|
|
Post by tonyhill on Apr 15, 2020 18:25:37 GMT
Just to show that I can be as nit-picking as johnloony can I point out that Simon Hannah's book on the Fight to Stop the Poll Tax, published this year, is called "Can't Pay, Won't Pay". In addition, Russell Deacon's book "Devolution in the United Kingdom" talking about Scotland on p.65 says "This became clear when opposition parties and pressure groups organised a 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' campaign..."
Somewhere I've still got my summons for refusing to pay the poll tax!
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135 
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 15, 2020 20:47:11 GMT
East Lothian: it says that Kenny MacAskill (SNP) "led the 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' campaign to oppose the poll tax during the 1980s". It was of course a "Can Pay, Won't Pay" campaign. Was it not a campaign to oppose the Community Charge, rather than a non-existent tax? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 16, 2020 23:44:12 GMT
Just to show that I can be as nit-picking as johnloony can I point out that Simon Hannah's book on the Fight to Stop the Poll Tax, published this year, is called "Can't Pay, Won't Pay". In addition, Russell Deacon's book "Devolution in the United Kingdom" talking about Scotland on p.65 says "This became clear when opposition parties and pressure groups organised a 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' campaign..." Somewhere I've still got my summons for refusing to pay the poll tax! I also distinctly remember that lots of people, including lots of journalists, referred to it as a "Can't Pay, Won't Pay" campaign, even AT THE TIME it was happening, DESPITE the fact that the campaign was actually a "Can Pay, Won't Pay" campaign. The reason they did so is because they were not paying attention, and/or they completely missed the point of the SNP's campaign, and/or they deliberately misrepresented it. But the point is that anybody who did so, did so INCORRECTLY. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 16, 2020 23:46:26 GMT
East Lothian: it says that Kenny MacAskill (SNP) "led the 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' campaign to oppose the poll tax during the 1980s". It was of course a "Can Pay, Won't Pay" campaign. Was it not a campaign to oppose the Community Charge, rather than a non-existent tax? The Community Charge *was* a poll tax. The term "poll tax" is a generic term which refers to a type of taxation, of which the Community Charge was a stereotypical example. It was always planned as a poll tax, and was referred to as such through all of the early planning and consultation stages. It was only relatively late in the process that they changed the name and started calling it a "community charge". |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Apr 17, 2020 17:55:13 GMT
Just so that we don't continue trying people's patience about this John, why are you so certain you are CORRECT in your assertions? If you were a member of the SNP campaign committee at the time, or have some sort of equivalent status in the matter then I'll leave it. Otherwise, I might just email Kenny MacAskill and see what he says.
|
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,905
|
Post by spqr on Apr 17, 2020 18:17:10 GMT
Just so that we don't continue trying people's patience about this John, why are you so certain you are CORRECT in your assertions? If you were a member of the SNP campaign committee at the time, or have some sort of equivalent status in the matter then I'll leave it. Otherwise, I might just email Kenny MacAskill and see what he says. johnloony believes he is correct because he is johnloony. You're right to point out that 'Can't Pay, Won't Pay' was an alternative slogan, but it was the Anti-Poll Tax Unions in Scotland that mostly seem to have used it; the SNP's campaign - which employed MacAskill as its "official spokesman" - used 'Can Pay, Won't Pay' instead, presumably as a way of differentiating themselves from everyone else. This, of course, left scope for confusion, and sometimes the SNP alluded to both slogans in its literature, as demonstrated by this leaflet (which features the 'Can Pay...' slogan in the penultimate paragraph but is headlined with the phrase "Some People Can't Pay"). A good, if brief, description of the different poll tax campaigns can be found in David McCrone, 'Excessive and Unreasonable: The Politics of the Poll Tax in Scotland', International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 15:3 (September 1991), pp. 443-52. ( Link) |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Apr 17, 2020 21:18:10 GMT
Thanks for that spqr - on the basis of that erudite contribution I will concede johnloony's point that there is a mistake in "The Times Guide to the House of Commons 2019" in respect of Kenny MacAskill's biography.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,580
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Apr 17, 2020 21:23:44 GMT
I think the Times guide has Jim Shannon MP DOB incorrect. It has 21/04/64 and it should be 1955
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Apr 18, 2020 20:04:17 GMT
Was it not a campaign to oppose the Community Charge, rather than a non-existent tax? The Community Charge *was* a poll tax. The term "poll tax" is a generic term which refers to a type of taxation, of which the Community Charge was a stereotypical example. It was always planned as a poll tax, and was referred to as such through all of the early planning and consultation stages. It was only relatively late in the process that they changed the name and started calling it a "community charge". Yes, you're right, it meets the definition of a poll tax. It is unfortunate that it has come to be known as the Poll Tax (complete with upper case initial letters). I was not familiar with the sequence of events in terms of the name it was formally given, so thanks for that. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 29, 2020 23:32:18 GMT
I have just noticed that the TGTTHOC of 1992 gives the date of birth of the Labour candidate Mary Walker (Croydon North East) as 1st July 1947. Actually she was born in 1940.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 1, 2020 19:41:53 GMT
Not sure that guide has ever had declined to disclose before. It hasn't drawn attention to them. For the record the five are: Felicity Christiana BUCHAN (Kensington) B. 1970, Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire Kate Elizabeth GRIFFITHS (Burton), maiden surname KNIVETON, B. Q1 1971, Burton, Staffordshire Neil Peter Hammerton HUDSON (Penrith and The Border), B. Q1 1969, Islington Holly MUMBY-CROFT (Scunthorpe), B. July 1983 Katharine Helen BROOKS-OSBORNE (Jarrow), maiden surname OSBORNE, B. Q3 1966, Folkestone, Kent Finally got to check Dod's Parliamentary Companion today, only to find that none of these five have supplied dates of birth to it. Neither have Baronesses Penn and Sanderson of Welton, whose full dates of birth are not publicly available elsewhere. Unless someone's got access to Debretts online. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Oct 1, 2020 19:50:58 GMT
Does it say Felicity Buchan’s middle name is Christian?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 1, 2020 19:59:31 GMT
Should be Christiana.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 1, 2020 20:05:00 GMT
More on topic, there was a second correction note in The Times Corrections and Clarifications column on 14 September.
"The entry in The Times Guide to the House of Commons 2019 for Gareth Davies, MP for Grantham and Stamford, inadvertently incorporated some biographical details for a senior civil servant of the same name who has held posts in the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and in Downing Street. The entry should have said that Gareth Davies MP has served on the Conservative Party’s national economic policy task force and on a government task force for HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office. In 2014 he helped to establish a £100 million fund that invests in UK infrastructure, universities, charities and housing authorities. We apologise to both men for the confusion."
I was unable to post it at the time as I was indisposed due to recent events, which are working their way towards a resolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jan 22, 2022 11:58:36 GMT
If anyone needs it there's a second hand copy of the 2015 edition for £5.49 here. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 8, 2024 15:28:17 GMT
(Transplanted from a different thread) The last time I bought a Times Guide was in 2005. I was deeply unimpressed with the editorial quality of it. The pen portraits of the constituencies were so short as to be worthless (and yet still contrived to contain inaccuracies). To make room for these they had removed the biographies of the losing candidates which I had valued in previous editions. But the reason I have not bought one since is that the book physically disintegrated within a year. In contrast my 1983 edition (and 1992 one) is still in good condition. I may break a long habit and buy* this one though as I am dismally ignorant about so many MPs these days, having previously had the kind of anorakical knowledge that Barnaby still boasts of. *rather I shall endeavor to have it bought for me as a Christmas present I liked the 1983 version for obvious reasons although it was lacking the 1979 notionals. So I pencilled them all in myself. 1987 was probably the model format because it included all the changes from 1983 as well as all the information regarding candidates including unsuccessful ones. My 1992 version is intact except for the front and back cover but didn’t include notionals for the new Milton Keynes constituencies. My 1997 version disintegrated within a couple of years; I think there must have been a design flaw with it. 2005 was likewise the last copy I bought. Someone bought me the 2010 version as a gift but I’ve never bothered with it since then. The price went up to extortionate levels and the quality went down. I own copies of all the TGTTHOC since 1987. I ordered a copy of the 2024 one today, so I should be able to go and collect it from the bookshop on Tuesday. The paper outer cover of the 1987 one has badly disintegrated and has been patched up with sellotape several times, but all of the others are structurally intact. I notice there is a slight weakness in the binding of a few pages in the 1997 one, but otherwise I have had no problems with any of them falling apart or otherwise disintegrating in any way. Maybe it just means that I haven't been anorakily poring through the pages of every one of them as much as other people have (!). The 2015 one is odd because it is physically thicker, lighter (less dense) and has more pulpy paper quality, but the ones subsequent to 2015 have reverted to the usual glossy quality. I didn't discover the TGTTHOC until I got the 1987 one, and I have always regretted not having the 1983 one even though I followed the 1983 election as an enthusiastic 14-year-old. Maybe one day I will get round to finding a second-hand copy. The other election results books which I have are a full set of F.W.S. Craig's volumes from 1832 to 1979 - they were given to me in lieu of payment when I went to give a talk about electoral systems to a class of sixth-formers (my old friend from university was the history/ politics teacher) and they happened to have a whole cupboard full of copies. The very first elections result book was a paperback copy of a small F.W.S. Craig volume covering the 1974 elections and the by-elections up to 1977. It was given to me as a Christmas present when I was c.14, and (among other things) I was fascinated by the multiple party names and factions in Northern Irelend. This is the only book which *has* disintegrated - all the pages exist but the binding has completely disintegrated and it's essentially not much more than a pile of loose leaves of paper. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 8, 2024 15:56:27 GMT
(Transplanted from a different thread) I liked the 1983 version for obvious reasons although it was lacking the 1979 notionals. So I pencilled them all in myself. 1987 was probably the model format because it included all the changes from 1983 as well as all the information regarding candidates including unsuccessful ones. My 1992 version is intact except for the front and back cover but didn’t include notionals for the new Milton Keynes constituencies. My 1997 version disintegrated within a couple of years; I think there must have been a design flaw with it. 2005 was likewise the last copy I bought. Someone bought me the 2010 version as a gift but I’ve never bothered with it since then. The price went up to extortionate levels and the quality went down. I own copies of all the TGTTHOC since 1987. I ordered a copy of the 2024 one today, so I should be able to go and collect it from the bookshop on Tuesday. The paper outer cover of the 1987 one has badly disintegrated and has been patched up with sellotape several times, but all of the others are structurally intact. I notice there is a slight weakness in the binding of a few pages in the 1997 one, but otherwise I have had no problems with any of them falling apart or otherwise disintegrating in any way. Maybe it just means that I haven't been anorakily poring through the pages of every one of them as much as other people have (!). The 2015 one is odd because it is physically thicker, lighter (less dense) and has more pulpy paper quality, but the ones subsequent to 2015 have reverted to the usual glossy quality. I didn't discover the TGTTHOC until I got the 1987 one, and I have always regretted not having the 1983 one even though I followed the 1983 election as an enthusiastic 14-year-old. Maybe one day I will get round to finding a second-hand copy.The other election results books which I have are a full set of F.W.S. Craig's volumes from 1832 to 1979 - they were given to me in lieu of payment when I went to give a talk about electoral systems to a class of sixth-formers (my old friend from university was the history/ politics teacher) and they happened to have a whole cupboard full of copies. The very first elections result book was a paperback copy of a small F.W.S. Craig volume covering the 1974 elections and the by-elections up to 1977. It was given to me as a Christmas present when I was c.14, and (among other things) I was fascinated by the multiple party names and factions in Northern Irelend. This is the only book which *has* disintegrated - all the pages exist but the binding has completely disintegrated and it's essentially not much more than a pile of loose leaves of paper. would £5.96 for a copy be ok for you? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 8, 2024 16:43:22 GMT
(Transplanted from a different thread) I liked the 1983 version for obvious reasons although it was lacking the 1979 notionals. So I pencilled them all in myself. 1987 was probably the model format because it included all the changes from 1983 as well as all the information regarding candidates including unsuccessful ones. My 1992 version is intact except for the front and back cover but didn’t include notionals for the new Milton Keynes constituencies. My 1997 version disintegrated within a couple of years; I think there must have been a design flaw with it. 2005 was likewise the last copy I bought. Someone bought me the 2010 version as a gift but I’ve never bothered with it since then. The price went up to extortionate levels and the quality went down. I own copies of all the TGTTHOC since 1987. I ordered a copy of the 2024 one today, so I should be able to go and collect it from the bookshop on Tuesday. The paper outer cover of the 1987 one has badly disintegrated and has been patched up with sellotape several times, but all of the others are structurally intact. I notice there is a slight weakness in the binding of a few pages in the 1997 one, but otherwise I have had no problems with any of them falling apart or otherwise disintegrating in any way. Maybe it just means that I haven't been anorakily poring through the pages of every one of them as much as other people have (!). The 2015 one is odd because it is physically thicker, lighter (less dense) and has more pulpy paper quality, but the ones subsequent to 2015 have reverted to the usual glossy quality. I didn't discover the TGTTHOC until I got the 1987 one, and I have always regretted not having the 1983 one even though I followed the 1983 election as an enthusiastic 14-year-old. Maybe one day I will get round to finding a second-hand copy. The other election results books which I have are a full set of F.W.S. Craig's volumes from 1832 to 1979 - they were given to me in lieu of payment when I went to give a talk about electoral systems to a class of sixth-formers (my old friend from university was the history/ politics teacher) and they happened to have a whole cupboard full of copies. The very first elections result book was a paperback copy of a small F.W.S. Craig volume covering the 1974 elections and the by-elections up to 1977. It was given to me as a Christmas present when I was c.14, and (among other things) I was fascinated by the multiple party names and factions in Northern Irelend. This is the only book which *has* disintegrated - all the pages exist but the binding has completely disintegrated and it's essentially not much more than a pile of loose leaves of paper. I forgot to say that the type of paper was actually, for me, a point in favour of the 2015 edition. This is because if I buy a book of this kind, I am highly likely to want to mark it in pencil to correct errors or add my own marginal comments. This is not possible if waxed paper is used (as it was with editions before 2015) because pencil markings will tend to be indistinct or smudged. So - will anyone producing a book that is intended as one of record kindly use unwaxed paper? Thank you.
PS: Thank goodness Wisden uses unwaxed paper or I just don't think I could go on.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 8, 2024 17:38:20 GMT
(Transplanted from a different thread) I own copies of all the TGTTHOC since 1987. I ordered a copy of the 2024 one today, so I should be able to go and collect it from the bookshop on Tuesday. The paper outer cover of the 1987 one has badly disintegrated and has been patched up with sellotape several times, but all of the others are structurally intact. I notice there is a slight weakness in the binding of a few pages in the 1997 one, but otherwise I have had no problems with any of them falling apart or otherwise disintegrating in any way. Maybe it just means that I haven't been anorakily poring through the pages of every one of them as much as other people have (!). The 2015 one is odd because it is physically thicker, lighter (less dense) and has more pulpy paper quality, but the ones subsequent to 2015 have reverted to the usual glossy quality. I didn't discover the TGTTHOC until I got the 1987 one, and I have always regretted not having the 1983 one even though I followed the 1983 election as an enthusiastic 14-year-old. Maybe one day I will get round to finding a second-hand copy.The other election results books which I have are a full set of F.W.S. Craig's volumes from 1832 to 1979 - they were given to me in lieu of payment when I went to give a talk about electoral systems to a class of sixth-formers (my old friend from university was the history/ politics teacher) and they happened to have a whole cupboard full of copies. The very first elections result book was a paperback copy of a small F.W.S. Craig volume covering the 1974 elections and the by-elections up to 1977. It was given to me as a Christmas present when I was c.14, and (among other things) I was fascinated by the multiple party names and factions in Northern Irelend. This is the only book which *has* disintegrated - all the pages exist but the binding has completely disintegrated and it's essentially not much more than a pile of loose leaves of paper. would £5.96 for a copy be ok for you? Er, yes, if you're offering... |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 8, 2024 20:18:22 GMT
|
|
