The Mid Beds Independent who might be worth a punt – politicalbetting.com
This is just a quickie but I am hearing a fair bit from Mid-Beds that a name that keeps on coming up on the doorstep is the chairman of Central Bedfordshire Council, Gareth Mackey.
In yesterday’s episode @peterkyle claimed the Lib Dems had made “deeply personal” attacks on the Mid Beds Labour candidate. Today, Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine responds.
If it had actually been shot down, could have been the ‘oh sh!t’ moment that saw a massive escalation in direct NATO involvement in this war, at least from the air.
One has to LOL at them being unable to hit such a large and slow-moving target. It was nearly as big as that Malaysian plane they took out at 37,000’ from the ground a few years ago. Yes, the Rivet Joint does have a slew of countermeasures, sadly somewhat more than a civvy 777.
As with so many episodes in the SMO this RJ vs Flanker-B engagement makes no sense at all. There is obviously a lot we are not being told.
Baldy Ben said the weapon (presumably Adder) was 'released' but 'malfunctioned'. If Old Mate had permission to splash the RJ then why didn't they fire another Adder, go in for an Archer/Alamo/guns kill or cue the wingman on to the bandit?
The only explanation that fits the paucity of available facts is that the Adder just fell off the pylon in flight - perhaps in maneuvering to get eyes on the RJ. That happens more than you think...
The Independent might comfortably win at local level but at national level, even for a by election, he is unlikely to win. He might have a high enough profile in the area to come 3rd however
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
Yeah I think O'Brien's work is challenging the more traditional view that Keegan put forward. On the surface of it, perhaps the bombing campaign didn't deliver what Harris certainly thought it could, it didn't demoralise the population so much they wouldn't carry on, but I gather that O'Brien's saying if you look at all the economic data the resources the Germans used to defend themselves against the bombing campaign were vast. Massive. And affected the entire war effort across the board. For example, dealing with the bombed-out, moving them around Germany, feeding and clothing them was itself a huge effort.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
If it had actually been shot down, could have been the ‘oh sh!t’ moment that saw a massive escalation in direct NATO involvement in this war, at least from the air.
One has to LOL at them being unable to hit such a large and slow-moving target. It was nearly as big as that Malaysian plane they took out at 37,000’ from the ground a few years ago. Yes, the Rivet Joint does have a slew of countermeasures, sadly somewhat more than a civvy 777.
As with so many episodes in the SMO this RJ vs Flanker-B engagement makes no sense at all. There is obviously a lot we are not being told.
Baldy Ben said the weapon (presumably Adder) was 'released' but 'malfunctioned'. If Old Mate had permission to splash the RJ then why didn't they fire another Adder, go in for an Archer/Alamo/guns kill or cue the wingman on to the bandit?
The only explanation that fits the paucity of available facts is that the Adder just fell off the pylon in flight - perhaps in maneuvering to get eyes on the RJ. That happens more than you think...
Your SMO definitely needs to go to the S school of MOs
Think I’ve finally worked out how to drive around mountainous southern France. You constantly drink cafe noir and pastis meaning you are simultaneously amped up and aggressive yet also laid back and uncaring if you die
Think I’ve finally worked out how to drive around mountainous southern France. You constantly drink cafe noir and pastis meaning you are simultaneously amped up and aggressive yet also laid back and uncaring if you die
Chorley Rural West, Lancashire County Council: C defence: C, L, LD Croston, Mawdesley and Euxton South, Chorley Council: C defence:C, L, LD Fazakarley East, Liverpool Council: L defence: C, L, LD, I, Liverpool Community I Carholme, Lincolnshire County Council: L defence: C, L, LD, Ref UK, TUSC Mayesbrook, Barking and Dagenham Council, L defence: C, L, LD, G Minster Cliffs, Swale Council: C defence: C, L, LD, Swale I
Chorley Rural West, Lancashire County Council: C defence: C, L, LD Croston, Mawdesley and Euxton South, Chorley Council: C defence:C, L, LD Fazakarley East, Liverpool Council: L defence: C, L, LD, I, Liverpool Community I Carholme, Lincolnshire County Council: L defence: C, L, LD, Ref UK, TUSC Mayesbrook, Barking and Dagenham Council, L defence: C, L, LD, G Minster Cliffs, Swale Council: C defence: C, L, LD, Swale I
Thanks for the list, although I sometimes get a bit confused when people use L as the abbreviation for Labour instead of Lab, because L used to be the abbreviation for the Liberals until they became the LDs.
"Shocking CCTV shows the moment two dogs break into garden and kill cat
CCTV footage shows the horrific moment two out-of-control dogs, believed to be XL bullies, break into a garden in Hounslow and, with no owner in sight, attack two cats.
While one was lucky to escape, Deepan Patel’s cat Dusty was caught, with the owner discovering the cat's body in the morning.
“The whole family is incredibly upset and my mother is in tears. The dogs should not be roaming freely and could easily have entered an open window or door and attacked a small person,” Mr Patel said.
After Mr Patel posted the CCTV on social media, other Hounslow residents shared their own stories of incidents with the dogs."
Feels like someone's targetting the wrong doorsteps to me (Gareth Mackey's mum?!)
His page on the council website says he's a deputy cabinet member and chair of development control, which I suspect generate limited name awareness and local support.
Even in a by-election (maybe *especially* in a by-election with the might of national campaigns arriving), a non-aligned guy is gonna get lost in the yellow v red v blue bun-fight, surely?
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
Yeah I think O'Brien's work is challenging the more traditional view that Keegan put forward. On the surface of it, perhaps the bombing campaign didn't deliver what Harris certainly thought it could, it didn't demoralise the population so much they wouldn't carry on, but I gather that O'Brien's saying if you look at all the economic data the resources the Germans used to defend themselves against the bombing campaign were vast. Massive. And affected the entire war effort across the board. For example, dealing with the bombed-out, moving them around Germany, feeding and clothing them was itself a huge effort.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
55,573, apparently. Should also add in the 8th Air force deaths (which were pretty bad too, certainly before the advent of long range fighter support - 26000).
I have read widely on Normandy (Sand and Steel most recently) and I remain convinced that it was only the success it was because of the bombing campaign. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was absolutely critical (just as defeating the RAF would have been for Sealion, although the Navy would have had something to say to that too). If you take Harris's line of trying to win the war from the air alone, then it was a failure, but taken in the round, horrific though it was, and I give thanks that I never had to get into a Lancaster to fly for 12 hours over occupied Europe, it has to be seen as part of the overall victory. It also allowed Churchill to postpone Overlord until 1944, under constant pressure from Stalin, who could rightly point to the death toll paid by Russians on the battlefields of the East.
Really starting to appreciate how clever the "inaction man" moniker is. The resonances are all spot on: plastic, passive, sexless, diminutive. Pull the cord and the same prerecorded phrase chirps out. It's genius. Very unlike Labour to come up with something so (chef's kiss).
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
Yeah I think O'Brien's work is challenging the more traditional view that Keegan put forward. On the surface of it, perhaps the bombing campaign didn't deliver what Harris certainly thought it could, it didn't demoralise the population so much they wouldn't carry on, but I gather that O'Brien's saying if you look at all the economic data the resources the Germans used to defend themselves against the bombing campaign were vast. Massive. And affected the entire war effort across the board. For example, dealing with the bombed-out, moving them around Germany, feeding and clothing them was itself a huge effort.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
55,573, apparently. Should also add in the 8th Air force deaths (which were pretty bad too, certainly before the advent of long range fighter support - 26000).
I have read widely on Normandy (Sand and Steel most recently) and I remain convinced that it was only the success it was because of the bombing campaign. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was absolutely critical (just as defeating the RAF would have been for Sealion, although the Navy would have had something to say to that too). If you take Harris's line of trying to win the war from the air alone, then it was a failure, but taken in the round, horrific though it was, and I give thanks that I never had to get into a Lancaster to fly for 12 hours over occupied Europe, it has to be seen as part of the overall victory. It also allowed Churchill to postpone Overlord until 1944, under constant pressure from Stalin, who could rightly point to the death toll paid by Russians on the battlefields of the East.
IIRC they had to fight tooth and nail to get Harris to break off from the bombing campaign and give the critical support in Normandy, and as soon as he could take the Lancs back he did.
I’ve only recently started listening to the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast, where Al Murray (he of Pub Landlord fame) and James Holland the historian discuss all things WW2. I’d given it a miss ‘cos I wrongly assumed it would be all Spitfires and Tiger tanks, but it really is very good, very detailed, very wide-ranging. I think they themselves are going on a bit of a journey with their knowledge of the conflict because of what they’ve discussed. Highly recommended for all the WW2 buffs on here.
A motion from Plaid Cymru to alter the 20mph policy was successful in the Senedd, with 38 votes in favour and 15 against.
The motion from MS Heledd Fychan reads that "lowering speed limits where people and vehicles interact the most can save lives" and "exemptions are possible in locations deemed appropriate by local authorities".
It adds that "the importance of community support to any speed limit changes to ensure genuine concerns can be alleviated" and "more exemptions may be identified following the introduction of new limits".
Plaid's successful amendment explicitly calls on the Welsh Government to "continuously review the impact of new limits, empower local authorities to make any further exemptions and provide local authorities with adequate funding to facilitate the introduction of new limits,"
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Seems to be some confusion about the English national anthem. When I saw the first reports, I was wondering who was complaiming about Blake's Jerusalem.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
Yeah I think O'Brien's work is challenging the more traditional view that Keegan put forward. On the surface of it, perhaps the bombing campaign didn't deliver what Harris certainly thought it could, it didn't demoralise the population so much they wouldn't carry on, but I gather that O'Brien's saying if you look at all the economic data the resources the Germans used to defend themselves against the bombing campaign were vast. Massive. And affected the entire war effort across the board. For example, dealing with the bombed-out, moving them around Germany, feeding and clothing them was itself a huge effort.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
55,573, apparently. Should also add in the 8th Air force deaths (which were pretty bad too, certainly before the advent of long range fighter support - 26000).
I have read widely on Normandy (Sand and Steel most recently) and I remain convinced that it was only the success it was because of the bombing campaign. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was absolutely critical (just as defeating the RAF would have been for Sealion, although the Navy would have had something to say to that too). If you take Harris's line of trying to win the war from the air alone, then it was a failure, but taken in the round, horrific though it was, and I give thanks that I never had to get into a Lancaster to fly for 12 hours over occupied Europe, it has to be seen as part of the overall victory. It also allowed Churchill to postpone Overlord until 1944, under constant pressure from Stalin, who could rightly point to the death toll paid by Russians on the battlefields of the East.
IIRC they had to fight tooth and nail to get Harris to break off from the bombing campaign and give the critical support in Normandy, and as soon as he could take the Lancs back he did.
I’ve only recently started listening to the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast, where Al Murray (he of Pub Landlord fame) and James Holland the historian discuss all things WW2. I’d given it a miss ‘cos I wrongly assumed it would be all Spitfires and Tiger tanks, but it really is very good, very detailed, very wide-ranging. I think they themselves are going on a bit of a journey with their knowledge of the conflict because of what they’ve discussed. Highly recommended for all the WW2 buffs on here.
Thanks NM.
I have become such a buff on account of a book I am putting together which focuses largely on the North Africa campaign, Desert Rats and all that.
If any PBers have a similar preoccupation or want to assist can they please PM me.
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
Yeah I think O'Brien's work is challenging the more traditional view that Keegan put forward. On the surface of it, perhaps the bombing campaign didn't deliver what Harris certainly thought it could, it didn't demoralise the population so much they wouldn't carry on, but I gather that O'Brien's saying if you look at all the economic data the resources the Germans used to defend themselves against the bombing campaign were vast. Massive. And affected the entire war effort across the board. For example, dealing with the bombed-out, moving them around Germany, feeding and clothing them was itself a huge effort.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
55,573, apparently. Should also add in the 8th Air force deaths (which were pretty bad too, certainly before the advent of long range fighter support - 26000).
I have read widely on Normandy (Sand and Steel most recently) and I remain convinced that it was only the success it was because of the bombing campaign. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was absolutely critical (just as defeating the RAF would have been for Sealion, although the Navy would have had something to say to that too). If you take Harris's line of trying to win the war from the air alone, then it was a failure, but taken in the round, horrific though it was, and I give thanks that I never had to get into a Lancaster to fly for 12 hours over occupied Europe, it has to be seen as part of the overall victory. It also allowed Churchill to postpone Overlord until 1944, under constant pressure from Stalin, who could rightly point to the death toll paid by Russians on the battlefields of the East.
IIRC they had to fight tooth and nail to get Harris to break off from the bombing campaign and give the critical support in Normandy, and as soon as he could take the Lancs back he did.
I’ve only recently started listening to the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast, where Al Murray (he of Pub Landlord fame) and James Holland the historian discuss all things WW2. I’d given it a miss ‘cos I wrongly assumed it would be all Spitfires and Tiger tanks, but it really is very good, very detailed, very wide-ranging. I think they themselves are going on a bit of a journey with their knowledge of the conflict because of what they’ve discussed. Highly recommended for all the WW2 buffs on here.
Cheers - James Holland is worth listening too - I will seek out the podcasts.
Think I’ve finally worked out how to drive around mountainous southern France. You constantly drink cafe noir and pastis meaning you are simultaneously amped up and aggressive yet also laid back and uncaring if you die
Today I exited a side road onto a another road (all 30mph limit, residential, though I dont' think that's important). I was turning right. There was no traffic visible to left (limited visibility, but to the distance I could see) and to the right there was a car indicating to turn left into my road, a cyclist behind that and a bus behind the cyclist. I waited to ensure the car was turning left into my road (i.e. significant slow down to add to indicator) and pulled out. At this point, the cyclist has not caught up with the slowing down car and is continuing a normal pace, say 100m still from where I'm exiting). Once I've turned on to main road, I see the bus has started to overtake the cyclist, heading towards me partially in my lane. Bus driver bails on the overtake, perhaps 50-60m from me and pulls back in behind the cyclist (I'm also pulling to one side and slowing down to make space). The bus had not started to overtake nor indicated as I started to leave the side road (I'm pretty sure of this, as the bus or other vehicles overtaking was in my mind, but I did a last check left where the visibility is poor - and just to the left is a 60mph limit, so sometimes cars come into the 30 fast - just before I pulled out, so there's a chance the indicator started a moment before I started to move).
Who was right there? If the bus was already overtaking or even indicating and would still be out of lane before reaching me I should yield and not come out of the side road, I think. But if I've started to come out, then the bus should not begin the overtake. I think... But it struck me as not entirely clear cut.
Anyway, the bus driver didn't indicate any annoyance, cyclist was safe etc as we could all three have sqeezed past. Just wondering whether I should have waited anyway for the possibility of an overtaking move.
Dear dear, that's sensitive/personal medical information. She'd better have a very good public interest justification under GDPR/ Health and Social Care Act
Didn't have to worry about data protection and EU laws on such in the 30s/40s with Mussolini and Hitler, of course
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
Yeah I think O'Brien's work is challenging the more traditional view that Keegan put forward. On the surface of it, perhaps the bombing campaign didn't deliver what Harris certainly thought it could, it didn't demoralise the population so much they wouldn't carry on, but I gather that O'Brien's saying if you look at all the economic data the resources the Germans used to defend themselves against the bombing campaign were vast. Massive. And affected the entire war effort across the board. For example, dealing with the bombed-out, moving them around Germany, feeding and clothing them was itself a huge effort.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
55,573, apparently. Should also add in the 8th Air force deaths (which were pretty bad too, certainly before the advent of long range fighter support - 26000).
I have read widely on Normandy (Sand and Steel most recently) and I remain convinced that it was only the success it was because of the bombing campaign. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was absolutely critical (just as defeating the RAF would have been for Sealion, although the Navy would have had something to say to that too). If you take Harris's line of trying to win the war from the air alone, then it was a failure, but taken in the round, horrific though it was, and I give thanks that I never had to get into a Lancaster to fly for 12 hours over occupied Europe, it has to be seen as part of the overall victory. It also allowed Churchill to postpone Overlord until 1944, under constant pressure from Stalin, who could rightly point to the death toll paid by Russians on the battlefields of the East.
IIRC they had to fight tooth and nail to get Harris to break off from the bombing campaign and give the critical support in Normandy, and as soon as he could take the Lancs back he did.
I’ve only recently started listening to the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast, where Al Murray (he of Pub Landlord fame) and James Holland the historian discuss all things WW2. I’d given it a miss ‘cos I wrongly assumed it would be all Spitfires and Tiger tanks, but it really is very good, very detailed, very wide-ranging. I think they themselves are going on a bit of a journey with their knowledge of the conflict because of what they’ve discussed. Highly recommended for all the WW2 buffs on here.
Thanks NM.
I have become such a buff on account of a book I am putting together which focuses largely on the North Africa campaign, Desert Rats and all that.
If any PBers have a similar preoccupation or want to assist can they please PM me.
In the betting market, Farooq. They're drifting, not dramatically, but noticeably nevertheless.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
What's the problem? I don't really understand why anyone would get hot under the collar about it.
Imagine your wife is in intensive care. You take a break for 2 minutes and look out the window and see the Crematorium where a family with crying relatives is leaving and another group (equally crying) is waiting to go in.
It’s literally the last thing you want by a hospital / OAP home..
In yesterday’s episode @peterkyle claimed the Lib Dems had made “deeply personal” attacks on the Mid Beds Labour candidate. Today, Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine responds.
Lots of criticism of cover (frankly I don’t care) but contents are *incredibly well* put together.
Recent cliche has been left has the ideas. But seeing panel by Blair Institute on future of healthcare suggests not.
Another good day for Sir Keir Royale ‘No Drama’ Starmer.
Anything that pisses off the likes of Bastani is likely to be A Good Thing.
It seems pretty likely to me that Labour's sudden realisation that the creaking state monopoly of the NHS doesn't work, is straightforward grift. One of the biggest funders of TBlair's foundation (to the tune of £80mn apparently) is Larry Ellison, whose company Oracle Software benefitted a huge amount from contracts awarded in the Blair years. However the NHS is liberalised, we can expect a lot of companies to make a lot of money. https://order-order.com/2023/09/13/left-of-centre-think-tanks-dwarf-tufton-street-in-terms-of-money-and-manpower/
Who do we think this chap will mainly be taking votes off?
I think that is the apposite question, and I suspect he takes votes off Tories who are unhappy with the Govt/Dorries but can't bring themselves to vote Lab or LibDem, but he also takes votes off Tories who are unhappy with the Govt/Dorries but can't bring themselves to vote Lab and thus would otherwise have voted LibDem. So, if he does well, that's good for Labour.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
Seriously? There are memento mori everywhere - funeral parlours next to pubs, cemeteries next to old folks' homes etc. As planning objections go, it's a hell of a stretch.
I'm not as radical in my disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. Sometimes the practical reality of wanting to be re-elected means councillors or MPs pay lip-service to objectors in the full knowledge that the actual decision is out of their hands. If they are not the decision maker, their objections carry limited weight anyway, so they play to the gallery knowing it ultimately won't change the outcome. It's not admirable conduct, but I can understand discretion being the better part of valour sometimes. Maybe that was the case for Mackey and the crematorium... but it's hard to read it as anything other than NIMBY.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
Seriously? There are memento mori everywhere - funeral parlours next to pubs, cemeteries next to old folks' homes etc. As planning objections go, it's a hell of a stretch.
I'm not as radical in my disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. Sometimes the practical reality of wanting to be re-elected means councillors or MPs pay lip-service to objectors in the full knowledge that the actual decision is out of their hands. If they are not the decision maker, their objections carry limited weight anyway, so they play to the gallery knowing it ultimately won't change the outcome. It's not admirable conduct, but I can understand discretion being the better part of valour sometimes. Maybe that was the case for Mackey and the crematorium... but it's hard to read it as anything other than NIMBY.
Few are as radical in their disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. He definitely doesn't want them locally near him, not in his backyard.
The fourth runner is annoying. Bit like the draw in a rugby match, you have to waste a few quid covering yourself just in case the improbable happens.
Anyone know why the LDs are weak, btw?
Essentially the LibDems need massive tactical voting in this sort of seat, starting on 12.6%, a long way behind Labour and over 40% behind the Tories. Because there's only been one poll, showing Labour leading, and Labour fighting it flat out, there is no realistic chance of the LibDems getting much tactical support, unless there's some amazing poll between now and polling day.
Obviously there will be leaflets in election week where everyone claims they're just 2% behind, one more heave! But I think they'll cancel each other out.
Can't see the Indie troubling the scorers much, but might soak up some "anyone but Tory" voters who can't quite bring themselves to vote Lab or LD.
Today I exited a side road onto a another road (all 30mph limit, residential, though I dont' think that's important). I was turning right. There was no traffic visible to left (limited visibility, but to the distance I could see) and to the right there was a car indicating to turn left into my road, a cyclist behind that and a bus behind the cyclist. I waited to ensure the car was turning left into my road (i.e. significant slow down to add to indicator) and pulled out. At this point, the cyclist has not caught up with the slowing down car and is continuing a normal pace, say 100m still from where I'm exiting). Once I've turned on to main road, I see the bus has started to overtake the cyclist, heading towards me partially in my lane. Bus driver bails on the overtake, perhaps 50-60m from me and pulls back in behind the cyclist (I'm also pulling to one side and slowing down to make space). The bus had not started to overtake nor indicated as I started to leave the side road (I'm pretty sure of this, as the bus or other vehicles overtaking was in my mind, but I did a last check left where the visibility is poor - and just to the left is a 60mph limit, so sometimes cars come into the 30 fast - just before I pulled out, so there's a chance the indicator started a moment before I started to move).
Who was right there? If the bus was already overtaking or even indicating and would still be out of lane before reaching me I should yield and not come out of the side road, I think. But if I've started to come out, then the bus should not begin the overtake. I think... But it struck me as not entirely clear cut.
Anyway, the bus driver didn't indicate any annoyance, cyclist was safe etc as we could all three have sqeezed past. Just wondering whether I should have waited anyway for the possibility of an overtaking move.
Buy a pair of dashcams (Viofo is often recommended and you can get discounts via driving channels) and upload the footage to Youtube so we can see. From what you say, you might have been hidden from the bus driver by the car turning left, but the whole thing was dealt with and became a non-event.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
Seriously? There are memento mori everywhere - funeral parlours next to pubs, cemeteries next to old folks' homes etc. As planning objections go, it's a hell of a stretch.
I'm not as radical in my disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. Sometimes the practical reality of wanting to be re-elected means councillors or MPs pay lip-service to objectors in the full knowledge that the actual decision is out of their hands. If they are not the decision maker, their objections carry limited weight anyway, so they play to the gallery knowing it ultimately won't change the outcome. It's not admirable conduct, but I can understand discretion being the better part of valour sometimes. Maybe that was the case for Mackey and the crematorium... but it's hard to read it as anything other than NIMBY.
Few are as radical in their disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. He definitely doesn't want them locally near him, not in his backyard.
That's right, he's always complaining about them on any political channel he can get and demanding that legislative action and planning action be taken.
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
Yeah I think O'Brien's work is challenging the more traditional view that Keegan put forward. On the surface of it, perhaps the bombing campaign didn't deliver what Harris certainly thought it could, it didn't demoralise the population so much they wouldn't carry on, but I gather that O'Brien's saying if you look at all the economic data the resources the Germans used to defend themselves against the bombing campaign were vast. Massive. And affected the entire war effort across the board. For example, dealing with the bombed-out, moving them around Germany, feeding and clothing them was itself a huge effort.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
55,573, apparently. Should also add in the 8th Air force deaths (which were pretty bad too, certainly before the advent of long range fighter support - 26000).
I have read widely on Normandy (Sand and Steel most recently) and I remain convinced that it was only the success it was because of the bombing campaign. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was absolutely critical (just as defeating the RAF would have been for Sealion, although the Navy would have had something to say to that too). If you take Harris's line of trying to win the war from the air alone, then it was a failure, but taken in the round, horrific though it was, and I give thanks that I never had to get into a Lancaster to fly for 12 hours over occupied Europe, it has to be seen as part of the overall victory. It also allowed Churchill to postpone Overlord until 1944, under constant pressure from Stalin, who could rightly point to the death toll paid by Russians on the battlefields of the East.
IIRC they had to fight tooth and nail to get Harris to break off from the bombing campaign and give the critical support in Normandy, and as soon as he could take the Lancs back he did.
I’ve only recently started listening to the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast, where Al Murray (he of Pub Landlord fame) and James Holland the historian discuss all things WW2. I’d given it a miss ‘cos I wrongly assumed it would be all Spitfires and Tiger tanks, but it really is very good, very detailed, very wide-ranging. I think they themselves are going on a bit of a journey with their knowledge of the conflict because of what they’ve discussed. Highly recommended for all the WW2 buffs on here.
Thanks NM.
I have become such a buff on account of a book I am putting together which focuses largely on the North Africa campaign, Desert Rats and all that.
If any PBers have a similar preoccupation or want to assist can they please PM me.
Hey, that sounds interesting. I had an article published during lockdown in a military history magazine on the Long Range Desert Group, and last year I did them a review of Gavin Mortimer's new biog of David Stirling, which debunks some of the accepted founding myths of the SAS. My Grandad was with the RASC in the desert - he was at Alamein, then through Sicily and Italy - so from all that I know a bit about the campaign. Another campaign fundamentally shaped by logistics!
There's a really good account on Twitter called African Stalingrad (@Tunisia_1943) who goes over the old battlefields towards the end of the campaign, posting pics and vids. Fascinating how much of the trenches and stuff remains, lots of it have basically not been touched since the battles ended. Worth a look.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
What's the problem? I don't really understand why anyone would get hot under the collar about it.
Imagine your wife is in intensive care. You take a break for 2 minutes and look out the window and see the Crematorium where a family with crying relatives is leaving and another group (equally crying) is waiting to go in.
It’s literally the last thing you want by a hospital / OAP home..
The last thing? When I was in Guinea Bissau, there was a fence outside the main hospital. Sat on the top of each fence post was a vulture....
Dear dear, that's sensitive/personal medical information. She'd better have a very good public interest justification under GDPR/ Health and Social Care Act
Didn't have to worry about data protection and EU laws on such in the 30s/40s with Mussolini and Hitler, of course
Isn't it also a bit below the belt and anti-trans? Very unlike her normal (rseputed) sympathies.
Today I exited a side road onto a another road (all 30mph limit, residential, though I dont' think that's important). I was turning right. There was no traffic visible to left (limited visibility, but to the distance I could see) and to the right there was a car indicating to turn left into my road, a cyclist behind that and a bus behind the cyclist. I waited to ensure the car was turning left into my road (i.e. significant slow down to add to indicator) and pulled out. At this point, the cyclist has not caught up with the slowing down car and is continuing a normal pace, say 100m still from where I'm exiting). Once I've turned on to main road, I see the bus has started to overtake the cyclist, heading towards me partially in my lane. Bus driver bails on the overtake, perhaps 50-60m from me and pulls back in behind the cyclist (I'm also pulling to one side and slowing down to make space). The bus had not started to overtake nor indicated as I started to leave the side road (I'm pretty sure of this, as the bus or other vehicles overtaking was in my mind, but I did a last check left where the visibility is poor - and just to the left is a 60mph limit, so sometimes cars come into the 30 fast - just before I pulled out, so there's a chance the indicator started a moment before I started to move).
Who was right there? If the bus was already overtaking or even indicating and would still be out of lane before reaching me I should yield and not come out of the side road, I think. But if I've started to come out, then the bus should not begin the overtake. I think... But it struck me as not entirely clear cut.
Anyway, the bus driver didn't indicate any annoyance, cyclist was safe etc as we could all three have sqeezed past. Just wondering whether I should have waited anyway for the possibility of an overtaking move.
Doesn't sound terrible, but I would have waited. Two main things. You can't rely on someone turning left even if they slow down and indicate. I tend to wait because I've seen it happen that people change their mind / realise this isn't the junction they really want and continue straight on. Second, when cyclists are in play, people get a bit fixated on them and don't think ahead. You could have anticipated the bus making a move. Easiest is to wait until it's all clear, or, if it's a super-busy junction, at least until there are no cyclists in play.
Left turning car had started the turn, I wasn't clear on that. Would have required it to swerve back to the main road, which is possible, of course. Felt it was a bit tight with the bike/bus if I waited longer - the cyclist was lycra-style, probably doing towards 20mph - but that's probably an indication that it was a bit tight
But yes, I tend to agree that I probably should have waited, just interested in the balance of views on that. Would be interesting to review, had it been recorded, to be certain on the sequencing.
Imagine your wife is in intensive care. You take a break for 2 minutes and look out the window and see the Crematorium where a family with crying relatives is leaving and another group (equally crying) is waiting to go in.
It’s literally the last thing you want by a hospital / OAP home..
Yes, I see what you mean. My mother once went to see a possible flat to rent, and the estate agent, observing her sceptical expression, said desperately "It's next to a churchyard - so convenient if you have elderly relatives!"
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
Seriously? There are memento mori everywhere - funeral parlours next to pubs, cemeteries next to old folks' homes etc. As planning objections go, it's a hell of a stretch.
I'm not as radical in my disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. Sometimes the practical reality of wanting to be re-elected means councillors or MPs pay lip-service to objectors in the full knowledge that the actual decision is out of their hands. If they are not the decision maker, their objections carry limited weight anyway, so they play to the gallery knowing it ultimately won't change the outcome. It's not admirable conduct, but I can understand discretion being the better part of valour sometimes. Maybe that was the case for Mackey and the crematorium... but it's hard to read it as anything other than NIMBY.
Well said.
Sometimes things are strange next to each other, but a crematorium near a hospital is entirely reasonable.
When we went to my nan's funeral on the drive to the crematorium, almost next to it is a Toby Carvery restaurant. On the drive over nobody said anything about it, everyone was quite emotional. On the drive back though it broke the ice and laughter erupted.
There, almost next to the crematorium, where we'd just cremated my nan, is a big Toby Carvery sign saying "Home of the Roast".
Who do we think this chap will mainly be taking votes off?
I think that is the apposite question, and I suspect he takes votes off Tories who are unhappy with the Govt/Dorries but can't bring themselves to vote Lab or LibDem, but he also takes votes off Tories who are unhappy with the Govt/Dorries but can't bring themselves to vote Lab and thus would otherwise have voted LibDem. So, if he does well, that's good for Labour.
But I still think the LibDems win.
I'm on Labour @ 3.5. If the landslide is happening (which I think it is) they will take a seat like this.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
What's the problem? I don't really understand why anyone would get hot under the collar about it.
Who do we think this chap will mainly be taking votes off?
I think that is the apposite question, and I suspect he takes votes off Tories who are unhappy with the Govt/Dorries but can't bring themselves to vote Lab or LibDem, but he also takes votes off Tories who are unhappy with the Govt/Dorries but can't bring themselves to vote Lab and thus would otherwise have voted LibDem. So, if he does well, that's good for Labour.
But I still think the LibDems win.
I'm on Labour @ 3.5. If the landslide is happening (which I think it is) they will take a seat like this.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
Seriously? There are memento mori everywhere - funeral parlours next to pubs, cemeteries next to old folks' homes etc. As planning objections go, it's a hell of a stretch.
I'm not as radical in my disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. Sometimes the practical reality of wanting to be re-elected means councillors or MPs pay lip-service to objectors in the full knowledge that the actual decision is out of their hands. If they are not the decision maker, their objections carry limited weight anyway, so they play to the gallery knowing it ultimately won't change the outcome. It's not admirable conduct, but I can understand discretion being the better part of valour sometimes. Maybe that was the case for Mackey and the crematorium... but it's hard to read it as anything other than NIMBY.
Well said.
Sometimes things are strange next to each other, but a crematorium near a hospital is entirely reasonable.
When we went to my nan's funeral on the drive to the crematorium, almost next to it is a Toby Carvery restaurant. On the drive over nobody said anything about it, everyone was quite emotional. On the drive back though it broke the ice and laughter erupted.
There, almost next to the crematorium, where we'd just cremated my nan, is a big Toby Carvery sign saying "Home of the Roast".
There’s a big eatery within about quarter of a mile of Basildon Crematorium; on what used to be the main London to Southend road. We’ve been several times, I’m sorry to say.
Today I exited a side road onto a another road (all 30mph limit, residential, though I dont' think that's important). I was turning right. There was no traffic visible to left (limited visibility, but to the distance I could see) and to the right there was a car indicating to turn left into my road, a cyclist behind that and a bus behind the cyclist. I waited to ensure the car was turning left into my road (i.e. significant slow down to add to indicator) and pulled out. At this point, the cyclist has not caught up with the slowing down car and is continuing a normal pace, say 100m still from where I'm exiting). Once I've turned on to main road, I see the bus has started to overtake the cyclist, heading towards me partially in my lane. Bus driver bails on the overtake, perhaps 50-60m from me and pulls back in behind the cyclist (I'm also pulling to one side and slowing down to make space). The bus had not started to overtake nor indicated as I started to leave the side road (I'm pretty sure of this, as the bus or other vehicles overtaking was in my mind, but I did a last check left where the visibility is poor - and just to the left is a 60mph limit, so sometimes cars come into the 30 fast - just before I pulled out, so there's a chance the indicator started a moment before I started to move).
Who was right there? If the bus was already overtaking or even indicating and would still be out of lane before reaching me I should yield and not come out of the side road, I think. But if I've started to come out, then the bus should not begin the overtake. I think... But it struck me as not entirely clear cut.
Anyway, the bus driver didn't indicate any annoyance, cyclist was safe etc as we could all three have sqeezed past. Just wondering whether I should have waited anyway for the possibility of an overtaking move.
The bus shouldn't be doing an overtaking manoeuvre near a junction precisely because they don't know what might come out of it.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
Seriously? There are memento mori everywhere - funeral parlours next to pubs, cemeteries next to old folks' homes etc. As planning objections go, it's a hell of a stretch.
I'm not as radical in my disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. Sometimes the practical reality of wanting to be re-elected means councillors or MPs pay lip-service to objectors in the full knowledge that the actual decision is out of their hands. If they are not the decision maker, their objections carry limited weight anyway, so they play to the gallery knowing it ultimately won't change the outcome. It's not admirable conduct, but I can understand discretion being the better part of valour sometimes. Maybe that was the case for Mackey and the crematorium... but it's hard to read it as anything other than NIMBY.
Well said.
Sometimes things are strange next to each other, but a crematorium near a hospital is entirely reasonable.
When we went to my nan's funeral on the drive to the crematorium, almost next to it is a Toby Carvery restaurant. On the drive over nobody said anything about it, everyone was quite emotional. On the drive back though it broke the ice and laughter erupted.
There, almost next to the crematorium, where we'd just cremated my nan, is a big Toby Carvery sign saying "Home of the Roast".
Imagine a byelection where 50 candidates stood, and the votes were so widely distributed that the winner failed to reach the 5% threshold.
Would they both become an MP, and lose their deposit?
Yes. The Representation of the People Act simply says you forfeit your deposit if you poll less than a twentieth of the vote. It says nothing about "unless you win" or anything like that.
Nor is there anything to say that someone who tops the poll isn't elected unless they pass some threshold of vote percentage, and indeed several MPs have been elected on quite low shares (albeit nowhere near 5%).
Imagine a byelection where 50 candidates stood, and the votes were so widely distributed that the winner failed to reach the 5% threshold.
Would they both become an MP, and lose their deposit?
I don't know what the PB brains trust thinks, but the Representation of the People Act 1983 just says the deposit will be forfeit if the candidate polls not more than 5% of the vote. The only exception there is "If the candidate is not shown as standing nominated in the statement of persons nominated, or if the poll is countermanded or abandoned by reason of his death". Nothing about the candidate being elected.
Today I exited a side road onto a another road (all 30mph limit, residential, though I dont' think that's important). I was turning right. There was no traffic visible to left (limited visibility, but to the distance I could see) and to the right there was a car indicating to turn left into my road, a cyclist behind that and a bus behind the cyclist. I waited to ensure the car was turning left into my road (i.e. significant slow down to add to indicator) and pulled out. At this point, the cyclist has not caught up with the slowing down car and is continuing a normal pace, say 100m still from where I'm exiting). Once I've turned on to main road, I see the bus has started to overtake the cyclist, heading towards me partially in my lane. Bus driver bails on the overtake, perhaps 50-60m from me and pulls back in behind the cyclist (I'm also pulling to one side and slowing down to make space). The bus had not started to overtake nor indicated as I started to leave the side road (I'm pretty sure of this, as the bus or other vehicles overtaking was in my mind, but I did a last check left where the visibility is poor - and just to the left is a 60mph limit, so sometimes cars come into the 30 fast - just before I pulled out, so there's a chance the indicator started a moment before I started to move).
Who was right there? If the bus was already overtaking or even indicating and would still be out of lane before reaching me I should yield and not come out of the side road, I think. But if I've started to come out, then the bus should not begin the overtake. I think... But it struck me as not entirely clear cut.
Anyway, the bus driver didn't indicate any annoyance, cyclist was safe etc as we could all three have sqeezed past. Just wondering whether I should have waited anyway for the possibility of an overtaking move.
The e-scooter was clearly at fault, needs to be banned imo. Although if it hadn't been for the xL Bully in the cyclists peripheral it would have been fine too.
Imagine a byelection where 50 candidates stood, and the votes were so widely distributed that the winner failed to reach the 5% threshold.
Would they both become an MP, and lose their deposit?
Yes. The Representation of the People Act simply says you forfeit your deposit if you poll less than a twentieth of the vote. It says nothing about "unless you win" or anything like that.
Nor is there anything to say that someone who tops the poll isn't elected unless they pass some threshold of vote percentage, and indeed several MPs have been elected on quite low shares (albeit nowhere near 5%).
Could the newly-elected MP claim for the deposit on MPs expenses?
In WW2 German manpower was chewed up on the Eastern Front. But the Germans allocated the bulk of their resources to defending their homeland from Allied bombing. Can't remember the exact figs but I think it was something like 2/3 of their economic output went on countering the Allied strategic bomber offensive once that really got going from '43 onwards. So that's steel and munitions output that was used for AA guns around cities not for U-boats or tanks, fighter planes denuded in the East to attack the bombers, scarce fuel used to power those fighters, etc, etc. Vast resources used to protect cities all across the country could not be used in the East where the land fighting was taking place. Don't forget the logistical challenges of moving all that material around the country, taking up rail capacity, burning fuel.
The killing of workers, the weakening of morale through bombing happened to an extent, but it wasn't enough to stop the Germans fighting - it perhaps even stiffened the resolve of the Wehrmacht to keep fighting in some ways. But defending against the bombing used up massive resources that couldn't be used elsewhere, reducing pressure on the Soviets in the East and allowing them to tear the Wehrmacht to pieces more easily.
So, if the Russians now have to divert resources to protect their assets that the Ukrainians could conceivably attack, that means there are fewer resources that can be used on the battlefield.
I don't think it was anything like 2/3 of economic output.
But, yes, the Strategic Bombing Campaign did force the Germans to divert resources to counter it, and it did increasing harm to their manufacturing capacity and transport links as the war went on.
After August 1944, the bombing was heavily degrading Germany's ability to produce munitions.
Maybe not quite, but it was a surprisingly big chunk. The We Have Ways podcast has been looking at this stuff recently - I'm sure they said 2/3 but I could well remembering the wrong figure. But it is certainly surprisingly large. They've cited a book that's on my list to read called 'How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II' by Phillips Payson O'Brien, which uses all the economic data to argue that the strategic bombing campaign played a much bigger role than generally accepted, due to the German resources it sucked up. I think the book's quite controversial in certain quarters.
The podcast throws up really interesting stuff - the amount of minesweepers the Germans had to build to counter the thousand of mines the RAF dropped in coastal waters, for example. Steel that couldn't be used in U-boats. All good stuff.
John Keegan's view of the bombing war (specifically the resources allocated to Bomber Command) was that it didn't achieve enough for the price paid. He's the expert so I defer to him, but I wonder how much of the economic factors he considered, and the the impacts of Pointblank etc on Normandy. It seems to me that while the cost was huge, the effects on Germany were vast and while bombing didn't win the war on its own, it almost certainly made victory in the West possible. After all, image Normandy with a decent German air force presence...
Yeah I think O'Brien's work is challenging the more traditional view that Keegan put forward. On the surface of it, perhaps the bombing campaign didn't deliver what Harris certainly thought it could, it didn't demoralise the population so much they wouldn't carry on, but I gather that O'Brien's saying if you look at all the economic data the resources the Germans used to defend themselves against the bombing campaign were vast. Massive. And affected the entire war effort across the board. For example, dealing with the bombed-out, moving them around Germany, feeding and clothing them was itself a huge effort.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
55,573, apparently. Should also add in the 8th Air force deaths (which were pretty bad too, certainly before the advent of long range fighter support - 26000).
I have read widely on Normandy (Sand and Steel most recently) and I remain convinced that it was only the success it was because of the bombing campaign. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was absolutely critical (just as defeating the RAF would have been for Sealion, although the Navy would have had something to say to that too). If you take Harris's line of trying to win the war from the air alone, then it was a failure, but taken in the round, horrific though it was, and I give thanks that I never had to get into a Lancaster to fly for 12 hours over occupied Europe, it has to be seen as part of the overall victory. It also allowed Churchill to postpone Overlord until 1944, under constant pressure from Stalin, who could rightly point to the death toll paid by Russians on the battlefields of the East.
IIRC they had to fight tooth and nail to get Harris to break off from the bombing campaign and give the critical support in Normandy, and as soon as he could take the Lancs back he did.
I’ve only recently started listening to the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast, where Al Murray (he of Pub Landlord fame) and James Holland the historian discuss all things WW2. I’d given it a miss ‘cos I wrongly assumed it would be all Spitfires and Tiger tanks, but it really is very good, very detailed, very wide-ranging. I think they themselves are going on a bit of a journey with their knowledge of the conflict because of what they’ve discussed. Highly recommended for all the WW2 buffs on here.
Thanks NM.
I have become such a buff on account of a book I am putting together which focuses largely on the North Africa campaign, Desert Rats and all that.
If any PBers have a similar preoccupation or want to assist can they please PM me.
Not sure I can assist much but am interested in the book. My grandad was in the Desert Rats (and then Iraq and also up through Italy - he was at Montecassino).
Imagine your wife is in intensive care. You take a break for 2 minutes and look out the window and see the Crematorium where a family with crying relatives is leaving and another group (equally crying) is waiting to go in.
It’s literally the last thing you want by a hospital / OAP home..
Yes, I see what you mean. My mother once went to see a possible flat to rent, and the estate agent, observing her sceptical expression, said desperately "It's next to a churchyard - so convenient if you have elderly relatives!"
She didn't take it.
Why not? From the little info we have it sounds like a flat to die for.
Today I exited a side road onto a another road (all 30mph limit, residential, though I dont' think that's important). I was turning right. There was no traffic visible to left (limited visibility, but to the distance I could see) and to the right there was a car indicating to turn left into my road, a cyclist behind that and a bus behind the cyclist. I waited to ensure the car was turning left into my road (i.e. significant slow down to add to indicator) and pulled out. At this point, the cyclist has not caught up with the slowing down car and is continuing a normal pace, say 100m still from where I'm exiting). Once I've turned on to main road, I see the bus has started to overtake the cyclist, heading towards me partially in my lane. Bus driver bails on the overtake, perhaps 50-60m from me and pulls back in behind the cyclist (I'm also pulling to one side and slowing down to make space). The bus had not started to overtake nor indicated as I started to leave the side road (I'm pretty sure of this, as the bus or other vehicles overtaking was in my mind, but I did a last check left where the visibility is poor - and just to the left is a 60mph limit, so sometimes cars come into the 30 fast - just before I pulled out, so there's a chance the indicator started a moment before I started to move).
Who was right there? If the bus was already overtaking or even indicating and would still be out of lane before reaching me I should yield and not come out of the side road, I think. But if I've started to come out, then the bus should not begin the overtake. I think... But it struck me as not entirely clear cut.
Anyway, the bus driver didn't indicate any annoyance, cyclist was safe etc as we could all three have sqeezed past. Just wondering whether I should have waited anyway for the possibility of an overtaking move.
Is that even a thing? You turned right into a road no one hurt, inconvenienced, angry, irritated, upset or otherwise put out.
Unless you all screeched to a halt, had a huge scrap in the middle of the road, and @MattW posts the footage of it there really is nothing to discuss.
Today I exited a side road onto a another road (all 30mph limit, residential, though I dont' think that's important). I was turning right. There was no traffic visible to left (limited visibility, but to the distance I could see) and to the right there was a car indicating to turn left into my road, a cyclist behind that and a bus behind the cyclist. I waited to ensure the car was turning left into my road (i.e. significant slow down to add to indicator) and pulled out. At this point, the cyclist has not caught up with the slowing down car and is continuing a normal pace, say 100m still from where I'm exiting). Once I've turned on to main road, I see the bus has started to overtake the cyclist, heading towards me partially in my lane. Bus driver bails on the overtake, perhaps 50-60m from me and pulls back in behind the cyclist (I'm also pulling to one side and slowing down to make space). The bus had not started to overtake nor indicated as I started to leave the side road (I'm pretty sure of this, as the bus or other vehicles overtaking was in my mind, but I did a last check left where the visibility is poor - and just to the left is a 60mph limit, so sometimes cars come into the 30 fast - just before I pulled out, so there's a chance the indicator started a moment before I started to move).
Who was right there? If the bus was already overtaking or even indicating and would still be out of lane before reaching me I should yield and not come out of the side road, I think. But if I've started to come out, then the bus should not begin the overtake. I think... But it struck me as not entirely clear cut.
Anyway, the bus driver didn't indicate any annoyance, cyclist was safe etc as we could all three have sqeezed past. Just wondering whether I should have waited anyway for the possibility of an overtaking move.
Is that even a thing? You turned right into a road no one hurt, inconvenienced, angry, irritated, upset or otherwise put out.
Unless you all screeched to a halt, had a huge scrap in the middle of the road, and @MattW posts the footage of it there really is nothing to discuss.
noneoftheabove may have footage as it appears he/she was there
More seriously, if something happens when I drive/cycle where I think I might have got it wrong then I tend to have a think about it (and often conclude one way or the other whether I was wrong). Here it wasn't very clear to me, but I think I'd act differently next time.
Imagine a byelection where 50 candidates stood, and the votes were so widely distributed that the winner failed to reach the 5% threshold.
Would they both become an MP, and lose their deposit?
Yes. The Representation of the People Act simply says you forfeit your deposit if you poll less than a twentieth of the vote. It says nothing about "unless you win" or anything like that.
Nor is there anything to say that someone who tops the poll isn't elected unless they pass some threshold of vote percentage, and indeed several MPs have been elected on quite low shares (albeit nowhere near 5%).
Could the newly-elected MP claim for the deposit on MPs expenses?
Almost certainly not. IPSA would ultimately decide, but paying a deposit to stand for election simply isn't part of the cost of running an MP's office. It's a cost of getting the job in the first place, but there are many and various costs of that, none of them covered by expenses.
Thing is, this stuff doesn’t surprise me any more. I know it came from the lab, I’ve known this for years, I’ve also long known there was an obvious blatant conspiracy to cover that up (still going on, tho increasingly feeble)
Anyone who denies this is now an idiot, or some perverse ideologue, the argument is not worth having
Thing is, this stuff doesn’t surprise me any more. I know it came from the lab, I’ve known this for years, I’ve also long known there was an obvious blatant conspiracy to cover that up (still going on, tho increasingly feeble)
Anyone who denies this is now an idiot, or some perverse ideologue, the argument is not worth having
The argument is certainly not worth having, but more on the basis of "don't feed the troll".
Thing is, this stuff doesn’t surprise me any more. I know it came from the lab, I’ve known this for years, I’ve also long known there was an obvious blatant conspiracy to cover that up (still going on, tho increasingly feeble)
Anyone who denies this is now an idiot, or some perverse ideologue, the argument is not worth having
The argument is certainly not worth having, but more on the basis of "don't feed the troll".
Come to think of it. Whatever happened to "Smirking Starmer"? It was all the rage in the Tory supporting Press some months ago. Did someone, somewhere twig it was effing nonsense? Not fitting, nor amusing.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
What's the problem? I don't really understand why anyone would get hot under the collar about it.
Imagine your wife is in intensive care. You take a break for 2 minutes and look out the window and see the Crematorium where a family with crying relatives is leaving and another group (equally crying) is waiting to go in.
It’s literally the last thing you want by a hospital / OAP home..
I'm not sure if Mackey's point was as specific as that and rather related to the principle of the crematorium being near a hospital - at least that was how it was expressed.
But if his concern was visibility of mourners from the intensive care unit as you hypothesise, that's not actually an objection to the location, but rather an argument for making the approval conditional on planting some leylandii (which indeed a lot of crematoriums have anyway for the privacy of mourners).
Come to think of it. Whatever happened to "Smirking Starmer"? It was all the rage in the Tory supporting Press some months ago. Did someone, somewhere twig it was effing nonsense? Not fitting, nor amusing.
Thing is, this stuff doesn’t surprise me any more. I know it came from the lab, I’ve known this for years, I’ve also long known there was an obvious blatant conspiracy to cover that up (still going on, tho increasingly feeble)
Anyone who denies this is now an idiot, or some perverse ideologue, the argument is not worth having
The argument is certainly not worth having, but more on the basis of "don't feed the troll".
QED: a perverse ideologue hoves into view
From the man who has "known this for years", believes there's a conspiracy to cover up the truth, and dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as an idiot. The only thing missing is a billy goat wanting to cross the bridge.
Lots of criticism of cover (frankly I don’t care) but contents are *incredibly well* put together.
Recent cliche has been left has the ideas. But seeing panel by Blair Institute on future of healthcare suggests not.
Another good day for Sir Keir Royale ‘No Drama’ Starmer.
Anything that pisses off the likes of Bastani is likely to be A Good Thing.
It seems pretty likely to me that Labour's sudden realisation that the creaking state monopoly of the NHS doesn't work, is straightforward grift. One of the biggest funders of TBlair's foundation (to the tune of £80mn apparently) is Larry Ellison, whose company Oracle Software benefitted a huge amount from contracts awarded in the Blair years. However the NHS is liberalised, we can expect a lot of companies to make a lot of money. https://order-order.com/2023/09/13/left-of-centre-think-tanks-dwarf-tufton-street-in-terms-of-money-and-manpower/
Hmmm:
Was Oracle that big a beneficiary of the digitization of the NHS? The big contracts for digitisation of medical records went to - IIRC - Fujitsu and iSoft. Sure, they probably had backend Oracle databases, but I don't think they were a particularly important supplier.
A pox on all your houses might be the right reaction.
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
Good luck with that. He's an extract from a lengthy Facebook post from him on a proposed crematorium:
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Feels a bit too close / on the nose to me - ideally you don’t want a crematorium next to the hospital, it’s a one stop shop too far…
What's the problem? I don't really understand why anyone would get hot under the collar about it.
Imagine your wife is in intensive care. You take a break for 2 minutes and look out the window and see the Crematorium where a family with crying relatives is leaving and another group (equally crying) is waiting to go in.
It’s literally the last thing you want by a hospital / OAP home..
I think that an already stretched planning system is not improved by giving weight to 'insensitive' placement of facilities like this, since pretty much anything could be insensitive depending on the personal morals and fortitude of an individual.
If the objection is seeing it, then just put some screening tree, problem solved.
People object to crematoriums too far away from towns, and if they are too close, you cannot win, which is why decisions are based on policy and evidence, not the 'feels'. Like a legal decision sometimes emotion needs to be taken out of things, since it would just paralyse everything, and without wishing to be too cold, someone looking out a window when upset and getting more upset is not a compelling reason for someone exercising the functions of a local planning authority - not if they want to resist successful appeals.
I live in the constituency and have never heard of Gareth Mackey outside this website. I've been canvassed twice by Labour. Usually there's no campaigns to speak of and the Tories walk it.
Comments
Wrong colour?
Valid act by the school.
Wrong supplier?
Invalid act by the school.
@TheNewsAgents
In yesterday’s episode @peterkyle claimed the Lib Dems had made “deeply personal” attacks on the Mid Beds Labour candidate. Today, Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine responds.
https://global-player.onelink.me/Br0x/TNANewEpisode "
https://twitter.com/TheNewsAgents/status/1701989833806090476
Cripes, I'm steering well clear of this market.
And lose them both
Baldy Ben said the weapon (presumably Adder) was 'released' but 'malfunctioned'. If Old Mate had permission to splash the RJ then why didn't they fire another Adder, go in for an Archer/Alamo/guns kill or cue the wingman on to the bandit?
The only explanation that fits the paucity of available facts is that the Adder just fell off the pylon in flight - perhaps in maneuvering to get eyes on the RJ. That happens more than you think...
So long as he's not another bloody NIMBY, so no better than any of the others.
He'd sweep the board.
Bomber Command lost, what, 60,000 men I think off the top of my head, during the war. The Russians lost 80,000 men, that's dead not including casualties, during the attack on Berlin. Post-Dresden (which, at the risk of opening another Pandora's box, I think was entirely justified at the time) the bombing campaign was seen as having gone too far. But I think the price those 60,000 men paid should be recognised in the disproportionately large amount of resources they tied up, and how that helped to win the war.
Seems pretty ideal. Only been going 9 minutes tho
https://news.sky.com/story/botulism-outbreak-at-french-restaurant-british-diners-urged-to-contact-emergency-services-12961120
Andrew Teale useful write up:
https://medium.com/britainelects/previewing-the-six-council-by-elections-of-14th-september-2023-20af25df3e1d
Chorley Rural West, Lancashire County Council: C defence: C, L, LD
Croston, Mawdesley and Euxton South, Chorley Council: C defence:C, L, LD
Fazakarley East, Liverpool Council: L defence: C, L, LD, I, Liverpool Community I
Carholme, Lincolnshire County Council: L defence: C, L, LD, Ref UK, TUSC
Mayesbrook, Barking and Dagenham Council, L defence: C, L, LD, G
Minster Cliffs, Swale Council: C defence: C, L, LD, Swale I
https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/12/world-first-drone-killer-hits-aerial-threat-at-80-metres-per-second-16803417/
Lots of criticism of cover (frankly I don’t care) but contents are *incredibly well* put together.
Recent cliche has been left has the ideas. But seeing panel by Blair Institute on future of healthcare suggests not.
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-09-14/shocking-cctv-shows-the-moment-two-dogs-break-into-garden-and-kill-cat
"Shocking CCTV shows the moment two dogs break into garden and kill cat
CCTV footage shows the horrific moment two out-of-control dogs, believed to be XL bullies, break into a garden in Hounslow and, with no owner in sight, attack two cats.
While one was lucky to escape, Deepan Patel’s cat Dusty was caught, with the owner discovering the cat's body in the morning.
“The whole family is incredibly upset and my mother is in tears. The dogs should not be roaming freely and could easily have entered an open window or door and attacked a small person,” Mr Patel said.
After Mr Patel posted the CCTV on social media, other Hounslow residents shared their own stories of incidents with the dogs."
His page on the council website says he's a deputy cabinet member and chair of development control, which I suspect generate limited name awareness and local support.
Even in a by-election (maybe *especially* in a by-election with the might of national campaigns arriving), a non-aligned guy is gonna get lost in the yellow v red v blue bun-fight, surely?
I have read widely on Normandy (Sand and Steel most recently) and I remain convinced that it was only the success it was because of the bombing campaign. The defeat of the Luftwaffe was absolutely critical (just as defeating the RAF would have been for Sealion, although the Navy would have had something to say to that too). If you take Harris's line of trying to win the war from the air alone, then it was a failure, but taken in the round, horrific though it was, and I give thanks that I never had to get into a Lancaster to fly for 12 hours over occupied Europe, it has to be seen as part of the overall victory. It also allowed Churchill to postpone Overlord until 1944, under constant pressure from Stalin, who could rightly point to the death toll paid by Russians on the battlefields of the East.
Anything that pisses off the likes of Bastani is likely to be A Good Thing.
Humza Yousaf accused of disrespecting King for smirking as national anthem was booed
First Minister was at Scotland’s football international with England, where God Save the King was drowned out by heckling
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/14/scotland-vs-england-humza-yousaf-god-save-the-king-booing/
Keir Starmer is like a Ken doll because he has no balls, says Penny Mordaunt
Commons Leader was referencing previous ‘Inaction Man’ taunt Labour leader made at Rishi Sunak during Prime Minister’s Questions
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/14/sir-keir-starmer-penny-mordaunt-barbie-ken-ryan-gosling/
Somebody is advising Starmer well.
Home advantage.
We still beat them handsomely,
Ally McCoist speaks for Scotland.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.12-SSCP-HPSCI-Letter-to-CIA-Re.-Origins-of-COVID.pdf
I’ve only recently started listening to the We Have Ways of Making You Talk podcast, where Al Murray (he of Pub Landlord fame) and James Holland the historian discuss all things WW2. I’d given it a miss ‘cos I wrongly assumed it would be all Spitfires and Tiger tanks, but it really is very good, very detailed, very wide-ranging. I think they themselves are going on a bit of a journey with their knowledge of the conflict because of what they’ve discussed. Highly recommended for all the WW2 buffs on here.
A motion from Plaid Cymru to alter the 20mph policy was successful in the Senedd, with 38 votes in favour and 15 against.
The motion from MS Heledd Fychan reads that "lowering speed limits where people and vehicles interact the most can save lives" and "exemptions are possible in locations deemed appropriate by local authorities".
It adds that "the importance of community support to any speed limit changes to ensure genuine concerns can be alleviated" and "more exemptions may be identified following the introduction of new limits".
Plaid's successful amendment explicitly calls on the Welsh Government to "continuously review the impact of new limits, empower local authorities to make any further exemptions and provide local authorities with adequate funding to facilitate the introduction of new limits,"
"I have always recognised the eventual benefits of a Crematorium facility to residents of Central Bedfordshire. However, my main concern here is the location proposed. CBC has seemed to be virulently opposed to any discussion which seeks to address the location, refusing all overtures to seek compromise. The site in question, insensitively located behind Steppingley Hospital and Orchard Lawns Care Home is plainly less than ideal.... effect of a cortège moving through a busy Town Centre... Could this site not be added to the holdings of local farmers..." and so on.
Sounds classic NIMBY councillor - essentially, I'd love a crematorium, just not in my ward/yard.
Incidentally, I'd have thought having a crematorium conveniently located between a hospital and care home isn't such a bad thing, but there we are.
Anyone know why the LDs are weak, btw?
I named my youngest Alistair so my Mum had a Pakistani name to call him by.
I have become such a buff on account of a book I am putting together which focuses largely on the North Africa campaign, Desert Rats and all that.
If any PBers have a similar preoccupation or want to assist can they please PM me.
Today I exited a side road onto a another road (all 30mph limit, residential, though I dont' think that's important). I was turning right. There was no traffic visible to left (limited visibility, but to the distance I could see) and to the right there was a car indicating to turn left into my road, a cyclist behind that and a bus behind the cyclist. I waited to ensure the car was turning left into my road (i.e. significant slow down to add to indicator) and pulled out. At this point, the cyclist has not caught up with the slowing down car and is continuing a normal pace, say 100m still from where I'm exiting). Once I've turned on to main road, I see the bus has started to overtake the cyclist, heading towards me partially in my lane. Bus driver bails on the overtake, perhaps 50-60m from me and pulls back in behind the cyclist (I'm also pulling to one side and slowing down to make space). The bus had not started to overtake nor indicated as I started to leave the side road (I'm pretty sure of this, as the bus or other vehicles overtaking was in my mind, but I did a last check left where the visibility is poor - and just to the left is a 60mph limit, so sometimes cars come into the 30 fast - just before I pulled out, so there's a chance the indicator started a moment before I started to move).
Who was right there? If the bus was already overtaking or even indicating and would still be out of lane before reaching me I should yield and not come out of the side road, I think. But if I've started to come out, then the bus should not begin the overtake. I think... But it struck me as not entirely clear cut.
Anyway, the bus driver didn't indicate any annoyance, cyclist was safe etc as we could all three have sqeezed past. Just wondering whether I should have waited anyway for the possibility of an overtaking move.
Didn't have to worry about data protection and EU laws on such in the 30s/40s with Mussolini and Hitler, of course
It’s literally the last thing you want by a hospital / OAP home..
https://order-order.com/2023/09/13/left-of-centre-think-tanks-dwarf-tufton-street-in-terms-of-money-and-manpower/
But I still think the LibDems win.
Backlog has risen every single month this year – as waiting times soar for victims and defendants
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/court-backlog-record-high-england-b2411465.html
I'm not as radical in my disdain for the NIMBY as Bart. Sometimes the practical reality of wanting to be re-elected means councillors or MPs pay lip-service to objectors in the full knowledge that the actual decision is out of their hands. If they are not the decision maker, their objections carry limited weight anyway, so they play to the gallery knowing it ultimately won't change the outcome. It's not admirable conduct, but I can understand discretion being the better part of valour sometimes. Maybe that was the case for Mackey and the crematorium... but it's hard to read it as anything other than NIMBY.
Essentially the LibDems need massive tactical voting in this sort of seat, starting on 12.6%, a long way behind Labour and over 40% behind the Tories. Because there's only been one poll, showing Labour leading, and Labour fighting it flat out, there is no realistic chance of the LibDems getting much tactical support, unless there's some amazing poll between now and polling day.
Obviously there will be leaflets in election week where everyone claims they're just 2% behind, one more heave! But I think they'll cancel each other out.
Can't see the Indie troubling the scorers much, but might soak up some "anyone but Tory" voters who can't quite bring themselves to vote Lab or LD.
There's a really good account on Twitter called African Stalingrad (@Tunisia_1943) who goes over the old battlefields towards the end of the campaign, posting pics and vids. Fascinating how much of the trenches and stuff remains, lots of it have basically not been touched since the battles ended. Worth a look.
Would love to assist, I'll PM you.
But yes, I tend to agree that I probably should have waited, just interested in the balance of views on that. Would be interesting to review, had it been recorded, to be certain on the sequencing.
She didn't take it.
Sometimes things are strange next to each other, but a crematorium near a hospital is entirely reasonable.
When we went to my nan's funeral on the drive to the crematorium, almost next to it is a Toby Carvery restaurant. On the drive over nobody said anything about it, everyone was quite emotional. On the drive back though it broke the ice and laughter erupted.
There, almost next to the crematorium, where we'd just cremated my nan, is a big Toby Carvery sign saying "Home of the Roast".
Is there a market on his losing his deposit?
Hypothetical question for the PB brains trust.
Imagine a byelection where 50 candidates stood, and the votes were so widely distributed that the winner failed to reach the 5% threshold.
Would they both become an MP, and lose their deposit?
We’ve been several times, I’m sorry to say.
Nor is there anything to say that someone who tops the poll isn't elected unless they pass some threshold of vote percentage, and indeed several MPs have been elected on quite low shares (albeit nowhere near 5%).
Unless you all screeched to a halt, had a huge scrap in the middle of the road, and @MattW posts the footage of it there really is nothing to discuss.
More seriously, if something happens when I drive/cycle where I think I might have got it wrong then I tend to have a think about it (and often conclude one way or the other whether I was wrong). Here it wasn't very clear to me, but I think I'd act differently next time.
Anyone who denies this is now an idiot, or some perverse ideologue, the argument is not worth having
Whatever happened to "Smirking Starmer"?
It was all the rage in the Tory supporting Press some months ago.
Did someone, somewhere twig it was effing nonsense?
Not fitting, nor amusing.
But if his concern was visibility of mourners from the intensive care unit as you hypothesise, that's not actually an objection to the location, but rather an argument for making the approval conditional on planting some leylandii (which indeed a lot of crematoriums have anyway for the privacy of mourners).
Was Oracle that big a beneficiary of the digitization of the NHS? The big contracts for digitisation of medical records went to - IIRC - Fujitsu and iSoft. Sure, they probably had backend Oracle databases, but I don't think they were a particularly important supplier.
If the objection is seeing it, then just put some screening tree, problem solved.
People object to crematoriums too far away from towns, and if they are too close, you cannot win, which is why decisions are based on policy and evidence, not the 'feels'. Like a legal decision sometimes emotion needs to be taken out of things, since it would just paralyse everything, and without wishing to be too cold, someone looking out a window when upset and getting more upset is not a compelling reason for someone exercising the functions of a local planning authority - not if they want to resist successful appeals.