Leaderboard

Absolutely. Hard fact seems to be taking a backseat to a very emotionally driven agenda these days. As an example, yesterday, the dispute over French fishing rights in Jersey. There was much hot air about gunboats and blockades, as well as interviewing aggrieved French fishermen, but zero on the precise terms of the agreement, and whether the Jersey authorities were acting lawfully or not. I think Labour lost a lot of votes in the brexit constituencies (wards) because the mass of the working class got fed up with being labelled "thick racists", especially by a tiny left wing liberal elite inside the M25 circle. Not to mention feeling abandoned to interest groups detached from working class concerns. Labour may need to stop shouting and start listening. We need an effective, credible opposition, so hopefully they'll buck up their ideas and emerge with some great initiatives of their own, rather than continually sniping at the "Tories".

Unfortunately many voting decisions (in fact most decisions in life) are made on the basis of emotion rather than logic. In the political world, you can spot when emotion has got the better of logic, when people start slinging personal insults rather than discussing the actual facts and policies that are important. The other indicator is when people start quoting "facts" that are uncorroborated, inaccurate or irrelevant. Virtually everyone in the media comes with a political bias, often emotional rather than logical, so they rarely question the mud-slinging or the misinformation. Sells more papers to keep stirring the pot.

Hmmm, problem is that nobody cares about who funded Boris's flat as long as it wasn't the taxpayer. I think someone on the radio this morning, hit the nail bang on the head, when they speculated that the conservatives are winning as they now occupy all ground, and are catering for all classes. Whereas Labour seem unable to move beyond the old left good right bad mindset, and still continue to hurl personal insults at "tory scum" - ain't working anymore.

I have never been a fan of coin first day covers. For it to work, you need to incorporate an attractive and relevant coin to a well designed cover. Stamps and coins only go together if there is a strong link between them. I have recently brought one of these covers which I think is very attractive. The 1966 World Cup is the historic event in English football. The 1996 football 2 pound coin is particularly relevant and attractive. It was signed by Geoff Hurst, who scored the hat-trick. The design is very nice too.

I agree that first day cover/coin combination is generally not a good idea and is somewhat of a forced marriage. If the coin is nice and expensive, then I want to keep it with my other coins and not on its own in an envelope. It is also out of place keeping it in a folder as the coin sticks out and can leave an imprint on the other covers. The 1996 £2 is also one of my favorite decimal. It went into general circulation at the time (although I didn't keep one then). The slightly domed centre gives the football a 3D effect. I think autographed first day covers are much more interesting unsigned ones. The signature is far more interesting than the stamps for me.

......is this the new Laura Ashley collection?

I can't abide the first day cover/coin combination. Always struck me as one of the worst marketing ploys ever - tagging successful coin collecting market onto the rapidly collapsing first day cover market. The 1996 £2 coin though is one of my favourites of the decimal era. Shows what happen when "real" people get to design rather than trendy art students.