debt. Tory economics folks
There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis during the crisis and doing so during times of growth. If you don't understand that I'm not sure how to break it down into smaller pieces to explain it to you.
Unless...the level of poverty in this country and in particular the level of child poverty constitutes a crisis every bit as grave as the Coronavirus? Or the closure of libraries represents a crisis for peoples' literacy and access to learning. Or the rundown of the NHS constitutes a crisis which...etc.
One man's crisis is another's BAU. Once you get to choose the crisis (by being in government) you can justify anything.
No because the difference between a health crisis and what you're describing is it is temporary. We will get through the coronavirus crisis to the other side. Once we are through to the other side of the pandemic then we will need to restore balance to the economy.
That's not the case with writing blank cheques for permanent things. I'm assuming you don't want the library open temporarily? If you want the library permanently open you need to be able to afford it.
That is your definition of a crisis which justifies near-unlimited borrowing. And your criteria about libraries. The govt can make its own definitions. Including a Labour government.
No the definition of recession and growth is a global one, not mine.
Absolutely. What is the global definition of a crisis?
A recession.
I specifically said an economic crisis as opposed to "times of growth". After the recession the deficit will need to be resolved.
You have deemed an "economic crisis" as being worthy of spaffing money up the wall and turning on the spending taps.
But Labour might say that a "library crisis" is worthy of doing the same.
You have accepted that a crisis (economic in this case) justifies such borrowing. And other governments are therefore justified, by your own argument, in deeming other crises likewise worthy.
Once you have decided that a crisis is justification for such spending then lo there will be crises.
I am just relieved that in the midst of this potential economic armageddon we can still spend a million pounds to paint the tail of Boris' aircraft. It's reassuringly optimistic.
It looks like the BA logo on steroids. I can live with it.
Perhaps we should crowdfund the project rather than take it from the public purse.
New Dylan album is excellent. Probably his best since the 1990s.
But he should probably be cancelled, since he has appropriated stuff from everywhere - from William Blake and the King James Bible to bluesman Jimmy Reed.
Modern Times was good.
Workingman's Blues #2 is one of the stand out tracks of all of rock in last twenty five years imho.
Bit more than the tail, to make the kind of shagadelic Austin Powers style wings he may well turn out to want. All that nice newish expensive mil-spec grey paint will have to be stripped off as well.
ZZ336 is getting on for ten years old. Having said that Crab Air have traditionally had no inhibitions about having very low standards of aircraft husbandry and flying around in ratty looking crap boxes.
So it would have likely needed a repaint anyway, the *marginal* cost of choosing one colour over another being almost incidental to the exercise, limited to the cost of the design and masking work?
I can't square the circle. Johnson wants his plane to be all nice and shiny with a publicly funded paint job, yet twelve months ago the best he could muster out of his own pocket was a rat-look, grey import Toyota Previa.
I'm still reeling from that poll from last night showing Trump is actually relatively popular with blacks and hispanic voters.
His problem is with whites.
Not that much of a surprise TBH. There are a fairly large amount of social media feeds out there from younger Black activists who say it is time for the community to stop relying on the Democrats who have done nothing for the Black community in urban areas and just view them as a pool of votes.
Re Hispanics, many view themselves as white and there is a huge social difference depending on how light your skin colour, your ancestry etc between the different groups.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned much about what is happening with BLM is that it risks - for the Democrats - fracturing the Black / Hispanic coalition. The two communities don't have the best relations. Check out what is happening in New Mexico at the moment with BLM and Native Indian activists on one side and Hispanics on the other side fighting over the statues to the Conquistadores.
Re whites, it is an issue for Trump but I suspect he will be secretly very happy with the two Supreme Court decisions this week. It will fire up his base and strengthen his argument to evangelicals and Catholics (the latter are particularly worried about lawsuits in the light of the LGBTQ decision) that more works needs to be done on the Supreme Court with Roberts having gone "rogue". It is entirely possible you could have four Justices need to be replaced in the next Presidential term.
The pool of votes comment is interesting and quite right.
The same applies in the UK with Labour and the Red Wall.
Apparently they had "nowehre to go"
Like labour voters they will find somewhere. The Democrats have no incentive to improve the lives of African Americans when they can simply continually rely on their votes. Same with labour and labour councils in its red wall.
Boris Johnson is far more popular with the public than he is on this forum. The people who absolutely loathe him are those who will never forgive him for his role in the EU Referendum.
I am sure I am not alone in having absolutely loathed him since way before that.
Comments
If i recall, Govt think there are 50k+ new infections a week, which would be well above the limit.
Cameron must of been a pain to draw, but he had personality quirks which were easy enough to caricature; the pink cheek, the Eton uniform and so on. Major was grey, Maggie was a gift, Blair was a mad overenthusiastic trendy vicar. Brown was brooding, Hezza was Tarzan, Cook was a garden gnome.
Now Bozza is parody of himself, and Dom is a cartoonist's gift. Gove has possibilities, but the rest of them? Broadly interchangeable nothings in suits. Rory Stewart had possibilities, but he's gone now.
I'm not saying that Labour are any better, but it's got to be a problem for cartoonists. And if iSams personality theory is right, it's a problem for the government when Boris becomes unavailable.
Coronavirus was already present in northern Italy in December 2019, some two months before the first known case was diagnosed, according to a study by Italy's national health institute, the ISS.
Traces of the virus were detected in samples of waste water in the cities of Milan and Turin at the end of last year, and in Bologna in January, the ISS said.
The institute carried out an analysis of waste water collected from October 2019 to February 2020 before Covid-19 officially hit Italy.
Samples from October and November 2019 were negative, showing the virus had yet to arrive, ISS water quality expert Giuseppina La Rosa said.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1273654464382144514
But then to have it taken off with singing it at/for Chris Oti suddenly makes it "dudes, what the heck are you doing?"
Barnett? Nope. Zero leverage among ordinary voters. The type of thing PBers think tremendously important but has zilch effect on actual voter behaviour.
But you are on stronger ground re currency, pensions and floating voters. (Many British Nationalists fail to understand that most Scots are neither pro-independence nor pro-subjugation but rather are persuadable.)
Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, and the fact that this is not widely understood is 100% down to the major media outlets pushing The Big Lie. Even though an increasing number of Scots have seen through the Unionists’ last party trick, enough remain in doubt to keep VI on a 50/50 knife edge. One day the mirage will lift and clarity will bring the decisive pro-sovereignty vote.
How so?
Generally the standard is not high, I'm afraid.
It's granular.
Ode to Joy perhaps ?
Which is an argument the Federalist Society hardliners have been making.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53106673
Edit: but the price quoted seems v. high for a simple scheme like that.
Probably his best since the 1990s.
But he should probably be cancelled, since he has appropriated stuff from everywhere - from William Blake and the King James Bible to bluesman Jimmy Reed.
Workingman's Blues #2 is one of the stand out tracks of all of rock in last twenty five years imho.
The same applies in the UK with Labour and the Red Wall.
Apparently they had "nowehre to go"
Like labour voters they will find somewhere. The Democrats have no incentive to improve the lives of African Americans when they can simply continually rely on their votes. Same with labour and labour councils in its red wall.