A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
Sure, but I don't think whether a place becomes a city or not should be in any way based on the death of a campaigner. They should use more objective criteria.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:04 pm If by “used”, you mean “would make a fitting tribute for a campaign he worked tirelessly on”, then yes.
They certainly won't get any tax breaks or extra powers or a pretty new square.
Prof John Beckett, who has written a book on the subject, says it has always been a "status thing".
"There never has been any privileges. It's always been a status thing, nothing more. There's nothing to stop places declaring themselves a city - Dunfermline did it."
He says the whole system "makes no sense" and it just "gives a bit of patronage to government".
But Dr Steve Musson, from the University of Reading, has been researching the economic impact of city status on the UK's eight newest cities. Preston, Newport, Stirling, Lisburn and Newry were made cities in 2002, while Brighton & Hove, Wolverhampton and Inverness gained the status in 2000.
Although the whole of the UK was enjoying an economic boom, the new cities, with the exception of Wolverhampton, outperformed their regional counterparts in terms of increasing investment and reducing unemployment.
"The other advantages, less easy to quantify, are the international exposure and the buzz created. There is an element of pride about becoming a city."
I guess we should be grateful his anti gay marriage and anti abortion beliefs were not consideredGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:44 pmSure, but I don't think whether a place becomes a city or not should be in any way based on the death of a campaigner. They should use more objective criteria.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:04 pm If by “used”, you mean “would make a fitting tribute for a campaign he worked tirelessly on”, then yes.
That said, I think the whole idea of city status is bit weird anyway. Presumably there are (financial?) benefits to getting city status (or they wouldn't be that bothered)? If so, I don't think it's right that there should be, just based on winning some competition to become a city. It's not as if a place winning city status suddenly has a greater need or becomes more deserving of any benefits.
Edit - I found this. To quote some of it:
They certainly won't get any tax breaks or extra powers or a pretty new square.
Prof John Beckett, who has written a book on the subject, says it has always been a "status thing".
"There never has been any privileges. It's always been a status thing, nothing more. There's nothing to stop places declaring themselves a city - Dunfermline did it."
He says the whole system "makes no sense" and it just "gives a bit of patronage to government".
But Dr Steve Musson, from the University of Reading, has been researching the economic impact of city status on the UK's eight newest cities. Preston, Newport, Stirling, Lisburn and Newry were made cities in 2002, while Brighton & Hove, Wolverhampton and Inverness gained the status in 2000.
Although the whole of the UK was enjoying an economic boom, the new cities, with the exception of Wolverhampton, outperformed their regional counterparts in terms of increasing investment and reducing unemployment.
"The other advantages, less easy to quantify, are the international exposure and the buzz created. There is an element of pride about becoming a city."
He probably hacked my WhatsApp. I called it within about half an hour of hearing that he'd died. Not that I'm boasting. It's a bit of a niche boast - calling that Southend is going to be made a city after some guy died.
It's because if someone posted here every time Boris and his cronies messed up then the forum would probably crash from overactivity.Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 9:16 am Always amazes me what inspires people to post in here compared to what doesn't. Sewage being dumped in rivers? Johnson's a-historical diatribe about the fall of Rome which practically mirrors white supremacist talking points? Nothing.
But someone pointing out that Robert Peston, who no-one likes, says something stupid. That warrants comment?
I'm no fan of Starmer, but I think as with his predecessors, there is a big danger of people just assigning a sterotype to him and it sticking, and then the Tories win the next general election. With Starmer, it mainly seems to be that he's boring, and also there's the whole "But what does he stand for?" I was watching Frankie Boyle's New World Order the other day, and Boyle really ripped into him about being borng. I like Frankie Boyle on the whole, but here he was just being unoriginal. Is he really any more boring than your average politician? It seems to me that Boyle's just (unwittingly?) bought into the right wing media's sterotype of him. This kind of crap is why the Tories win elections.Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:28 am In fairness, current Labour probably would be as bad. Starmer being a useless gombeen should probably get a bit mention here too.
I think it's self-fulfilling propecy to an extent.Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:55 pm I watched Frankie too, but I agreed with him. Labour have zero chance of getting elected with him at the helm.
Until he does something like eat a bacon sandwich while pulling a weird face.Would love to see Andy Burnham get the gig
I totally see your point. But when you've got the same people wheeling out the predictable stereotypes for both Corbyn and Starmer, it gets a bit tired.Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:27 pm Labour (certainly the right wing faction) can't win elections simply on not being as bad as the tories in the same way centre right democrats can win by not being as bad as the republicans in the states (and even at that they needed Trump to be perceived as uniquely bad).
But that's not Starmer's concern anyway. His agenda isn't to win it's to purge the left from the party. It was that ring wing faction of Labour that torpedoed Corbyn more than anything. I agree we shouldn't criticise him for being boring. There's far worse things than that he can be criticised for.
The MP in question has just resignedGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:03 pm Starmer is calling Boris Johnson corrupt. Why isn't he calling for his resignation? He needs to push this hard!
Yeah, nice way out for the government. This whole episode reflects so badly on them, in particular the man at the helm. This might take the heat off but it changes nothing about what people should think. They've shown their colours often enough and this is just another example.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 3:36 pmThe MP in question has just resignedGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:03 pm Starmer is calling Boris Johnson corrupt. Why isn't he calling for his resignation? He needs to push this hard!
I very much doubt that Frankie Boyle has bought into right wing stereotypes of politicians given he is one of the most left wing people in the country. By his own admission, he is more left wing than Noam Chomsky. His political views are far more likely to be similar to that of Mark James.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:20 amI'm no fan of Starmer, but I think as with his predecessors, there is a big danger of people just assigning a sterotype to him and it sticking, and then the Tories win the next general election. With Starmer, it mainly seems to be that he's boring, and also there's the whole "But what does he stand for?" I was watching Frankie Boyle's New World Order the other day, and Boyle really ripped into him about being borng. I like Frankie Boyle on the whole, but here he was just being unoriginal. Is he really any more boring than your average politician? It seems to me that Boyle's just (unwittingly?) bought into the right wing media's sterotype of him. This kind of crap is why the Tories win elections.Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:28 am In fairness, current Labour probably would be as bad. Starmer being a useless gombeen should probably get a bit mention here too.
There's far more to rip into about Boris Johnson, or indeed proabably any Tory leader ever, but unlike the left, the right are more likely to suck it up on the basis that they have a better chance of winning an election.
Please forgive me if I've misunderstood you but I think the final sentence of your above comment answers the questions you pose earlier in the same comment. If you were to remodel your statement to be from the perspective of a more centrist or centre-left Labour perspective it could read:Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:41 am Why are the left expected to hold their nose and vote for centre, if not centre right, candidates just to beat tories or republicans. Shouldn't the likes of James O'Brien have be saying "I don't like Corbyn but we must vote Labour to defeat the Conservatives" instead of saying he would be voting lib dem. Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us nowhere. The current Labour Party needs to be humiliated at the next election.
It's not about being expected to vote for people, although with our terrible voting system, there are arguments for going against your favourite.Martin Long wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 12:01 pm I don't think people should be expected to vote for anyone and should vote for the party that matches their views the closest. I guess the only reason why you wouldn't do this is if you had a local candidate whose views didn't match yours but did a lot in your local area.
The point is the centrists are not expected to vote for the far left (or even centre left). Corbyn is hardly far left for one but it was fine for James O'Brien to say he would vote for lib dems ahead of Corbyn's Labour without being accused of handing the election to the tories in the same way progressives would get blamed if they say they are not going to vote for Starmer's Labour.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:51 amPlease forgive me if I've misunderstood you but I think the final sentence of your above comment answers the questions you pose earlier in the same comment. If you were to remodel your statement to be from the perspective of a more centrist or centre-left Labour perspective it could read:Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:41 am Why are the left expected to hold their nose and vote for centre, if not centre right, candidates just to beat tories or republicans. Shouldn't the likes of James O'Brien have be saying "I don't like Corbyn but we must vote Labour to defeat the Conservatives" instead of saying he would be voting lib dem. Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us nowhere. The current Labour Party needs to be humiliated at the next election.
"Why are the centre(-left) expected to hold their nose and vote for left, if not far left, candidates just to beat tories or republicans. Why should the likes of James O'Brien have be saying "I don't like Corbyn but we must vote Labour to defeat the Conservatives" instead of saying he would be voting lib dem. Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us nowhere. The current Labour Party needs to be humiliated at the next election."
Again, this argument never seemed to be made when Corbyn was leader. The best way of preventing Johnson gaining power was to vote for Corbyn's Labour in 2017 or 2019. People with a voice like James O'Brien or Russel Howard were using their voice to sabotage Corbyn as well as him having people in his own party actively working against him. Maybe you could make the argument that it was weak leadership from Corbyn to not expel those people and I could agree but this is why we need to move away from civility politics and lesser evilism and start calling these people out and holding them accountable. The likes of James O'Brien voting for lib dems ahead of Corbyn is just as responsible for Johnson gaining power as anyone.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 1:53 pmIt's not about being expected to vote for people, although with our terrible voting system, there are arguments for going against your favourite.Martin Long wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 12:01 pm I don't think people should be expected to vote for anyone and should vote for the party that matches their views the closest. I guess the only reason why you wouldn't do this is if you had a local candidate whose views didn't match yours but did a lot in your local area.
But it's more about people with a voice actively sabotaging their most realistic way of getting rid of Boris Johnson. And it's just more annoying when it's with lazy stereotypes. And claiming to be more left than Chomsky doesn't absolve Boyle from this. If he has real problems with Starmer it would be more reasonable of course - I don't actually think he should escape all criticism from the left just in case the Tories get in again.
And while people on the left and those nearer the "centre" bicker about Corbyn/Starmer etc., the Tories all stick together and win every time.
I'll pass on another Tony Blair, thanks.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 5:44 pm Labour needs a new Messiah someone appealing to all.
Tony Blair Mark 2
This is why I am against electoral pacts and always have been. Not only is it the politics of hate, voting explicitly against someone rather than voting for what you believe in (G Johnson, 2016), but it also relies on the postulate that you will vote for the party/candidate that “they” want you to vote for.Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:41 am Why are the left expected to hold their nose and vote for […] candidates just to beat tories or republicans.
That was pathetic. You right-wingers evidently set the bar very low for "comedy".Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 10:07 amTom Harwood’s hilarious vox pops of climate change loonies: https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/14576 ... 58595?s=21
You watch GB news.
I don't. I follow them on Twitter. As I do with almost every newspaper and broadcast media.
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:15 pmI don't. I follow them on Twitter. As I do with almost every newspaper and broadcast media.
I count having things on in the background and consuming their output as watching them.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:44 am Meanwhile my "working from home" schedule has turned into filtering data with GB News on in the background.
I don’t count having a news channel on in the background as “watching” it.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:23 amI count having things on in the background and consuming their output as watching them.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑
Meanwhile my "working from home" schedule has turned into filtering data with GB News on in the background.
So if Gavin only had Question Time on in the background but was still able to absorb the content you wouldn’t have questioned him about "watching that rubbish"?Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:06 pmI don’t count having a news channel on in the background as “watching” it.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:23 amI count having things on in the background and consuming their output as watching them.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑
Meanwhile my "working from home" schedule has turned into filtering data with GB News on in the background.
Come on Rhys, I've seen some daft arguments in this thread but this is a contender for the daftest of them all. You consciously chose to have it on in the background, so you must have at least been somewhat interested in it - you could have chosen a whole plethora of other channels but chose that specific one each day. It's not like you switch the television on and it forces you to have that channel, you have to choose to put it on. Nobody's claiming you're the most ardent fan of it, but for all intents and purposes you are watching it (at the very least, you're a viewer of it if you really insist on silly technical arguments).Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:06 pmI don’t count having a news channel on in the background as “watching” it.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:23 amI count having things on in the background and consuming their output as watching them.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑
Meanwhile my "working from home" schedule has turned into filtering data with GB News on in the background.
Picture the scene...Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:06 pmI don’t count having a news channel on in the background as “watching” it.Mark James wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:23 amI count having things on in the background and consuming their output as watching them.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑
Meanwhile my "working from home" schedule has turned into filtering data with GB News on in the background.
I usually have music on. In the office, the Comms staff always have news on, but where there's a telly elsewhere (rarely), they were only usually on for FMQs or major relevant debates in the Parliament.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:15 pm Am... I the only person who has the news on in the background when working from home? I've worked in offices with BBC One / BBC News / Sky News on...?
Ah. So it is just me.Ian Volante wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:21 pmI usually have music on. In the office, the Comms staff always have news on, but where there's a telly elsewhere (rarely), they were only usually on for FMQs or major relevant debates in the Parliament.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:15 pm Am... I the only person who has the news on in the background when working from home? I've worked in offices with BBC One / BBC News / Sky News on...?
My badGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:52 pm People need to sort their quotes out. This outrage is not manufactured.
I don't like this at all. It panders to the populist string-em-up mentality, and this is exactly what the justice system should be moving away from. I'm much more for rehabilitation and reintegration into society where possible. I also don't think some lives are worth more than others, so it shouldn't matter if someone is an emergency service worker. And I think actions and intent are more important than consequences, which can often be a matter of (bad) luck.A campaign by PC Andrew Harper's widow to give mandatory life sentences to the killers of emergency service workers has been backed by the government.
Totally agree. Painfully on-brand though for the current Govt, of course.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 12:55 pm From the BBC
I don't like this at all... It panders to the populist string-em-up mentality... I also don't think some lives are worth more than others.A campaign by PC Andrew Harper's widow to give mandatory life sentences to the killers of emergency service workers has been backed by the government.