Little Tommy Two-Names used to be viewed as a convicted violent racist. Now it seems he is bidding on behalf of the Government and Metropolitan police as a peacekeeper.
We shall see.
Strange days indeed.
I guess the cenotaph is the one place they can trust him to behave himself. Although the thought of a bunch of coked up racist nobheads in pringle jerseys defiling the monument to the glorious dead is a bit sickening.
Interestingly there seems to be a bit of a split on the far right over the Israel Palestine question
Hating Jews vs Hating Muslims - it must make their lives so hard, the poor dears. Two favourite things and having to choose….
Nick Griffin twitter feed is quite something to behold.
I rather not behold it, if you don’t mind. Christ, that’s a sacrifice you made, looking at it.
Not a follower / regular reader. i only noticed because it appeared in trending as it got absolutely smashed by community notes for pushing game play footage as real clashes.
Community Notes is actually the best thing Musk has done with tw@tter.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
Wisden's Ben Gardner: As far as I can tell, if England bat first, 168 is the maximum they can make to keep Pakistan theoretically in the contest. Then six a ball for 29 balls would take Pakistan to 174, which would see them just overtake New Zealand on net run rate.
It’s been a bit of a strange competition so far. Although the current top 4 are probably the right ones, and there have been some stellar performances e.g. Afghanistan’s team and the Glen Maxwell extraordinaire, but there are some problems it seems to me:
1. There haven’t been many close games. Maybe the 50 over format just cannot stand up to the excitement of IPL 20 overs any more? The 2019 men’s final was amazing but this tournament has seen very few close matches.
2. The one group format of everyone playing everyone is pretty tedious. Although the men’s world cup rugby got the seeding all wrong, their two group system was intrinsically far more exciting.
3. It seems a bit bizarre to me that after such a lengthy process it will now come down to a straight one-game knockout. If India, who have excelled, have one poor performance next week they’re out. Surely after so much faff we could have had a 2 game semi / final or at least do what the IPL does and have their rather cool playoff format? 1st and 2nd play each other, with the winner going through to the final. Then the winner of 3rd v 4th plays the loser of 1st v 2nd for the chance to make the final. A rather fairer format really.
(NB in a 2 match knockout format if both sides register a win apiece then the winner is decided by net run rate)
This is the last one under this system. The next two will have 14 teams in two groups with top three in each making the super six. won't happen as ODIs are a dead format.
FTFY
(3) Had no idea what the acronym stood for.
Can you expand on this rather than a dismissive comment that doesn’t really inform?
I’m guessing that for all its success in expanding the game into previously unreached demographics, The Hundred isn’t going to catch on around the world. (1) So if you are suggesting the 50 over format is dead, we would be left internationally with just test matches and 20 overs?
What I find particularly interesting is how brilliant the South Africans have been off almost no backing or preparation from their national cricket board.
You may be right, so I’m not necessarily disagreeing, (2) but it needs some enlightened and careful debate, no?
And I will just note that for donkeys’ years the Test Match format has been written off, only to confound everyone (including apparently the ECB) by producing stadium-packed thrillers.
(1) Yes
(2) You think it will get that when being run by the ICC?
(3) GIYF.
I think if you’re not prepared or willing to enter into a proper discussion but prefer one-liners I’ll bow out. A pity I’d like to have heard more.
No idea what 3 stands for and I’m not interested in spending my time chasing after acronyms if you really can’t discuss this properly.
It’s an interesting idea that the 50-over format is ‘dead’ (your word) but you don’t seem prepared to defend the comment, which is disappointing.
Little Tommy Two-Names used to be viewed as a convicted violent racist. Now it seems he is bidding on behalf of the Government and Metropolitan police as a peacekeeper.
We shall see.
Strange days indeed.
I guess the cenotaph is the one place they can trust him to behave himself. Although the thought of a bunch of coked up racist nobheads in pringle jerseys defiling the monument to the glorious dead is a bit sickening.
Please, it is Stone Island they wear these days.
Stuff like this is why I wear unbranded black for casual wear.
Mind you this can also cause fun.
Many years back, I was walking back from a riding lesson, through the centre of Oxford. People were looking at me on Cornmarket Street a bit funny.
Then I realised that a black shirt, black riding jeans and black leather jackboots was a sartorial choice subject to multiple interpretations.
Need to be careful with unbranded all black, uniform of antita, anti-capitalists, etc.
The main risk is that people will think you are a waiter.
Little Tommy Two-Names used to be viewed as a convicted violent racist. Now it seems he is bidding on behalf of the Government and Metropolitan police as a peacekeeper.
We shall see.
Strange days indeed.
I guess the cenotaph is the one place they can trust him to behave himself. Although the thought of a bunch of coked up racist nobheads in pringle jerseys defiling the monument to the glorious dead is a bit sickening.
Please, it is Stone Island they wear these days.
Stuff like this is why I wear unbranded black for casual wear.
Mind you this can also cause fun.
Many years back, I was walking back from a riding lesson, through the centre of Oxford. People were looking at me on Cornmarket Street a bit funny.
Then I realised that a black shirt, black riding jeans and black leather jackboots was a sartorial choice subject to multiple interpretations.
Need to be careful with unbranded all black, uniform of antita, anti-capitalists, etc.
The main risk is that people will think you are a waiter.
I’ve experienced that standing in WHSmith in dark trousers and a white shirt. “Excuse me…”
If Tory members alone picked the next leader then Badenoch or Braverman would be strong contenders still. However MPs pick the final two so candidates like Steve Barclay are also contenders to be Leader of the Opposition if Sunak loses the next general election
But you only need a third of the remaining Tory MPs to be swivel eyed loons to guarantee one of the nutters making the run off.
And we know what happens next. We saw it last time.
Neither Braverman or Badenoch made even the final 3 with Tory MPs in last summer's leadership election despite Badenoch leading Tory members polls.
True, but probably irrelevant.
Partly because the contest in 2022 was to become PM, and that was always going to come down to Truss-Sunak; they were the only ones with Great Office experience. Everyone else was putting down a marker for next time. Becoming LotO is different- it's acceptable to jump to that from a more junior role.
Mostly, though, because the top two from the 2022 election will both have been tried and found wanting. If we also assume that Mordaunt's star is also terminally fading, that promotes everyone else three places up the queue.
On a serious note, as Bangladesh probably secure qualification for the Champions' Trophy too, here are the issues facing ODI cricket:
1) It's not as popular as T20. In India, the matches involving India have sold out. However, other matches have had low attendance. They are higher than in 2019 but that's because the stadiums have a larger capacity. The last England-Aus ODI at the MCG was played in front of a crowd that wouldn't have filled even England's smallest international grounds.
2) The schedule's too crowded. Realistically with the growth of franchises there is less space for international cricket. Cricketers - especially bowlers - are picking and choosing which matches to play. If, therefore, full squads are to be maintained then something has to give. T20 is a massive money spinner and cheaper to stage than an ODI (while the ticket prices are much the same). Tests meanwhile have the advantage of being the base on which the best players build their white ball careers. Where do ODIs fit in?
3) There's just not enough of it being played, for those reasons, which is having an impact. In the last four years England have averaged 10 ODIs a year, against over 20 from 2015-2019. India played 67 (against 54 T20s) in 2019-23 compared to 81 from 2015-19. Coupled with the collapse of one day cups around the world - which goes wider than England - that goes a long way to explain the bizarre mismatches this tournament has thrown up.
So I will not be at all surprised if the Champions' Trophy proves the last ODI tournament. And I suspect bilateral series will be increasingly as T20s used to be - one offs added on to another series, if held at all.
Is it sad? Not particularly. ODIs began as a substitute for Tests and T20s for all I don't particularly enjoy them offer the glamour and glitz with the option of being more accessible (you can fit them more easily into an evening).
Do I suspect their demise will be mishandled? Hell yes. it's the ICC.
And I bet he didn't read a single word behind the line.
It's true that many rulers did ask to become British protectorates or allies at the time, and to this day there is a steady stream of countries applying to join the Commonwealth.
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
On a serious note, as Bangladesh probably secure qualification for the Champions' Trophy too, here are the issues facing ODI cricket:
1) It's not as popular as T20. In India, the matches involving India have sold out. However, other matches have had low attendance. They are higher than in 2019 but that's because the stadiums have a larger capacity. The last England-Aus ODI at the MCG was played in front of a crowd that wouldn't have filled even England's smallest international grounds.
2) The schedule's too crowded. Realistically with the growth of franchises there is less space for international cricket. Cricketers - especially bowlers - are picking and choosing which matches to play. If, therefore, full squads are to be maintained then something has to give. T20 is a massive money spinner and cheaper to stage than an ODI (while the ticket prices are much the same). Tests meanwhile have the advantage of being the base on which the best players build their white ball careers. Where do ODIs fit in?
3) There's just not enough of it being played, for those reasons, which is having an impact. In the last four years England have averaged 10 ODIs a year, against over 20 from 2015-2019. India played 67 (against 54 T20s) in 2019-23 compared to 81 from 2015-19. Coupled with the collapse of one day cups around the world - which goes wider than England - that goes a long way to explain the bizarre mismatches this tournament has thrown up.
So I will not be at all surprised if the Champions' Trophy proves the last ODI tournament. And I suspect bilateral series will be increasingly as T20s used to be - one offs added on to another series, if held at all.
Is it sad? Not particularly. ODIs began as a substitute for Tests and T20s for all I don't particularly enjoy them offer the glamour and glitz with the option of being more accessible (you can fit them more easily into an evening).
Do I suspect their demise will be mishandled? Hell yes. it's the ICC.
T20 wins because it's a short game requiring a few hours rather than a full day. And it has momentum and the Olympics on it's side. T20 is part of LA in 2028, it will definitely be in the 2032 Olympics (given that's in Australia) and having been in both those it's highly unlikely it won't continue for every more...
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
Little Tommy Two-Names used to be viewed as a convicted violent racist. Now it seems he is bidding on behalf of the Government and Metropolitan police as a peacekeeper.
We shall see.
Strange days indeed.
I guess the cenotaph is the one place they can trust him to behave himself. Although the thought of a bunch of coked up racist nobheads in pringle jerseys defiling the monument to the glorious dead is a bit sickening.
Interestingly there seems to be a bit of a split on the far right over the Israel Palestine question
Hating Jews vs Hating Muslims - it must make their lives so hard, the poor dears. Two favourite things and having to choose….
Nick Griffin twitter feed is quite something to behold.
I rather not behold it, if you don’t mind. Christ, that’s a sacrifice you made, looking at it.
Not a follower / regular reader. i only noticed because it appeared in trending as it got absolutely smashed by community notes for pushing game play footage as real clashes.
Community Notes is actually the best thing Musk has done with tw@tter.
Community Notes fact-checking and context-checking politicians is rather amusing.
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
Outside of the nineteenth century France, why would anyone be especially interested in what Tombs says?
When research historians wander off their area of expertise they are often embarrassingly ill-informed. For example, DeGroot (World War I) endorsed Nixey's notorious forgery The Darkening Age; we discussed a few weeks ago an historian of medieval Spain (Jeff Fynn Paul) not understanding the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire; Tristram Hunt's programmes on the Civil War. And I've lost count of how many historians have said Crimea was a Russian province, despite the fact it's a gross oversimplification of the very complex history of its governance.
In fact, given the French empire was actually a good deal worse than the British Empire, his views may be coloured by relative improvement.
Wisden's Ben Gardner: As far as I can tell, if England bat first, 168 is the maximum they can make to keep Pakistan theoretically in the contest. Then six a ball for 29 balls would take Pakistan to 174, which would see them just overtake New Zealand on net run rate.
It’s been a bit of a strange competition so far. Although the current top 4 are probably the right ones, and there have been some stellar performances e.g. Afghanistan’s team and the Glen Maxwell extraordinaire, but there are some problems it seems to me:
1. There haven’t been many close games. Maybe the 50 over format just cannot stand up to the excitement of IPL 20 overs any more? The 2019 men’s final was amazing but this tournament has seen very few close matches.
2. The one group format of everyone playing everyone is pretty tedious. Although the men’s world cup rugby got the seeding all wrong, their two group system was intrinsically far more exciting.
3. It seems a bit bizarre to me that after such a lengthy process it will now come down to a straight one-game knockout. If India, who have excelled, have one poor performance next week they’re out. Surely after so much faff we could have had a 2 game semi / final or at least do what the IPL does and have their rather cool playoff format? 1st and 2nd play each other, with the winner going through to the final. Then the winner of 3rd v 4th plays the loser of 1st v 2nd for the chance to make the final. A rather fairer format really.
(NB in a 2 match knockout format if both sides register a win apiece then the winner is decided by net run rate)
This is the last one under this system. The next two will have 14 teams in two groups with top three in each making the super six. won't happen as ODIs are a dead format.
FTFY
(3) Had no idea what the acronym stood for.
Can you expand on this rather than a dismissive comment that doesn’t really inform?
I’m guessing that for all its success in expanding the game into previously unreached demographics, The Hundred isn’t going to catch on around the world. (1) So if you are suggesting the 50 over format is dead, we would be left internationally with just test matches and 20 overs?
What I find particularly interesting is how brilliant the South Africans have been off almost no backing or preparation from their national cricket board.
You may be right, so I’m not necessarily disagreeing, (2) but it needs some enlightened and careful debate, no?
And I will just note that for donkeys’ years the Test Match format has been written off, only to confound everyone (including apparently the ECB) by producing stadium-packed thrillers.
(1) Yes
(2) You think it will get that when being run by the ICC?
(3) GIYF.
I think if you’re not prepared or willing to enter into a proper discussion but prefer one-liners I’ll bow out. A pity I’d like to have heard more.
No idea what 3 stands for and I’m not interested in spending my time chasing after acronyms if you really can’t discuss this properly.
It’s an interesting idea that the 50-over format is ‘dead’ (your word) but you don’t seem prepared to defend the comment, which is disappointing.
The irony.
Come back to me when you're willing to explain with actual, accurate information why 2019 was an amazing outlier and actually engage with the multiple times I've demonstrated that it was 2017 that was a really extraordinary outlier.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
"The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots. An example to us all"
On a serious note, as Bangladesh probably secure qualification for the Champions' Trophy too, here are the issues facing ODI cricket:
1) It's not as popular as T20. In India, the matches involving India have sold out. However, other matches have had low attendance. They are higher than in 2019 but that's because the stadiums have a larger capacity. The last England-Aus ODI at the MCG was played in front of a crowd that wouldn't have filled even England's smallest international grounds.
2) The schedule's too crowded. Realistically with the growth of franchises there is less space for international cricket. Cricketers - especially bowlers - are picking and choosing which matches to play. If, therefore, full squads are to be maintained then something has to give. T20 is a massive money spinner and cheaper to stage than an ODI (while the ticket prices are much the same). Tests meanwhile have the advantage of being the base on which the best players build their white ball careers. Where do ODIs fit in?
3) There's just not enough of it being played, for those reasons, which is having an impact. In the last four years England have averaged 10 ODIs a year, against over 20 from 2015-2019. India played 67 (against 54 T20s) in 2019-23 compared to 81 from 2015-19. Coupled with the collapse of one day cups around the world - which goes wider than England - that goes a long way to explain the bizarre mismatches this tournament has thrown up.
So I will not be at all surprised if the Champions' Trophy proves the last ODI tournament. And I suspect bilateral series will be increasingly as T20s used to be - one offs added on to another series, if held at all.
Is it sad? Not particularly. ODIs began as a substitute for Tests and T20s for all I don't particularly enjoy them offer the glamour and glitz with the option of being more accessible (you can fit them more easily into an evening).
Do I suspect their demise will be mishandled? Hell yes. it's the ICC.
There'll be a 2027 ODI world cup. Do you want £20 to charity on that ?
Re Badenoch's upset, obviously I don't know the details but, ffs, doesn't she think her friend might have some responsibility too? Or does Gove have some superhero power that means once he fancies someone they are powerless to resist?
The story, as presented, sounds like a load of arse. Why would she give a toss if Gove was pumping her mate full of Cambodian toothpaste? And even if said toss was given why would it make her less likely to be tory leader after the imminent electoral nabka?
What does make her less like to be tory leader is that she is always going to be outdone by Swella when it comes to spewing nonsense that people who drink in flat roofed pubs will like.
I gave you a like for “electoral nabka” and “people who drink in flat roofed pubs”
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
Outside of the nineteenth century France, why would anyone be especially interested in what Tombs says?
When research historians wander off their area of expertise they are often embarrassingly ill-informed. For example, DeGroot (World War I) endorsed Nixey's notorious forgery The Darkening Age; we discussed a few weeks ago an historian of medieval Spain (Jeff Fynn Paul) not understanding the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire; Tristram Hunt's programmes on the Civil War. And I've lost count of how many historians have said Crimea was a Russian province, despite the fact it's a gross oversimplification of the very complex history of its governance.
In fact, given the French empire was actually a good deal worse than the British Empire, his views may be coloured by relative improvement.
I'm interested in what Tombs says because he's a respected historian that provides interesting insights and perspectives.
The bile he gets is simply down to two reasons: (1) he offers a more nuanced view of the British Empire, and, (2) he defends Brexit.
That makes him a target, and so they play the man.
On a serious note, as Bangladesh probably secure qualification for the Champions' Trophy too, here are the issues facing ODI cricket:
1) It's not as popular as T20. In India, the matches involving India have sold out. However, other matches have had low attendance. They are higher than in 2019 but that's because the stadiums have a larger capacity. The last England-Aus ODI at the MCG was played in front of a crowd that wouldn't have filled even England's smallest international grounds.
2) The schedule's too crowded. Realistically with the growth of franchises there is less space for international cricket. Cricketers - especially bowlers - are picking and choosing which matches to play. If, therefore, full squads are to be maintained then something has to give. T20 is a massive money spinner and cheaper to stage than an ODI (while the ticket prices are much the same). Tests meanwhile have the advantage of being the base on which the best players build their white ball careers. Where do ODIs fit in?
3) There's just not enough of it being played, for those reasons, which is having an impact. In the last four years England have averaged 10 ODIs a year, against over 20 from 2015-2019. India played 67 (against 54 T20s) in 2019-23 compared to 81 from 2015-19. Coupled with the collapse of one day cups around the world - which goes wider than England - that goes a long way to explain the bizarre mismatches this tournament has thrown up.
So I will not be at all surprised if the Champions' Trophy proves the last ODI tournament. And I suspect bilateral series will be increasingly as T20s used to be - one offs added on to another series, if held at all.
Is it sad? Not particularly. ODIs began as a substitute for Tests and T20s for all I don't particularly enjoy them offer the glamour and glitz with the option of being more accessible (you can fit them more easily into an evening).
Do I suspect their demise will be mishandled? Hell yes. it's the ICC.
There'll be a 2027 ODI world cup. Do you want £20 to charity on that ?
Betting on the decision making of the ICC? No.
They're perfectly capable of arbitrarily ordering an ODI cup even if there have been no ODIs for ten years (which obviously won't be the case)!
But if the bigger nations are not playing ODIs, and the smaller ones will also increasingly concentrate on T20 for financial reasons - both of which look pretty much nailed on - and domestic competitions one day competitions continue to wither in the face of franchise leagues, while fewer and fewer people watch it, it will be an even bigger farce than this one has if it goes ahead.
Re Badenoch's upset, obviously I don't know the details but, ffs, doesn't she think her friend might have some responsibility too? Or does Gove have some superhero power that means once he fancies someone they are powerless to resist?
The story, as presented, sounds like a load of arse. Why would she give a toss if Gove was pumping her mate full of Cambodian toothpaste? And even if said toss was given why would it make her less likely to be tory leader after the imminent electoral nabka?
What does make her less like to be tory leader is that she is always going to be outdone by Swella when it comes to spewing nonsense that people who drink in flat roofed pubs will like.
Gove was her éminence grise.
As The Times notes
Gove championed Badenoch during the Tory leadership contest in summer last year, hailing her “focus, intellect and no-bullshit” drive. “If you want to drive change, empower the right people,” he said. “Kemi Badenoch has the Right Stuff.”
Badenoch emerged as one of the stars of the leadership campaign....
...Gove’s endorsement of Badenoch in last year’s election was seen as giving an important early boost to her campaign, in which she impressed Tory activists with her straight-talking comments about identity politics.
Badenoch is now widely seen as one of the frontrunners to take over from Sunak if the Conservatives lose the next election, making her relations with Gove a potentially important factor in the future of the party...
...The alliance between Gove and Badenoch has fascinated Tory MPs and Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, made it a key element in her book The Plot: The Political Assassination of Boris Johnson, published this week.
She quotes a source as saying Gove has been “building up Kemi Badenoch as the next leader of the Conservative Party, because that was part of the plan and it still is. He’s been mentoring Kemi for a long time, possibly, originally, at Dougie’s [the political fixer Dougie Smith] behest.” Gove has dismissed such claims and Badenoch has repeatedly expressed frustration at how her actions are now seen through the prism of future leadership ambitions.
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
Outside of the nineteenth century France, why would anyone be especially interested in what Tombs says?
When research historians wander off their area of expertise they are often embarrassingly ill-informed. For example, DeGroot (World War I) endorsed Nixey's notorious forgery The Darkening Age; we discussed a few weeks ago an historian of medieval Spain (Jeff Fynn Paul) not understanding the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire; Tristram Hunt's programmes on the Civil War. And I've lost count of how many historians have said Crimea was a Russian province, despite the fact it's a gross oversimplification of the very complex history of its governance.
In fact, given the French empire was actually a good deal worse than the British Empire, his views may be coloured by relative improvement.
Generalisable to many kinds of expert outside their domain.
There were some letters on politics from Einstein to Sidney Hook that are genuinely WTAF.
Re Badenoch's upset, obviously I don't know the details but, ffs, doesn't she think her friend might have some responsibility too? Or does Gove have some superhero power that means once he fancies someone they are powerless to resist?
The story, as presented, sounds like a load of arse. Why would she give a toss if Gove was pumping her mate full of Cambodian toothpaste? And even if said toss was given why would it make her less likely to be tory leader after the imminent electoral nabka?
What does make her less like to be tory leader is that she is always going to be outdone by Swella when it comes to spewing nonsense that people who drink in flat roofed pubs will like.
I gave you a like for “electoral nabka” and “people who drink in flat roofed pubs”
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
Outside of the nineteenth century France, why would anyone be especially interested in what Tombs says?
When research historians wander off their area of expertise they are often embarrassingly ill-informed. For example, DeGroot (World War I) endorsed Nixey's notorious forgery The Darkening Age; we discussed a few weeks ago an historian of medieval Spain (Jeff Fynn Paul) not understanding the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire; Tristram Hunt's programmes on the Civil War. And I've lost count of how many historians have said Crimea was a Russian province, despite the fact it's a gross oversimplification of the very complex history of its governance.
In fact, given the French empire was actually a good deal worse than the British Empire, his views may be coloured by relative improvement.
I'm interested in what Tombs says because he's a respected historian that provides interesting insights and perspectives.
The bile he gets is simply down to two reasons: (1) he offers a more nuanced view of the British Empire, and, (2) he defends Brexit.
That makes him a target, and so they play the man.
He's a respected historian *on France.*
I know because I've read a lot of his work. Heck, I've got a bookshelf full of his books from when I taught the French Revolution at A-level.
That doesn't mean he's worth listening to on subjects outside that.
I'm just as qualified as he is in History, but if you took my word on the history of Ancient Greece or the Civil War era you'd be making an error.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
Re Badenoch's upset, obviously I don't know the details but, ffs, doesn't she think her friend might have some responsibility too? Or does Gove have some superhero power that means once he fancies someone they are powerless to resist?
The story, as presented, sounds like a load of arse. Why would she give a toss if Gove was pumping her mate full of Cambodian toothpaste? And even if said toss was given why would it make her less likely to be tory leader after the imminent electoral nabka?
What does make her less like to be tory leader is that she is always going to be outdone by Swella when it comes to spewing nonsense that people who drink in flat roofed pubs will like.
I gave you a like for “electoral nabka” and “people who drink in flat roofed pubs”
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
Outside of the nineteenth century France, why would anyone be especially interested in what Tombs says?
When research historians wander off their area of expertise they are often embarrassingly ill-informed. For example, DeGroot (World War I) endorsed Nixey's notorious forgery The Darkening Age; we discussed a few weeks ago an historian of medieval Spain (Jeff Fynn Paul) not understanding the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire; Tristram Hunt's programmes on the Civil War. And I've lost count of how many historians have said Crimea was a Russian province, despite the fact it's a gross oversimplification of the very complex history of its governance.
In fact, given the French empire was actually a good deal worse than the British Empire, his views may be coloured by relative improvement.
Generalisable to many kinds of expert outside their domain.
There were some letters on politics from Einstein to Sidney Hook that are genuinely WTAF.
Not just that- those domains are pretty small. The days when All of Science, or All of History, fitted in one brain have gone.
One of the nice things about teaching- it requires you to know something about a lot, rather than everything about a little.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
Outside of the nineteenth century France, why would anyone be especially interested in what Tombs says?
When research historians wander off their area of expertise they are often embarrassingly ill-informed. For example, DeGroot (World War I) endorsed Nixey's notorious forgery The Darkening Age; we discussed a few weeks ago an historian of medieval Spain (Jeff Fynn Paul) not understanding the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire; Tristram Hunt's programmes on the Civil War. And I've lost count of how many historians have said Crimea was a Russian province, despite the fact it's a gross oversimplification of the very complex history of its governance.
In fact, given the French empire was actually a good deal worse than the British Empire, his views may be coloured by relative improvement.
I'm interested in what Tombs says because he's a respected historian that provides interesting insights and perspectives.
The bile he gets is simply down to two reasons: (1) he offers a more nuanced view of the British Empire, and, (2) he defends Brexit.
That makes him a target, and so they play the man.
He's a respected historian *on France.*
I know because I've read a lot of his work. Heck, I've got a bookshelf full of his books from when I taught the French Revolution at A-level.
That doesn't mean he's worth listening to on subjects outside that.
I'm just as qualified as he is in History, but if you took my word on the history of Ancient Greece or the Civil War era you'd be making an error.
I respect his works on English history as well, which I've bought and read.
They are being sledged purely due to his present day politics.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
Has anyone noted that the AI audio fake of Sadiq Khan discussing the Remembrance Day parades is really good? As in: thoroughly convincing, as pure audio?
For clarity: I believe it is fake, because of the content. The syntax is not the way Khan speaks, and he’s incredibly cautious and lawyerly in all his statements - would he really say this even in a private chat (which could be recorded)? I strongly doubt it
So: fake, is my guess. But I’m interested to know if anyone has proved it is a fake “technically”? By voice analysis? Does that even work any more?
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
As far as I'm aware, what I've posted is the widely acknowledged interpretation of the polling data. Perhaps you have a radical alternative theory about how the Tories can squeeze the Lib Dems if only they'd be more centrist and euro-enthusiastic - I'd love to hear it. Or perhaps like PTP you're just ignoring the facts because they don't suit your political bias.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Royal Mail looks like taking a leaf out of the Post Office’s book with the furore over stamps! Where there really that many forgeries?
Indeed, and add to that the £2.50 fine on the *recipient* for unbarcoded stamps of the right money (but £1.50 for barcoded of the wrong money). S ome prize nuggets:
'Some of the new barcoded stamps have also been declared counterfeit by Royal Mail, which has issued fines to unwitting recipients. In March, constituents in Brighton were charged a £2.50 fine to receive Labour party leaflets after Royal Mail insisted the party had used fake stamps for a campaign mailshot. Critics have accused the company of ignoring problems with its barcode scanning technology.
[...]
'Customers who contacted Guardian Money say they have been accused of potential criminality after their stamps were confiscated by Royal Mail, which insisted they had already been used or were counterfeit.
Some who sent in high-value batches say they have been left hundreds of pounds out of pocket.
Sheila Spelsby from London says she was informed that it was a criminal offence to use fraudulent stamps when she attempted to replace a batch of seven first- and second-class stamps under the scheme.
“Royal Mail claims that my stamps, which were bought from my local post office, are ‘either used or fraudulent’ – they should surely be able to state which,” she says.
“When I complained, the stamps were inspected again, with the same conclusion. I then complained to the supposedly independent Postal Review Panel [the final stage in Royal Mail’s complaints handling process], which confirmed that my ‘six first-class stamps were either used or fraudulent’. I did not send six first-class stamps! I was told that as it is a criminal offence to use fraudulent stamps, they would not be returned to me. I now stand accused of criminal behaviour while Royal Mail confiscates the evidence.”'
A society of which I am a member sends out a quarterly magazine. For one recent issue a large number of members were asked to pay a surcharge on delivery on the grounds that the stamps were counterfeit. Royal Mail backed down for some members, admitting that the stamps were not counterfeit, but others found Royal Mail sticking to its guns. This left Royal Mail in the ludicrous position of claiming that a stamp was counterfeit but the stamp next to it on the same sheet of unused stamps was genuine.
More recently, a member was asked to pay a surcharge to receive his copy of the magazine on the basis that insufficient postage was attached. The three stamps attached to the package clearly added up to the correct amount of postage.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
How about pointing out both? That's what I do.
Then that's fine.
Yes @SouthamObserver is - sincerely - quite even handed on this subject. He’s been strongly critical of the marches, noting that they are organised by Hamas sympathisers (which they are)
Incidentally, I've just finished one of the best history books I've read in a couple of years (*)
"The walls have ears," by Helen Fry, details the covert eavesdropping that we did on German (**) prisoners during WW2, and in particular the generals, by MI6, MI9 and MI19.
It fills in gaps in other works, particularly things like R.V. Jones "Most Secret War", to say how some of the intelligence was gained. Some saw its work as important as that of Bletchley Park.
What is more, and unusually for a seemingly- well-sourced book on WW2, and particularly one that has large sections on the Holocaust and war crimes, it can actually be wryly funny. The German generals formed anti-Nazi and pro-Nazi groupings whilst in captivity, and often acted like spoilt children - even when given dinner at Harrods!
It really is an interesting book if you're into WW2 arcana.
Someone I know online slightly opened a fudge shop a while ago. Sadly, didn't last too long. It was the perfect excuse to buy myself a shitload of fudge. Because I was supporting a friend, selflessly.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
Human nature to think that a failing organisation should become what I want in order get back to success. See also, Marks and Spencer or the BBC.
The grimness of Sunak's situation is that his position is probably as good as it gets. He can't try to appeal more to the Centre-rightist Dads without losing votes to Reform. He can't win back the votes he has lost to the right without another layer flaking off on the left.
Moral: if you have to fight on two fronts, whether it's war, business or politics, you're probably doomed.
If Tory members alone picked the next leader then Badenoch or Braverman would be strong contenders still. However MPs pick the final two so candidates like Steve Barclay are also contenders to be Leader of the Opposition if Sunak loses the next general election
But you only need a third of the remaining Tory MPs to be swivel eyed loons to guarantee one of the nutters making the run off.
And we know what happens next. We saw it last time.
Neither Braverman or Badenoch made even the final 3 with Tory MPs in last summer's leadership election despite Badenoch leading Tory members polls.
True, but probably irrelevant.
Partly because the contest in 2022 was to become PM, and that was always going to come down to Truss-Sunak; they were the only ones with Great Office experience. Everyone else was putting down a marker for next time. Becoming LotO is different- it's acceptable to jump to that from a more junior role.
Mostly, though, because the top two from the 2022 election will both have been tried and found wanting. If we also assume that Mordaunt's star is also terminally fading, that promotes everyone else three places up the queue.
Mordaunt is still plausible as a final 2 contender (and even, perhaps, a winner), if she keeps her seat. She’s not been involved in a policy role in this government, which shields her from some of the crapness, and she is popular among Tory members, particularly moderates.
I think she has her work cut out for her if she’s up against a candidate of the right, but it’s easier to see a Mordaunt/Badenoch or Mordaunt/Braverman final 2 than it is a Braverman/Badenoch.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
How about pointing out both? That's what I do.
Then that's fine.
Yes @SouthamObserver is - sincerely - quite even handed on this subject. He’s been strongly critical of the marches, noting that they are organised by Hamas sympathisers (which they are)
An article in The Spectator today changed my mind.
I think many people (including HMG, The Met and much of the public) would rather the march on Sunday didn't take place. But, if it was banned, lots of smaller, uncontrolled, more extreme acts of protests would happen all over London & elsewhere, probably centred at smaller suburban and town cenotaphs, which would risk provoking outrage with possible counter-protests. The resources to respond to or police them all aren't there.
So this would take place and it would create lurid headlines and pictures that would risk permanently politicising Remembrance Sunday, which further polarising society. That would be even worse.
Thus, the best thing to do, is to have one regulated, proscribed and well-policed march on Sunday well away from the cenotaph, to draw the sting, and try as best as we can to ignore absolutely everyone who goes on it.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
The number is 15%. They show up in polls that ask people in the UK if they like and support Donald Trump. It's always around that number. That's your Hard Right. It's enough to get things like Brexits and Boris Johnson landslides over the line but only when allied to other voter groupings, it's nowhere enough on its own. And thank goodness for that because if it were we'd really be in the shit.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
As far as I'm aware, what I've posted is the widely acknowledged interpretation of the polling data. Perhaps you have a radical alternative theory about how the Tories can squeeze the Lib Dems if only they'd be more centrist and euro-enthusiastic - I'd love to hear it. Or perhaps like PTP you're just ignoring the facts because they don't suit your political bias.
The big leap of faith you’re making is about the Tory undecideds or abstainers. You assume because they normally vote Tory that they’re therefore on the right of the party and care most about culture war.
Maslow’s hierarchy operates here. They may just as likely (I’d suggest more likely) be sitting on their hands because stuff has got more expensive, the local schools are falling apart and they have to wait 6 months for a routine operation.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
How about pointing out both? That's what I do.
Then that's fine.
Yes @SouthamObserver is - sincerely - quite even handed on this subject. He’s been strongly critical of the marches, noting that they are organised by Hamas sympathisers (which they are)
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
The number is 15%. They show up in polls that ask people in the UK if they like and support Donald Trump. It's always around that number. That's your Hard Right. It's enough to get things like Brexits and Boris Johnson landslides over the line but only when allied to other voter groupings, it's nowhere enough on its own. And thank goodness for that because if it were we'd really be in the shit.
And I would suggest even those are luxury beliefs for some (a term helpfully coined by someone on the right recently). Things people can afford to get worked up about when they’re feeling financially comfortable. So their salience goes up and down. For others of course they are the opposite: the politics of desperation. But not that many I’d suggest, certainly not when you look at the socio-economics behind UK voting. The really really poor vote left.
I have a feeling 2019 is becoming for the right what 2017 was - ridiculously - for the left. An election result that hardens into a rigid dogma about what wins and loses, irrelevant to the real needs etc.
Incidentally, I've just finished one of the best history books I've read in a couple of years (*)
"The walls have ears," by Helen Fry, details the covert eavesdropping that we did on German (**) prisoners during WW2, and in particular the generals, by MI6, MI9 and MI19.
It fills in gaps in other works, particularly things like R.V. Jones "Most Secret War", to say how some of the intelligence was gained. Some saw its work as important as that of Bletchley Park.
What is more, and unusually for a seemingly- well-sourced book on WW2, and particularly one that has large sections on the Holocaust and war crimes, it can actually be wryly funny. The German generals formed anti-Nazi and pro-Nazi groupings whilst in captivity, and often acted like spoilt children - even when given dinner at Harrods!
It really is an interesting book if you're into WW2 arcana.
(*) Okay, I don't read that many... (**) Not Italian; they are dismissed early on as being irrelevant. Ouch.
That does sound interesting. I may get it for my Kindle.
Another good book I read recently was The Forgotten Slave Trade: The White European Slaves of Islam, which argued that the Muslim slave trade in white Europeans had a huge impact on European history. I didn't realise how important it was, for instance, in causing our own Civil War (through largely causing the need for Ship Money for ships to police the seas).
Incidentally, I've just finished one of the best history books I've read in a couple of years (*)
"The walls have ears," by Helen Fry, details the covert eavesdropping that we did on German (**) prisoners during WW2, and in particular the generals, by MI6, MI9 and MI19.
It fills in gaps in other works, particularly things like R.V. Jones "Most Secret War", to say how some of the intelligence was gained. Some saw its work as important as that of Bletchley Park.
What is more, and unusually for a seemingly- well-sourced book on WW2, and particularly one that has large sections on the Holocaust and war crimes, it can actually be wryly funny. The German generals formed anti-Nazi and pro-Nazi groupings whilst in captivity, and often acted like spoilt children - even when given dinner at Harrods!
It really is an interesting book if you're into WW2 arcana.
(*) Okay, I don't read that many... (**) Not Italian; they are dismissed early on as being irrelevant. Ouch.
In the Guardian review of the Tom Cruise film Valkaryie, they took exception to the way the film portrayed the German generals as a bunch of neurotic, indecisive clowns.
Personally, having read the history of the plot, that was bang on the money.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
As far as I'm aware, what I've posted is the widely acknowledged interpretation of the polling data. Perhaps you have a radical alternative theory about how the Tories can squeeze the Lib Dems if only they'd be more centrist and euro-enthusiastic - I'd love to hear it. Or perhaps like PTP you're just ignoring the facts because they don't suit your political bias.
The big leap of faith you’re making is about the Tory undecideds or abstainers. You assume because they normally vote Tory that they’re therefore on the right of the party and care most about culture war.
Maslow’s hierarchy operates here. They may just as likely (I’d suggest more likely) be sitting on their hands because stuff has got more expensive, the local schools are falling apart and they have to wait 6 months for a routine operation.
The problem of Sunaks approach to Culture War is that it is not enough for some ex-voters (who move to REFUK) and far too much for others.
I think things will get worse for him. He is completely lost, promoted far too quickly and too fast.
Incidentally, I've just finished one of the best history books I've read in a couple of years (*)
"The walls have ears," by Helen Fry, details the covert eavesdropping that we did on German (**) prisoners during WW2, and in particular the generals, by MI6, MI9 and MI19.
It fills in gaps in other works, particularly things like R.V. Jones "Most Secret War", to say how some of the intelligence was gained. Some saw its work as important as that of Bletchley Park.
What is more, and unusually for a seemingly- well-sourced book on WW2, and particularly one that has large sections on the Holocaust and war crimes, it can actually be wryly funny. The German generals formed anti-Nazi and pro-Nazi groupings whilst in captivity, and often acted like spoilt children - even when given dinner at Harrods!
It really is an interesting book if you're into WW2 arcana.
TBF I haven't read the article, and so might be wrong. But annoyingly often, the clickbait headlines do not match what the article says. Does his article actually say what the headline states?
No-one cares what the article says.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
Outside of the nineteenth century France, why would anyone be especially interested in what Tombs says?
When research historians wander off their area of expertise they are often embarrassingly ill-informed. For example, DeGroot (World War I) endorsed Nixey's notorious forgery The Darkening Age; we discussed a few weeks ago an historian of medieval Spain (Jeff Fynn Paul) not understanding the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire; Tristram Hunt's programmes on the Civil War. And I've lost count of how many historians have said Crimea was a Russian province, despite the fact it's a gross oversimplification of the very complex history of its governance.
In fact, given the French empire was actually a good deal worse than the British Empire, his views may be coloured by relative improvement.
I'm interested in what Tombs says because he's a respected historian that provides interesting insights and perspectives.
The bile he gets is simply down to two reasons: (1) he offers a more nuanced view of the British Empire, and, (2) he defends Brexit.
That makes him a target, and so they play the man.
Tombs is fine thanks, and his book on England's history not bad at all, though for me he skips too quickly through the interesting stuff (up to about 1500) and too slowly through the modern bit.
The problem is not really Tombs, it is the DM and its leftish mirror images. Everything has to be good or bad, right or wrong; the British Empire has to be great or evil. Such stuff is worthless.
By the way it was cheering to hear Nicholas Soames on R4 Today this morning speaking sanely about demos and Israel/Palestine reminding us that hiding away waiting its turn is a sane Tory party.
I wonder if we're possibly all underestimating RefUK?
I think most of us are expecting that their poll score is, like that for the Greens, something of a mirage, and will deflate under the intense two-party squeeze of a general election campaign.
However, if a Labour victory is seen as inevitable, it may appear more attractive to some voters to vote for RefUK to send a message. This would have two possible consequences.
Firstly, thanks to FPTP, it could lead to a rout for the Tories that makes 1997 look like a good result. Secondly, despite the landslide victory this would hand Labour, it could mean that the politics of the far right was much more prominent during the next Parliament.
UKIP did get 12.6% of the vote at GE2015. Is 8% for RefUK really that outlandish?
Incidentally, I've just finished one of the best history books I've read in a couple of years (*)
"The walls have ears," by Helen Fry, details the covert eavesdropping that we did on German (**) prisoners during WW2, and in particular the generals, by MI6, MI9 and MI19.
It fills in gaps in other works, particularly things like R.V. Jones "Most Secret War", to say how some of the intelligence was gained. Some saw its work as important as that of Bletchley Park.
What is more, and unusually for a seemingly- well-sourced book on WW2, and particularly one that has large sections on the Holocaust and war crimes, it can actually be wryly funny. The German generals formed anti-Nazi and pro-Nazi groupings whilst in captivity, and often acted like spoilt children - even when given dinner at Harrods!
It really is an interesting book if you're into WW2 arcana.
(*) Okay, I don't read that many... (**) Not Italian; they are dismissed early on as being irrelevant. Ouch.
That does sound interesting. I may get it for my Kindle.
Another good book I read recently was The Forgotten Slave Trade: The White European Slaves of Islam, which argued that the Muslim slave trade in white Europeans had a huge impact on European history. I didn't realise how important it was, for instance, in causing our own Civil War (through largely causing the need for Ship Money for ships to police the seas).
White Gold, by Giles Milton, is also good on that history
I had no idea the extent of the depredations on Cornwall and Cornish fisherfolk
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Royal Mail looks like taking a leaf out of the Post Office’s book with the furore over stamps! Where there really that many forgeries?
Indeed, and add to that the £2.50 fine on the *recipient* for unbarcoded stamps of the right money (but £1.50 for barcoded of the wrong money). S ome prize nuggets:
'Some of the new barcoded stamps have also been declared counterfeit by Royal Mail, which has issued fines to unwitting recipients. In March, constituents in Brighton were charged a £2.50 fine to receive Labour party leaflets after Royal Mail insisted the party had used fake stamps for a campaign mailshot. Critics have accused the company of ignoring problems with its barcode scanning technology.
[...]
'Customers who contacted Guardian Money say they have been accused of potential criminality after their stamps were confiscated by Royal Mail, which insisted they had already been used or were counterfeit.
Some who sent in high-value batches say they have been left hundreds of pounds out of pocket.
Sheila Spelsby from London says she was informed that it was a criminal offence to use fraudulent stamps when she attempted to replace a batch of seven first- and second-class stamps under the scheme.
“Royal Mail claims that my stamps, which were bought from my local post office, are ‘either used or fraudulent’ – they should surely be able to state which,” she says.
“When I complained, the stamps were inspected again, with the same conclusion. I then complained to the supposedly independent Postal Review Panel [the final stage in Royal Mail’s complaints handling process], which confirmed that my ‘six first-class stamps were either used or fraudulent’. I did not send six first-class stamps! I was told that as it is a criminal offence to use fraudulent stamps, they would not be returned to me. I now stand accused of criminal behaviour while Royal Mail confiscates the evidence.”'
A society of which I am a member sends out a quarterly magazine. For one recent issue a large number of members were asked to pay a surcharge on delivery on the grounds that the stamps were counterfeit. Royal Mail backed down for some members, admitting that the stamps were not counterfeit, but others found Royal Mail sticking to its guns. This left Royal Mail in the ludicrous position of claiming that a stamp was counterfeit but the stamp next to it on the same sheet of unused stamps was genuine.
More recently, a member was asked to pay a surcharge to receive his copy of the magazine on the basis that insufficient postage was attached. The three stamps attached to the package clearly added up to the correct amount of postage.
What on earth will they do with the letters sent to Santa with a stamp drawn in green biro with a reindeer head on it? Perhaps the armed response team will be sent round to the offending homes.
Incidentally, I've just finished one of the best history books I've read in a couple of years (*)
"The walls have ears," by Helen Fry, details the covert eavesdropping that we did on German (**) prisoners during WW2, and in particular the generals, by MI6, MI9 and MI19.
It fills in gaps in other works, particularly things like R.V. Jones "Most Secret War", to say how some of the intelligence was gained. Some saw its work as important as that of Bletchley Park.
What is more, and unusually for a seemingly- well-sourced book on WW2, and particularly one that has large sections on the Holocaust and war crimes, it can actually be wryly funny. The German generals formed anti-Nazi and pro-Nazi groupings whilst in captivity, and often acted like spoilt children - even when given dinner at Harrods!
It really is an interesting book if you're into WW2 arcana.
(*) Okay, I don't read that many... (**) Not Italian; they are dismissed early on as being irrelevant. Ouch.
That does sound interesting. I may get it for my Kindle.
Another good book I read recently was The Forgotten Slave Trade: The White European Slaves of Islam, which argued that the Muslim slave trade in white Europeans had a huge impact on European history. I didn't realise how important it was, for instance, in causing our own Civil War (through largely causing the need for Ship Money for ships to police the seas).
IIRC the Protectorate raised far more Ship Money than Charles I - higher rates and more ruthless enforcement - for the same purpose.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Utter nonsense about the direction of damaging leakage - it is stay at home Tories and Reform-voting Tories that will decide the GE for this Government, and a purge of the right-wingers would be totally the opposite of appealing to these voters. I realise you are batting for your preferred political approach, but no point in chucking your own credibility away by spouting tosh.
There’s definitely a reverse-BJO vibe about this. It didn’t work for Corbyn, so to believe this you need to believe there are more hard right wingers than hard left wingers in the voting population. Might or might not be true.
As far as I'm aware, what I've posted is the widely acknowledged interpretation of the polling data. Perhaps you have a radical alternative theory about how the Tories can squeeze the Lib Dems if only they'd be more centrist and euro-enthusiastic - I'd love to hear it. Or perhaps like PTP you're just ignoring the facts because they don't suit your political bias.
The big leap of faith you’re making is about the Tory undecideds or abstainers. You assume because they normally vote Tory that they’re therefore on the right of the party and care most about culture war.
Maslow’s hierarchy operates here. They may just as likely (I’d suggest more likely) be sitting on their hands because stuff has got more expensive, the local schools are falling apart and they have to wait 6 months for a routine operation.
That's exactly what I'm *not* saying. I am not sure that anybody actively prioritises culture war issues; I am suggesting that Tories are staying at home because we don't have a sensible Tory Government applying Tory solutions. This applies across the board, but especially to the grim pretend Chancellor chucking money at everything and failing to ease the tax burden which is placing an intolerable strain on the economy.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Royal Mail looks like taking a leaf out of the Post Office’s book with the furore over stamps! Where there really that many forgeries?
Indeed, and add to that the £2.50 fine on the *recipient* for unbarcoded stamps of the right money (but £1.50 for barcoded of the wrong money). S ome prize nuggets:
'Some of the new barcoded stamps have also been declared counterfeit by Royal Mail, which has issued fines to unwitting recipients. In March, constituents in Brighton were charged a £2.50 fine to receive Labour party leaflets after Royal Mail insisted the party had used fake stamps for a campaign mailshot. Critics have accused the company of ignoring problems with its barcode scanning technology.
[...]
'Customers who contacted Guardian Money say they have been accused of potential criminality after their stamps were confiscated by Royal Mail, which insisted they had already been used or were counterfeit.
Some who sent in high-value batches say they have been left hundreds of pounds out of pocket.
Sheila Spelsby from London says she was informed that it was a criminal offence to use fraudulent stamps when she attempted to replace a batch of seven first- and second-class stamps under the scheme.
“Royal Mail claims that my stamps, which were bought from my local post office, are ‘either used or fraudulent’ – they should surely be able to state which,” she says.
“When I complained, the stamps were inspected again, with the same conclusion. I then complained to the supposedly independent Postal Review Panel [the final stage in Royal Mail’s complaints handling process], which confirmed that my ‘six first-class stamps were either used or fraudulent’. I did not send six first-class stamps! I was told that as it is a criminal offence to use fraudulent stamps, they would not be returned to me. I now stand accused of criminal behaviour while Royal Mail confiscates the evidence.”'
A society of which I am a member sends out a quarterly magazine. For one recent issue a large number of members were asked to pay a surcharge on delivery on the grounds that the stamps were counterfeit. Royal Mail backed down for some members, admitting that the stamps were not counterfeit, but others found Royal Mail sticking to its guns. This left Royal Mail in the ludicrous position of claiming that a stamp was counterfeit but the stamp next to it on the same sheet of unused stamps was genuine.
More recently, a member was asked to pay a surcharge to receive his copy of the magazine on the basis that insufficient postage was attached. The three stamps attached to the package clearly added up to the correct amount of postage.
What on earth will they do with the letters sent to Santa with a stamp drawn in green biro with a reindeer head on it? Perhaps the armed response team will be sent round to the offending homes.
Nah, just charge Santa £2.50 every time. Be quite the moneymaker.
I wonder if we're possibly all underestimating RefUK?
I think most of us are expecting that their poll score is, like that for the Greens, something of a mirage, and will deflate under the intense two-party squeeze of a general election campaign.
However, if a Labour victory is seen as inevitable, it may appear more attractive to some voters to vote for RefUK to send a message. This would have two possible consequences.
Firstly, thanks to FPTP, it could lead to a rout for the Tories that makes 1997 look like a good result. Secondly, despite the landslide victory this would hand Labour, it could mean that the politics of the far right was much more prominent during the next Parliament.
UKIP did get 12.6% of the vote at GE2015. Is 8% for RefUK really that outlandish?
I think it depends quite a bit on whether or not Nigel Farage gets involved. With him campaigning, and a Labour majority looking clear, it’s not difficult to imagine them getting 15% and possibly a handful of seats.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
How about pointing out both? That's what I do.
Then that's fine.
Yes @SouthamObserver is - sincerely - quite even handed on this subject. He’s been strongly critical of the marches, noting that they are organised by Hamas sympathisers (which they are)
An article in The Spectator today changed my mind.
I think many people (including HMG, The Met and much of the public) would rather the march on Sunday didn't take place. But, if it was banned, lots of smaller, uncontrolled, more extreme acts of protests would happen all over London & elsewhere, probably centred at smaller suburban and town cenotaphs, which would risk provoking outrage with possible counter-protests. The resources to respond to or police them all aren't there.
So this would take place and it would create lurid headlines and pictures that would risk permanently politicising Remembrance Sunday, which further polarising society. That would be even worse.
Thus, the best thing to do, is to have one regulated, proscribed and well-policed march on Sunday well away from the cenotaph, to draw the sting, and try as best as we can to ignore absolutely everyone who goes on it.
I agree the marches should be allowed. Let them walk down Whitehall
But everyone on the march needs to be ceaselessly reminded that this is one of the main organisers of the march, Ismail Patel, of Friends of Al-Aqsa, an open supporter of Hamas
“Here he is again:
'Hamas is not a terrorist organisation...
and we salute Hamas for standing up to Israel'
Do you think that Patel and his supporters have any real interest in peace?”
If you go on this march, you are knowingly supporting Hamas. It’s not a “risk it might be infiltrated” - the march is ORGANISED by supporters of Hamas. Hamas is asking you to join their march
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
We're not talking about outliers, we're talking about organisers. These are not people who think Israel 'has gone too far' they were there before Israel had even retaliated. Neither does them being calm mean they don't have abhorrent views.
I accept many of them are clueless. Those that aren't are the ones that concern me. No criticism of Hamas, no criticism of Iran, no condemnation of the 7 October attacks. If I'm wrong please correct me. For sincere supporters of Palestine you'd think those things would be important.
Badenoch once looked like the future. She now looks past her sell by date.
Never mind the sex silliness. She's the minister responsible for the Post Office. Where has she been during the scandal?
Nowhere, which is where she is going fast.
Braverman is just a nasty piece of work who is driving the Party to the right at at time when it is leaking votes to the centre. She can only be doing this for her own self interest. She is placing herself to lead the much diminished Tory Party after the GE.
This Government has lost interest in governing. It is a zombie. We can only wait for it to be exterminated, and hope it doesn't do too much damage in the meantime.
Royal Mail looks like taking a leaf out of the Post Office’s book with the furore over stamps! Where there really that many forgeries?
Indeed, and add to that the £2.50 fine on the *recipient* for unbarcoded stamps of the right money (but £1.50 for barcoded of the wrong money). S ome prize nuggets:
'Some of the new barcoded stamps have also been declared counterfeit by Royal Mail, which has issued fines to unwitting recipients. In March, constituents in Brighton were charged a £2.50 fine to receive Labour party leaflets after Royal Mail insisted the party had used fake stamps for a campaign mailshot. Critics have accused the company of ignoring problems with its barcode scanning technology.
[...]
'Customers who contacted Guardian Money say they have been accused of potential criminality after their stamps were confiscated by Royal Mail, which insisted they had already been used or were counterfeit.
Some who sent in high-value batches say they have been left hundreds of pounds out of pocket.
Sheila Spelsby from London says she was informed that it was a criminal offence to use fraudulent stamps when she attempted to replace a batch of seven first- and second-class stamps under the scheme.
“Royal Mail claims that my stamps, which were bought from my local post office, are ‘either used or fraudulent’ – they should surely be able to state which,” she says.
“When I complained, the stamps were inspected again, with the same conclusion. I then complained to the supposedly independent Postal Review Panel [the final stage in Royal Mail’s complaints handling process], which confirmed that my ‘six first-class stamps were either used or fraudulent’. I did not send six first-class stamps! I was told that as it is a criminal offence to use fraudulent stamps, they would not be returned to me. I now stand accused of criminal behaviour while Royal Mail confiscates the evidence.”'
A society of which I am a member sends out a quarterly magazine. For one recent issue a large number of members were asked to pay a surcharge on delivery on the grounds that the stamps were counterfeit. Royal Mail backed down for some members, admitting that the stamps were not counterfeit, but others found Royal Mail sticking to its guns. This left Royal Mail in the ludicrous position of claiming that a stamp was counterfeit but the stamp next to it on the same sheet of unused stamps was genuine.
More recently, a member was asked to pay a surcharge to receive his copy of the magazine on the basis that insufficient postage was attached. The three stamps attached to the package clearly added up to the correct amount of postage.
What on earth will they do with the letters sent to Santa with a stamp drawn in green biro with a reindeer head on it? Perhaps the armed response team will be sent round to the offending homes.
Nah, just charge Santa £2.50 every time. Be quite the moneymaker.
Incidentally, I've just finished one of the best history books I've read in a couple of years (*)
"The walls have ears," by Helen Fry, details the covert eavesdropping that we did on German (**) prisoners during WW2, and in particular the generals, by MI6, MI9 and MI19.
It fills in gaps in other works, particularly things like R.V. Jones "Most Secret War", to say how some of the intelligence was gained. Some saw its work as important as that of Bletchley Park.
What is more, and unusually for a seemingly- well-sourced book on WW2, and particularly one that has large sections on the Holocaust and war crimes, it can actually be wryly funny. The German generals formed anti-Nazi and pro-Nazi groupings whilst in captivity, and often acted like spoilt children - even when given dinner at Harrods!
It really is an interesting book if you're into WW2 arcana.
(*) Okay, I don't read that many... (**) Not Italian; they are dismissed early on as being irrelevant. Ouch.
In the Guardian review of the Tom Cruise film Valkaryie, they took exception to the way the film portrayed the German generals as a bunch of neurotic, indecisive clowns.
Personally, having read the history of the plot, that was bang on the money.
Valkaryie's addressed in the book: one of the listeners (the people who listened to the generals) aside he was glad that the plot failed, as he doubted that the people behind Valkaryie would lead Germany to democracy. As for the generals, they seemed to be flabbergasted that the bomb had been so small, that the job had not been done well; that the families of the plotters wee also murdered; or even believed that the entire plot was an inside job, done by the Nazis to give an excuse to get rid of anti-regime generals.
In a few decades, we might get details of what was happening inside the Rusisan government during the Wagner Group rebellion. I really hope we do, as it's bound to be fascinating.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
How about pointing out both? That's what I do.
Then that's fine.
Yes @SouthamObserver is - sincerely - quite even handed on this subject. He’s been strongly critical of the marches, noting that they are organised by Hamas sympathisers (which they are)
An article in The Spectator today changed my mind.
I think many people (including HMG, The Met and much of the public) would rather the march on Sunday didn't take place. But, if it was banned, lots of smaller, uncontrolled, more extreme acts of protests would happen all over London & elsewhere, probably centred at smaller suburban and town cenotaphs, which would risk provoking outrage with possible counter-protests. The resources to respond to or police them all aren't there.
So this would take place and it would create lurid headlines and pictures that would risk permanently politicising Remembrance Sunday, which further polarising society. That would be even worse.
Thus, the best thing to do, is to have one regulated, proscribed and well-policed march on Sunday well away from the cenotaph, to draw the sting, and try as best as we can to ignore absolutely everyone who goes on it.
I agree the marches should be allowed. Let them walk down Whitehall
But everyone on the march needs to be ceaselessly reminded that this is one of the main organisers of the march, Ismail Patel, of Friends of Al-Aqsa, an open supporter of Hamas
“Here he is again:
'Hamas is not a terrorist organisation...
and we salute Hamas for standing up to Israel'
Do you think that Patel and his supporters have any real interest in peace?”
If you go on this march, you are knowingly supporting Hamas. It’s not a “risk it might be infiltrated” - the march is ORGANISED by supporters of Hamas. Hamas is asking you to join their march
I wonder if we're possibly all underestimating RefUK?
I think most of us are expecting that their poll score is, like that for the Greens, something of a mirage, and will deflate under the intense two-party squeeze of a general election campaign.
However, if a Labour victory is seen as inevitable, it may appear more attractive to some voters to vote for RefUK to send a message. This would have two possible consequences.
Firstly, thanks to FPTP, it could lead to a rout for the Tories that makes 1997 look like a good result. Secondly, despite the landslide victory this would hand Labour, it could mean that the politics of the far right was much more prominent during the next Parliament.
UKIP did get 12.6% of the vote at GE2015. Is 8% for RefUK really that outlandish?
I think it depends quite a bit on whether or not Nigel Farage gets involved. With him campaigning, and a Labour majority looking clear, it’s not difficult to imagine them getting 15% and possibly a handful of seats.
I will be surprised if they retain their deposit in any seat. They are over represented in online panels, and have polled poorly in all the byelections.
The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots.
What about the higher number of extreme pro-Palestinian protestors who'll be chanting exactly that on their march on Sunday?
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
Sunday? Apparently it has been reported that many think it is happening at the same time as the Remembrance service on Sunday.
I understand the desire not to inflame tensions but at some point someone other than Braverman has got to point out the problem with these protests. That doesn't mean they should be stopped. But at least drawing attention to the odious elements of the PSC and SWP. As seen in multiple reactions to the 7 October attacks.
I accidentally encountered the march two weeks ago when I was in London for something else, and was struck by the calm and the diversity of age and appearance of the participants. I've no doubt that some extremists on both sides will try to cause trouble, and I agree with the senior Met officer who says that Braverman has (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged extreme counter-demos that will make policing harder. But if half a million people turn out for something it shows much broader concern than anything the SWP or Britain First could muster in a decade of campaigns, and I hope the media don't focus on the outliers.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
Whether Israel is going too far is an issue worthy of debate.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?
Comments
Community Notes is actually the best thing Musk has done with tw@tter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinde
No idea what 3 stands for and I’m not interested in spending my time chasing after acronyms if you really can’t discuss this properly.
It’s an interesting idea that the 50-over format is ‘dead’ (your word) but you don’t seem prepared to defend the comment, which is disappointing.
Robert Jenrick has blocked a charity from supporting asylum seekers staying in Home Office accommodation
@Care4Calais has been blocked from entering an asylum seeker accommodation site to give haircuts, clothes and shoes
https://x.com/theipaper/status/1723017893011464589?s=46
Partly because the contest in 2022 was to become PM, and that was always going to come down to Truss-Sunak; they were the only ones with Great Office experience. Everyone else was putting down a marker for next time. Becoming LotO is different- it's acceptable to jump to that from a more junior role.
Mostly, though, because the top two from the 2022 election will both have been tried and found wanting. If we also assume that Mordaunt's star is also terminally fading, that promotes everyone else three places up the queue.
1) It's not as popular as T20. In India, the matches involving India have sold out. However, other matches have had low attendance. They are higher than in 2019 but that's because the stadiums have a larger capacity. The last England-Aus ODI at the MCG was played in front of a crowd that wouldn't have filled even England's smallest international grounds.
2) The schedule's too crowded. Realistically with the growth of franchises there is less space for international cricket. Cricketers - especially bowlers - are picking and choosing which matches to play. If, therefore, full squads are to be maintained then something has to give. T20 is a massive money spinner and cheaper to stage than an ODI (while the ticket prices are much the same). Tests meanwhile have the advantage of being the base on which the best players build their white ball careers. Where do ODIs fit in?
3) There's just not enough of it being played, for those reasons, which is having an impact. In the last four years England have averaged 10 ODIs a year, against over 20 from 2015-2019. India played 67 (against 54 T20s) in 2019-23 compared to 81 from 2015-19. Coupled with the collapse of one day cups around the world - which goes wider than England - that goes a long way to explain the bizarre mismatches this tournament has thrown up.
So I will not be at all surprised if the Champions' Trophy proves the last ODI tournament. And I suspect bilateral series will be increasingly as T20s used to be - one offs added on to another series, if held at all.
Is it sad? Not particularly. ODIs began as a substitute for Tests and T20s for all I don't particularly enjoy them offer the glamour and glitz with the option of being more accessible (you can fit them more easily into an evening).
Do I suspect their demise will be mishandled? Hell yes. it's the ICC.
It's true that many rulers did ask to become British protectorates or allies at the time, and to this day there is a steady stream of countries applying to join the Commonwealth.
Political debate these days is done clickbait to clickbait to excite the fanclubs on both sides.
The White House deleted one Tweet saying that pensions are going up this year by the highest amount in decades, only for it to be noted that pensions go up automatically by the inflation rate.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/02/white-house-twitter-context-note-00064647
When research historians wander off their area of expertise they are often embarrassingly ill-informed. For example, DeGroot (World War I) endorsed Nixey's notorious forgery The Darkening Age; we discussed a few weeks ago an historian of medieval Spain (Jeff Fynn Paul) not understanding the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire; Tristram Hunt's programmes on the Civil War. And I've lost count of how many historians have said Crimea was a Russian province, despite the fact it's a gross oversimplification of the very complex history of its governance.
In fact, given the French empire was actually a good deal worse than the British Empire, his views may be coloured by relative improvement.
Come back to me when you're willing to explain with actual, accurate information why 2019 was an amazing outlier and actually engage with the multiple times I've demonstrated that it was 2017 that was a really extraordinary outlier.
One thing that's become clear over recent days is that many people are far more comfortable pointing at the usual suspects, and, predictably, using it to signal how non-racist they are at the same time, whilst ignoring the more sinister complexities of how virulently it's now manifested in others.
They'd rather not have to face up that because that would involve facing up to some uncomfortable truths and doing some really hard thinking.
"The Chelsea and West Ham crews are taking a day off from singing about gassing Jews and how much of a laugh Belsen was to protect the Cenotaph. They are such patriots. An example to us all"
True dat.
The bile he gets is simply down to two reasons: (1) he offers a more nuanced view of the British Empire, and, (2) he defends Brexit.
That makes him a target, and so they play the man.
Good day all.
They're perfectly capable of arbitrarily ordering an ODI cup even if there have been no ODIs for ten years (which obviously won't be the case)!
But if the bigger nations are not playing ODIs, and the smaller ones will also increasingly concentrate on T20 for financial reasons - both of which look pretty much nailed on - and domestic competitions one day competitions continue to wither in the face of franchise leagues, while fewer and fewer people watch it, it will be an even bigger farce than this one has if it goes ahead.
As The Times notes
Gove championed Badenoch during the Tory leadership contest in summer last year, hailing her “focus, intellect and no-bullshit” drive. “If you want to drive change, empower the right people,” he said. “Kemi Badenoch has the Right Stuff.”
Badenoch emerged as one of the stars of the leadership campaign....
...Gove’s endorsement of Badenoch in last year’s election was seen as giving an important early boost to her campaign, in which she impressed Tory activists with her straight-talking comments about identity politics.
Badenoch is now widely seen as one of the frontrunners to take over from Sunak if the Conservatives lose the next election, making her relations with Gove a potentially important factor in the future of the party...
...The alliance between Gove and Badenoch has fascinated Tory MPs and Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, made it a key element in her book The Plot: The Political Assassination of Boris Johnson, published this week.
She quotes a source as saying Gove has been “building up Kemi Badenoch as the next leader of the Conservative Party, because that was part of the plan and it still is. He’s been mentoring Kemi for a long time, possibly, originally, at Dougie’s [the political fixer Dougie Smith] behest.” Gove has dismissed such claims and Badenoch has repeatedly expressed frustration at how her actions are now seen through the prism of future leadership ambitions.
There were some letters on politics from Einstein to Sidney Hook that are genuinely WTAF.
I know because I've read a lot of his work. Heck, I've got a bookshelf full of his books from when I taught the French Revolution at A-level.
That doesn't mean he's worth listening to on subjects outside that.
I'm just as qualified as he is in History, but if you took my word on the history of Ancient Greece or the Civil War era you'd be making an error.
Just as Marsh gets Aus off to an absolute flier.
He thought about a standard food shop, but he decided he wanted something a bit grocer.
One of the nice things about teaching- it requires you to know something about a lot, rather than everything about a little.
They are being sledged purely due to his present day politics.
For clarity: I believe it is fake, because of the content. The syntax is not the way Khan speaks, and he’s incredibly cautious and lawyerly in all his statements - would he really say this even in a private chat (which could be recorded)? I strongly doubt it
So: fake, is my guess. But I’m interested to know if anyone has proved it is a fake “technically”? By voice analysis? Does that even work any more?
More recently, a member was asked to pay a surcharge to receive his copy of the magazine on the basis that insufficient postage was attached. The three stamps attached to the package clearly added up to the correct amount of postage.
Abu Hamza walks in and says...
"The walls have ears," by Helen Fry, details the covert eavesdropping that we did on German (**) prisoners during WW2, and in particular the generals, by MI6, MI9 and MI19.
It fills in gaps in other works, particularly things like R.V. Jones "Most Secret War", to say how some of the intelligence was gained. Some saw its work as important as that of Bletchley Park.
What is more, and unusually for a seemingly- well-sourced book on WW2, and particularly one that has large sections on the Holocaust and war crimes, it can actually be wryly funny. The German generals formed anti-Nazi and pro-Nazi groupings whilst in captivity, and often acted like spoilt children - even when given dinner at Harrods!
It really is an interesting book if you're into WW2 arcana.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walls-Have-Ears-Intelligence-Operation/dp/0300238606
(*) Okay, I don't read that many...
(**) Not Italian; they are dismissed early on as being irrelevant. Ouch.
Someone I know online slightly opened a fudge shop a while ago. Sadly, didn't last too long. It was the perfect excuse to buy myself a shitload of fudge. Because I was supporting a friend, selflessly.
The grimness of Sunak's situation is that his position is probably as good as it gets. He can't try to appeal more to the Centre-rightist Dads without losing votes to Reform. He can't win back the votes he has lost to the right without another layer flaking off on the left.
Moral: if you have to fight on two fronts, whether it's war, business or politics, you're probably doomed.
I think she has her work cut out for her if she’s up against a candidate of the right, but it’s easier to see a Mordaunt/Badenoch or Mordaunt/Braverman final 2 than it is a Braverman/Badenoch.
I think many people (including HMG, The Met and much of the public) would rather the march on Sunday didn't take place. But, if it was banned, lots of smaller, uncontrolled, more extreme acts of protests would happen all over London & elsewhere, probably centred at smaller suburban and town cenotaphs, which would risk provoking outrage with possible counter-protests. The resources to respond to or police them all aren't there.
So this would take place and it would create lurid headlines and pictures that would risk permanently politicising Remembrance Sunday, which further polarising society. That would be even worse.
Thus, the best thing to do, is to have one regulated, proscribed and well-policed march on Sunday well away from the cenotaph, to draw the sting, and try as best as we can to ignore absolutely everyone who goes on it.
Felt a bit silly standing there on my own, until I properly read the sign.
Maslow’s hierarchy operates here. They may just as likely (I’d suggest more likely) be sitting on their hands because stuff has got more expensive, the local schools are falling apart and they have to wait 6 months for a routine operation.
It's not, after all, as though the belief that Israel is going too far was an extreme view. Macron put it very well in his interview last night. It's perfectly understandable after the Hamas massacre that Israel wants revenge, but Israel's friends need to tell them that if they keep this up they will lose the international support on which they partly depend.
And it will all be the usual suspects.
I have a feeling 2019 is becoming for the right what 2017 was - ridiculously - for the left. An election result that hardens into a rigid dogma about what wins and loses, irrelevant to the real needs etc.
Another good book I read recently was The Forgotten Slave Trade: The White European Slaves of Islam, which argued that the Muslim slave trade in white Europeans had a huge impact on European history. I didn't realise how important it was, for instance, in causing our own Civil War (through largely causing the need for Ship Money for ships to police the seas).
Personally, having read the history of the plot, that was bang on the money.
Numpties.
https://x.com/incmonocle/status/1723281051898773771?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
I think things will get worse for him. He is completely lost, promoted far too quickly and too fast.
There’s about 9 of them. Not sure they’re gonna handle half a million by themselves
The problem is not really Tombs, it is the DM and its leftish mirror images. Everything has to be good or bad, right or wrong; the British Empire has to be great or evil. Such stuff is worthless.
By the way it was cheering to hear Nicholas Soames on R4 Today this morning speaking sanely about demos and Israel/Palestine reminding us that hiding away waiting its turn is a sane Tory party.
I think most of us are expecting that their poll score is, like that for the Greens, something of a mirage, and will deflate under the intense two-party squeeze of a general election campaign.
However, if a Labour victory is seen as inevitable, it may appear more attractive to some voters to vote for RefUK to send a message. This would have two possible consequences.
Firstly, thanks to FPTP, it could lead to a rout for the Tories that makes 1997 look like a good result. Secondly, despite the landslide victory this would hand Labour, it could mean that the politics of the far right was much more prominent during the next Parliament.
UKIP did get 12.6% of the vote at GE2015. Is 8% for RefUK really that outlandish?
I had no idea the extent of the depredations on Cornwall and Cornish fisherfolk
#nominativedeterminism
Cash refuseniks standing up against the man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f46ePA6Xs0U
But everyone on the march needs to be ceaselessly reminded that this is one of the main organisers of the march, Ismail Patel, of Friends of Al-Aqsa, an open supporter of Hamas
“Here he is again:
'Hamas is not a terrorist organisation...
and we salute Hamas for standing up to Israel'
Do you think that Patel and his supporters have any real interest in peace?”
https://x.com/timescorbyn/status/1723068146393686017?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
If you go on this march, you are knowingly supporting Hamas. It’s not a “risk it might be infiltrated” - the march is ORGANISED by supporters of Hamas. Hamas is asking you to join their march
I accept many of them are clueless. Those that aren't are the ones that concern me. No criticism of Hamas, no criticism of Iran, no condemnation of the 7 October attacks. If I'm wrong please correct me. For sincere supporters of Palestine you'd think those things would be important.
In a few decades, we might get details of what was happening inside the Rusisan government during the Wagner Group rebellion. I really hope we do, as it's bound to be fascinating.
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2023/07/polls-overstating-support-reform
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67387827
I can confirm that WE TAKE CASH.
But so is whether Pakistan is going too far in expelling 1.7m Afghan refugees (many of whom were born in Pakistan) to a destitute theocracy.
Likewise whether the Arab Sudanese are going too far in committing genocide against the African Sudanese.
Or whether Azerbaijan went too far in blockading, bombarding and then expelling the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
So what's different about Israel which causes so much attention ?
Well consider this - if Israelis were Muslim instead of Jewish how many of the people so interested with Israel's actions would still be bothered ?