Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Eh. There'll always be a UKP/BNP style lurking about at the fringes, but unless they can attach themselves to another really popular cause, on the fringe they'll stay. And too bloody right.

On a separate note, I've become a big fan of Mhairi Black. We need more young people in Parliament.

I'm actually glad that Labour won Stoke. It'll be enough to convince Jezza to stay on and continue his slow killing of the party. If they got rid of him too early they might make a slight bounce back. Or at least stay level.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm actually glad that Labour won Stoke. It'll be enough to convince Jezza to stay on and continue his slow killing of the party. If they got rid of him too early they might make a slight bounce back. Or at least stay level.

He will never go unless he resigns.

Marxist artist wrote:
He will never go unless he resigns.

Very true, and long may he reign.

It is good news, but ...




I can't help but think they've maybe....massaged....the graph a little bit to make it look that bit more impressive.

Herzlos wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
60 billion. I could buy a whole forgeworld army with that.....

They need to fix all the other lines first, and cut down the bloody cost of the railway. A single to Cardiff from Swansea is over ten pounds now. The bus is only 8 for a return.

And presumably a fraction of that in fuel if you drove.

Where I am, outside Edinburgh, it was cheaper for me to drive my 20mpg petrol car in and back (i get free parking, admittedly) than a peak time day return. Once you apply all the discounts for annual season tickets, it's still marginally cheaper for me to drive a small diesel in and back than getting the train. If there's more than just me travelling it's a no-brainer; driving is so much cheaper.


I'm all for HS2, in the long run at least, as I'm assuming eventually they'll add an HS3 North of Birmingham and eventually up to Glasgow. High speed Glasgow/Brum/London would be brilliant for all sorts of day tripping and business.

Not quite, it's about a hundred miles there and back, so it's about ten pounds in fuel for my motorcycle.

I don't mind having a high speed railway system, but as a Welshman our trains are awful. To get anywhere north you need to go to Cardiff first, and then head up the valleys. It's 3 hours to travel the 30 miles to Aberdare.

I'm feeling pretty smug today: my election predictions for yesterday came true


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:



It is good news, but ...




I can't help but think they've maybe....massaged....the graph a little bit to make it look that bit more impressive.

Let the good times roll

For sale: house in Stoke, never used.




You would think UKIP would be delighted that an outsider arriving in the area wasn't made welcome and given a job.

If you ever have 5 mins or so spare and want to laugh/cry/despair/wonder all at the same time then one recommend having a quick scroll through :

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?page=1&state=rejected

... ...yeah.





...Crufts would be amazing if this was the case eh ?


TBf the news is pretty dire currently as well

Me and the wife made a batch of marmalade yesterday.

..


*adds names to list*

..least Jezza makes jam.

He makes jam tomorrow, anyway.

As we've said many a time on this topic, if not Corbyn then who?

And there in lies the problem for Labour...

 welshhoppo wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
60 billion. I could buy a whole forgeworld army with that.....

They need to fix all the other lines first, and cut down the bloody cost of the railway. A single to Cardiff from Swansea is over ten pounds now. The bus is only 8 for a return.

And presumably a fraction of that in fuel if you drove.

Where I am, outside Edinburgh, it was cheaper for me to drive my 20mpg petrol car in and back (i get free parking, admittedly) than a peak time day return. Once you apply all the discounts for annual season tickets, it's still marginally cheaper for me to drive a small diesel in and back than getting the train. If there's more than just me travelling it's a no-brainer; driving is so much cheaper.


I'm all for HS2, in the long run at least, as I'm assuming eventually they'll add an HS3 North of Birmingham and eventually up to Glasgow. High speed Glasgow/Brum/London would be brilliant for all sorts of day tripping and business.

Not quite, it's about a hundred miles there and back, so it's about ten pounds in fuel for my motorcycle.

I don't mind having a high speed railway system, but as a Welshman our trains are awful. To get anywhere north you need to go to Cardiff first, and then head up the valleys. It's 3 hours to travel the 30 miles to Aberdare.

I don't drive and me and buses don't end well. As someone who lives in Mid Wales, the South (Aberdare included) is a distant dream unless I want to spend half a day on the train.
The North is a bit more accessible provided its connected via the Pwhelli line. For you guys in the South though I would hate to think what its like to get anyware near Bangor/Pwhelli/Porthmadog.

You live in mid Wales? You might as well live on the bloody moon then. Everything is awful if it isn't on the Cardiff line.

I don't even think I can get to the north without going via Liverpool or some nonsense. We have the Heart of Wales line, but that ends up near England too.

 reds8n wrote:



It is good news, but ...




I can't help but think they've maybe....massaged....the graph a little bit to make it look that bit more impressive.

The difference is what, 0.1%? I tell GCSE kids off for drawing graphs over a narrow range to exaggerate their differences.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 reds8n wrote:



It is good news, but ...




I can't help but think they've maybe....massaged....the graph a little bit to make it look that bit more impressive.

The difference is what, 0.1%? I tell GCSE kids off for drawing graphs over a narrow range to exaggerate their differences.

Yeah, you've got to wonder whether someone has size issues!

However given this is the office of national statistics what's more shocking is that there are no errors quoted. It could easily be that it is 0.7% +/- 0.1% which (for those that don't know) means the change isn't statistically significant and wasn't worth flagging in this way. If it was 0.7 +/- 0.01% then it is statistically significant though, but we cannot tell without the errors. It could be even worse - if it is 0.7% +/- 0.7% then we wouldn't know whether the economy is contracting or expanding at all! I keep on saying this but errors tell you more about the data than the average value that is quoted.

On the other hand they probably don't do it because it confuses the Tory party!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
On a separate note, I've become a big fan of Mhairi Black. We need more young people in Parliament.

Although I do also support younger people getting involved with politics (more will help prevent the foolishness of Brexit for example), this person is likely to be a 'career politician' that have been much maligned in the past especially when you consider that the degree she has is a degree in politics. Although I don't necessarily have an issue with career politicians (it's the actions that are important), I thought it was worth noting when other, older, career politicians get maligned just for being that.

I thought it was mildly amusing that the Blue bar was huge, against the tiny weeny little Red bar.

What an interesting choice of colours.

 reds8n wrote:

Is Frazz getting involved in U.K. politics? Is there anything about free Tequila for grumpy old men?

@Whirkwind.

You're overlooking the fact that Mhairi Black, as an SNP MP, is actively campaigning to lose her job in the House of Commons.

That's the opposite of career politician in my book

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Whirkwind.

Good grief, at least spell my tag name correctly....

You're overlooking the fact that Mhairi Black, as an SNP MP, is actively campaigning to lose her job in the House of Commons.

That's the opposite of career politician in my book

Though there will still be the need for politicians even if (or should that be when given current politics?) Scotland decides to the leave the UK. I just find it amusing that folks can hate career politicians but say how great young people entering the political arena is, when these same young people are likely to end up being career politicians. I suppose it is an interesting side question - when does a young politician become a career politician, after how many years?

Put it this way: what did Mhairi Black do before entering Parliament? Did she work as a nurse? As a police officer or military veteran? Has she worked in banking? Education? Manufascturing?

Or did she go straight from student politics to university to working for her local council to working for the SNP to Parliament?

A Career Politician is someone who starts their adult working life in politics. You don't just grow into one, you start out as one.

That is the distinction for me. "Career" politicians are people like Cameron who went from university to Parliament as quickly as possible, with a bit of dicking around in between.

If someone actually has a real life, then goes into politics and stays there for years, they are not a career politician in my book.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is the distinction for me. "Career" politicians are people like Cameron who went from university to Parliament as quickly as possible, with a bit of dicking around in between.

If someone actually has a real life, then goes into politics and stays there for years, they are not a career politician in my book.

I looked Mhairi black up on wikipedia and apparently she was elected to parliament in her final year of university, which is of course very impressive. No mention is made of any previous jobs she's done. So clearly she is the very definition of a career politician, compared to someone like Nigel Farage who worked as a stock broker before politics.

But that's not to say that she's necessarily going to be a bad politician. I doubt many people here would consider Nigel Farage a "good" politician, even though he's not a career politician. He simply has an advantage over her, real world life experiences and experience of work outside of politics before he entered politics.


(Nigel rarage is probably a bad example but he's the on!y one I could think of off the top of my head)

It's a tough one. Pitt the Younger is a textbook definition of career politician, but he is one of the best Prime Minister's Britain's ever had.

I suppose what you do is more important than how you got there.

I'm trying my best not to be a hypocrite here, because I've attacked Blairite career politicians, SPADs, people getting parachuted into safe seats etc etc many a time.

It's a tough one, but Labour really took the during the Blair years, so I don't blame the public for being sceptical.

She's a textbook career politician. Not even out of uni and she's straight in there.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is the distinction for me. "Career" politicians are people like Cameron who went from university to Parliament as quickly as possible, with a bit of dicking around in between.

If someone actually has a real life, then goes into politics and stays there for years, they are not a career politician in my book.

I looked Mhairi black up on wikipedia and apparently she was elected to parliament in her final year of university, which is of course very impressive. No mention is made of any previous jobs she's done. So clearly she is the very definition of a career politician, compared to someone like Nigel Farage who worked as a stock broker before politics.

But that's not to say that she's necessarily going to be a bad politician. I doubt many people here would consider Nigel Farage a "good" politician, even though he's not a career politician. He simply has an advantage over her, real world life experiences and experience of work outside of politics before he entered politics.


(Nigel rarage is probably a bad example but he's the on!y one I could think of off the top of my head)

Mhairi Black had a spell working in a Glasgow fish and chip shop, so I suppose that's a steep learning curve...especially on a Saturday night


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Whirkwind.

Good grief, at least spell my tag name correctly....

You're overlooking the fact that Mhairi Black, as an SNP MP, is actively campaigning to lose her job in the House of Commons.

That's the opposite of career politician in my book

Though there will still be the need for politicians even if (or should that be when given current politics?) Scotland decides to the leave the UK. I just find it amusing that folks can hate career politicians but say how great young people entering the political arena is, when these same young people are likely to end up being career politicians. I suppose it is an interesting side question - when does a young politician become a career politician, after how many years?

Apologies for the blunder

I can't even blame auto-correct for it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
She's a textbook career politician. Not even out of uni and she's straight in there.

I'm showing my bias here as a SNP supporter, but in her defence, she wasn't expected to win that seat.

It had been a safe Labour seat for decades, the incumbent had a huge majority, and was a former cabinet minister.

It was a shock victory on a huge swing to the SNP. It nearly broke the swing-ometer on BBC election night

 Whirlwind wrote:
I just find it amusing that folks can hate career politicians but say how great young people entering the political arena is, when these same young people are likely to end up being career politicians. I suppose it is an interesting side question - when does a young politician become a career politician, after how many years?

Career politicians are a separate issue. I think it is good to see some young people in Parliament, representing a segment of the population very rarely seen there. It's the same as how I approve of seeing more women in cabinet, gay MP's, and so forth. Parliament being white, male and old is, I think, sufficient a problem in its own right without necessitating tacking other political issues on its coattails when it is mentioned.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
I just find it amusing that folks can hate career politicians but say how great young people entering the political arena is, when these same young people are likely to end up being career politicians. I suppose it is an interesting side question - when does a young politician become a career politician, after how many years?

Career politicians are a separate issue. I think it is good to see some young people in Parliament, representing a segment of the population very rarely seen there. It's the same as how I approve of seeing more women in cabinet, gay MP's, and so forth. Parliament being white, male and old is, I think, sufficient a problem in its own right without necessitating tacking other political issues on its coattails when it is mentioned.

I tend to agree tbh. Ability over seniority every time in my book.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
She's a textbook career politician. Not even out of uni and she's straight in there.

I disagree. I would not classify a "career politician" (at least in the negative sense) by how quickly they entered politics but the prep and grooming that was put in place before they did so and their intentions.

Was she encouraged and prepped for political life by a firmly established and entrenched system which picks and chooses who it wants to be future ministers from the current crop of students on the PPE course, as happens to many of the leading figures in the main parties? Or did she enter politics after finding something that she felt was not being adequately represented and so set about trying to represent that cause or ideal?

The issue is not people who have entered politics young and do not have experience of many other fields. You can do research, talk to people in those fields to gain understanding about the issues they face and the reality of how it works.

The issue is politicians thinking, without any research or evidence, that they understand things better than other people, especially those in a field which they are overseeing in a cabinet position. So you have people like Gove, who think that just because they wrote about something in their article in The Times that they actually understand that thing and are competent enough to oversee the cabinet position in charge of it. Or the Labour governments response to Nutts comments on their drug policy (basically that it was rubbish and unsupported by any evidence and them firing him for it).

There is nothing inherently wrong in dedicating your working life to representing your constituents as best you can and taking part in our democratic system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is the distinction for me. "Career" politicians are people like Cameron who went from university to Parliament as quickly as possible, with a bit of dicking around in between.

If someone actually has a real life, then goes into politics and stays there for years, they are not a career politician in my book.

Strictly speaking then this does include Mhairi Black... Her career (apart from the part time jobs) has been going to University of Glasgow and completing a degree in politics and public policy (1st class) and then becoming an SNP MP.