Gideon Falter really not doing himself any favours on Sky News .It is clear that Gideon Falter has an agenda in calling for dismissal of the Commissioner, and also that he had an agenda when setting out to provoke a reaction from police and protestors. The facts on the ground in London are that weekly pro-Palestinian marches might well be a PITA and expensive to police but they have not been violent or destructive so a pretext is needed to ban them. They've not been effective, either, of course.
Comes across as obnoxious and really not a very nice character. People need to see what his so called organization has been upto .
Malmesbury puts his case very eloquently, but in my experience it's not quite as sharp-edged as that. MPs do have a degree of influence in Ministerial decisions, if only in the sense that the Minister has to buy their consent with concessions, and PPSs - the normal route to a Ministerial role - do see things from the inside, if only as bag-carriers. In the two Ministries where I was involved (Energy and Defra), there was the same sort of division of labour with the civil service as you get in a Council executive - the Minister set out the things that most concerned him or her, the civil service delivered a report weith option, and the Minister made choices. There was little to no personnel management.The only way we are going to fix this is either dramatically devolve some things away from Parliament (eg set up an English Parliament as well as Westminster), or dramatically increase the number of MPs (I'd go with at least 900), or both.Blair warns politics risks becoming populated by the ‘weird and wealthy’ as he calls for reset with EuropeAccording to considerable quantities of publicly available information, politics in the UK *is* populated by the weird and the wealthy.
Undoubtedly some reasonable points here from Blair.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/blair-warns-politics-risks-becoming-populated-by-the-weird-and-wealthy-as-he-calls-for-reset-with-europe/ar-AA1nnMky?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=82fbd4ee6de944cae9da4ac3ddc14c8f&ei=14
Politics used to be a part time job, generally done by the upper middle classes. The problem with the change to professional, full time politics is that it isn’t a career - more moderately paid social work and greasy poll climbing. There’s no professional development and after 10 years in Parliament, you have no career to return to - unless you’ve created a lobbying network instead of trying to do the job.
Further, the gao between what an MP does and what we expect a Minister to do is staggering. To go from running a half dozen, very junior direct reports (with direct hire and fire), to running a department. 100ks of people, with all the internal systems and politics. And a weird, rather convoluted definition of responsibility - meaning you can’t fire civil servants if they literally lie to you.
It’s not surprising that many ministers just sign the huge piles of paper they are given. They have no idea how to do anything else.
One thing I do wonder is if anything felonious is buried in Trump's history of thousands of Court Cases going back more than 50 years.His companies have repeatedly lost court cases, but I don't think there's a prior personal felony by Trump. But, yes, any vaguely sensible person could see that Trump was not a suitable person to be President years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_and_business_legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
Given the prurience of some of the US media, I guess they would have found any by now.
While we're on about that sort of thing: I was in Chester yesterday. The city of Chester within the walls is an unsung star in our urban firmament. Admittedly it's not quite as brimming with tourist attractions as, say, York, but a beautiful and singular and admirably well-preserved city core nonetheless.Vast areas of our country DO look like Ilford or HounslowMy first stopover on my road trips is usually near a WWI battlefield, in what look like old farm buildings just north of the Chemin des Dames. On my first visit I made the mistake of asking when the building was constructed, and was told that there isn’t a single building anywhere for miles around that is older than about 1920.Thank you.Interesting thanks v much. I also think that people forget/overlook/choose not to appreciate how much much of WWI we were under command of the French.Current WW1 historians are frustrated by the Blackadder, Lions Led by Donkeys view of WW1 generals that has become the accepted norm amongst the wider population. The picture is nuanced. Some were good, some were bad, like anything.Not my department, but isn't the WW1 trope that the generals generally did a pretty good job of staying away from the front line?Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?A senior Tory MP is calling the upcoming local elections "the Somme without the generals"Fpt... Raynergate latest update.. tick tick tick..Yawn, yawn, yawn. If that is the best you got, it explains why the party is hitting record lows. In standards and quality as well as polling.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2645b4f3-bf74-4c88-bb03-09553c154bdc?shareToken=5b48c6c31f3174d0b24b3ea03145762e
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782137087149445568
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
I am torn in my view of the Battle of the Somme. On one hand it seems that the disaster of the first day and the ensuing campaign threw away lives needlessly for little gain. And it's hard to see beyond that.
The flip side of the coin is that the Somme - originally planned as a huge offensive jointly with the French, but the French contribution was dramatically curtailed due to the German attack at Verdun - was a vital attritional battle, helping the French at Verdun by tying up German manpower and logistics.
It was also vital for the British Army in 1916 - largely the first time the volunteers of 1914 went into action - to actually learn how to fight, though it was certainly a bloody lesson.
It also brought hard-won lessons - the amount and density of artillery needed to properly destroy barbed wire was much greater than that used at the Somme, for example. New tactics, such as bite and hold, developed.
As for staying away from the frontline, the generals were hamstrung by poor communications. They were commanding thousands of men over a wide area and they needed to be at the centre of a vast communications hub to be contactable, receive reports and issue commands accordingly, and this was something like a chateau ten miles behind the frontline. Though the communications hub was rudimentary in the extreme and very ineffective.
Having said all that, I think there was still a willingness by the generals, or maybe too many of them, to stomach gargantuan casualties all through the war. But it was ultimately, brutally, a war of attrition.
I swing from one view to the other. I think the Somme, particularly the first day, was waste. But many argue it was the blood price that had to be paid, the school of hard knocks that had to be endured, that paved the way for eventual victory.
Have you been to the Somme, btw? It is fascinating. Horribly so but fascinating. You look out over a vast plain of for all the world pretty normal looking French countryside and have to remind yourself that a million people died there, many of whose bodies were never recovered.
To my chagrin I have never been. But I will be - if not this year, then certainly next year.
Had WW1 been in the UK, vast areas of our country would now look like Ilford or Hounslow.
.What was that quote - WWI started because no one could be bothered not to go to war.Given the technologies available (industrial mass production, and weapons of mass killing like the machine gun), and the lack of means for rapid manoeuvre outside of fixed infrastructure like rail, battles like the Somme and Verdun were pretty well inevitable if neither side was prepared to sue for peace.Interesting thanks v much. I also think that people forget/overlook/choose not to appreciate how much much of WWI we were under command of the French.Current WW1 historians are frustrated by the Blackadder, Lions Led by Donkeys view of WW1 generals that has become the accepted norm amongst the wider population. The picture is nuanced. Some were good, some were bad, like anything.Not my department, but isn't the WW1 trope that the generals generally did a pretty good job of staying away from the front line?Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?A senior Tory MP is calling the upcoming local elections "the Somme without the generals"Fpt... Raynergate latest update.. tick tick tick..Yawn, yawn, yawn. If that is the best you got, it explains why the party is hitting record lows. In standards and quality as well as polling.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2645b4f3-bf74-4c88-bb03-09553c154bdc?shareToken=5b48c6c31f3174d0b24b3ea03145762e
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782137087149445568
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
I am torn in my view of the Battle of the Somme. On one hand it seems that the disaster of the first day and the ensuing campaign threw away lives needlessly for little gain. And it's hard to see beyond that.
The flip side of the coin is that the Somme - originally planned as a huge offensive jointly with the French, but the French contribution was dramatically curtailed due to the German attack at Verdun - was a vital attritional battle, helping the French at Verdun by tying up German manpower and logistics.
It was also vital for the British Army in 1916 - largely the first time the volunteers of 1914 went into action - to actually learn how to fight, though it was certainly a bloody lesson.
It also brought hard-won lessons - the amount and density of artillery needed to properly destroy barbed wire was much greater than that used at the Somme, for example. New tactics, such as bite and hold, developed.
As for staying away from the frontline, the generals were hamstrung by poor communications. They were commanding thousands of men over a wide area and they needed to be at the centre of a vast communications hub to be contactable, receive reports and issue commands accordingly, and this was something like a chateau ten miles behind the frontline. Though the communications hub was rudimentary in the extreme and very ineffective.
Having said all that, I think there was still a willingness by the generals, or maybe too many of them, to stomach gargantuan casualties all through the war. But it was ultimately, brutally, a war of attrition.
I swing from one view to the other. I think the Somme, particularly the first day, was waste. But many argue it was the blood price that had to be paid, the school of hard knocks that had to be endured, that paved the way for eventual victory.
Have you been to the Somme, btw? It is fascinating. Horribly so but fascinating. You look out over a vast plain of for all the world pretty normal looking French countryside and have to remind yourself that a million people died there, many of whose bodies were never recovered.
The real tragedy was that the war started in the first place.
...I read my Moltke and Causes of the First World War like everyone else...There are times when I love PB...
Vast areas of our country DO look like Ilford or HounslowMy first stopover on my road trips is usually near a WWI battlefield, in what look like old farm buildings just north of the Chemin des Dames. On my first visit I made the mistake of asking when the building was constructed, and was told that there isn’t a single building anywhere for miles around that is older than about 1920.Thank you.Interesting thanks v much. I also think that people forget/overlook/choose not to appreciate how much much of WWI we were under command of the French.Current WW1 historians are frustrated by the Blackadder, Lions Led by Donkeys view of WW1 generals that has become the accepted norm amongst the wider population. The picture is nuanced. Some were good, some were bad, like anything.Not my department, but isn't the WW1 trope that the generals generally did a pretty good job of staying away from the front line?Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?A senior Tory MP is calling the upcoming local elections "the Somme without the generals"Fpt... Raynergate latest update.. tick tick tick..Yawn, yawn, yawn. If that is the best you got, it explains why the party is hitting record lows. In standards and quality as well as polling.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2645b4f3-bf74-4c88-bb03-09553c154bdc?shareToken=5b48c6c31f3174d0b24b3ea03145762e
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782137087149445568
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
I am torn in my view of the Battle of the Somme. On one hand it seems that the disaster of the first day and the ensuing campaign threw away lives needlessly for little gain. And it's hard to see beyond that.
The flip side of the coin is that the Somme - originally planned as a huge offensive jointly with the French, but the French contribution was dramatically curtailed due to the German attack at Verdun - was a vital attritional battle, helping the French at Verdun by tying up German manpower and logistics.
It was also vital for the British Army in 1916 - largely the first time the volunteers of 1914 went into action - to actually learn how to fight, though it was certainly a bloody lesson.
It also brought hard-won lessons - the amount and density of artillery needed to properly destroy barbed wire was much greater than that used at the Somme, for example. New tactics, such as bite and hold, developed.
As for staying away from the frontline, the generals were hamstrung by poor communications. They were commanding thousands of men over a wide area and they needed to be at the centre of a vast communications hub to be contactable, receive reports and issue commands accordingly, and this was something like a chateau ten miles behind the frontline. Though the communications hub was rudimentary in the extreme and very ineffective.
Having said all that, I think there was still a willingness by the generals, or maybe too many of them, to stomach gargantuan casualties all through the war. But it was ultimately, brutally, a war of attrition.
I swing from one view to the other. I think the Somme, particularly the first day, was waste. But many argue it was the blood price that had to be paid, the school of hard knocks that had to be endured, that paved the way for eventual victory.
Have you been to the Somme, btw? It is fascinating. Horribly so but fascinating. You look out over a vast plain of for all the world pretty normal looking French countryside and have to remind yourself that a million people died there, many of whose bodies were never recovered.
To my chagrin I have never been. But I will be - if not this year, then certainly next year.
Had WW1 been in the UK, vast areas of our country would now look like Ilford or Hounslow.
I know it is probably an oversimplification but I have always like AJP Taylor's Railway Timetables theory for one of the causes of WW1..What was that quote - WWI started because no one could be bothered not to go to war.Given the technologies available (industrial mass production, and weapons of mass killing like the machine gun), and the lack of means for rapid manoeuvre outside of fixed infrastructure like rail, battles like the Somme and Verdun were pretty well inevitable if neither side was prepared to sue for peace.Interesting thanks v much. I also think that people forget/overlook/choose not to appreciate how much much of WWI we were under command of the French.Current WW1 historians are frustrated by the Blackadder, Lions Led by Donkeys view of WW1 generals that has become the accepted norm amongst the wider population. The picture is nuanced. Some were good, some were bad, like anything.Not my department, but isn't the WW1 trope that the generals generally did a pretty good job of staying away from the front line?Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?A senior Tory MP is calling the upcoming local elections "the Somme without the generals"Fpt... Raynergate latest update.. tick tick tick..Yawn, yawn, yawn. If that is the best you got, it explains why the party is hitting record lows. In standards and quality as well as polling.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2645b4f3-bf74-4c88-bb03-09553c154bdc?shareToken=5b48c6c31f3174d0b24b3ea03145762e
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782137087149445568
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
I am torn in my view of the Battle of the Somme. On one hand it seems that the disaster of the first day and the ensuing campaign threw away lives needlessly for little gain. And it's hard to see beyond that.
The flip side of the coin is that the Somme - originally planned as a huge offensive jointly with the French, but the French contribution was dramatically curtailed due to the German attack at Verdun - was a vital attritional battle, helping the French at Verdun by tying up German manpower and logistics.
It was also vital for the British Army in 1916 - largely the first time the volunteers of 1914 went into action - to actually learn how to fight, though it was certainly a bloody lesson.
It also brought hard-won lessons - the amount and density of artillery needed to properly destroy barbed wire was much greater than that used at the Somme, for example. New tactics, such as bite and hold, developed.
As for staying away from the frontline, the generals were hamstrung by poor communications. They were commanding thousands of men over a wide area and they needed to be at the centre of a vast communications hub to be contactable, receive reports and issue commands accordingly, and this was something like a chateau ten miles behind the frontline. Though the communications hub was rudimentary in the extreme and very ineffective.
Having said all that, I think there was still a willingness by the generals, or maybe too many of them, to stomach gargantuan casualties all through the war. But it was ultimately, brutally, a war of attrition.
I swing from one view to the other. I think the Somme, particularly the first day, was waste. But many argue it was the blood price that had to be paid, the school of hard knocks that had to be endured, that paved the way for eventual victory.
Have you been to the Somme, btw? It is fascinating. Horribly so but fascinating. You look out over a vast plain of for all the world pretty normal looking French countryside and have to remind yourself that a million people died there, many of whose bodies were never recovered.
The real tragedy was that the war started in the first place.
Or somesuch.
I read my Moltke and Causes of the First World War like everyone else and about all i could get out of it was that everyone expected everyone else to go to war and hence "we" might as well/had better do it now as later.
There has been at least one candidate who ran for President from a prison cell. Eugene V. Debs was the Socialist party's nominee in 1920 while he was imprisoned under the Sedition Act. He had been convicted because he had opposed US involvement in WW1.Except US voters have already elected a President with a felony conviction. George W Bush had a conviction for DUI and was elected in 2000 and re elected in 2004.Surely Bush's DUI was a misdemeanor rather than a felony?
Ted Kennedy ran for President in 1980 despite having received a suspended sentence in 1973 for fleeing the scene of an accident after killing his passenger. Although Carter beat him in the primaries he still won a lot of states.
So a conviction alone may not be fatal for Trump, although it would hit him with Independents. Jail time though likely would be beyond his core vote