Castle Aching

[nick_bastable]

Ghost  train Army and Navy I can only think of this underrated  person

 

Nick

 

 

[Hroth]

6 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

 

OI!!! You lot haven't been speculating again have you?

 

 

 

 

 

Next!

 

(Darth Boris reshuffles his Cabinet...)

 

[Nearholmer]

The A&N degenerated not to become army surplus stores, although some have confusingly similar names, but a fleet of department stores in the SE of England. Their main branch, the one from which the empire was outfitted, was in Victoria (our office was partly over the top of it, hence raincoat purchase), and is still there, but it was redeveloped in the early seventies, then was given a top to toe refurb, and re-branded House of Fraser about ten years ago. HoF is now struggling, of course!

Edited September 25, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Northroader]

8 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

 

In "Secret Water" by Arthur Ransome, its mentioned that Captain Walker ordered supplies from the A&N for the childrens adventure.

 

 

I wondered why a/b  titty was pulling a colt 45 out when the eel tribe were around.

[Edwardian]

What the papers say ...

 

The Outer Rim Grauniad:

 

 

 

The Darthy Mail:

 

[Nearholmer]

So far, so entirely predictable then.

 

(I can’t find a ‘world weary’ emoticon, so please imagine one)

[Hroth]

22 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

So far, so entirely predictable then.

 

(I can’t find a ‘world weary’ emoticon, so please imagine one)

 

How about or yeah, there really aren't any suitable ones....

 

Update on A&N catalogue.  My other one is a reprint of the 39-40 one.  The amount of firearms available is much reduced but you could still get a Lee-Enfield priced at £9/5/-.  Cartridges (solid only) 25/6 per 100.  A firearms certificate was now required.

 

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

I wondered why a/b  titty was pulling a colt 45 out when the eel tribe were around.

 

A bit big for Titty, but the Webley&Scott .25 cal miniature automatic pistol at 45/- might have been more appropriate!

 

 

Back to railways, there's also a page of "model railways", Trix TTR (HO I assume) and Hornby O gauge tinplate in clockwork, 6v and 20v electric.  The Hornby "Princess Elizabeth" is listed at £5/5/-.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Hroth
approximating to "on topic"...

[Nearholmer]

Prompting the most downbeat advertising strap line of all time: Driver Clarke says “It’s fine.”

 

What he meant was : it’s fine for them ‘as can afford it!”.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

All right let's get back to ditches, which considering the latest events in the Mother Country (only joking just being a rude colonial) is strangely appropriate - look what I found in a local ditch 

 

 

[CKPR]

10 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

 

OI!!! You lot haven't been speculating again have you?

 

 

 

 

 

[Hroth]

14 minutes ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

All right let's get back to ditches, which considering the latest events in the Mother Country (only joking just being a rude colonial) is strangely appropriate - look what I found in a local ditch 

 

 

 

That poor girl just keeps falling into 'em!

 

[Edwardian]

Recently I've been put in mind of the Church & King mobs of the Eighteenth Century, whipped up to crack down on religious dissenters and the politically progressive.  This was a way of manipulating people's worst fears and worst instincts in order to neutralise political or denominational opponents by unlawful, indeed violent, means; e.g. the Priestley Riots.  A failure to condemn by those in authority was clearly a vindication of the rioters and an encouragement of such methods. When rioters burnt down the house of scientist and dissenter Joseph Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen IIRC, King George III remarked "I cannot but feel better pleased that Priestley is the sufferer for the doctrines he and his party have instilled, and that the people see them in their true light." Note the familiar evocation of "the people". Of course, we don't need a physical mob these days; we have the tabloid press and social media, which can be fed by "toxic" remarks from people in positions of responsibility who really ought to know better.  

 

 

Arguably, acquiescence in, or encouragement of, attacks on an institution of the State that in essence exists to  protect our rights would be an even more dangerous and egregious example of populist manipulation of "the people".  This  explains the severity of the Aftermath of a more recent example of rabble-rousing, and, in turn, no doubt explains the relatively restrained headlines of certain organs today.  However, the subversive narrative has not abated, hence the view expressed recently by a senior member of a government that a recent exercise of  judicial independence was a "coup".  That is, of course both an untruthful and egregious statement, but also, in my view, a most dangerous one.  If "the people" listen to such inflammatory clap-trap in sufficient numbers, they'll vote their own freedoms away ....

 

 

 

[webbcompound]

Re bullets, and skipping the starwars sidetrack: without the stopping power you could well end up in the famous situation:

The sand of the desert is sodden red, --
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; --
The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by webbcompound

[Donw]

What we now need is to remind MPs their soveriegnty comes from the people.  In particular in this country we elect a person not a party however the public feel it is reasonable that their MP supports the published manifesto of a party if they stand on that banner. Many feel cheated if their elected politician switches to another party mid term with them having no say in the matter. 

 

Don

[Edwardian]

4 minutes ago, Donw said:

What we now need is to remind MPs their soveriegnty comes from the people.  In particular in this country we elect a person not a party however the public feel it is reasonable that their MP supports the published manifesto of a party if they stand on that banner. Many feel cheated if their elected politician switches to another party mid term with them having no say in the matter. 

 

Don

 

Let's try to unpick this in, I hope, a politically neutral way.

 

If one cleaves to the view that this country should remain a representative democracy, one could do no better than recall the words of Edmund Burke, who explained that a MP was a representative, not a delegate, and free to reach his own views.  He also remarked that an honest man changed his opinions, not his principles. The invalid prorogation attempt and the undermining of the independent judiciary are unprincipled, as they lack legal and constitutional propriety. 

 

The issue of MPs not adhering to the party they stood for at an election or to their party's manifesto is undoubtedly problematic, however, it is distinct from the matter that the Supreme Court was asked to consider last week.  It is problematic because it means they are not "as advertised" when they asked for their constituents' support.  I entirely understand why this is unsatisfactory.  It has happened to an unprecedented extent in these unusual circumstances, which, it has been argued, have evolved in ways that make continued adherence to a particular party line unacceptable to some Parliamentarians.  It is but one symptom of the inability of the two main parties to align with the divisions in the population.  In that sense, the phrase "politics is broken" is quite true.  There is, however, a prescribed remedy for this situation, a General Election. If such an election fails to break the impasse, that will again be reflective of the two main parties' inability to adapt. 

 

Unfortunately an election presents legal difficulties in the present circumstances.  As I understand it, the fixed term parliament legislation means that the support of the House is required in order to hold an election at this time.  All parties seem willing to submit to this remedy, though the question of timing is very much a matter of political difference. As this issue is properly within the province of Parliament, there would seem to be no legal or constitutional impropriety in Parliamentarians battling this one out.  In the meantime this may be frustrating to many members of the electorate, and I imagine that they will soon be offered, and take, an opportunity to express such frustrations through the ballet box.

 

While a Government needs to try to to govern and to break the current impasse, and I think deserves some sympathy for wanting to pursue its agenda, particularly in the absence of any consensus for an alternative, this Government has gone about this in a way that is both apparently dishonest (dishonest concerning the focus on a no deal; dishonest in claims about having proposals for Europe and the progress (or even existence ) of negotiations, dishonest concerning its reasons for trying to prorogue) and that tears great chunks out of our constitution (not least, and rather ironically, the sovereignty of Parliament, the neutrality of the Head of State, and the independence of the judiciary).   

 

We were already aware of a level of single-mindedness that would happily contemplate severe and lasting economic damage and the end of the United Kingdom in order to be successful on the issue of our relationship with Europe. What has shocked people both in and outside Parliament is to see this single-mindedness extend to doing violence to our constitution in ways that could have opened the way to significant abuse by politicians of any hue in the future and we should be nothing but relieved and grateful that our constitution is subtle enough, and our judges independent enough, to have stopped it.  

[teaky]

An excellent summary.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

What we now need is to remind MPs their soveriegnty comes from the people.  In particular in this country we elect a person not a party however the public feel it is reasonable that their MP supports the published manifesto of a party if they stand on that banner. Many feel cheated if their elected politician switches to another party mid term with them having no say in the matter. 

 

Don

 And speaking of sovereignty and the people,

"Oi!!!, Just because you pair of so-called betters claim to have a plan it doesn't meant that we lesser souls won't still have to work to pay taxes to keep you in the style to which you have become accustomed" 

 

 

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

The issue of MPs not adhering to the party they stood for at an election or to their party's manifesto is undoubtedly problematic, however, it is distinct from the matter that the Supreme Court was asked to consider last week.  It is problematic because it means they are not "as advertised" when they asked for their constituents' support.  I entirely understand why this is unsatisfactory.  It has happened to an unprecedented extent in these unusual circumstances, which, it has been argued, have evolved in ways that make continued adherence to a particular party line unacceptable to some Parliamentarians.  It is but one symptom of the inability of the two main parties to align with the divisions in the population.  In that sense, the phrase "politics is broken" is quite true.  There is, however, a prescribed remedy for this situation, a General Election.

Surely, if an MP feels that they wish to cross the House, then it would be more honourable of them to resign their seat and force a by-election?

They could always stand as an independent...

[TheQ]

5 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Surely, if an MP feels that they wish to cross the House, then it would be more honourable of them to resign their seat and force a by-election?

They could always stand as an independent...

Whilst some have in the past, most are more interested in the money at our expence..

Edited September 25, 2019 by TheQ

[Edwardian]

6 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Surely, if an MP feels that they wish to cross the House, then it would be more honourable of them to resign their seat and force a by-election?

They could always stand as an independent...

I think that is an entirely reasonable point of view. That said, judging from interviews given by some of them, they might argue that in these unusual circumstances it is their party that has changed its position from the one it occupied while they were elected. For instance, the MP might have accepted that the 2016 Referendum result meant that we should leave the EU, yet  he or she might feel unable to support a Government that he or she feels has changed its position from this general commitment to a narrower one, e.g. one to leave with no deal.

 

Again, this seems to be symptomatic of the difficulties both main parties face.  They are divided, as the population is, on the issue of the day and, in order to adopt a definite position on the issue, they must necessarily abandon their 'broad church' nature, alienating and making them unrepresentative of the voters, party members and MPs whose views have not prevailed within the party.  For the Conservatives this, of course, is the "do or die" position of the ERG and for Labour it is to reject unconditional commitments to either a second referendum or to remain in favour of Mr Corbyn's "nuanced" position.

 

In other words, there is a feeling that "it is not me who left the party, but the party that left me".  However, this is still somewhat problematic, as it means rejecting the democratic process within each party that lead to the leader and the line he takes.  So, faced with this, is the honourable thing to choose a different party, one that maintains some of the values you feel your erstwhile party has abandoned, or is it more honourable to stay in your party, but as a rebel, fighting for its soul (assuming you do not have the whip removed for your pains)?   In either case, do you need to resign without waiting for a general election?  What if your view is that you still represent the same constituents based upon substantially the same stance you campaigned on when last elected?

 

While I feel that the Q is far too young to be so cynical, the justifications given by MPs can sometimes come across as self-serving rationalisations!  Nevertheless, these strike me as difficult and painful matters of individual conscience in most cases, and I do not think I would want to judge them too harshly or assume ignoble motives. 

 

The root of this is the vexed question of a mandate.  How many MPs still have a mandate on the basis of what a majority of their constituents think? Does the PM have a sufficient mandate for his policies based on the mandate of party members, but not Parliament or even enough of his own MPs/ex-MPs? What was 2016 a mandate for, particularly was it a mandate for any particular form of B-it, or for B-it without a deal or at any cost? 

 

These are not easy questions to answer, I find.

 

 

[nick_bastable]

48 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Surely, if an MP feels that they wish to cross the House, then it would be more honourable of them to resign their seat and force a by-election?

They could always stand as an independent...

I seem to recall that the darling of  many W  Churchill crossed the house 

 

Nick

[runs as required]

36 minutes ago, nick_bastable said:

I seem to recall that the darling of  many W  Churchill crossed the house 

Nick

Twice

[Nearholmer]

Isn’t there a danger that going beyond mocking/cynical-head-shaking/posting pictures of ditches might cause a split in The Parish Council?

 

Most of the time, I try to remember that, whatever I might think about this topic:

 

- roughly half of the population disagree with my core decision; and,

 

- the roughly half that does agree with my core decision is divided among itself into multiple subsets, each holding a different view about how we got here, and/or what we should do next.

 

And, I venture to suggest that every single one of us is in that position.

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

The root of this is the vexed question of a mandate.  How many MPs still have a mandate on the basis of what a majority of their constituents think? Does the PM have a sufficient mandate for his policies based on the mandate of party members, but not Parliament or even enough of his own MPs/ex-MPs? What was 2016 a mandate for, particularly was it a mandate for any particular form of B-it, or for B-it without a deal or at any cost? 

 

And I think that is the nub of the conundrum.

 

When we come to a General Election the electorate is allowed to have a new opinion compared to that of the previous election.  Yet with this ineffable Referendum we're expected to regard the result as immutable despite the fact that it took place three years ago, and that the promises that Leave promoted have become largely unattainable.  However, this result is apparently more sacrosanct than a general election "mandate" and we are not to be allowed the opportunity to think again without the Collapsing Hrung of a no-deal exit on the 31st October being removed from the reckoning.

 

How/if we get out of this mess is anyones guess. 

(I've got a preference for how things should go, but thats purely political and not suited for discussion here!)

[Edwardian]

DonW, I won't give a long answer, as we will get into political territory that way, but you must be right in identifying voter alienation as underlying the situation and the last 3 years will only have deepened that.  To the extent that voters perceive a "no deal" to be a "clean break", I fear that they will be proved incorrect, as years of tortuous negotiations will then ensue in order to determine the relationship we will have with the EU. B-IT is the Ring Cycle and we're still listening to Das Rheingold.   

 

Nearholmer, indeed, and it is hard to restrict this to a mere constitutional issue when each side suspects the other of such bad faith. While anyone who still needs a say must feel free - if I post something, others have to be able to react to it should they wish - we should perhaps start steering our course gently back toward railways, as we are all members of the Honest & Decent Party here.