‘Return to three party politics’

A forum to discuss local issues in the UK.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

Sir Vince claimed: “These results show a return to three party politics and a strong future for the Liberal Democrats. We stand as the only party fighting for an exit from brexit, and are making gains against both a Conservative party driven by their right wing, and a left wing Labour party absorbed by Corbyn’s dated economic vision.




The man can't do basic arithmetic too bad the lid dems aren't the third party

- The lib dems have 12 MP's the snp have 35. I really can't see any more what we have to gain by staying in this toxic union.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by FourPart »

Labour gain 79 seats & the Tories lose 34. And the BBC are promoting this as a "Disastrous result for Labour". Even the Lib Dems gained 34. The only ones to come out worse than the Tories were UKIP, with 120 down.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

Good grief you're not accusing the BBC of any bias are you? Pandering to the tories won't stop them privatising it.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by FourPart »

gmc;1519080 wrote: Good grief you're not accusing the BBC of any bias are you? Pandering to the tories won't stop them privatising it.


It already is privatised, and that's the way they want it to stay. With a monopoly of a State enforced subscription. After all, the BBC is the British Broadcasting CORPORATION. They also own UKTV - a Commercial company, with programs made at the cost of the Licence Payer.
User avatar
Night Watchman
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:12 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Night Watchman »

FourPart;1519072 wrote: Labour gain 79 seats & the Tories lose 34. And the BBC are promoting this as a "Disastrous result for Labour". Even the Lib Dems gained 34. The only ones to come out worse than the Tories were UKIP, with 120 down.


Where did you go to school ? The Diane Abbott academy of numbers?

Labour up 77, Tories, down 33, Liberal Democrats up 75, ( not 34 ), Greens, up 8, ukip, down 123.

Labour may have gained 60 more councillors but the net loss was one local authority and failed to make the big gains that they bragged they would do. Chuka Umunna has called for an inquiry into why it went so badly for Labour, and tonight there are calls for Corbyn's resignation. Up against what has to be the most unpopular Tory government in history, Labour should have cleaned up. They can not get a majority for government on these results. The Tories came out on top.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

The BBC is independent of the Government of the day, whichever flavour that is. It is governed by a Charter (the famous inform and entertain phrase) has editorial independence and can and does highlight government failings. This makes it pretty much unique. Other State media are government controlled or privately owned and do NOT have guaranteed editorial independence. If you get your information from RT then you hear what the Russian Government wants you to hear and that alone. Not the case with the BBC - you get the news whether it suits the Government of the day or not.

It isn't perfect - no human institution is: being made up of human beings it makes mistakes - but it is at least trying to find and tell the truth as best it can. That can't be said of eg RT, which is an agent of the Russian Government, pure and simple.

How does the Skripals' poisoning look now? Still think it was a cover up for dreadful Tory local election results? Or are you now going to claim the UK Gov't poisons Russians at random just in case it will be useful for something?

The Licence Fee is a tax I happily pay as it gives me a news service not in hock to the Government - we pay the BBC direct - and profits from UKTV help fund the BBC, thus keeping the tax down a bit. Fine with me. The BBC is therefore independent of Government and also of Big Business and Press Barons. That is a very good place for it to be.

Oh - and we did have a really good result in the Kingston local election: took control of the Council from the Tories and have I think it was 44 out of 52 Lib Dem Councillors in the end. Something like that anyway. Nationally the collapse of UKIP means it is hard to read the result - how many went to Labour, how many to the Tories? One thing for sure: they didn't go to the Lib Dems. This meant the Lib Dem opposition vote was split between two, not three, parties which made it harder for us nationally (Labour barely exists here. 0 councillors. UKIP even less. So that doesn't apply here so much). I do have the impression - contrary to most pundits I have seen - that brexit played a bigger part in local elections than is normal for any national event. Local elections are always about the bins and it was certainly Lib Dem election policy to focus on the local, even in a strongly Remain area like this one. But nationally the UKIP vote went to the Leave side and that ISN'T the Lib Dems.

I do wonder whether both Labour and Conservatives are going to split over the brexit issue. It's hard to see how they can stay together but that's from the perspective of a Party not split on the issue. It seems to me at present that the hard brexiters are going to win because all they have to do is block and destroy any attempts to agree a deal to get what they want. That puts enormous pressure on Remain Tories like Soubry and it comes down to how many will in the end put Country before Party when the crunch happens.

edit: And poor old Vince. He's ten years past it now imo. I can see where he's coming from: these are the English local elections and honestly the SNP in Westminster seem a bit semi-detached. What precisely is their purpose? They aren't planning (ok this is an assumption and open for discussion ;)) to form a Government. As the second biggest opposition party they are pretty unimportant and unlikely ever to provide a Leader of the Opposition. Tory, Labour and Lib Dem all intend to form Government or at least lead the opposition (a longer term plan in the case of the Lib Dems I grant you...) but the SNP don't. They seem more like the DUP: representing their area in Westminster but not part of the mainstream. But to me Vince shows signs of being old. He doesn't seem to be reacting quickly to the changing situation. Hey, maybe I'm reading too much into what might have just been a misstep.*

* Wasn't he an early hit on Strictly Come Dancing...doubt he's much of a tango-er now but maybe I'm wrong...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by FourPart »

Even with Labour in power the BBC has always been Conservative biased. They have, on several occasions, even been chastised by OfCom for being so. The Mainstream Media is primarily Conservative biased. That is not surprising, as most of it is owned by Tax Avoiding Tory Donors.

Don't you find it strange that the Skripal case has now all but been brushed under the carpet, as has Syria?

The Conservatives have, in the meantime voted to block the release of secret Windrush documents.

It is also obvious that most of the UKIP swing voters would probably have turned to Conservative, or perhaps Lib Dem (which explains why Lib Dems did pretty well), but that, too, demonstrates an even bigger Labour victory, as there wouldn't have been quite so much Tory division of vote.

Labour did better in London than at any other time since 1971. They took more than twice as many seats than the Tories. Their change of seats was +77 whilst the Tories were -33. And the Blatantly Biased Conservatives claim this as "No Clear Winner" & "Neck & Neck", doing their best to spin the results to favour the Tories.

Local election results 2018: No clear winner as Labour and Tories neck and neck - BBC News

As for RT vs BBC. To be honest, I would be far more inclined to take the word of RT over the BBC on most things. They do, at least, come up with things to support their claims. Such as, for instance 17 witnesses from Douma - all of which were clearly identifiable in the video - giving evidence in the Hague that the alleged chemical attack never happened & that the video was staged by the White Helmets. Just how much coverage did that get on the BBC? Regardless of whether you give credence to the witnesses or not, it's an item of International Importance & was totally ignored by the BBC. In other words, if it doesn't benefit the Tories, hush it up.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

RT produces "evidence" supporting the Russian position surprise surprise. No serious outlet even bothers with such obvious propaganda.

This is why the BBC's editorial independence is important and why you SHOULD believe it over RT. RT is a part of the Russian State. It is the Government's agent. It serves the Russian Government. The BBC does not serve our Government, or Big Business, or anyone but the British people who it has a duty to inform.

The Corporation bit: Corporations are set up to give an organisation an existence beyond the life of any individual. Mostly these are (I think) businesses but they don't have to be and the BBC is non-commercial by it's Charter. I think all Corporations have to have a Charter to BE Corporations, legally speaking. I could be wrong on this but my impression is that most if not all Charities are actually Corporations, but they have to be non-profit by their Charter. Either way, just being a Corporation does not necessarily make you a standard commercial business.

edit: The other thing about a Corporation is that it is legally defined by its Charter, which describes its purpose in legally binding terms. So the purpose of the BBC is to inform and entertain.

On the politics: I don't think any party can look at these results and go whoopee. Certainly there was no wipeout of the Tories and the results for Labour don't look that impressive to me especially given the state of the government. I'm not that impressed by the Lib Dem results either but we can at least say there's progress. I don't think we'll have picked up many UKIP votes since to be a Kipper you had to be a pretty hardline brexiter and would you really now vote for the only clearly anti-brexit party when you had both Labour and Con to vote for, both of which are officially pro-brexit (though split to hell and back...)? I don't think so.

edit: And no, I don't think it strange it's gone quiet on the Skripals and Syria. Unless something happens in either case I expect the day's events to run the news agenda. I don't expect, "...and in further news, on the Skripal case there's nothing new to report and it's been comparatively quiet in Syria. Also, nothing much to report from Africa today, Asia's been fairly quiet and Trump continues to make a fool of America..."

In fact I think we'll hear very little more from the Skripals. I expect he in particular wants to disappear and I wonder how long she'd last back in Russia? I've no idea if they'd whisk them away to say, Canada, or the US, or double bluff and they are in Newcastle?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by FourPart »

The fact remains that Russia provided witnesses who appeared in the said video to testify that the Chemical Attack never happened. Nobody else has managed to find any evidence or even witnesses to say that it did.

Previous claims had been made of all the fatalities of this Chemical Attack, yet no-one has been able to provide any of these bodies. The people in the video state that there was no Chemical Attack. They even describe the faking of the video itself.

Bear in mind that the White Helmets have a track record of faking videos.

The real reason that it wasn't treated more seriously is that those responsible for hearing the evidence were members of NATO.

Denial of the evidence given by those who were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the scene is on a par with a Creationist denying the evidence for Evolution. Just what evidence would you accept before you would admit it never happened?

In the meantime, Philip May's share profile as the largest individual Shareholder with BAE (who just so happened to make the missiles they fired, as their share value goes sky high) continues to benefit comfortably.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

The reason is, as I said, that RT is part of the Russian State apparatus and takes orders just like any other civil servant. The BBC by contrast is independent of government. It is not controlled by the government the way RT IS controlled by the Russian Gov't. It is not controlled by NATO either. Its purpose is to inform (and entertain) the British people. The purpose of RT is to reduce trust in our institutions, provide fake news to confuse the issues and basically it is a propaganda weapon.

I would accept NOTHING reported by RT as fact without independent verification.

edit: I'll just add to that last a little: I would expect them on minor issues or on global events like the Japanese Tsunami to be reasonably accurate. But one of the classic ways to set up people to accept big lies is to set it up with lots of little, harmless, verifiable truths (perhaps a little twisted to suit, but basically correct). So I would actually expect that they fabricated the whole film you refer to or filmed it in another town also called Douma which wasn't gassed. Is there any way you can prove me wrong? No? Ok, that's when the status of the news provider becomes important.

RT is a part of the Russian State apparatus. It does what Putin tells it to. The BBC is not part of the British State, it is a separate Corporation whose editorial independence is guaranteed by its Charter. The BBC does NOT work for anyone but the British people. You persist in regarding a report on RT as being like one on the BBC: it is not. A report on the BBC may be right or wrong, but you can be sure that it was created by a journalist attempting to find the truth and tell it to us. They work for the BBC, not the Government. You cannot say that about RT reports because they have NO duty to tell you the truth and are there to make Russia look good. They are propaganda agents who work for the Russian Government because RT is PART of the Russian Government. More like GCHQ than the BBC, in that respect.

Put it another way: In the BBC you will get the occasional bad egg in the human nature of things. RT in its entirety is one big bad egg.

Brexit is a great success for Putin. So is RT, which is NOT positive about the EU and seems to have quite a brexit following. (This has helped with another issue that was puzzling me - I now know where a group of posters on the BBC that support Putin but aren't Russians get their lies)

The report I saw on Douma (iirc) was not a military one. No white helmets that I saw. Besides, I'd like to see these reports of faked UN videos. Link? Oh, don't bother if it's RT. Putin is doing his best to **** us up and you are helping him.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15826
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Bryn Mawr »

The one thing I do note re: the Syria chemical attack is that Robert Fisk, a journalist I've long admired for his objectivity and the consistency of his message over many years of reporting from the middle east, visited the hospital where the film claiming the use of chemical weapons was made and interviewed the doctors who said no, not chemical weapons but asphyxia from being in almost sealed underground hideaways during the attack :-

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sy ... 07726.html
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

Now that I will accept as casting doubt on the account. Interesting then to see what proof the French say they have. But yeah, hypoxia could explain the report I saw. As far as I know there is no doubt the Russians/Syrian Regime have used gas on the Syrian people on a number of occasions (even if only half the reports are true) with Chlorine used on a number of occasions and Sarin as well, according to the Turkish Gov't. I did note that Fisk (of whom I also have a high opinion) reached no firm conclusion but was definitely dubious of this particular account.

Still wouldn't trust a word RT says.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

Since this thread is wandering anyway I'll stick this here rather than start a new thread:

I've been thinking that in the 2 years since the ref I've not seen any reports of people changing their mind either way. This week there was even a letter about it in the New European. Then I popped along to our Tuesday evening friends in the pub night and behold! A convert! He was of the opinion that in 5 years no-one would notice anything had happened which is why he voted brexit - didn't much like the current contract and thought it worth looking for better elsewhere. Now calling for a second referendum. The only thing I got as to what had changed his mind was also very practical - he is horrified by the mess the gov't are making of it and the far right control of the process. He's from a working class family but has been found with 3 types of hummus in the fridge and is therefore middle class (that we may have put them there is a minor technical detail...)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

The head of MI5 says Russia behaving very badly, has them and ISIS as the main threats to the UK:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/i ... spartandhp
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

It looks as if the scottish parliament will refuse to pass the eu withdrawal bill in light of westminsters attempt to remove devolved powers from both the scottish and welsh parliaments. Scotland votedv 62% to remain in the union and the snp were elected back in to power and remember we have proportional representation with a manifasto commitment that is there was a material change such as leaving the eu an indpendence referendum would be back on the table. Theresa may has refused to meet with the snp to discuss brexit and comments like that of vince cable and discussions on tyhe bbc about the resurgence of the libdems as a third party shows the attitude of westminster to scotland. It's beginnimg toi dawn on a lot of unionist what remaining in the union will mean for scotland i.e a disaster we've already seen whisky being marketed as british along with other brands noted for their scottish origins our fishermen have finally realised their fishing rights are up for grabs yet again as the tories try and get a deal. Doubt you will be aware of all this as it is not reported on the bbc or other mainstream media.

READ: Mike Russell's incredible speech in defence of Scotland's parliament | The National
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

They did 93 to 30. Just to remind you the scottish parliament is elected on a PR basis unlike westminster the majority of the electorate actively voted FOR the SNP.

Indyref 2 seems more likely than ever.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Bruv »

Why the problem calling anything Scottish as British ?

It IS Scottish British, it's widely known as scotch.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

Bruv;1519244 wrote: Why the problem calling anything Scottish as British ?

It IS Scottish British, it's widely known as scotch.


Because it is a foodstuff whose brand has been built up as being scottish - you can't call whisky scotsh whisky unless it is actually made in scotland just as you only get champagne from the champagne region in france or bordeaux from bordeaux or cornish pasties they are what is known as a protected designation of origin within the eu one of the benefits of being in the eu. Scottish produce attracts a premium price diluting the grand will have long term detrimental effects. It does matter once we are out the eu we will not have that protection.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

I can't edit the post. The eu is a major export market for scotland one of the devolved powers westminster wants to take back is control over food labelling that's a huge potential problem when much odf the success of scottishn produce rests on the ability to market Scottish produce and provenance i.e. as scottish and not have the distinction blurred. A lot of farmers and fishermen voted to leave now they're getting worried about what brexit will bring for their industries.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

Honestly so much is happening I can't keep up. Congrats to the Scots Parliament on its vote.

The Lords are sticking amendments all over brexit legislation coming their way and getting cross party support for doing so. The Irish Border question looks insoluble. It's hard to see how this government can stagger on much longer but it's equally hard to see Corbyn's lot being more coherent.

Anyone else noticed how foreign owned companies are now describing themselves as British if they have a manufacturing connection here? Just seen an advert from Vauxhall saying it had been British since 1902...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

Clodhopper;1519283 wrote: Honestly so much is happening I can't keep up. Congrats to the Scots Parliament on its vote.

The Lords are sticking amendments all over brexit legislation coming their way and getting cross party support for doing so. The Irish Border question looks insoluble. It's hard to see how this government can stagger on much longer but it's equally hard to see Corbyn's lot being more coherent.

Anyone else noticed how foreign owned companies are now describing themselves as British if they have a manufacturing connection here? Just seen an advert from Vauxhall saying it had been British since 1902...


I doubt very few people actually believe we have a "british" car industry any more post brexit when they all leave we will still buying the cars anyway as we have no choice in the matter. Thanks to tory refusal to tory insistance that employers should have the ability to make workers redundant when they feel like it the costs of shutting a UK factory are much less then in say france or germany. especially if we have a hard brexit I can't see the car manufacturers remaing after the useful life of their factories comes to an end.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 62561.html

Nissan are part owned by renault and peugeot of course are wholly french. Nissan and toyota only ame to the uk because we bacame members of the eec. If they do close down what are we going to do about it? Buy skoda in protest!

Bit more about what is at stake.

http://www.thenational.scot/news/162382 ... y_at_risk/

Whatever the motives of the brexiteers the best interests of the UK is not an issue only what is good for them.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

For many of the same reasons I think we are all better off in the EU, I think an overarching political Union in these islands is better than separate squabbling states as a general rule. However when political union means being chained to a raving maniac (England at present) then you are better off out - especially if friendly countries are offering a very good deal in comparison. And let's face it, the choice between a multiracial multicultural Europe making progress on the world stage or an insular little bunch of deluded idiots blaming everyone else for the departure of business and industry and being ****ed over by US corporations isn't hard.

Had to laugh at a cartoon in the New European I just noticed: Concerned looking bloke just out of bed in the morning listening to the wireless. The caption is the voice of the radio announcer: "That was Thought for the Day, presented this morning as an anguished scream of despair."
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

There's no reaon for us to squabble after independence - remember it was david cameron that was talking about erecting custons barriers and not letting us use the pound forno good reason but just because. All the brexiteers arguments that the eu will want to trade with us and will make a deal equally apply to the scots leaving the UK. Why would you destroy your trade with scotland. You're going to have to find somewhere else for trident though just think all those jobs moving to portsmouth. Tory promises - that vow - lasted one day. Jeremy corbyn blew it spmewhat when he was up here he seemee unaware that scotland already has it's own legal and education system, it's part of the union settlement.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

chuckle. You know as well as I do that Scotland and England squabbled from the moment of their foundation until Union at least. Arguably they never have stopped, it just became less fatal. And if you leave the UK to join the EU as I think you will, you will have to have some sort of proper Customs border. That opens up smuggling for a start.

Working on plan B for moving to the Borders: rent. Has many plusses and a couple of minuses but not impossible ones. Bit stuck at the moment as any plan needs money and I have none owing to the unbelievable incompetence of Kingston Housing/Jobseekers who have really been messing around a lodger of mine: all paperwork lost between departments, letters never sent (still waiting), 48hr decisions still not happened after near 2 months...it just goes on. But I reckon it's do-able and if we can sort this mess out I'll be making serious efforts. helped by the fact the vibration has got much worse in the last week.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

Not to worry democracy is alive and well in this the best of all possible brexit worlds.

Letters: Sneaking in 13 new peers is an affront to democracy | The National

IT will have passed the vast majority of people by – and dare I say it there was no coincidence in terms of its timing on the eve of the royal wedding – but last Friday the Queen approved the nomination of 13 new peers, including the creation of nine Conservative peers and at least one for the Democratic Unionist Party, in addition to three Labour appointments.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

...tried to reply to this about 3 times so far without success...

Yeh, I'd noted that, and the timing of it. Still, I think it will take more than 10 to change the Lords' voting pattern. The majority against Brexit there is huge.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by FourPart »

I think the last truly British car company to survive the Thatcher years was Reliant.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

FourPart;1519387 wrote: I think the last truly British car company to survive the Thatcher years was Reliant.


That makes sense as a tory "cuts" car why have four wheels when you can save money by only having three, much more efficient.

While on the subject of unionism and in light of the referendum result in Ireland we have at it's bestthe political arm of the protestant paramilitaries

4. Arlene Foster: "Unionism is at its best when it's confident, outward-looking and welcoming. Nationalism is by its nature narrow"


http://www.thenational.scot/news/162403 ... nts-anchor
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by FourPart »

gmc;1519393 wrote: That makes sense as a tory "cuts" car why have four wheels when you can save money by only having three, much more efficient.


Actually, the Kitten & the Scimitar had 4 wheels. Incidentally, it was a Scimitar that Princess Anne was driving when she first got done for speeding.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

FourPart;1519404 wrote: Actually, the Kitten & the Scimitar had 4 wheels. Incidentally, it was a Scimitar that Princess Anne was driving when she first got done for speeding.


I know that but come on who wouldn't have wanted a three wheeled car? The kind of car that says I don't care if people laugh at me, two fingers up to the convention you need four wheels. I once saw one towing a caravan sadly in the days before phone cameras. Seriously thought about buying one under the mistaken impression they would be really cheap but they cost more than conventional cars - goodness knows why. Bring back the cv6 I say.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

My mother got a 3 wheeler when the 4 of us were all Primary age to take us all to school (we lived a bit out of town). One of the van ones with two seats up front and just enough space to fit 3 or 4 smallish kids in the back on the floor. It was like the Trotters' one, now I think of it. Great in theory. The catch was that we lived at the bottom of a hill outside town and the journey in was very steep up one hill, steep down the other side and then very steep up into town and that back door flew open at the slightest touch.



Nobody fell out but the car didn't last long.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

Those were the days, I rember being held on someone's knee in the front seat durinr car journeys something I would consider appalling stupidity nowadays and bench seats that you slid along when the car cornered.

This is what happens if Theresa May says No to indyref2 | The National

This is what happens if Theresa May says No to indyref2


I think she'll say no.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6437
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by FourPart »

Clodhopper;1519411 wrote: My mother got a 3 wheeler when the 4 of us were all Primary age to take us all to school (we lived a bit out of town). One of the van ones with two seats up front and just enough space to fit 3 or 4 smallish kids in the back on the floor. It was like the Trotters' one, now I think of it. Great in theory. The catch was that we lived at the bottom of a hill outside town and the journey in was very steep up one hill, steep down the other side and then very steep up into town and that back door flew open at the slightest touch.



Nobody fell out but the car didn't last long.


That's the same as we had. The Reliant Regal Supervan. It really bugs me when people refer to it as a "Robin Reliant". First of all, the Robin was a Saloon version. Secondly, not many Robins were made. The Rialto was the leading Saloon model. Thirdly, by tradition, cars are name by Make first then categorised by Model. For example - Ford Escort. Robin is not the manufacturer, nor is Reliant the model.

The first 2 'cars' our family had were Reliant Regal Supervans. There were 2 reasons for this. Firstly they WERE cheaper. Secondly they could be driven on a Motorbike Licence, which is all my Father had at the time. When my Brother came along, in 1971 we upgraded to a Triumph Herald. All of these were also long before the days of Inertia Seat Belts.

It is also worthy of note that all the blue Invalid Carriages were also made by Reliant, and you are unlikely to find anyone who had one of these who really loved it & still misses it.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

My dad was a vauxhall fan I think due to driving bedfords in wartime I always remember his vauxhall cresta amd we had avoctor as well. When you see them in museums you appreciate how much better things are nowadays.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

I've found over the years that the brand I love the most and keep coming back to is the Foot Mk1. Got a pair of them and they've never let me down even when I've crocked them quite badly. They've carried me home in situations where due care and attention didn't apply and even when I've made off in all directions. Appreciate good new tyres but have few running costs and even though some of the damage sustained over the years means long distance journeys carrying heavy loads aren't so easy they are still good for a decent number of miles per day. ;)

And while I'm at it: Ukrainian critic of Putin gunned down outside his apartment.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44299741

And this: Julia Skripal's statement:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-4423259 ... pal-speaks
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

Try liviog where there is poor to no public transport and work is usually 10-20 miles away. Used to live in london public tansport is superb. Therer are trains tp glasgow and edinburgh But I am five miles from the nearest station and buses to the industrial estates early morning are few and far between.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

When out of London I lived on site, as it happens. But yeah, agree about public transport outside London. Just I've never liked or been interested in cars which is almost illegal if you are male.

Plot thickens re Ukrainian journalist:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mu ... spartandhp
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

News you won't get in the mainstream media

All Under One Banner in talks to hold Edinburgh march | The National

Dumfries and galloway is the constituency of oliver Mundell, the one and only westminster tory MP in scotland and the scottisg secretary. It's a small town that so many took part speaks volumes.

Victoria Derbyshire puts Cornwall ahead of Scotland in Brexit discussion | The National

Victoria Derbyshire puts Cornwall ahead of Scotland in Brexit discussion


No effence tio cornwall but it is only a small county in england scotland is a country and part of a union with england it generates around 10% of the UK's GDP. If we leave the UK ceases to exist. Scotland on it's own is viable england outwith the eu not so much.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

UK is a ‘drag’ on Scotland’s GDP performance, top economist warns | The National

Skinning writes: “There has been a consistent gap between Scotland’s GDP growth rates and that of other small advanced economies.

“This has led to a steady divergence in Scotland’s per capita income from that of other small advanced economies. Part of Scotland’s recent GDP growth weakness is due to the slowdown in the oil and gas sector (Norway has also suffered).

“Scotland’s relatively deep exposure to the rest of the UK, which has under-performed the rest of Europe by a significant margin over the past few years, is also a drag on performance.”


What you won;t read about in the daily mail is what appears to be a grass roots movement developing foir a second referendum.

New independence fund is the missing cog in our Yes machine | The National

It's no longer just the snp making the running in fact some of the snp players were so disliked people abstained or voted against them. Some people couldn't grasp thatb the vote was for or against independence not for or against the snp.

The SNP has realised it can’t wait any longer as the grassroots part of the movement is self-organising and getting ready to win a referendum in this term of the Scottish parliament


There is also the possibility that the dup support for brexit (NI voted to remain if you recall) not to mention their religious fundamentlaism may lead to suuport for a unified ireland. Religion was the dividing factor now the nsouth is the more liberal state not to mention you can see the benefits eu membership has brought them.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

There was an Orange March due in Fife recently, I saw. What happened with that? I don't recall any Orange activities when I lived in the East Neuk 30 years ago though I suppose it could be called the home of Scottish Presbyterianism. Yes, I think the DUP is hastening the unification of Ireland, though I've no doubt Ian Paisley is telling the truth when he says he has letters from Catholic priests telling him they will be instructing their flocks to vote DUP.



Let's just say that again: Catholic priests instructing their flocks to vote DUP....



Surely that must be chipping away at sectarianism, with the Republic becoming decidedly less priest-ridden.



I'm not sure that “Scotland’s relatively deep exposure to the rest of the UK, which has under-performed the rest of Europe by a significant margin over the past few years, is also a drag on performance,” is very significant though - Scotland is always highly exposed to the English/Welsh economy as a consequence of geography. I gather the Border regions (both sides) have markets which attract across the Border and have done for centuries even in the feuding ages, but it goes much further than that. Membership of the EU as an independent state would counteract that exposure to some extent at least. Maybe a lot. But short of building Salmon's Wall facing south and shutting off the country, that exposure will always be there.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by gmc »

It's not till the 30th of june a saturday - the battle of the boyne was on the 1st july 1690. No doubt they want to go to church on sunday to thank god they are so righteous.

I was born and bred in fife, sectarianism wasn't much of an issue until they built a catholic primary school when I was first introduced to the notion of beating up the papes for no better reason than that they were papes. In my experience most orangemen still think like that although since I was brought up in the free church of scotland I do actually know all the doctrinal reasons for the conflict I just think it's all made up nonsense and have a hard to control dislike for bigots. I've had no time for seperate religious schools ever they are divisive and unnecessary. The orange lodge are pro unionist like their dup and orange counterparts in northern ireland.

We exported it to america you get orange walks in places like boston as well as st patricks day marches

I'm not sure that “Scotland’s relatively deep exposure to the rest of the UK, which has under-performed the rest of Europe by a significant margin over the past few years, is also a drag on performance,” is very significant though - Scotland is always highly exposed to the English/Welsh economy as a consequence of geography. I gather the Border regions (both sides) have markets which attract across the Border and have done for centuries even in the feuding ages, but it goes much further than that. Membership of the EU as an independent state would counteract that exposure to some extent at least. Maybe a lot. But short of building Salmon's Wall facing south and shutting off the country, that exposure will always be there.


Free from the shackles of westminster we would be able to pursue links with the eu not just economically but also in less immediate money spinning areas - much of the research our universities has trans european connections all of which are at risk without free movement of people. in energy as well wind and wave power independence means we can pursue our own strategy as against a westminster governmnt that cuts funding for renewables and wants to have a fracking free for all.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Bruv »

The phrase "Fracking free for all " takes on an almost vulgar meaning in that sentence.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

‘Return to three party politics’

Post by Clodhopper »

I'd say it's more about retaining existing ties when England cuts itself off. I think you'd have to adopt the Euro and there is the subsidy from Westminster you get - none of these things are insurmountable problems, certainly not compared to leaving the EU, and doubly certainly not when compared to leaving on either a far right or a far left agenda which is all there is on offer.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."

Return to “United Kingdom”