The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Divide and rule. If there is a settlement in Ukraine that involves partition, you can be guaranteed that the British will be involved in the arrangements, and that it will fail violently. Which takes us back to Israel and Palestine.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
The one I feel for is Harry Kim.
Consistently performed pretty well but never got a promotion from Ensign in 7 years.
The actor was not liked by the producers.
But, was that his fault?
Robert Beltran was renowned for being difficult to work with.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
Eccleston was a much underrated Doctor. Liked the dark stuff that period brought.
I agree, the menace that he brought to the role was a new twist.
Tennant also very good, but didn't like Smith or Capaldi. I did quite like Jodie Whitaker.
Of the older ones I only remember Pertwee and Baker, who set the benchmark for the role in my youth.
The only companion that I don't like is Catherine Tate. Too shouty and not a good actor.
My foreign Whovian friends loved Jodie Whitaker in Broadchurch but could barely follow her gabbled dialogue as the Doctor. Heaven knows what possessed her or the producers/directors to have the Doctor speak like that in a show with high foreign sales.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
I was raised by a mother who views debt as the eighth deadliest sin, it does have an impact.
Back in late 1994 I was using the Usenet message boards, Voyager was going to debut a few weeks later and somebody posted from what they had heard/read Neelix was going to be Voyager's Garak, I think my annoyance about Neelix stems from that.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
When I first joined PB in circa 2005 this place was dominated by Labour people, IIRC the only Tories on here were JohnO, SeanF, and Alex.
When I started posting BTL around the time of the Brown election that never was there was a shift to the Tories.
Back in late 1994 I was using the Usenet message boards, Voyager was going to debut a few weeks later and somebody posted from what they had heard/read Neelix was going to be Voyager's Garak, I think my annoyance about Neelix stems from that.
Were you ever on uk.politics.misc by any chance?
Nope.
No worries, just wondering.
Because I was studying for my GCSEs at the time my father limited my internet use to 30 mins per school day and 60 mins at the weekend.
I was limited to what I could access in that time.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
I was raised by a mother who views debt as the eighth deadliest sin, it does have an impact.
Although... hard to buy a house without a mortgage or rich parents.
I must be the only person on here who hasn't watched Dr Who since I was a kid. It was shite back in the 70s and early 80s. I remember Pertwee, Baker and I think that twat McCoy. Never seen it since.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
I was raised by a mother who views debt as the eighth deadliest sin, it does have an impact.
Although... hard to buy a house without a mortgage or rich parents.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
I was raised by a mother who views debt as the eighth deadliest sin, it does have an impact.
Although... hard to buy a house without a mortgage or rich parents.
My mother doesn't view a mortgage as debt.
Yep, I don't view cheese as full of calories but sadly it still is.
I must be the only person on here who hasn't watched Dr Who since I was a kid. It was shite back in the 70s and early 80s. I remember Pertwee, Baker and I think that twat McCoy. Never seen it since.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
Only partially accurate because of the UK’s complicated relationship with Egypt, but you can make the case for the Ottoman Empire’s Suez campaign of 1916.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
I was raised by a mother who views debt as the eighth deadliest sin, it does have an impact.
Although... hard to buy a house without a mortgage or rich parents.
My mother doesn't view a mortgage as debt.
Yep, I don't view cheese as full of calories but sadly it still is.
Well the only acceptable debt.
That said I have persuaded her on the merits of PCH and the merits of buying everything on a credit card (then paying the full balance off each month).
Or Star Trek after the first series. Maybe I'm just weird. In fact, I'm struggle to remember what TV I actually did like. No wonder I don't need a licence!
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
Don't even get me started on Tuvix.
Season 2 produced some real stinkers, yes I'm looking at you Threshold but Janeway murdering Tuvix was the biggest disgrace which is some achievement when Threshold vies with Spock's Brain for the worst ever episode of Trek.
I think I have shared this here before, but for anyone who missed it, Threshold holds up pretty well reimagined as an episode from TAS.
Or Star Trek after the first series. Maybe I'm just weird. In fact, I'm struggle to remember what TV I actually did like. No wonder I don't need a licence!
Or Star Trek after the first series. Maybe I'm just weird. In fact, I'm struggle to remember what TV I actually did like. No wonder I don't need a licence!
You have missed out.
Season 3 of Picard was better than sex.
So was Breaking Bad.
Never got past episode 4 of Breaking Bad, but I do keep meaning to give it another go.
So, I got round to watching the first of the Doctor Who specials today. I imagine some of the 'woke' elements will bother some 'culture war people', but this is night and day from the Chibnall era and I felt like I was actually watching Doctor Who again. I preferred Moffat's vision of Who to RTD's (at least when Moffat could be arsed), but there's no denying he knows how to write Doctor Who and Tennant's Doctor. Great performance by Margoyles as the Meep as well. I'm actually optimistic about the show again.
I thought it was very good. A bit predictable the Meep would be a baddie and there was some tick box stuff, wheelchair/trans etc but not overdone and did not detract from the story.
My only criticism would be a coming soon trailer would have been nice
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
When I first joined PB in circa 2005 this place was dominated by Labour people, IIRC the only Tories on here were JohnO, SeanF, and Alex.
When I started posting BTL around the time of the Brown election that never was there was a shift to the Tories.
Same here, really started daily-following PB in 2007 seriously having been given nudges by Guido - funnily enough haven’t logged into guido for about ten years - and PB was getting more and more centre-right. Probably many of the same comments then as now about the governing party having run out of ideas, been in power too long, corrupt from power etc. I hope not bias speaking but there was a lot more enthusiasm for Cameron than Starmer.
But if back in 2007/8 of someone had been speculating that in the near future there would be a global health pandemic that would shut the world and economy down and a big war in Europe then they would have been laughed at. Predictions of hell in the Middle East less so obviously.
I must be the only person on here who hasn't watched Dr Who since I was a kid. It was shite back in the 70s and early 80s. I remember Pertwee, Baker and I think that twat McCoy. Never seen it since.
And the brigadier, and the fact that every alien in the galaxy thought our world should be invaded through the same tedious English town. It was ridiculous and boring. The reinventions started quite well, Eccleston in particular, but have long since run out of steam again.
Or Star Trek after the first series. Maybe I'm just weird. In fact, I'm struggle to remember what TV I actually did like. No wonder I don't need a licence!
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Assuming a Labour win, on the Friday after the election we can whine about a Labour Government overseeing rampant immigration and a chaotic economy. Typical of Labour!
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
I quite like shows that put one annoying character in them; such as Wesley Crusher in the early series of TNG (though he seems to have been rehabilitated recently). It adds realism and a good dynamic to a show, as most of us will have worked with irritating and annoying people, who we have to get along with. It's more annoying when they have Really Useful Skills (tm).
Wesley Crusher (aka Wil Wheaton) was quite good as the baddie in 'Dark Matter'. A series which took a little bit to find itself and was cancelled due to internal feuding at ScyFy afaik. But worth a watch at the end of an evening - there are some very good episodes.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
I was raised by a mother who views debt as the eighth deadliest sin, it does have an impact.
Although... hard to buy a house without a mortgage or rich parents.
My mother doesn't view a mortgage as debt.
Well, you are getting bricks and mortar in return for your payments, minus the interest of course.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Assuming a Labour win, on the Friday after the election we can whine about a Labour Government overseeing rampant immigration and a chaotic economy. Typical of Labour!
I joined the Tories in 1998 and got 12 years of opposition for my troubles.
However in some respects Opposition is more fun than government, even if you can't achieve anything, as you can just trash the government's record as Labour are doing now and have been doing since they lost in 2010
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Assuming a Labour win, on the Friday after the election we can whine about a Labour Government overseeing rampant immigration and a chaotic economy. Typical of Labour!
Yep, I bet debt will be at record levels too the moment they get into power. Bloody Labour, eh!
Talking of Star Treck, the incomparable George Takei.
A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.
It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.
But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.
I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.
Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.
There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too. https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728783473484149142
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
He's in the basement, thinking about the Government.
And the most satisfied one, defending the innocent public from errant Mercedes drivers. And there's not a scratch (on the bollard). I can't identify the London station in the background, with it's distinctive single arch and towers (anyone?): https://twitter.com/WorldBollard/status/1728377314541731993
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
A 2 state solution would work for Israel and Palestine too
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
When I first joined PB in circa 2005 this place was dominated by Labour people, IIRC the only Tories on here were JohnO, SeanF, and Alex.
When I started posting BTL around the time of the Brown election that never was there was a shift to the Tories.
Same here, really started daily-following PB in 2007 seriously having been given nudges by Guido - funnily enough haven’t logged into guido for about ten years - and PB was getting more and more centre-right. Probably many of the same comments then as now about the governing party having run out of ideas, been in power too long, corrupt from power etc. I hope not bias speaking but there was a lot more enthusiasm for Cameron than Starmer.
But if back in 2007/8 of someone had been speculating that in the near future there would be a global health pandemic that would shut the world and economy down and a big war in Europe then they would have been laughed at. Predictions of hell in the Middle East less so obviously.
Talking of Star Treck, the incomparable George Takei.
A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.
It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.
But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.
I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.
Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.
There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too. https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728783473484149142
The Democratic Party in 1941 was dominated by mad racists. Locking people up on the basis of their ethnicity hardly 'betrayed its values' at that time.
It was Truman began to march them towards civil rights in the later 1940s, and small thanks he got for it from them.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
Talking of Star Treck, the incomparable George Takei.
A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.
It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.
But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.
I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.
Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.
There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too. https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728783473484149142
The Democratic Party in 1941 was dominated by mad racists. Locking people up on the basis of their ethnicity hardly 'betrayed its values' at that time.
It was Truman began to march them towards civil rights in the later 1940s, and small thanks he got for it from them.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
When I first joined PB in circa 2005 this place was dominated by Labour people, IIRC the only Tories on here were JohnO, SeanF, and Alex.
When I started posting BTL around the time of the Brown election that never was there was a shift to the Tories.
Same here, really started daily-following PB in 2007 seriously having been given nudges by Guido - funnily enough haven’t logged into guido for about ten years - and PB was getting more and more centre-right. Probably many of the same comments then as now about the governing party having run out of ideas, been in power too long, corrupt from power etc. I hope not bias speaking but there was a lot more enthusiasm for Cameron than Starmer.
But if back in 2007/8 of someone had been speculating that in the near future there would be a global health pandemic that would shut the world and economy down and a big war in Europe then they would have been laughed at. Predictions of hell in the Middle East less so obviously.
We had swine flu shortly after 2008.
Sorry, forgot the lockdowns, two years of social and economic upheaval and hundreds of thousands/millions of deaths from swine flu.
Talking of Star Treck, the incomparable George Takei.
A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.
It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.
But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.
I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.
Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.
There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too. https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728783473484149142
The Democratic Party in 1941 was dominated by mad racists. Locking people up on the basis of their ethnicity hardly 'betrayed its values' at that time.
It was Truman began to march them towards civil rights in the later 1940s, and small thanks he got for it from them.
The Roosevelt wasn’t exactly a segregationist…
You mean, apart from all those segregated New Deal programmes?
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics [edit] be3fore the Great War, presumably, of course - though it could just possibly have been a bit later.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
It was just after. Sandy didn't appear in the one pre-war Hannay. According to Greenmantle, they met when Sandy was a junior officer in Hannay's regiment at Loos.
Not sure. That was Sandy's reminiscences of the past - not necessarily something he did with Hannay. Or have I missed something?
Incidentally, there's currently a very strong storm over the Black Sea, and Crimea's being hit hard. Some are calling it the biggest storm for 100 years. Odesa is being hit by blizzards, and it cannot be pleasant for either side in the east.
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics [edit] be3fore the Great War, presumably, of course - though it could just possibly have been a bit later.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
It was just after. Sandy didn't appear in the one pre-war Hannay. According to Greenmantle, they met when Sandy was a junior officer in Hannay's regiment at Loos.
Not sure. That was Sandy's reminiscences of the past - not necessarily something he did with Hannay. Or have I missed something?
Yes. He was talking about his *recent* experiences of how much fun a campaign had been. He later talked about joining Labour 'not because I agree with their policies, but because they haven't got quite such a larder of loaves and fishes.'
Incidentally, there's currently a very strong storm over the Black Sea, and Crimea's being hit hard. Some are calling it the biggest storm for 100 years. Odesa is being hit by blizzards, and it cannot be pleasant for either side in the east.
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics between the wars, of course.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
Did they end up in the Courts of the Morning?
I need to reread the grandparental collection of Buchan ...
I keep thinking that you could make a brilliant film of The Power House.
I tend to prefer John Macnab or the historical novels such as John Burnet of Barns (if onlky cos I discovered Barns House near Peebles on a walk). But as I said I need to reread the Hannay books, and fill in the gaps of which The Power House is one.
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics [edit] be3fore the Great War, presumably, of course - though it could just possibly have been a bit later.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
It was just after. Sandy didn't appear in the one pre-war Hannay. According to Greenmantle, they met when Sandy was a junior officer in Hannay's regiment at Loos.
Not sure. That was Sandy's reminiscences of the past - not necessarily something he did with Hannay. Or have I missed something?
Yes. He was talking about his *recent* experiences of how much fun a campaign had been. He later talked about joining Labour 'not because I agree with their policies, but because they haven't got quite such a larder of loaves and fishes.'
But that would cover the 1910 election wouldn't it? Not that it matters - time can be convenioently telescoped in such things, and even in Thomas Hardy it's not always certain where something happened.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Assuming a Labour win, on the Friday after the election we can whine about a Labour Government overseeing rampant immigration and a chaotic economy. Typical of Labour!
I joined the Tories in 1998 and got 12 years of opposition for my troubles.
However in some respects Opposition is more fun than government, even if you can't achieve anything, as you can just trash the government's record as Labour are doing now and have been doing since they lost in 2010
Tbf Sunak was trashing this government's record at the Tory Party Conference, and Braverman has been continuing that in recent weeks.
Incidentally, there's currently a very strong storm over the Black Sea, and Crimea's being hit hard. Some are calling it the biggest storm for 100 years. Odesa is being hit by blizzards, and it cannot be pleasant for either side in the east.
Talking of Star Treck, the incomparable George Takei.
A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.
It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.
But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.
I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.
Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.
There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too. https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728783473484149142
The Democratic Party in 1941 was dominated by mad racists. Locking people up on the basis of their ethnicity hardly 'betrayed its values' at that time.
It was Truman began to march them towards civil rights in the later 1940s, and small thanks he got for it from them.
The Roosevelt wasn’t exactly a segregationist…
You mean, apart from all those segregated New Deal programmes?
He moved the dial of Democrat politics from Bed Sheet Fashion to the FEPC and desegregating the armed forces (implemented by Truman)
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
Also not counting Jo Martin, the first black Doctor (and in the fictional chronology the first female Doctory).
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
On Topic: If you're in the spare bedroom (or worse - I'd suggest 20+ points behind in the polls, high don't knows or otherwise, is more like she/he's gone back to their parents), then you have to do something pretty spectacular/crawling on your knees to sort things out.
But the Tories can't or won't do that. There's not going to be the investment and promised improvement in living standards in the fabled 'red wall' (or anywhere for that matter) - even if the government have a relatively 'good' year. Immigration won't be down significantly - even there's a reduction in small boats the government can claim as a success. Nor will public services show measurable improvements (they're likely to get worse in the short-term).
On the other side of things, there's going to be no Brexit mea culpa and reversal of course to get liberals back on side for obvious reasons. It would split the party and in effect mean admitting you'd made one of the single greatest mistakes in modern history.
Plus, any good work on housebuilding and infrastructure that might make the working age less full of contempt, won't take effect for a while even if it were to happen.
So you're left with tax cuts no one is going to really feel makes them better off - which undermine your biggest remaining pitch of fiscal caution. And saying the other guy/girl she/he's dating is a wrong'un. After 13 years of failure, I'm not sure it will work. Especially given Starmer and Reeves are probably the political equivalent of the nice but slightly dull but worthy partners that suddenly become far more attractive after a disastrous relationship with someone abusive or untrustworthy.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
Ah, for the simple days when you could place your vote based largely on whether you thought the country needed more or less public spending.
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
Surely it has to be the Zimmerli for our TSE - if only because of the "POA"...
If you have to ask, you can't afford us.
I'd say about the same as the case of wine I just ordered. Or the pocket knife I had made in Sheffield.
If you have to ask me the price ...
I'm still trying to identify this station. Those are London stock bricks, and the removal van is from Sevenoaks.
It is not a station. It's round the back of the Business Design Centre in Islington, I think, based on the glass domed roof.
How interesting - looks like a terminus, but on checking it was the Royal Agricultural Hall for big shows and the like, so same need for wide span glazed roofs. I'd heard of it but never actually realised what it looked like.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
Ah, for the simple days when you could place your vote based largely on whether you thought the country needed more or less public spending.
I have no particular issue with public spending*, but do have an issue with financing it by debt rather than taxes.
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
Surely it has to be the Zimmerli for our TSE - if only because of the "POA"...
If you have to ask, you can't afford us.
I'd say about the same as the case of wine I just ordered. Or the pocket knife I had made in Sheffield.
If you have to ask me the price ...
I'm still trying to identify this station. Those are London stock bricks, and the removal van is from Sevenoaks.
It is not a station. It's round the back of the Business Design Centre in Islington, I think, based on the glass domed roof.
Thanks - good call. An easy mistake to make, as it is a similar period and a similar structure - I think it was an Agricultural Hall. I lived fairly close for some time - EC2 - but only ever went past the front facade.
I think it's great that one end was preserved and the other one modernised, though the unusual arch profile is still visible.
- It was very friendly and good natured. I was with someone well known in the Jewish community so it was like walking with a celebrity. - Very crowded at the start as we waited outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Much hilarity at the sight of someone - not on the march - trying to find his way to the Pret A Manger through the crowd. - Not much singing or shouting. We walked happily through the November drizzle via a curious route - Aldwych to Embankment up to Trafalgar Square then down to Parliament Square - chatting away, holding placards or pictures of hostages. - Chatted to Trevor Phillips who was lovely. - A mixed crowd: quite a few families, a lot of gratitude expressed to non-Jews attending and for the numbers there. - Lots of marshals and the police were there but discreet. The ones I noticed were from Liverpool. - The shofar being sounded at the start was a nice touch.
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
Surely it has to be the Zimmerli for our TSE - if only because of the "POA"...
If you have to ask, you can't afford us.
I'd say about the same as the case of wine I just ordered. Or the pocket knife I had made in Sheffield.
If you have to ask me the price ...
I'm still trying to identify this station. Those are London stock bricks, and the removal van is from Sevenoaks.
It is not a station. It's round the back of the Business Design Centre in Islington, I think, based on the glass domed roof.
How interesting - looks like a terminus, but on checking it was the Royal Agricultural Hall for big shows and the like, so same need for wide span glazed roofs. I'd heard of it but never actually realised what it looked like.
PS Here it is, near the (presumably) bollard of interest:
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
Surely it has to be the Zimmerli for our TSE - if only because of the "POA"...
If you have to ask, you can't afford us.
I'd say about the same as the case of wine I just ordered. Or the pocket knife I had made in Sheffield.
If you have to ask me the price ...
I'm still trying to identify this station. Those are London stock bricks, and the removal van is from Sevenoaks.
It is not a station. It's round the back of the Business Design Centre in Islington, I think, based on the glass domed roof.
How interesting - looks like a terminus, but on checking it was the Royal Agricultural Hall for big shows and the like, so same need for wide span glazed roofs. I'd heard of it but never actually realised what it looked like.
PS Here it is, near the (presumably) bollard of interest:
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
Briefly over Kashmir rather than the existence of Pakistan itself.
Had there been no partition Muslims and Hindus would have fought a civil war with each other for decades in India post independence as Protestant and Catholics would have fought a civil war for decades after the creation of the Irish Free State had Northern Ireland not also been created
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
Which atrocities were you thinking of? Presumably not the centuries of pogroms, never mind the Holocaust. (Not to mention the 7th October.)
Talking of Star Treck, the incomparable George Takei.
A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.
It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.
But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.
I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.
Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.
There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too. https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728783473484149142
The Democratic Party in 1941 was dominated by mad racists. Locking people up on the basis of their ethnicity hardly 'betrayed its values' at that time.
It was Truman began to march them towards civil rights in the later 1940s, and small thanks he got for it from them.
The Roosevelt wasn’t exactly a segregationist…
You mean, apart from all those segregated New Deal programmes?
He moved the dial of Democrat politics from Bed Sheet Fashion to the FEPC and desegregating the armed forces (implemented by Truman)
My wife's uncle was a Buffalo Soldier, at one point, the longest serving US Captain in the US Army having been promoted in the late 30s and still a Captain in the early 1950s.Desegregation took a hell of a long time...
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Assuming a Labour win, on the Friday after the election we can whine about a Labour Government overseeing rampant immigration and a chaotic economy. Typical of Labour!
I joined the Tories in 1998 and got 12 years of opposition for my troubles.
However in some respects Opposition is more fun than government, even if you can't achieve anything, as you can just trash the government's record as Labour are doing now and have been doing since they lost in 2010
I have a strong suspicion that Labour in general, and Starmer in particular, will in three years or so be looking back on their time in Opposition as a golden age. There will be no money for them to steal and shovel towards their union and welfare dependent core vote, which is the whole point of Labour's existence after all, and people will be fed up with the virtue signalling.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
Seeing Starmer on their tv screens will make voters fed up pretty quickly. Reeves wont last and Rayner needs to be made Minister for Rwanda and sent there.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Assuming a Labour win, on the Friday after the election we can whine about a Labour Government overseeing rampant immigration and a chaotic economy. Typical of Labour!
I joined the Tories in 1998 and got 12 years of opposition for my troubles.
However in some respects Opposition is more fun than government, even if you can't achieve anything, as you can just trash the government's record as Labour are doing now and have been doing since they lost in 2010
I have a strong suspicion that Labour in general, and Starmer in particular, will in three years or so be looking back on their time in Opposition as a golden age. There will be no money for them to steal and shovel towards their union and welfare dependent core vote, which is the whole point of Labour's existence after all, and people will be fed up with the virtue signalling.
Indeed and apart from Blair and Brown 1997-2010 the only time Labour have governed for more than 5 consecutive years was 1964-1970 under Wilson, which was only fractionally more
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Assuming a Labour win, on the Friday after the election we can whine about a Labour Government overseeing rampant immigration and a chaotic economy. Typical of Labour!
I joined the Tories in 1998 and got 12 years of opposition for my troubles.
However in some respects Opposition is more fun than government, even if you can't achieve anything, as you can just trash the government's record as Labour are doing now and have been doing since they lost in 2010
I have a strong suspicion that Labour in general, and Starmer in particular, will in three years or so be looking back on their time in Opposition as a golden age. There will be no money for them to steal and shovel towards their union and welfare dependent core vote, which is the whole point of Labour's existence after all, and people will be fed up with the virtue signalling.
Suspect an even bigger problem will be relations with the trades unions. The Govt won't be able to tolerate a wage explosion in the public sector and the unions won't be able to tolerate any downward pressure on their members' pay packets. Could be quite a clash, particularly with Len McCluskey-types who are not too keen on the Starmer dispensation and yearn for Jezza. We'll see.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
Briefly over Kashmir rather than the existence of Pakistan itself.
Had there been no partition Muslims and Hindus would have fought a civil war with each other for decades in India post independence as Protestant and Catholics would have fought a civil war for decades after the creation of the Irish Free State had Northern Ireland not also been created
According to the 2021 Census, there are nearly as many Muslims living in India as there are in Pakistan.
To stretch this analogy to breaking point the Tories have been very successfully maintaining two paramours since 2019. The steady posh one in the South has got annoyed about all the time the Tories have been spending with the new exciting one in the North and every time they try to do something to placate the Southern flame the North gets annoyed. The Tories now need to see if they can do enough to appease one of them to avoid getting kicked out of both houses.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
Briefly over Kashmir rather than the existence of Pakistan itself.
Had there been no partition Muslims and Hindus would have fought a civil war with each other for decades in India post independence as Protestant and Catholics would have fought a civil war for decades after the creation of the Irish Free State had Northern Ireland not also been created
According to the 2021 Census, there are nearly as many Muslims living in India as there are in Pakistan.
So still more Muslims in Pakistan then, despite India having 5 times the population of Pakistan.
- It was very friendly and good natured. I was with someone well known in the Jewish community so it was like walking with a celebrity. - Very crowded at the start as we waited outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Much hilarity at the sight of someone - not on the march - trying to find his way to the Pret A Manger through the crowd. - Not much singing or shouting. We walked happily through the November drizzle via a curious route - Aldwych to Embankment up to Trafalgar Square then down to Parliament Square - chatting away, holding placards or pictures of hostages. - Chatted to Trevor Phillips who was lovely. - A mixed crowd: quite a few families, a lot of gratitude expressed to non-Jews attending and for the numbers there. - Lots of marshals and the police were there but discreet. The ones I noticed were from Liverpool. - The shofar being sounded at the start was a nice touch.
Some photos.
Glad I went.
Trevor Phillips is thinking of buying my friend’s business. If you see him again tell him it’s a total bargain. Not quite sure why he’s selling.
On Topic: If you're in the spare bedroom (or worse - I'd suggest 20+ points behind in the polls, high don't knows or otherwise, is more like she/he's gone back to their parents), then you have to do something pretty spectacular/crawling on your knees to sort things out.
But the Tories can't or won't do that. There's not going to be the investment and promised improvement in living standards in the fabled 'red wall' (or anywhere for that matter) - even if the government have a relatively 'good' year. Immigration won't be down significantly - even there's a reduction in small boats the government can claim as a success. Nor will public services show measurable improvements (they're likely to get worse in the short-term).
On the other side of things, there's going to be no Brexit mea culpa and reversal of course to get liberals back on side for obvious reasons. It would split the party and in effect mean admitting you'd made one of the single greatest mistakes in modern history.
Plus, any good work on housebuilding and infrastructure that might make the working age less full of contempt, won't take effect for a while even if it were to happen.
So you're left with tax cuts no one is going to really feel makes them better off - which undermine your biggest remaining pitch of fiscal caution. And saying the other guy/girl she/he's dating is a wrong'un. After 13 years of failure, I'm not sure it will work. Especially given Starmer and Reeves are probably the political equivalent of the nice but slightly dull but worthy partners that suddenly become far more attractive after a disastrous relationship with someone abusive or untrustworthy.
The problem for the government is that the electorate is in no mood to have an "it's not you, it's us" conversation.
The electorate are more in a "it is you, you bastard" mood.
But we were warned. Who else but Boris would make an election video out of the Juliet and Creepy Mark scene in Love, Actually?
- It was very friendly and good natured. I was with someone well known in the Jewish community so it was like walking with a celebrity. - Very crowded at the start as we waited outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Much hilarity at the sight of someone - not on the march - trying to find his way to the Pret A Manger through the crowd. - Not much singing or shouting. We walked happily through the November drizzle via a curious route - Aldwych to Embankment up to Trafalgar Square then down to Parliament Square - chatting away, holding placards or pictures of hostages. - Chatted to Trevor Phillips who was lovely. - A mixed crowd: quite a few families, a lot of gratitude expressed to non-Jews attending and for the numbers there. - Lots of marshals and the police were there but discreet. The ones I noticed were from Liverpool. - The shofar being sounded at the start was a nice touch.
Some photos.
Glad I went.
Some random observations:-
You can see why marchers on most demos carry SWP banners which have wooden staves as handles. Here it looked like many were struggling to hold their posters.
The Jewish press was surprisingly late covering the march. Even the BBC had the story up before the end. Maybe all their reporters were on the march and Xing and Instagramming or something.
Would the organisers have welcomed the Israeli flags?
105,000 marchers sounds suspiciously just a little over the French figure of 100,000.
On Topic: If you're in the spare bedroom (or worse - I'd suggest 20+ points behind in the polls, high don't knows or otherwise, is more like she/he's gone back to their parents), then you have to do something pretty spectacular/crawling on your knees to sort things out.
But the Tories can't or won't do that. There's not going to be the investment and promised improvement in living standards in the fabled 'red wall' (or anywhere for that matter) - even if the government have a relatively 'good' year. Immigration won't be down significantly - even there's a reduction in small boats the government can claim as a success. Nor will public services show measurable improvements (they're likely to get worse in the short-term).
On the other side of things, there's going to be no Brexit mea culpa and reversal of course to get liberals back on side for obvious reasons. It would split the party and in effect mean admitting you'd made one of the single greatest mistakes in modern history.
Plus, any good work on housebuilding and infrastructure that might make the working age less full of contempt, won't take effect for a while even if it were to happen.
So you're left with tax cuts no one is going to really feel makes them better off - which undermine your biggest remaining pitch of fiscal caution. And saying the other guy/girl she/he's dating is a wrong'un. After 13 years of failure, I'm not sure it will work. Especially given Starmer and Reeves are probably the political equivalent of the nice but slightly dull but worthy partners that suddenly become far more attractive after a disastrous relationship with someone abusive or untrustworthy.
The problem for the government is that the electorate is in no mood to have an "it's not you, it's us" conversation.
The electorate are more in a "it is you, you bastard" mood.
But we were warned. Who else but Boris would make an election video out of the Juliet and Creepy Mark scene in Love, Actually?
- It was very friendly and good natured. I was with someone well known in the Jewish community so it was like walking with a celebrity. - Very crowded at the start as we waited outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Much hilarity at the sight of someone - not on the march - trying to find his way to the Pret A Manger through the crowd. - Not much singing or shouting. We walked happily through the November drizzle via a curious route - Aldwych to Embankment up to Trafalgar Square then down to Parliament Square - chatting away, holding placards or pictures of hostages. - Chatted to Trevor Phillips who was lovely. - A mixed crowd: quite a few families, a lot of gratitude expressed to non-Jews attending and for the numbers there. - Lots of marshals and the police were there but discreet. The ones I noticed were from Liverpool. - The shofar being sounded at the start was a nice touch.
Some photos.
Glad I went.
Some random observations:-
You can see why marchers on most demos carry SWP banners which have wooden staves as handles. Here it looked like many were struggling to hold their posters.
The Jewish press was surprisingly late covering the march. Even the BBC had the story up before the end. Maybe all their reporters were on the march and Xing and Instagramming or something.
Would the organisers have welcomed the Israeli flags?
105,000 marchers sounds suspiciously just a little over the French figure of 100,000.
The posters were handed out at the start. Hence no wooden staves. It felt nicer that way.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
Briefly over Kashmir rather than the existence of Pakistan itself.
Had there been no partition Muslims and Hindus would have fought a civil war with each other for decades in India post independence as Protestant and Catholics would have fought a civil war for decades after the creation of the Irish Free State had Northern Ireland not also been created
According to the 2021 Census, there are nearly as many Muslims living in India as there are in Pakistan.
So still more Muslims in Pakistan then, despite India having 5 times the population of Pakistan.
Just 2% of Pakistanis are Hindu
Partition was pretty pointless if there are almost as many Muslims in India as in Pakistan. Personally I would have chosen Amritsar, which is neither Hindu nor Muslim, but Sikh-majority, as the capital of a hypothetical United India.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
Briefly over Kashmir rather than the existence of Pakistan itself.
Had there been no partition Muslims and Hindus would have fought a civil war with each other for decades in India post independence as Protestant and Catholics would have fought a civil war for decades after the creation of the Irish Free State had Northern Ireland not also been created
Fun fact - both the Commanders of the opposing Indian and Pakistani armies were in fact British having served in the pre-independence Indian Army.
Talking of Star Treck, the incomparable George Takei.
A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.
It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.
But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.
I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.
Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.
There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too. https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728783473484149142
The Democratic Party in 1941 was dominated by mad racists. Locking people up on the basis of their ethnicity hardly 'betrayed its values' at that time.
It was Truman began to march them towards civil rights in the later 1940s, and small thanks he got for it from them.
The Roosevelt wasn’t exactly a segregationist…
You mean, apart from all those segregated New Deal programmes?
He moved the dial of Democrat politics from Bed Sheet Fashion to the FEPC and desegregating the armed forces (implemented by Truman)
My wife's uncle was a Buffalo Soldier, at one point, the longest serving US Captain in the US Army having been promoted in the late 30s and still a Captain in the early 1950s.Desegregation took a hell of a long time...
If you could fix the world with executive orders….
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
Briefly over Kashmir rather than the existence of Pakistan itself.
Had there been no partition Muslims and Hindus would have fought a civil war with each other for decades in India post independence as Protestant and Catholics would have fought a civil war for decades after the creation of the Irish Free State had Northern Ireland not also been created
According to the 2021 Census, there are nearly as many Muslims living in India as there are in Pakistan.
So still more Muslims in Pakistan then, despite India having 5 times the population of Pakistan.
Just 2% of Pakistanis are Hindu
Partition was pretty pointless if there are almost as many Muslims in India as in Pakistan. Personally I would have chosen Amritsar, which is neither Hindu nor Muslim, but Sikh-majority, as the capital of a hypothetical United India.
It wasn't, as those Pakistani Muslims would have fought a civil war against their Hindu counterparts if they were denied a Muslim majority state of their own
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Assuming a Labour win, on the Friday after the election we can whine about a Labour Government overseeing rampant immigration and a chaotic economy. Typical of Labour!
I joined the Tories in 1998 and got 12 years of opposition for my troubles.
However in some respects Opposition is more fun than government, even if you can't achieve anything, as you can just trash the government's record as Labour are doing now and have been doing since they lost in 2010
I have a strong suspicion that Labour in general, and Starmer in particular, will in three years or so be looking back on their time in Opposition as a golden age. There will be no money for them to steal and shovel towards their union and welfare dependent core vote, which is the whole point of Labour's existence after all, and people will be fed up with the virtue signalling.
Indeed and apart from Blair and Brown 1997-2010 the only time Labour have governed for more than 5 consecutive years was 1964-1970 under Wilson, which was only fractionally more
Wrong. Attlee was PM for 6 years and 93 days: 26 July1945 to 26 October 1951.
"The 2023 Booker Prize has been awarded to Prophet Song, a dystopian vision of Ireland in the grips of totalitarianism. It was written by Ireland's Paul Lynch, 46, marking the first time he has won the prestigious fiction writing prize.
Set in Dublin, it tells the story of a family grappling with a terrifying new world in which the democratic norms they are used to begin to disappear."
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
"The Brits partitioned MY country too, you know!"
Only because there would have been a Muslim and Hindu civil war without it, as there would have been in Ireland between Protestant Unionists and Irish Catholics without partition.
There was with it, in both cases...
No there wasn't, there was a civil war in the Free State between pro Treaty and anti Treaty forces after partition in Ireland, not between the Protestant North and Catholic South and it was over by summer 1923.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
Briefly over Kashmir rather than the existence of Pakistan itself.
Had there been no partition Muslims and Hindus would have fought a civil war with each other for decades in India post independence as Protestant and Catholics would have fought a civil war for decades after the creation of the Irish Free State had Northern Ireland not also been created
According to the 2021 Census, there are nearly as many Muslims living in India as there are in Pakistan.
So still more Muslims in Pakistan then, despite India having 5 times the population of Pakistan.
Just 2% of Pakistanis are Hindu
Partition was pretty pointless if there are almost as many Muslims in India as in Pakistan. Personally I would have chosen Amritsar, which is neither Hindu nor Muslim, but Sikh-majority, as the capital of a hypothetical United India.
It wasn't, as those Pakistani Muslims would have fought a civil war against their Hindu counterparts if they were denied a Muslim majority state of their own
Or they might not have.
By the way, you were completely wrong in stating "There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either"
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
I was a lurker at the end of the Brown years. It was tough to defend, but I wasn't a fan, indeed the only time I have voted Conservative in a GE was 2010.
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
I was raised by a mother who views debt as the eighth deadliest sin, it does have an impact.
Although... hard to buy a house without a mortgage or rich parents.
My mother doesn't view a mortgage as debt.
Yep, I don't view cheese as full of calories but sadly it still is.
Well the only acceptable debt.
That said I have persuaded her on the merits of PCH and the merits of buying everything on a credit card (then paying the full balance off each month).
In a similar vein I have classified cheese as an acceptable form of calories and saturated fats.
"The 2023 Booker Prize has been awarded to Prophet Song, a dystopian vision of Ireland in the grips of totalitarianism. It was written by Ireland's Paul Lynch, 46, marking the first time he has won the prestigious fiction writing prize.
Set in Dublin, it tells the story of a family grappling with a terrifying new world in which the democratic norms they are used to begin to disappear."
Comments
I have a really old fashioned puritanical loathing of debt.
https://trekmovie.com/2011/06/22/garrett-wang-talks-clashes-with-brannon-braga-rick-berman-lost-opportunity-for-star-trek-voyager-movie/
When I started posting BTL around the time of the Brown election that never was there was a shift to the Tories.
I was limited to what I could access in that time.
That said I have persuaded her on the merits of PCH and the merits of buying everything on a credit card (then paying the full balance off each month).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luEDui2zAUw
Season 3 of Picard was better than sex.
So was Breaking Bad.
But if back in 2007/8 of someone had been speculating that in the near future there would be a global health pandemic that would shut the world and economy down and a big war in Europe then they would have been laughed at. Predictions of hell in the Middle East less so obviously.
Looking for solid traditional rather than avant garde.
However in some respects Opposition is more fun than government, even if you can't achieve anything, as you can just trash the government's record as Labour are doing now and have been doing since they lost in 2010
A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.
It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.
But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.
I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.
Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.
There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1728783473484149142
Me, I've just been sent a piccie of the world's happiest bollard:
https://twitter.com/WorldBollard/status/1728829838344282228
And the most satisfied one, defending the innocent public from errant Mercedes drivers. And there's not a scratch (on the bollard). I can't identify the London station in the background, with it's distinctive single arch and towers (anyone?):
https://twitter.com/WorldBollard/status/1728377314541731993
A 2 state solution would work for Israel and Palestine too
It was Truman began to march them towards civil rights in the later 1940s, and small thanks he got for it from them.
Edit: https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1728834624389013736
29 m/s (65 MPH) winds...
PB has to be the most useful site on the internet!
https://www.scotland-holiday-cottage.com/borders/borders3.htm
Surely it has to be the Zimmerli for our TSE - if only because of the "POA"...
If you have to ask, you can't afford us.
If you have to ask me the price ...
I'm still trying to identify this station. Those are London stock bricks, and the removal van is from Sevenoaks.
There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either
But the Tories can't or won't do that. There's not going to be the investment and promised improvement in living standards in the fabled 'red wall' (or anywhere for that matter) - even if the government have a relatively 'good' year. Immigration won't be down significantly - even there's a reduction in small boats the government can claim as a success. Nor will public services show measurable improvements (they're likely to get worse in the short-term).
On the other side of things, there's going to be no Brexit mea culpa and reversal of course to get liberals back on side for obvious reasons. It would split the party and in effect mean admitting you'd made one of the single greatest mistakes in modern history.
Plus, any good work on housebuilding and infrastructure that might make the working age less full of contempt, won't take effect for a while even if it were to happen.
So you're left with tax cuts no one is going to really feel makes them better off - which undermine your biggest remaining pitch of fiscal caution. And saying the other guy/girl she/he's dating is a wrong'un. After 13 years of failure, I'm not sure it will work. Especially given Starmer and Reeves are probably the political equivalent of the nice but slightly dull but worthy partners that suddenly become far more attractive after a disastrous relationship with someone abusive or untrustworthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947–1948
2 subsequent ones too.
*though not all is well spent in my eyes.
I think it's great that one end was preserved and the other one modernised, though the unusual arch profile is still visible.
- It was very friendly and good natured. I was with someone well known in the Jewish community so it was like walking with a celebrity.
- Very crowded at the start as we waited outside the Royal Courts of Justice. Much hilarity at the sight of someone - not on the march - trying to find his way to the Pret A Manger through the crowd.
- Not much singing or shouting. We walked happily through the November drizzle via a curious route - Aldwych to Embankment up to Trafalgar Square then down to Parliament Square - chatting away, holding placards or pictures of hostages.
- Chatted to Trevor Phillips who was lovely.
- A mixed crowd: quite a few families, a lot of gratitude expressed to non-Jews attending and for the numbers there.
- Lots of marshals and the police were there but discreet. The ones I noticed were from Liverpool.
- The shofar being sounded at the start was a nice touch.
Some photos.
Glad I went.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5353238,-0.1073773,3a,75y,37.76h,101.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s16So0XQWobMZDcLlh8iBCg!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=16So0XQWobMZDcLlh8iBCg&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=292.3802&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5353238,-0.1073773,3a,75y,110.86h,79.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s16So0XQWobMZDcLlh8iBCg!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=16So0XQWobMZDcLlh8iBCg&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=292.3802&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Had there been no partition Muslims and Hindus would have fought a civil war with each other for decades in India post independence as Protestant and Catholics would have fought a civil war for decades after the creation of the Irish Free State had Northern Ireland not also been created
That's simply not true.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CAXuFusT88Y
Just 2% of Pakistanis are Hindu
The electorate are more in a "it is you, you bastard" mood.
But we were warned. Who else but Boris would make an election video out of the Juliet and Creepy Mark scene in Love, Actually?
I didn't see him but Boris Johnson was there too.
https://www.lamipierre.fr/en/
Set in Dublin, it tells the story of a family grappling with a terrifying new world in which the democratic norms they are used to begin to disappear."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67537449
Yoon replaces spy agency chief, 2 deputy chiefs en masse
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/11/356_363939.html
By the way, you were completely wrong in stating "There was no war between Pakistan and India after partition in India in 1947 either"
1947-9
1965
1971
1999