Not much movement on the Betfair GOP candidate market, though - Trump 1.5, Rama and de Santis 9, nobody else under 28. For overall winner Kamala Harris remains wildly underrated at 50 - if Biden didn't run she'd be favourite IMO.
I think Ramaswamy a clear lay for the Presidency at current odds, FWIW.
It's not completely inconceivable his getting the nomination, with the current state fo the GOP, but he ought to be 50/1 plus for the main event.
On bathroom scales (someone mentioned it but I can't see who) I pursue a strategy of extremes:
1 - I have a set of Maple & Co cast iron scales from an antique shop, vintage 1900, that read up to 20 stone, of which I have seen an identical set in at least one National Trust property - Calke Abbey iirc.
Strangely after I bought these the next 4 places I lived in London were all walk-up (ie carry up) flats.
No one needs "bathroom scales" unless they are competing.
Hmmm. I appreciate why you are saying that but there can be lots of reasons for needing them. Here are a few for us:
a) My wife has the same back issue Mike has. Can't remember the name now. The travel insurance wanted to know her height and weight before insuring her. I guess they are ensuring she isn't over weight (which she isn't at all) with that condition
b) Weighing your luggage before a flight. Weigh you with and without bag
c) We have been asked the weight of the dog before for various requirements. Same process as b)
d) For my Pitts Special flight I had to lose weight - 90 kg limit
e) I also wanted to lose weight for my cycle trip. Weighing myself daily was a real motivator. I went from 96 kg to 88 kg. Sadly several kg have gone back on.
I'm sure others can add to the list.
Lost 15kg a few years ago, daily measurements (and lots of data analysis with Garmin etc) is the best motivator for me.
You can add most sportspeople involved in competition, especially eg boxing or weight-lifting where it is categories by weight.
Joe Rogan said in a recent interview, that the UFC has now started doing the weigh-in for fights very early, usually the morning of the day before the fight, so 36 hours or so ahead. He said that the fighters can often get close to putting on 10% of their body mass in those 36 hours! They’ve starved themselves for a week beforehand, to make the required weight, and then go mad with food and water as soon as they’ve hit the scales. Basically, fighters who would usually weigh 180lb agree to fight at 160lb, and can get back pretty close to 180lb by the time they actually fight!
Interesting.
It would seem obvious to also weigh them 30 minutes before the fight.
Like a mash-up of the Best of True Crime this morning.
Peter and I should do opposing thread headers on famous historic cases where the verdict has been questioned.
Hanratty. Armstrong. Crippen. Richard III
Think of the fun we could have putting the opposing cases and then arguing about them!
A discussion on the trial of Roger Casement would be fun.
Grammar and punctuation matters.
What about Lord Haw Haw?
As AJP Taylor famously said, 'he was hanged for making a false statement on a passport application, the usual penalty for which is a small fine.'
It's a witty line from AJP Taylor, but not strictly true.
As I understand it, had Joyce not procured a British passport under false pretences, he'd not have been capable of being convicted for treason (you can't betray a country to which you don't owe allegiance). But the fact is that he did so and was therefore tried and convicted for treason. The charge was not making a false statement on a passport application, it was just that he couldn't use his own false statement as a shield against the treason charge (which is pretty common in various areas of law - you can't normally use your own misdeeds as a shield).
Like a mash-up of the Best of True Crime this morning.
Peter and I should do opposing thread headers on famous historic cases where the verdict has been questioned.
Hanratty. Armstrong. Crippen. Richard III
Think of the fun we could have putting the opposing cases and then arguing about them!
A discussion on the trial of Roger Casement would be fun.
Grammar and punctuation matters.
What about Lord Haw Haw?
As AJP Taylor famously said, 'he was hanged for making a false statement on a passport application, the usual penalty for which is a small fine.'
It's a witty line from AJP Taylor, but not strictly true.
As I understand it, had Joyce not procured a British passport under false pretences, he'd not have been capable of being convicted for treason (you can't betray a country to which you don't owe allegiance). But the fact is that he did so and was therefore tried and convicted for treason. The charge was not making a false statement on a passport application, it was just that he couldn't use his own false statement as a shield against the treason charge (which is pretty common in various areas of law - you can't normally use your own misdeeds as a shield).
I think the issue is it was 'strictly' true. The point being that he had left himself wide open by his mistake.
If he hadn't done that, they would have had to find other grounds to convict him on...
They would have done.
Joyce himself had a quite witty line towards the end when offered confession by a Catholic priest. 'I've had enough trouble with false passports without trying to get one into heaven as well.'*
*At least, I think it was Joyce. It was a good line, anyway.
Like a mash-up of the Best of True Crime this morning.
Peter and I should do opposing thread headers on famous historic cases where the verdict has been questioned.
Hanratty. Armstrong. Crippen. Richard III
Think of the fun we could have putting the opposing cases and then arguing about them!
A discussion on the trial of Roger Casement would be fun.
Grammar and punctuation matters.
What about Lord Haw Haw?
As AJP Taylor famously said, 'he was hanged for making a false statement on a passport application, the usual penalty for which is a small fine.'
It's a witty line from AJP Taylor, but not strictly true.
As I understand it, had Joyce not procured a British passport under false pretences, he'd not have been capable of being convicted for treason (you can't betray a country to which you don't owe allegiance). But the fact is that he did so and was therefore tried and convicted for treason. The charge was not making a false statement on a passport application, it was just that he couldn't use his own false statement as a shield against the treason charge (which is pretty common in various areas of law - you can't normally use your own misdeeds as a shield).
John Amery's last words were really quite brilliant.
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I have long wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
I'm curious if Chesebro's demand, now met, will impact on any of the others. I still assume no way all or most will proceed as quickly as the DA has asked for, but if one defendant asked for speedy and it was possible, would the judge set a pretty ambitious schedule?
This gambit makes Ken Chesebro come across as an incompetent lawyer... which ironically could actually help his defence.
Maybe. A lot of them seem to be relying on saying they believed they were right, or just dumb, but while that can save you from many crimes others it doesn't matter as you're still not allowed to do it.
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
This gambit makes Ken Chesebro come across as an incompetent lawyer... which ironically could actually help his defence.
Maybe. A lot of them seem to be relying on saying they believed they were right, or just dumb, but while that can save you from many crimes others it doesn't matter as you're still not allowed to do it.
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
Like a mash-up of the Best of True Crime this morning.
Peter and I should do opposing thread headers on famous historic cases where the verdict has been questioned.
Hanratty. Armstrong. Crippen. Richard III
Think of the fun we could have putting the opposing cases and then arguing about them!
A discussion on the trial of Roger Casement would be fun.
Grammar and punctuation matters.
What about Lord Haw Haw?
As AJP Taylor famously said, 'he was hanged for making a false statement on a passport application, the usual penalty for which is a small fine.'
It's a witty line from AJP Taylor, but not strictly true.
As I understand it, had Joyce not procured a British passport under false pretences, he'd not have been capable of being convicted for treason (you can't betray a country to which you don't owe allegiance). But the fact is that he did so and was therefore tried and convicted for treason. The charge was not making a false statement on a passport application, it was just that he couldn't use his own false statement as a shield against the treason charge (which is pretty common in various areas of law - you can't normally use your own misdeeds as a shield).
I think the issue is it was 'strictly' true. The point being that he had left himself wide open by his mistake.
If he hadn't done that, they would have had to find other grounds to convict him on...
They would have done.
Joyce himself had a quite witty line towards the end when offered confession by a Catholic priest. 'I've had enough trouble with false passports without trying to get one into heaven as well.'*
*At least, I think it was Joyce. It was a good line, anyway.
It really wasn't "strictly" true as the charge was treason, not making a false statement on a passport application.
The reason I have a British passport is that I was born here. If I was ever convicted of treason, it'd be pretty misleading to claim I'd been convicted for being born in the UK.
Likewise, Joyce had a British passport because he applied under false pretences, but his conviction was for treason and it's ultimately misleading to say he was convicted for lying on a passport application.
I think AJP Taylor understood that, and it was just a witty one-liner that involved a bit of a distortion of the truth for the sake of the gag.
The reason given by the CCRC for not proceeding is very strange. The comment was that there was "no certainty" that the other DNA found on the victim's clothing was "crime specific".
That makes it sound as though they were asking the wrong question entirely. Certainty that someone else's DNA was crime-specific would have proved that Malkinson was certainly innocent (given that there was only one assailant). Obviously, reasonable doubt of guilt is the correct criterion.
Depending on what they discovered, that conclusion might be reasonable. I think the bar is set quite high for a CCRC referral. ...
The criterion is just that "the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made ..." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/13
The point I'm making is that standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt", so new evidence raising reasonable doubt should result in the appeal being upheld. But the CCRC comment makes it sound as they were dismissing the new evidence because it didn't provide certainty of innocence.
Isn't it reversed after a conviction? You don't have the presumption of guilt any more, so you have to prove innocence?
Not sure about the details of the provisions in England but in Scotland the test applied is has there been a miscarriage of justice which is very different from has something gone wrong?
It is therefore not enough to show 1 strand of evidence has become suspect or even wrong if there is other compelling evidence indicating guilt. I don’t know enough about the case to comment but it is likely that the CCRC took that view, at least initially.
Well, I was thinking more of the Hanratty case, where AIUI the judges took the view that unless evidence proving him innocent was found, there was no reason to overturn the conviction. That's why the family took those DNA tests and were rather horrified when the results strongly suggested Hanratty was guilty.
I think also with Sion Jenkins once doubts had been cast on the evidence the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial not an acquittal, although I could be wrong about that.
The Hanratty DNA results were on inspection rather less compelling than you might suppose but it is certainly true that it was impossible to prove Hanratty innocent and that is likely to remain the case forever, mainly because of the complete mess the police made of the investigation at the time.
Personally I think it unlikely he did do it, but I am sure the verdict will now never be overturned.
Having looked into the case, I would disagree.
It wasn't maybe a brilliant police investigation, but the evidence against him is pretty much irrefutable. Just to run through it:
1) He was identified by the surviving victim who never wavered in her belief that he was the killer. Yes, she had wrongly identified somebody else in a different identity parade earlier, but she hadn't been told that if she didn't recognise anyone she didn't have to chose one. She thought they were asking 'what was the closest match to the person you saw?'
2) He stayed in a hotel room where two cartridge cases were found from the bullets used in the murders.
3) The gun used in the murder was found wrapped in a handkerchief that had mucus on it which matched his DNA profile. No other DNA was found on the handkerchief.
4) His semen was on Valerie Storey's knickers. There was some indication of a second sample of semen, but the question remains, why was his there?
5) He gave not one but two false alibis for the time of the murders.
6) About the only really odd feature of the case was that he told Gregston he couldn't drive, but there could be explanations for that including possibly laying a false trail.
7) Although Peter Alphon later confessed to the murder, leaving aside the fact he didn't match the description of the killer, wasn't identified in a parade and was well known as a psychotic attention seeker, he was paid to confess by Paul Foot as part of his campaign against the death penalty.
8) There was some confusion over the colour of the killer's eyes. However, Storey had in fact said 'blue' which was shortened to 'bl' and misread as 'br' ie 'brown' in the first press release.
Now it is impossible Hanratty was innocent? Not impossible, I suppose. In the sense it's not impossible that one day Boris Johnson might say something truthful.
But you are looking at not only a truly vast conspiracy but one which had knowledge of future DNA techniques to store his mucus and semen to be planted on the evidence at the right moment if he was innnocent.
He might have got away with it under today's rules (this being before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act) but bluntly I think it unlikely. Killers have been convicted on far less (Adrian Prout springs to mind) and Storey's evidence on its own was pretty compelling. Staying at a hotel habituated by criminals under a false name and lying about it is also not the smartest idea in the world.
Hanratty himself was said to have been quite open about his guilt when not under caution. He just didn't think it could be proved.
It's a complex case, Ydoethur, and I haven't the time or the inclination to run through that lot right now. Maybe I'll come back to it later.
I will mention the DNA results, because they surprised me and rekindled my interest in the case long after I had first studied it.
DNA testing was of course unheard of at the time. It is not surprising therefore that the materials used for it had not been preserved in a way that would now be necessary. In fact very few physical items from the crime had been retained. The car, for example, in which the murder was committed had disappeared without trace. Bedforshire police came up with two items which were tested, and neither are terribly satisfactory for very different reasons.
The first item was Valerie Storey's panties which allegedly contained traces of the killer's sperm. The rape scene was part of the prosecution narrative but Hanratty was never accused of rape and it was little referred to at the trial. She did state however that the killer forced her at gunpoint to remove her panties before raping her on the back seat. It follows that she must have put them back on again in the brief moments before she herself was shot about ten yards away from the vehicle whilst attending to the dead body of her lover. This is possible, but unlikely. The many possible questions arising from the 'rape' scene were never asked at the trial because it was not a charge.
The second item,the hankerchief, is even less satisfactory. Hanratty was staying at the time with the family of Charles France, a petty criminal. Mrs France did Hanratty's laundry. It would be a simple matter for anybody wishing to implicate Hanratty to take a gun and wrap it in one of his hankies and hide it somewhere it would likely be found soon.
In these two matters, and the case generally, I think you have to apply a certain amount of common sense. For example, if most of the evidence had long been lost or destroyed, how is it that a pair of panties relevant only to the highly marginal and untested rape aspect was retained? Why would the killer have wrapped the murder weapon in an item of his personal belongings and hidden it where it was certain to be found quickly, rather than say chucking it in the local river or a skip?
In fact the more you know about the case the more the implausibility of Hanratty's guilt becomes evident, but for sure he didn't help himself, as some of your points indicate.
Expecting the rape victim to have a perfect memory for where her panties were at all times is preposterous. I don’t think the claim around minor inconsistencies in her memory is persuasive.
I'm curious if Chesebro's demand, now met, will impact on any of the others. I still assume no way all or most will proceed as quickly as the DA has asked for, but if one defendant asked for speedy and it was possible, would the judge set a pretty ambitious schedule?
As far as evidence, and witnesses being aired in court goes, there could be significant impact. Whether the trial proceeds speedily is beyond my limited comprehension to predict.
Trump's (and his alleged co-conspirators) are clearly vulnerable to one or more of their number making a deal with the prosecution. If things start looking bad for the small Chese, then there is a strong incentive for peripheral characters to start talking.
On bathroom scales (someone mentioned it but I can't see who) I pursue a strategy of extremes:
1 - I have a set of Maple & Co cast iron scales from an antique shop, vintage 1900, that read up to 20 stone, of which I have seen an identical set in at least one National Trust property - Calke Abbey iirc.
Strangely after I bought these the next 4 places I lived in London were all walk-up (ie carry up) flats.
No one needs "bathroom scales" unless they are competing.
Hmmm. I appreciate why you are saying that but there can be lots of reasons for needing them. Here are a few for us:
a) My wife has the same back issue Mike has. Can't remember the name now. The travel insurance wanted to know her height and weight before insuring her. I guess they are ensuring she isn't over weight (which she isn't at all) with that condition
b) Weighing your luggage before a flight. Weigh you with and without bag
c) We have been asked the weight of the dog before for various requirements. Same process as b)
d) For my Pitts Special flight I had to lose weight - 90 kg limit
e) I also wanted to lose weight for my cycle trip. Weighing myself daily was a real motivator. I went from 96 kg to 88 kg. Sadly several kg have gone back on.
I'm sure others can add to the list.
Lost 15kg a few years ago, daily measurements (and lots of data analysis with Garmin etc) is the best motivator for me.
You can add most sportspeople involved in competition, especially eg boxing or weight-lifting where it is categories by weight.
Joe Rogan said in a recent interview, that the UFC has now started doing the weigh-in for fights very early, usually the morning of the day before the fight, so 36 hours or so ahead. He said that the fighters can often get close to putting on 10% of their body mass in those 36 hours! They’ve starved themselves for a week beforehand, to make the required weight, and then go mad with food and water as soon as they’ve hit the scales. Basically, fighters who would usually weigh 180lb agree to fight at 160lb, and can get back pretty close to 180lb by the time they actually fight!
Interesting.
It would seem obvious to also weigh them 30 minutes before the fight.
It's a thing. Make the weight then rehydrate (put weight back on) for the fight. It's why there was such a controversy over Chris Eubank's rehydration clause in the ill-fated Benn Eubanks fight.
People have been talking about MPs casework, and what happens when MP is defeated. In 2005 the then Labour MP for Braintree had been working on a case for me.
However he lost his seat and I raised the matter with his Conservative successor, had to start from square one again, and was told that my problem was all to do with the last Labour government. I pointed out that it wasn't; it was due to action taken under the Major government, and he wasn't interested.
When I took over from Sir Jim Lester he didn't (probably rightly) want to hand over all his files, but agreed to pass on info on specific cases where the constituent wished it - IIRC we did that a couple of times. I offered Anna Soubry the same but for whatever reason it wasn't taken up, and nowadays privacy rules make it harder (you're not supposed to sit on data for months in case your successor might want it). We did write to constituents who were in the middle of a case to tell hem how to contact her to pursue the issue further.
In short, I wouldn't expect the handover to be especially time-consuming.
OK, here’s my radical idea for the day. Nationalise MP’s constituency staff. Staff in each constituency to be permanently employed civil servants. Just as a civil servant in, say, the Department of Health & Social Care works for a Conservative government today, but will work for a Labour government after the next election, so a civil servant in each constituency works for one MP today and a new one after the election. They provide continuity of support for constituents. There are no issues with MPs employing relatives or fiddling expenses. There’s a guaranteed level of service.
People have been talking about MPs casework, and what happens when MP is defeated. In 2005 the then Labour MP for Braintree had been working on a case for me.
However he lost his seat and I raised the matter with his Conservative successor, had to start from square one again, and was told that my problem was all to do with the last Labour government. I pointed out that it wasn't; it was due to action taken under the Major government, and he wasn't interested.
When I took over from Sir Jim Lester he didn't (probably rightly) want to hand over all his files, but agreed to pass on info on specific cases where the constituent wished it - IIRC we did that a couple of times. I offered Anna Soubry the same but for whatever reason it wasn't taken up, and nowadays privacy rules make it harder (you're not supposed to sit on data for months in case your successor might want it). We did write to constituents who were in the middle of a case to tell hem how to contact her to pursue the issue further.
In short, I wouldn't expect the handover to be especially time-consuming.
OK, here’s my radical idea for the day. Nationalise MP’s constituency staff. Staff in each constituency to be permanently employed civil servants. Just as a civil servant in, say, the Department of Health & Social Care works for a Conservative government today, but will work for a Labour government after the next election, so a civil servant in each constituency works for one MP today and a new one after the election. They provide continuity of support for constituents. There are no issues with MPs employing relatives or fiddling expenses. There’s a guaranteed level of service.
People have been talking about MPs casework, and what happens when MP is defeated. In 2005 the then Labour MP for Braintree had been working on a case for me.
However he lost his seat and I raised the matter with his Conservative successor, had to start from square one again, and was told that my problem was all to do with the last Labour government. I pointed out that it wasn't; it was due to action taken under the Major government, and he wasn't interested.
When I took over from Sir Jim Lester he didn't (probably rightly) want to hand over all his files, but agreed to pass on info on specific cases where the constituent wished it - IIRC we did that a couple of times. I offered Anna Soubry the same but for whatever reason it wasn't taken up, and nowadays privacy rules make it harder (you're not supposed to sit on data for months in case your successor might want it). We did write to constituents who were in the middle of a case to tell hem how to contact her to pursue the issue further.
In short, I wouldn't expect the handover to be especially time-consuming.
OK, here’s my radical idea for the day. Nationalise MP’s constituency staff. Staff in each constituency to be permanently employed civil servants. Just as a civil servant in, say, the Department of Health & Social Care works for a Conservative government today, but will work for a Labour government after the next election, so a civil servant in each constituency works for one MP today and a new one after the election. They provide continuity of support for constituents. There are no issues with MPs employing relatives or fiddling expenses. There’s a guaranteed level of service.
Yes, but what level of service?!!
How will MP's cope when they can't pay their partner for "secretary" work...
And while on one hand I'm joking at least where the partner is getting a wage they are getting something for all the weekends lost in campaigning.
This gambit makes Ken Chesebro come across as an incompetent lawyer... which ironically could actually help his defence.
Maybe. A lot of them seem to be relying on saying they believed they were right, or just dumb, but while that can save you from many crimes others it doesn't matter as you're still not allowed to do it.
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
The case will be not about whether they believed the election to have been stolen - which is just opinion. It's about the efforts they made to try to overturn the result. The means that they used were, prime facie, fraudulent. I don't think a defence of incompetence will help them at all.
This gambit makes Ken Chesebro come across as an incompetent lawyer... which ironically could actually help his defence.
Maybe. A lot of them seem to be relying on saying they believed they were right, or just dumb, but while that can save you from many crimes others it doesn't matter as you're still not allowed to do it.
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
The case will be not about whether they believed the election to have been stolen - which is just opinion. It's about the efforts they made to try to overturn the result. The means that they used were, prime facie, fraudulent. I don't think a defence of incompetence will help them at all.
Although their incompetence definitely did help America.
This gambit makes Ken Chesebro come across as an incompetent lawyer... which ironically could actually help his defence.
Maybe. A lot of them seem to be relying on saying they believed they were right, or just dumb, but while that can save you from many crimes others it doesn't matter as you're still not allowed to do it.
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
The case will be not about whether they believed the election to have been stolen - which is just opinion. It's about the efforts they made to try to overturn the result. The means that they used were, prime facie, fraudulent. I don't think a defence of incompetence will help them at all.
The flaw in your argument is an assumption that the jury will approach the case logically and correctly. At least some will approach it emotionally and with significant baggage, any justification, however legally or logically spurious, is probably sufficient for a not guilty verdict.
This gambit makes Ken Chesebro come across as an incompetent lawyer... which ironically could actually help his defence.
Maybe. A lot of them seem to be relying on saying they believed they were right, or just dumb, but while that can save you from many crimes others it doesn't matter as you're still not allowed to do it.
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
The case will be not about whether they believed the election to have been stolen - which is just opinion. It's about the efforts they made to try to overturn the result. The means that they used were, prime facie, fraudulent. I don't think a defence of incompetence will help them at all.
The flaw in your argument is an assumption that the jury will approach the case logically and correctly. At least some will approach it emotionally and with significant baggage, any justification, however legally or logically spurious, is probably sufficient for a not guilty verdict.
The jury instructions will be pretty clear on what is and is not legally available, as opposed to the facts which the jury will judge on. Doesn't guarantee one person cannot scupper, but juries generally seem to get by.
They may even not be allowed to put forth some defences depending on pre trial motions and various legal points? Some charges might even get excluded for the same reason.
This gambit makes Ken Chesebro come across as an incompetent lawyer... which ironically could actually help his defence.
Maybe. A lot of them seem to be relying on saying they believed they were right, or just dumb, but while that can save you from many crimes others it doesn't matter as you're still not allowed to do it.
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
The case will be not about whether they believed the election to have been stolen - which is just opinion. It's about the efforts they made to try to overturn the result. The means that they used were, prime facie, fraudulent. I don't think a defence of incompetence will help them at all.
Belief does come into it though. Not about the underlying stolen election point, but on aspects. For example, Cheseboro may well argue that his legal advice, even if it can be shown to be incorrect (and I think it very obviously can), was genuinely incompetent legal advice rather than providing cover for a criminal scheme.
This gambit makes Ken Chesebro come across as an incompetent lawyer... which ironically could actually help his defence.
Maybe. A lot of them seem to be relying on saying they believed they were right, or just dumb, but while that can save you from many crimes others it doesn't matter as you're still not allowed to do it.
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
The case will be not about whether they believed the election to have been stolen - which is just opinion. It's about the efforts they made to try to overturn the result. The means that they used were, prime facie, fraudulent. I don't think a defence of incompetence will help them at all.
I think in one case looking to disbar one if the co defendants it basically said 'even if you thought x was unconstitutional and that y was therefore OK, that would be a matter for a court to rule on, not you to ignore the law preemptively.
Sadly not but it may improve their chances of holding their seats in the north east near Aberdeen.
Its all in play - it depends how other factors play out. Supporting the oil and gas industry feels like an obvious thing to do. I keep having people trying to school me online about actually how much of the revenue goes into bigcorp pockets and how actualy we'll export much of the oil we drill actually. Yes I know, but as the world transitions away from oil why can't we make money selling whats left of ours rather than spending money buying from someone else?
Problem for the Tories is that being pro-oil is also them being anti farming and fishing and people and business and renewables. They have that one thing right for the local economy and everything else wrong for the local economy. So the question for Lickspittle Duguid etc is will people put king oil over everything else? Because whilst I agree with him on that he is wrong on every other subject.
If Dolittle is the answer then Scotland is truly F**ked and people in North East are thicker than a bag of mince.
Do you actually like anybody, Malc? (Other than Mrs G and Alex Salmond, of course.)
Ydoethur, don't be a silly boy , it is politician's and that arsehole Foreskin that I don't like. There are a few exceptions as you say , I liked Ken Clarke, Lord Tonypandy, Betty Boothroyd , Harold Wilson and many others from the days when honest people were in politics not just to fill their own pockets.
Interesting you include Wilson, one of the most duplicitous men (along with Arthur Balfour) ever to be PM in the list of honest politicians.
Shows how good he was at faking integrity.
@ydoethur I was a young boy then and not versed in the wiles of politicians, too young and innocent. probably his pipe as my father smoked the pipe.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
Should sane people actually be hoping Trump wins the nomination?
Seems that Ramaswamy and DeSantis may well be significantly worse.
Trump has already actually been President for four years and, as objectionable as he is, we've already seen him in action. For example, whatever he may have said, he didn't actually try to leave NATO.
He's also getting older and people tend to mellow with age. Plus the boredom factor - once you've done a job for a while you become more inclined to sit back and enjoy the office rather than bothering to do anything new.
In contrast, Ramaswamy or DeSantis taking office for the first time at a much younger age with much higher energy levels may be much more dangerous.
Comparing to the UK, it feels like Trump = Johnson whereas Ramas and DeSantis = Truss. Seems likely that Ramas and DeSantis may do on foreign policy what Truss did on economic policy. Trump didn't actually do that.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
A good decision, but kind of peripheral. Australia went into Vietnam and avoided the kind of national trauma suffered by the US.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
A good decision, but kind of peripheral. Australia went into Vietnam and avoided the kind of national trauma suffered by the US.
Canada under Trudeau like the UK under Wilson also didn't join the US in Vietnam and as a result got lots of draft dodgers. Bill Clinton of course conveniently got a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford in 1968
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
A good decision, but kind of peripheral. Australia went into Vietnam and avoided the kind of national trauma suffered by the US.
Doesn't mean the UK would avoid trauma. Being East of Suez, or not, was already a hugely controversial issue. The armed forces were already overstretched and running down, with major defence cuts necessary, helped by the Americans' efforts, not to mention the UK civil service and manufacturers*. And conscription had only just ended, in 1960, so there was a real risk of bringing that back in if it was anything more than the relatively small commitment of professional servicemen that the Aussies made (army contingent with armour and artillery; I don't recall any aircraft, possibly helicopters and tactical fixed wing transports).
I also suspect that the UK was more on the way to the youth vs the rest conflict than Australia, but may be wrong here.
*Notably the TSR.2/F-111/F-4/F-4K/M fiasco, ditto Skybolt.
Should sane people actually be hoping Trump wins the nomination?
Seems that Ramaswamy and DeSantis may well be significantly worse.
Trump has already actually been President for four years and, as objectionable as he is, we've already seen him in action. For example, whatever he may have said, he didn't actually try to leave NATO.
He's also getting older and people tend to mellow with age. Plus the boredom factor - once you've done a job for a while you become more inclined to sit back and enjoy the office rather than bothering to do anything new.
In contrast, Ramaswamy or DeSantis taking office for the first time at a much younger age with much higher energy levels may be much more dangerous.
Comparing to the UK, it feels like Trump = Johnson whereas Ramas and DeSantis = Truss. Seems likely that Ramas and DeSantis may do on foreign policy what Truss did on economic policy. Trump didn't actually do that.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject. Were his character defects and his economic policy connected somehow? And what really explains his character defects?
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Despite? Possibly because of?
See my amend.
I'm still sticking with my comment.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Despite? Possibly because of?
See my amend.
I'm still sticking with my comment.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
Keynes in the Great War? But I ask out of ignorance.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Despite? Possibly because of?
See my amend.
I'm still sticking with my comment.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
Keynes in the Great War? But I ask out of ignorance.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject. Were his character defects and his economic policy connected somehow? And what really explains his character defects?
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
So if Sir Keir is Wilson and Rishi is Douglas-Home, who is the Tories' Ted Heath? Barclay?
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Despite? Possibly because of?
See my amend.
I'm still sticking with my comment.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
Keynes in the Great War? But I ask out of ignorance.
Keynes wasn't running the economy in the Great War. He was a mostly fairly junior adviser to the Treasury. It was after the war as economic adviser to the Versailles Delegation that he became significant (and all his recommendations were ignored).
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Despite? Possibly because of?
See my amend.
I'm still sticking with my comment.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
Keynes in the Great War? But I ask out of ignorance.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
This article really is a keeper. Britain has been astonishingly badly served by a cabal of stupidity at Treasury and the Department of Transport, and no politician has ever cared enough to do anything about it.
Ironically, the closest we got to an infrastructure enthusiast was Johnson.
The good news is that Britain half looks like a developing country. If we can get infrastructure going, at a reasonable price, we should expect v good returns.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Despite? Possibly because of?
See my amend.
I'm still sticking with my comment.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
Keynes in the Great War? But I ask out of ignorance.
Britain's approach to conscription was notoriously undiscriminating in the First World War, so halfway through the war, John Maynard Keynes was called up. Luckily he was a conscientious objector so could carry on his outstanding work at the Treasury.
Sam Dumitriu takes a look at why nothing gets built in Britain.
THIS is the highlight of his work:
£267m has been spent on the Lower Thames Crossing’s 63,000 page planning application.
Norway built the world’s longest road tunnel and the world’s deepest subsea tunnel for less.
We aren't comparing Norwegian tunnelling and British tunnelling. We're comparing Norwegian tunnelling and British paperwork.
World beating.
There's lots to think about in that thread - and he is probably broadly right, but his comparing a cut & cover metro system in Madrid with the deepest tube line in london, the jubilee, is a bit off. I assume there are other similar uses of the broad brush.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Despite? Possibly because of?
See my amend.
I'm still sticking with my comment.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
Keynes in the Great War? But I ask out of ignorance.
Keynes wasn't running the economy in the Great War. He was a mostly fairly junior adviser to the Treasury. It was after the war as economic adviser to the Versailles Delegation that he became significant (and all his recommendations were ignored).
Arguably Keynes to some extent ran the world economy, posthumously, in the form of the economic institutions set up after WWII, which set some sort of consensus for how capitalism should be managed for most of the next three decades.
We have the world's best and most experienced NIMBYs, plus successive governments who claimed in opposition that they wanted to build, build, build, but get very cold feet once in office.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
It’s the lies, hypocrisy, fantasism and the rest that I’m interested in. I think he was economically extremely poor, despite economics supposedly being his special subject.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Despite? Possibly because of?
See my amend.
I'm still sticking with my comment.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
The shire squire Tory answer would probably be that instincts, hard work and bottom are better than ideas.
It's possible- if you don't start the job with ideas, you're less likely to treat the system as your kit to experiment with. (Yes, Kwarteng, I am looking at you.) See also Gove at education.
And Clarke and Healey didn't start with much economic background, did they?
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
This article really is a keeper. Britain has been astonishingly badly served by a cabal of stupidity at Treasury and the Department of Transport, and no politician has ever cared enough to do anything about it.
Ironically, the closest we got to an infrastructure enthusiast was Johnson.
The good news is that Britain half looks like a developing country. If we can get infrastructure going, at a reasonable price, we should expect v good returns.
Look how astonishingly* popular Crossrail is.
*astonishing to anyone who works in Treasury.
I believe that every new railway line that has opened since 1990 has exceeded its passenger targets. That's a very low number, though.
The Ebbw Valley line reopened in 2008.
". In 2002, passenger journeys were forecast at 22,000 per month. Whereas by 2008, 44,000 journeys had been made on the service each month; also exceeding the monthly target of 33,000 set for 2012. "
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Home's manifesto was quite clear, had the Tories been re elected they would not have allowed conversion of grammars to comprehensives. Hence in 1964 the vast majority of LAs still had grammars and secondary moderns but by 1970 a majority had already moved to comprehensives. Selection at 14 or even 16 is still selection, it is not comprehensive.
Now of course you can't even ballot to open new grammars, only petition to ballot to close the few remaining
"India's budget of around $74 million for the successful landing of a spacecraft on the Moon was less than half of the price tag for Hollywood blockbuster "Interstellar.""
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Home's manifesto was quite clear, had the Tories been re elected they would not have allowed conversion of grammars to comprehensives. Hence in 1964 the vast majority of LAs still had grammars and secondary moderns but by 1970 a majority had already moved to comprehensives
In fact, a majority still had not, but almost all of them were planning to. Thatcher rescinded Labour's order to LEAs to bring forward plans for comprehensive systems, but she didn't order them to stop. In fact, in overseeing the conversion of over 2000 schools, she proved more energetic in conversions than Labour had even though she was personally in favour of grammars.
The more amusing story is that where referendums were held on retaining grammars they were usually lost.
Even more amusingly, one of the counties where such a referendum was held (and lost) - Gloucestershire - was both one of the earliest adopters of the comprehensive model and is now one of the last counties with significant numbers of grammars.
People have been talking about MPs casework, and what happens when MP is defeated. In 2005 the then Labour MP for Braintree had been working on a case for me.
However he lost his seat and I raised the matter with his Conservative successor, had to start from square one again, and was told that my problem was all to do with the last Labour government. I pointed out that it wasn't; it was due to action taken under the Major government, and he wasn't interested.
Brooks Newmark ex-MP, the rich little rich boy from the mean tennis courts of Fairfield County, Conn.
Now (according to wiki) lecturing at U of Ox on political science.
Would love to catch his graduate seminar on constituent relations by elected representatives!
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Home's manifesto was quite clear, had the Tories been re elected they would not have allowed conversion of grammars to comprehensives. Hence in 1964 the vast majority of LAs still had grammars and secondary moderns but by 1970 a majority had already moved to comprehensives
In fact, a majority still had not, but almost all of them were planning to. Thatcher rescinded Labour's order to LEAs to bring forward plans for comprehensive systems, but she didn't order them to stop. In fact, in overseeing the conversion of over 2000 schools, she proved more energetic in conversions than Labour had even though she was personally in favour of grammars.
The more amusing story is that where referendums were held on retaining grammars they were usually lost.
Even more amusingly, one of the counties where such a referendum was held (and lost) - Gloucestershire - was both one of the earliest adopters of the comprehensive model and is now one of the last counties with significant numbers of grammars.
1970 was different as by then over half of LAs had already converted to comprehensives and Heath, in whose government Thatcher was Education Sec, had no manifesto commitment to stop grammars being turned into comprehensives, especially by Labour councils, as Home had had in 1964.
Not true to say that referendums on retaining grammars were all lost. Ripon had a ballot on retaining its grammars in 2000 and parents voted 2:1 to keep them
People have been talking about MPs casework, and what happens when MP is defeated. In 2005 the then Labour MP for Braintree had been working on a case for me.
However he lost his seat and I raised the matter with his Conservative successor, had to start from square one again, and was told that my problem was all to do with the last Labour government. I pointed out that it wasn't; it was due to action taken under the Major government, and he wasn't interested.
Brooks Newmark ex-MP, the rich little rich boy from the mean tennis courts of Fairfield County, Conn.
Now (according to wiki) lecturing at U of Ox on political science.
Would love to catch his graduate seminar on constituent relations by elected representatives!
I campaigned in Braintree for Brooks in 2001 when he lost by just 358 votes before winning in 2005, he does a great deal for Ukranian refugees now, he is a good man despite his 'incident'
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Home's manifesto was quite clear, had the Tories been re elected they would not have allowed conversion of grammars to comprehensives. Hence in 1964 the vast majority of LAs still had grammars and secondary moderns but by 1970 a majority had already moved to comprehensives
In fact, a majority still had not, but almost all of them were planning to. Thatcher rescinded Labour's order to LEAs to bring forward plans for comprehensive systems, but she didn't order them to stop. In fact, in overseeing the conversion of over 2000 schools, she proved more energetic in conversions than Labour had even though she was personally in favour of grammars.
The more amusing story is that where referendums were held on retaining grammars they were usually lost.
Even more amusingly, one of the counties where such a referendum was held (and lost) - Gloucestershire - was both one of the earliest adopters of the comprehensive model and is now one of the last counties with significant numbers of grammars.
1970 was different as by then over half of LAs had already converted to comprehensives and Heath, in whose government Thatcher was Education Sec, had no manifesto commitment to stop grammars being turned into comprehensives, especially by Labour councils, as Home had had in 1964.
Not true to say that referendums on retaining grammars were all lost. Ripon had a ballot on retaining its grammars in 2000 and parents voted 2:1 to keep them
Basically - there were around 200 comprehensives in England and Wales by 1964, following an early tranche opened in 1949-50 (he mentions London, but there were others as I noted) and many of them were opened by Conservative councils, including Anglesey and West Yorkshire where it was nearly impossible to maintain two systems, never mind three.
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Home's manifesto was quite clear, had the Tories been re elected they would not have allowed conversion of grammars to comprehensives. Hence in 1964 the vast majority of LAs still had grammars and secondary moderns but by 1970 a majority had already moved to comprehensives
In fact, a majority still had not, but almost all of them were planning to. Thatcher rescinded Labour's order to LEAs to bring forward plans for comprehensive systems, but she didn't order them to stop. In fact, in overseeing the conversion of over 2000 schools, she proved more energetic in conversions than Labour had even though she was personally in favour of grammars.
The more amusing story is that where referendums were held on retaining grammars they were usually lost.
Even more amusingly, one of the counties where such a referendum was held (and lost) - Gloucestershire - was both one of the earliest adopters of the comprehensive model and is now one of the last counties with significant numbers of grammars.
1970 was different as by then over half of LAs had already converted to comprehensives and Heath, in whose government Thatcher was Education Sec, had no manifesto commitment to stop grammars being turned into comprehensives, especially by Labour councils, as Home had had in 1964.
Not true to say that referendums on retaining grammars were all lost. Ripon had a ballot on retaining its grammars in 2000 and parents voted 2:1 to keep them
Basically - there were around 200 comprehensives in England and Wales by 1964, following an early tranche opened in 1949-50 (he mentions London, but there were others as I noted) and many of them were opened by Conservative councils, including Anglesey and West Yorkshire where it was nearly impossible to maintain two systems, never mind three.
Thatcher was Education Secretary in the 1970s not the 1960s.
Heath was a hypocrite, having come from a working class background and used the grammar he attended to get to Oxford, the civil service and Parliament he then did nothing to preserve them as Tory leader and PM. He was more of a liberal than conservative there as in most else.
With a few exceptions it was Labour councils which mostly pushed comprehensives, the few remaining grammar schools today are almost all in areas with Conservative councils not Labour councils
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Home's manifesto was quite clear, had the Tories been re elected they would not have allowed conversion of grammars to comprehensives. Hence in 1964 the vast majority of LAs still had grammars and secondary moderns but by 1970 a majority had already moved to comprehensives
In fact, a majority still had not, but almost all of them were planning to. Thatcher rescinded Labour's order to LEAs to bring forward plans for comprehensive systems, but she didn't order them to stop. In fact, in overseeing the conversion of over 2000 schools, she proved more energetic in conversions than Labour had even though she was personally in favour of grammars.
The more amusing story is that where referendums were held on retaining grammars they were usually lost.
Even more amusingly, one of the counties where such a referendum was held (and lost) - Gloucestershire - was both one of the earliest adopters of the comprehensive model and is now one of the last counties with significant numbers of grammars.
1970 was different as by then over half of LAs had already converted to comprehensives and Heath, in whose government Thatcher was Education Sec, had no manifesto commitment to stop grammars being turned into comprehensives, especially by Labour councils, as Home had had in 1964.
Not true to say that referendums on retaining grammars were all lost. Ripon had a ballot on retaining its grammars in 2000 and parents voted 2:1 to keep them
Basically - there were around 200 comprehensives in England and Wales by 1964, following an early tranche opened in 1949-50 (he mentions London, but there were others as I noted) and many of them were opened by Conservative councils, including Anglesey and West Yorkshire where it was nearly impossible to maintain two systems, never mind three.
Thatcher was Education Secretary in the 1970s not the 1960s.
Heath was a hypocrite, having come from a working class background and used the grammar he attended to get to Oxford, the civil service and Parliament he then did nothing to preserve them as Tory leader and PM. He was more of a liberal than conservative there as in most else.
With a few exceptions it was Labour councils which mostly pushed comprehensives, the few remaining grammar schools today are almost all in areas with Conservative councils not Labour councils
[Deleted because I know full well the answer to the question was 'yes.']
We were talking about the original mass transformation of the grammar/secondary modern schools. That lasted from around 1958 to about 1975. Most of the actual conversions happened in the period 1966 to 1973, for practical reasons. But there were a significant number of earlier ones, numbering in the hundreds by 1964, which flatly contradicts your earlier claim that the transformation happened only after 1964 (which is where we started). Many of them were in Conservative-run areas, because actually where you don't have enough children to justify two sets of schools, it makes sense to go with one combined school, which also exploded your claim that it was only Labour that wanted them. Finally, even where selection was maintained there were places where it was moved so far as to be effectively eliminated, further damaging your claim that it was all pickled in aspic from 1951-64.
Thatcher was the longest serving EdSec in that period, so oversaw much of them.
But there were some LEAs which tried to resist the Labour pressure for uniformity, via referendums, which were usually lost. The irony being that one of those areas is still selective.
I hope that is now clear for you. Sorry if the facts conflict with your deeply held beliefs. They remain facts.
Comments
It's not completely inconceivable his getting the nomination, with the current state fo the GOP, but he ought to be 50/1 plus for the main event.
With eyes now pointed at Ken Chesebro's likely trial start date in Georgia.
Chesebro demanded: by Nov 3
DA Willis now replied: Oct 23!
He is making a risky gamble.
Example: Judge David Carter said of one of Chesebro's memos: It "likely furthered the crimes" in federal case.
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1694764093217857633
It would seem obvious to also weigh them 30 minutes before the fight.
As I understand it, had Joyce not procured a British passport under false pretences, he'd not have been capable of being convicted for treason (you can't betray a country to which you don't owe allegiance). But the fact is that he did so and was therefore tried and convicted for treason. The charge was not making a false statement on a passport application, it was just that he couldn't use his own false statement as a shield against the treason charge (which is pretty common in various areas of law - you can't normally use your own misdeeds as a shield).
If he hadn't done that, they would have had to find other grounds to convict him on...
They would have done.
Joyce himself had a quite witty line towards the end when offered confession by a Catholic priest. 'I've had enough trouble with false passports without trying to get one into heaven as well.'*
*At least, I think it was Joyce. It was a good line, anyway.
"Ah, Mr. Pierrepoint, I have long wanted to meet you, but not, I'm sure you'll understand, under present circumstances."
If any of the cases don't convict just imagine the furore from the right demanding others be tossed out.
It's why Christie's position is better, in that crimes or not its wrong.
The reason I have a British passport is that I was born here. If I was ever convicted of treason, it'd be pretty misleading to claim I'd been convicted for being born in the UK.
Likewise, Joyce had a British passport because he applied under false pretences, but his conviction was for treason and it's ultimately misleading to say he was convicted for lying on a passport application.
I think AJP Taylor understood that, and it was just a witty one-liner that involved a bit of a distortion of the truth for the sake of the gag.
Whether the trial proceeds speedily is beyond my limited comprehension to predict.
Trump's (and his alleged co-conspirators) are clearly vulnerable to one or more of their number making a deal with the prosecution. If things start looking bad for the small Chese, then there is a strong incentive for peripheral characters to start talking.
https://talksport.com/sport/boxing/1196632/what-is-the-rehydration-clause-in-boxing-eubank-jr-v-benn-eubank-sr/
Lock Him Up? A New Poll Has Some Bad News for Trump
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/25/ipsos-poll-trump-indictment-00112755
A significant majority of voters - and around a third of Republicans - want to see a trial before the election.
Especially since we've only got another couple of hours today and tomorrow to finish the match.
And while on one hand I'm joking at least where the partner is getting a wage they are getting something for all the weekends lost in campaigning.
It's about the efforts they made to try to overturn the result. The means that they used were, prime facie, fraudulent. I don't think a defence of incompetence will help them at all.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1695044436038693017
They may even not be allowed to put forth some defences depending on pre trial motions and various legal points? Some charges might even get excluded for the same reason.
Sam Dumitriu takes a look at why nothing gets built in Britain.
THIS is the highlight of his work:
£267m has been spent on the Lower Thames Crossing’s 63,000 page planning application.
Norway built the world’s longest road tunnel and the world’s deepest subsea tunnel for less.
We aren't comparing Norwegian tunnelling and British tunnelling. We're comparing Norwegian tunnelling and British paperwork.
You want them both to die the most painful death the other can inflict...
Panties is one of those odd Americanisms only familiar to us from sordid US crime reporting, and unsavoury pornography.
You ask “What is their Policy?”
The best video put out by Ukraine in this war so far….
https://twitter.com/ManiatiGeorge/status/1694704347702083949?s=20
None really left a mark external to the British Isles.
Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing.
After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man.
Where did it all go wrong?
😂
https://x.com/frombwtocolor/status/1694944802633121901?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Seems that Ramaswamy and DeSantis may well be significantly worse.
Trump has already actually been President for four years and, as objectionable as he is, we've already seen him in action. For example, whatever he may have said, he didn't actually try to leave NATO.
He's also getting older and people tend to mellow with age. Plus the boredom factor - once you've done a job for a while you become more inclined to sit back and enjoy the office rather than bothering to do anything new.
In contrast, Ramaswamy or DeSantis taking office for the first time at a much younger age with much higher energy levels may be much more dangerous.
Comparing to the UK, it feels like Trump = Johnson whereas Ramas and DeSantis = Truss. Seems likely that Ramas and DeSantis may do on foreign policy what Truss did on economic policy. Trump didn't actually do that.
However just 11% of Republicans want to see Trump jailed if convicted, 43% think even then he should face no penalty and 19% think he should face a financial penalty only
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/25/ipsos-poll-trump-indictment-00112755
Tokmak UPD ‼️
Houston! The Russians have a problem
Breakthrough by Ukraine reported
https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1695058164448678030?s=20
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
Australia went into Vietnam and avoided the kind of national trauma suffered by the US.
I also suspect that the UK was more on the way to the youth vs the rest conflict than Australia, but may be wrong here.
*Notably the TSR.2/F-111/F-4/F-4K/M fiasco, ditto Skybolt.
I’m bringing him up because Keir is said to view Wilson, rather than Blair or Attlee, as an inspiration.
Edit - and with that caught and bowl Gloucestershire will be finding inventive ways to throw away their wickets for fewer than 177 runs.
Here is a serious question.
Can anyone name a really good economist who proved successful at running an economy?
The polling is no consolation for them, or for Trump, though.
https://x.com/sam_dumitriu/status/1694990887439233239?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1695056208778977610
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_International_Trade_and_Industry
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Britain has been astonishingly badly served by a cabal of stupidity at Treasury and the Department of Transport, and no politician has ever cared enough to do anything about it.
Ironically, the closest we got to an infrastructure enthusiast was Johnson.
The good news is that Britain half looks like a developing country. If we can get infrastructure going, at a reasonable price, we should expect v good returns.
Look how astonishingly* popular Crossrail is.
*astonishing to anyone who works in Treasury.
https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
And the postwar boom is undeniable.
NEW THREAD
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26360498
It's possible- if you don't start the job with ideas, you're less likely to treat the system as your kit to experiment with. (Yes, Kwarteng, I am looking at you.) See also Gove at education.
And Clarke and Healey didn't start with much economic background, did they?
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.'
http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
The Ebbw Valley line reopened in 2008.
". In 2002, passenger journeys were forecast at 22,000 per month. Whereas by 2008, 44,000 journeys had been made on the service each month; also exceeding the monthly target of 33,000 set for 2012. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbw_Valley_Railway
JFBI. (Just F***ing Build It)
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Now of course you can't even ballot to open new grammars, only petition to ballot to close the few remaining
"India's budget of around $74 million for the successful landing of a spacecraft on the Moon was less than half of the price tag for Hollywood blockbuster "Interstellar.""
The more amusing story is that where referendums were held on retaining grammars they were usually lost.
Even more amusingly, one of the counties where such a referendum was held (and lost) - Gloucestershire - was both one of the earliest adopters of the comprehensive model and is now one of the last counties with significant numbers of grammars.
Now (according to wiki) lecturing at U of Ox on political science.
Would love to catch his graduate seminar on constituent relations by elected representatives!
Not true to say that referendums on retaining grammars were all lost. Ripon had a ballot on retaining its grammars in 2000 and parents voted 2:1 to keep them
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/mar/11/grammarschools.secondaryschools
(Also reading comprehension fail - I said 'usually' not 'all.')
You may have forgotten - or not known - that Heath was personally in favour of comprehensives.
If you are really interested, this is quite a good summary of teh complexities and it's free to read.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/111049918.pdf
Basically - there were around 200 comprehensives in England and Wales by 1964, following an early tranche opened in 1949-50 (he mentions London, but there were others as I noted) and many of them were opened by Conservative councils, including Anglesey and West Yorkshire where it was nearly impossible to maintain two systems, never mind three.
Heath was a hypocrite, having come from a working class background and used the grammar he attended to get to Oxford, the civil service and Parliament he then did nothing to preserve them as Tory leader and PM. He was more of a liberal than conservative there as in most else.
With a few exceptions it was Labour councils which mostly pushed comprehensives, the few remaining grammar schools today are almost all in areas with Conservative councils not Labour councils
We were talking about the original mass transformation of the grammar/secondary modern schools. That lasted from around 1958 to about 1975. Most of the actual conversions happened in the period 1966 to 1973, for practical reasons. But there were a significant number of earlier ones, numbering in the hundreds by 1964, which flatly contradicts your earlier claim that the transformation happened only after 1964 (which is where we started). Many of them were in Conservative-run areas, because actually where you don't have enough children to justify two sets of schools, it makes sense to go with one combined school, which also exploded your claim that it was only Labour that wanted them. Finally, even where selection was maintained there were places where it was moved so far as to be effectively eliminated, further damaging your claim that it was all pickled in aspic from 1951-64.
Thatcher was the longest serving EdSec in that period, so oversaw much of them.
But there were some LEAs which tried to resist the Labour pressure for uniformity, via referendums, which were usually lost. The irony being that one of those areas is still selective.
I hope that is now clear for you. Sorry if the facts conflict with your deeply held beliefs. They remain facts.