Hamilton had one DNF to Rosberg's three last season, but the Briton's was due to a mistake and the German's to reliability failures. A DNF will be very costly for either driver, as his rival is likely to get the full 25 points.
When was the last time that the Labour and LD vote combined dipped below 50%? Was it 1992? It could well happen in 2015, but that would mean a very big UKIP vote in all likelihood, which would then probably mean a Labour government. Thus, a big swing to the right could put EdM in Downing Street. And the Tories support FPTP!!!???
At a glance, 1959 I believe (49.7%)
So next year really could be different.
Possibly, there were a few near or very near misses, so if it comes in at 49% then while symbolic it wouldn't be that different from 51% in analytical terms.
If it came in well below it'd be really different.
Symbolically, not getting at least 50% for the first time in 56 years would be a pretty big thing, wouldn't it? The end of the progressive majority and all that.
I'd say it's probable that the combined Labour/Lib Dem vote share will be under 50% in 2015. Currently, it's about 47%.
Could it be saved via the Greens/PC/SNP (delete as applicable)?
The way posters spin these figures to their tribe's advantage makes me chuckle. Roughly, the polls show that a little over a third of the voters are prepared to go for Labour, just under a third of them want Conservative, and the rest either don't know or go for the minor parties. So, pretty much, on any given day, two thirds of people polled don't want Labour involved, and two thirds don't want the Tories involved. Fair play to the two main parties, though, as they will crow, come May 2015, when real votes have been cast, that "The People have Spoken", and they've got the mandate (probably with the Lib Dems as kingmakers) to save the country from the last lot. Truth is none of the parties are very appetising, and with luck, the Press war on MPs Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll lifestyles might take a few of them down.
More hairshirts from you. What is it about some PBers who seek to tell others how to live their lives? We need more MPs who live interesting lives, not fewer.
I suspect TFS doesn't care how they live.
He just doesn't want to pay for their lifestyle
Exactly. They can have lived the life of Tom Knox, for all I care, but once they get to Westminster, I don't think they should be whoring, shagging, drinking and dining in subsidised bars and restaurants, sexually harassing, snorting, cheating and troughing on my dollar. It's going to be fun when a few get named and shamed.
One objective of Labours changes to medical education was to train fewer hospital doctors and more GP's. Rather than address the reasons why these posts were less attractive they reduced the numbers of hospital training posts to force unwilling junior doctors into General practice. Instead of this many chose to quit or emigrate.
The issues are not just financial. The governmens of the last 15 years have increadingly dumped admin and bureaucracy onto these GPs so that many do not want partnerships, preferring the lower pay but less hassle option of being a locum or salaried assistant.
Couple of thoughts from a scan of recents pots. In my youth, in the mid 50's, science graduates could avoid National Service by becoming teachers. We had one teaching us physics and he was by no means our best teacher! In later life if come across someone else who did it, too.
In the small town where I live the two-partner practice has recently advertised for a GP, one of the partners having decided he was going to do locums and any opther bits which didn't require him to relate to a CCG. It's been very difficult to recruit a replacement who wanted to stay …. gather they could have taken on one or two who woho effectively do a long-term locum ……. but now we have. On, I gather, a six month trial, but I don't think that's unreasonable.
And I thought Charing Cross was the source of road numbering, not distance.
> You can't get much closer to the heart of the Establishment than Marble Arch.
Trivia for the day - all distances "to London" on signposts around the country are measured to Marble Arch.
Is that right? I was taught that the distances were measured to Hyde Park corner, the other end of Park Lane. Neither of which seem likely, to be honest, because at the time such a tradition was likely to have been established neither place was really in London.
Mr. Observer's comment that you can't get much closer to the Heart of the establishment than Marble Arch strikes me as total nonsense. No matter how you define the Establishment the Western End of Oxford Street ain't its heart or even, in London terms, near it.
I'll second/third/fourth Charing Cross as being the focus of miles measured from London for the last couple of hundred years. As SeanT says, in Roman times it was the Roman city. However for a period between the two the milestones were centred from... drum rolls... the Church of Great St Mary in Cambridge.
What? I hear you all scream. Well, after the Romans left Britain the road network fell into disrepair, and the first milestones created in the country radiated out from the centre of Cambridge from 1725, including towards London (The 'Trinity Hall' series of milestones). Many are still visible on the roads radiating out from the city centre.
Hence cementing Cambridge's place as the true centre of civilisation. Where Cambridge goes, London copies. ;-)
I thought the last time a party won the popular vote but came second in terms of seats was or were the Conservatives in February 1974 (I think they finished maybe 0.5% ahead of Labour but finished up four seats behind).
On topic, I've always argued on here the London Borough elections in May are the ones to watch in terms of trying to read the 2015 GE runes. The two things of which I think we can be fairly certain with regard to next year are a) the LD vote will collapse in anything up to 500 seats with many a fourth, fifth or even worse to expect and b) UKIP are likely to pile up votes where it won't matter - in solid Conservative or Labour seats.
Trimming a majority from 15,000 to 5,000 looks and is good but makes no difference in terms of the Commons. Neither does a vote share falling from 20% to 3%.
It may be that a lot of churn will disguise a little change.
Mr. Jessop, bah. Over a millennium earlier Yorkshire made Constantine the Great emperor of the world. And his mum, a Yorkshire lass, found the True Cross.
Euan Blair is targeting one of Labour’s safest seats for the next general election, it was reported last night.
The ambitious 29-year-old, son of Tony Blair, is believed to have his eye on Bootle, Merseyside, just a stone’s throw from his mother Cherie’s childhood home.
She was raised in Waterloo, north of the tough Bootle patch which Labour holds with a majority of more than 21,000.
Bootle’s 81-year-old Labour MP, Joe Benton, has vowed to stand again for the seat in 2015. But he is fighting de-selection and has already lost at least one ward.
Labour HQ is considering throwing the seat open to a formal selection contest at the end of next month.
The former prime minister’s son could find himself grappling for the seat with the incumbent MP – who has held the position for 24 years – as well as local council leader Peter Dowd and other activists. Labour would have to sidestep its default all-women shortlist system to allow Mr Blair and other men to run.
Mr Blair lives with wife Suzanne, whom he married last year, in a £3million home in central London, which he jointly bought with his mother. He is believed to have quit his lucrative job at investment bank Morgan Stanley to focus on building his political career. But he caused controversy by working for the Republicans in Washington.
A Labour source said the idea of the ‘heir to Blair’ taking the Bootle seat would be a ‘disaster’.
The source told the Liverpool Echo newspaper: ‘There’s no way Labour is going to lose Bootle, but the idea of parachuting someone like Euan Blair in would be a disaster, a joke.’
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Mr. Jessop, bah. Over a millennium earlier Yorkshire made Constantine the Great emperor of the world. And his mum, a Yorkshire lass, found the True Cross.
I know you can't help being from Yorkshire, but there's no reason to keep mentioning your inferiority complex. ;-)
On another note, by going online, apparently Hick's Hall in London (the start of the Great North Road) was also used at at one time, along with St Mary le Bow church and a place on Cornhill.
One objective of Labours changes to medical education was to train fewer hospital doctors and more GP's. Rather than address the reasons why these posts were less attractive they reduced the numbers of hospital training posts to force unwilling junior doctors into General practice. Instead of this many chose to quit or emigrate.
The issues are not just financial. The governmens of the last 15 years have increadingly dumped admin and bureaucracy onto these GPs so that many do not want partnerships, preferring the lower pay but less hassle option of being a locum or salaried assistant.
Couple of thoughts from a scan of recents pots. In my youth, in the mid 50's, science graduates could avoid National Service by becoming teachers. We had one teaching us physics and he was by no means our best teacher! In later life if come across someone else who did it, too.
In the small town where I live the two-partner practice has recently advertised for a GP, one of the partners having decided he was going to do locums and any opther bits which didn't require him to relate to a CCG. It's been very difficult to recruit a replacement who wanted to stay …. gather they could have taken on one or two who woho effectively do a long-term locum ……. but now we have. On, I gather, a six month trial, but I don't think that's unreasonable.
And I thought Charing Cross was the source of road numbering, not distance.
Quite agree about the medical training bit. And this in spite of the social pressures to be a GP. However this must be contrasted with the apparent downgrading of GP activity compared to hospital work. Maybe we should go back to the 18th Century where "general practice" was in the hands of the apothecaries rather than the physicians.
@voteYES 54m "It's time for independence! We have an opportunity to re-energise these islands! - Brian Cox pic.twitter.com/BXCbTjxoG3
... who is clearly standing in Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, 3 minutes from my flat
He's just the same as those leftist frauds like old Ralph Miliband who praised the Soviet Union but preferred to live the bourgeois life in England and the US. Nauseating.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
It now seems widely accepted that Blair was having REALLy intimate coffee mornings with Mrs Rupert Murdoch. Hence Rupe's decision to divorce Wendi Deng as soon as he found out about their "chats".
Yes, a true and proper account of Blair's time in office will be an interesting document.
Sister in Law would have said something by now if this was true. Also I don't get the impression that his wife is a doormat.
Make no mistake. Ever since his dalliance with GWB , I am no supporter of TB.
Since the start of the previous century and at a General Election:
A party has won the Popular Vote but won fewer seats than the winning party.- five times.
A major party leader has lost his seat at a GE - five times.
When was the last occasion for each event?
Will 2015 make it a sixth for both events?
Oct 74 and Roy Jenkins in 83?
Not October and Roy did not lose his eat in 83 - think earlier
Last occasion for Party leader losing seat would be Sir Archibald Sinclair in 1945.
- "In the 1945 general election, he narrowly lost his seat. His margin of defeat is one of the tightest on record; he came third: even though the victor had only 61 votes more than he."
Since the start of the previous century and at a General Election:
A party has won the Popular Vote but won fewer seats than the winning party.- five times.
A major party leader has lost his seat at a GE - five times.
When was the last occasion for each event?
Will 2015 make it a sixth for both events?
Oct 74 and Roy Jenkins in 83?
Not October and Roy did not lose his eat in 83 - think earlier
Feb 74 then!
Correct and the previous time was 1951 when Labour (Attlee) had 0,8% more votes but 26 fewer seats.
Yes, and for those aspiring to an LD wipeout, the Liberals polled 2.5% in 1951 and still won six seats as they did off 7.5% in 1970.
On to the rest of the questions - the Party leaders losing seats - hmm, Balfour lost his in 1906 (and remains the only PM to lose his seat at a GE in recent times). I would guess Ramsay McDonald and Herbert Asquith might be other possibles along with John Clynes and George Lansbury but that's just early thoughts.
My question - apart from the five in 1945 and the seven in 1997, name the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been defeated in General Elections since WW2 ?
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
It now seems widely accepted that Blair was having REALLy intimate coffee mornings with Mrs Rupert Murdoch. Hence Rupe's decision to divorce Wendi Deng as soon as he found out about their "chats".
Yes, a true and proper account of Blair's time in office will be an interesting document.
@voteYES 54m "It's time for independence! We have an opportunity to re-energise these islands! - Brian Cox pic.twitter.com/BXCbTjxoG3
... who is clearly standing in Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, 3 minutes from my flat
Perhaps he's building an extension in one of the Nash Terraces, and can't move north just yet.
Another of the 'Scotland? Love it, but I wouldn't live there' Brigade.
Have you ever lived there in the Winter ?
There is one advantage with an independent Scotland. We can have permanent British Summer Time.
I am beginning to see the benefits.
Only if we left the EU, otherwise we'd still need to put our clocks forward and back, and have BST in winter and double summer time in the summer. In other words, we'd have joined the French and Germans in the Central European Timezone.
Observations from the front line of the independence debate.
If the only area in Scotland voting was Bridge of Don this would be a massacre. I reckon we were averaging 80% no this morning even assuming those who did not or would not say were yes.
Quite a number who had voted SNP in local elections or the last Scottish election are voting no.
Salmond is personally unpopular, sturgeon less so.
Most of those in my group were Labour Party members including a local councillor.
The area we were canvassing was very mixed with Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and Tory in roughly that order There were very few undecideds and even less when you took out those probably voting yes.
Salmond has been becoming a liability for Yes over the past couple of months. The campaign is now trying to distance itself from him.
@voteYES 54m "It's time for independence! We have an opportunity to re-energise these islands! - Brian Cox pic.twitter.com/BXCbTjxoG3
... who is clearly standing in Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, 3 minutes from my flat
Perhaps he's building an extension in one of the Nash Terraces, and can't move north just yet.
Another of the 'Scotland? Love it, but I wouldn't live there' Brigade.
Have you ever lived there in the Winter ?
There is one advantage with an independent Scotland. We can have permanent British Summer Time.
I am beginning to see the benefits.
Only if we left the EU, otherwise we'd still need to put our clocks forward and back, and have BST in winter and double summer time in the summer. In other words, we'd have joined the French and Germans in the Central European Timezone.
Which timezone would Scotland be forced into, under the Euro jackboot that Eck appears so keen to lick?
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times
Amazing isn't it? I remember when Blair was in his heyday: winner of some of the biggest landslides in British political history, glorified by a devoted and unquestioning media both on the Left and the Right. Yet today everyone says they always hated his guts. It's misremembering syndrome on a massive scale.
Since the start of the previous century and at a General Election:
A party has won the Popular Vote but won fewer seats than the winning party.- five times.
A major party leader has lost his seat at a GE - five times.
When was the last occasion for each event?
Will 2015 make it a sixth for both events?
Oct 74 and Roy Jenkins in 83?
Not October and Roy did not lose his eat in 83 - think earlier
Feb 74 then!
Correct and the previous time was 1951 when Labour (Attlee) had 0,8% more votes but 26 fewer seats.
Yes, and for those aspiring to an LD wipeout, the Liberals polled 2.5% in 1951 and still won six seats as they did off 7.5% in 1970.
On to the rest of the questions - the Party leaders losing seats - hmm, Balfour lost his in 1906 (and remains the only PM to lose his seat at a GE in recent times). I would guess Ramsay McDonald and Herbert Asquith might be other possibles along with John Clynes and George Lansbury but that's just early thoughts.
My question - apart from the five in 1945 and the seven in 1997, name the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been defeated in General Elections since WW2 ?
PORTILLO, George Brown.................Others in 1997.
@voteYES 54m "It's time for independence! We have an opportunity to re-energise these islands! - Brian Cox pic.twitter.com/BXCbTjxoG3
... who is clearly standing in Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, 3 minutes from my flat
Perhaps he's building an extension in one of the Nash Terraces, and can't move north just yet.
Another of the 'Scotland? Love it, but I wouldn't live there' Brigade.
Have you ever lived there in the Winter ?
There is one advantage with an independent Scotland. We can have permanent British Summer Time.
I am beginning to see the benefits.
Only if we left the EU, otherwise we'd still need to put our clocks forward and back, and have BST in winter and double summer time in the summer. In other words, we'd have joined the French and Germans in the Central European Timezone.
Observations from the front line of the independence debate.
If the only area in Scotland voting was Bridge of Don this would be a massacre. I reckon we were averaging 80% no this morning even assuming those who did not or would not say were yes.
Quite a number who had voted SNP in local elections or the last Scottish election are voting no.
Salmond is personally unpopular, sturgeon less so.
Most of those in my group were Labour Party members including a local councillor.
The area we were canvassing was very mixed with Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and Tory in roughly that order There were very few undecideds and even less when you took out those probably voting yes.
Salmond has been becoming a liability for Yes over the past couple of months. The campaign is now trying to distance itself from him.
That is why the other fish is always on the telly. Apparently, she is softer !!
Since the start of the previous century and at a General Election:
A party has won the Popular Vote but won fewer seats than the winning party.- five times.
A major party leader has lost his seat at a GE - five times.
When was the last occasion for each event?
Will 2015 make it a sixth for both events?
Oct 74 and Roy Jenkins in 83?
Not October and Roy did not lose his eat in 83 - think earlier
Feb 74 then!
Correct and the previous time was 1951 when Labour (Attlee) had 0,8% more votes but 26 fewer seats.
Yes, and for those aspiring to an LD wipeout, the Liberals polled 2.5% in 1951 and still won six seats as they did off 7.5% in 1970.
On to the rest of the questions - the Party leaders losing seats - hmm, Balfour lost his in 1906 (and remains the only PM to lose his seat at a GE in recent times). I would guess Ramsay McDonald and Herbert Asquith might be other possibles along with John Clynes and George Lansbury but that's just early thoughts.
My question - apart from the five in 1945 and the seven in 1997, name the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been defeated in General Elections since WW2 ?
Chris Patten in 1992 I would say. Wasn't Tory party chairman a Cabinet post back then (if it isn't now)?
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Re sexually-charged MPs, I think it's the case that people who have just exercised power feel a strong urge to have sex (that's my personal experience, on the few occasions I've been top dog). Nature has evolved a neat dovetail for this urge with the strong attraction others feel towards the powerful (as evidenced by the beautiful consorts of the rich and famous). It's as if it were made to be. And it's the same across the animal kingdom: the top stag, ram, horse or cat gets to sow his seed.
The problem that MPs have is that they don't have any power any more because they've devolved it to the media, quangos, Robert Peston, Brussels etc. As a group, they are not the prospect they once were. Which is why their advances are being rebuffed and people are telling their tales. In the past people would have been flattered by the attention and gone along with it. But not any more.
The solution of course is for MPs to get off their arses, take back power from whoever's nicked it and to start showing some muscle. The people will then gladly bender over for them and their won't be all this tittle tattle in the newspapers.
Mr. Dawning, part-misremembering, but also the fact that Blair was pretty rubbish. He did well in Northern Ireland but that was carrying on the work of the previous government. He inherited a great economic legacy and ruined it. His foreign policies speak for themselves.
It's also worth recalling Blair was good at speeches. So's Obama. Just because Salmond can give a speech doesn't mean he knows his arse from his elbow.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Don't agree with that. You can find people who loathe or love Thatcher in equal measure. With the exception of John Rentoul, is Blair not now hated by anyone?
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
It now seems widely accepted that Blair was having REALLy intimate coffee mornings with Mrs Rupert Murdoch. Hence Rupe's decision to divorce Wendi Deng as soon as he found out about their "chats".
This reinforces all the rumours that Blair was "a hard dog to keep on the porch" when he was in Number 10.
Yes, a true and proper account of Blair's time in office will be an interesting document.
It is vaguely surprising that Grant Shapps's first action in office was not to demand a search of the computer backups.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Don't agree with that. You can find people who loathe or love Thatcher in equal measure. With the exception of John Rentoul, is Blair not now hated by anyone?
Tim never wavered in his neo-con devotion to Blair.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Don't agree with that. You can find people who loathe or love Thatcher in equal measure. With the exception of John Rentoul, is Blair not now hated by anyone?
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Blair and Major could have switched parties and both would have been more comfortable.
Mr. L, despite lefty revisionism* Thatcher will always have as many diehard supporters as attackers. Blair will have detractors galore, but precious few defenders.
*My favourite was on the Sky newspaper review a year or two ago. The chap doing it referred to the 'milk-snatcher' meme, whereupon the presenter, a decade or two his senior, said he was glad it had gone because the milk was always either frozen or horribly warm, whereupon the youth remarked it was before his time anyway.
@voteYES 54m "It's time for independence! We have an opportunity to re-energise these islands! - Brian Cox pic.twitter.com/BXCbTjxoG3
... who is clearly standing in Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, 3 minutes from my flat
Brian Cox is one of my all time fav actors - the original Hannibal Lector, his towering Titus Andronicus at the RSC - but he has the weirdest handshake. It was like being offered a recently deceased mackerel....
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Blair and Major could have switched parties and both would have been more comfortable.
Re sexually-charged MPs, I think it's the case that people who have just exercised power feel a strong urge to have sex (that's my personal experience, on the few occasions I've been top dog). Nature has evolved a neat dovetail for this urge with the strong attraction others feel towards the powerful (as evidenced by the beautiful consorts of the rich and famous). It's as if it were made to be. And it's the same across the animal kingdom: the top stag, ram, horse or cat gets to sow his seed.
The problem that MPs have is that they don't have any power any more because they've devolved it to the media, quangos, Robert Peston, Brussels etc. As a group, they are not the prospect they once were. Which is why their advances are being rebuffed and people are telling their tales. In the past people would have been flattered by the attention and gone along with it. But not any more.
The solution of course is for MPs to get off their arses, take back power from whoever's nicked it and to start showing some muscle. The people will then gladly bender over for them and their won't be all this tittle tattle in the newspapers.
Maybe we should go back to the 18th Century where "general practice" was in the hands of the apothecaries rather than the physicians.
Was that really true? Apothecaries, physicians and surgeons all seem to have had a role to play depending what the problem was and what one wanted to do about it.
Along with introducing refundable bursaries as suggested by the good Dr. Fox below, I think great strides could be made by substantially increasing remuneration. I know we have all the fuss about GPs pay in recent years, but historically how does a doctor's earnings now compared with his predecessors of just fifty or sixty years ago? When I was growing up, in shitty South London, the local GP was a big cheese in the community and drove a car which reflected the fact of his wealth and status. Nowadays the cars in the doctors' spots at my local health centre are substantially tattier than those on the patients side of the car park.
Mind you I'd also require GPs to dress to the dignity of their office rather than turning up in holiday clothes as the current lot seem to do (just putting a decent shirt and a bleedin' tie would be an improvement).
Why is British taxpayer money being given to a country that allows such appalling abuse of human lives to go on?
You are back to Muslim bashing again ?
No, not bashing but just being truthful. I would love to see Harriet H and her Women's Rights associates protest in such places. Came across a group of them this morning with banners in the main street and fundraising, but when challenged they all refused to protest in an Islamic environ either in the UK or overseas.
Mr. Dawning, part-misremembering, but also the fact that Blair was pretty rubbish. He did well in Northern Ireland but that was carrying on the work of the previous government. He inherited a great economic legacy and ruined it. His foreign policies speak for themselves.
It's also worth recalling Blair was good at speeches. So's Obama. Just because Salmond can give a speech doesn't mean he knows his arse from his elbow.
I think that's harsh, Morris. On Northern Ireland, Blair followed on the work started in the Major years but adopted a non-partisan approach and, as I recall, was always willing to credit the previous administration.
As for the economy, I don't recall many on either side objecting to increased spending from 1999 onward and indeed Hague's Conservatives often tried to outdo Labour on spending commitments. The events of 2008 onward may seem inevitable now but we have the huge gift of hindsight.
Likewise, it's hard for anyone to have conceived of the events of September 11th 2001 and the massive impact on foreign and defence policy they had. Had Hague or IDS been Prime Minister, we would have done exactly the same as did Blair. Indeed, if you want a poor foreign policy record, neither administration covered themselves in glory concerning either Yugoslavia or West Africa.
Blair got into office by convincing millions of voters (including many who had supported the Conservatives since 1979) that the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left and that the central tenets of Thatcherism (especially those relating to Unions) would be retained. On that basis, he won two landslide election victories.
The problem was that he either could not or would not be radical in Government in the second term as Thatcher had been after 1983 - perhaps had the events of September 11th not intervened, there would have been a more radical domestic agenda for the second term but I doubt it.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Blair and Major could have switched parties and both would have been more comfortable.
Major was too working class for Labour.
I'm always vaguely suspicious that some of the vitriol poured on Major and Callaghan was because top civil servants and the chattering classes thought those men unsophisticated and uneducated. Not PLU, as used to be said.
Re sexually-charged MPs, I think it's the case that people who have just exercised power feel a strong urge to have sex (that's my personal experience, on the few occasions I've been top dog). Nature has evolved a neat dovetail for this urge with the strong attraction others feel towards the powerful (as evidenced by the beautiful consorts of the rich and famous). It's as if it were made to be. And it's the same across the animal kingdom: the top stag, ram, horse or cat gets to sow his seed.
The problem that MPs have is that they don't have any power any more because they've devolved it to the media, quangos, Robert Peston, Brussels etc. As a group, they are not the prospect they once were. Which is why their advances are being rebuffed and people are telling their tales. In the past people would have been flattered by the attention and gone along with it. But not any more.
The solution of course is for MPs to get off their arses, take back power from whoever's nicked it and to start showing some muscle. The people will then gladly bender over for them and their won't be all this tittle tattle in the newspapers.
Being half-cut probably does not help, either.
From The Times...... "Tory MPs have been asked to sign up to a new code of conduct as a result of the issues flagged up during the case. It states that MPs should treat their staff with “dignity, respect and courtesy” and should not “use their position to bully, abuse or harass employees”.
Any MPs that need to be asked to sign up to a code of conduct like that, shouldn't be anywhere near power.
So highlighting the abduction, rape and forced marriage of Christian girls in a foreign country is just "Muslim bashing".
What would you have been like in the 1930s if people dared to mention kristellnacht?
Oh, you're just back to Nazi-bashing.
And, of course, as Norman Cohn so brilliantly demonstrated in The Pursuit of the Millennium (1957), the intellectual origins of both German National Socialism and Marxist-Lenninism lie in the chiliastic millenarian sects of medieval Europe and their eschatologies and pathologies. Under most sociological definitions of religion, Nazism and Russian Communism qualify as religions.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Don't agree with that. You can find people who loathe or love Thatcher in equal measure. With the exception of John Rentoul, is Blair not now hated by anyone?
Remember David Cameron's detoxification strategy? Now remember which Prime Minister "toxified" the party. There are vast numbers of voters, now middle-aged, who on demographic grounds "ought" to support the Conservatives but who cannot bring themselves to do so. Look at Scotland where Conservatives could count on two dozen MPs before Mrs Thatcher set to work.
Since the start of the previous century and at a General Election:
A party has won the Popular Vote but won fewer seats than the winning party.- five times.
A major party leader has lost his seat at a GE - five times.
When was the last occasion for each event?
Will 2015 make it a sixth for both events?
Oct 74 and Roy Jenkins in 83?
Not October and Roy did not lose his eat in 83 - think earlier
Feb 74 then!
Correct and the previous time was 1951 when Labour (Attlee) had 0,8% more votes but 26 fewer seats.
Yes, and for those aspiring to an LD wipeout, the Liberals polled 2.5% in 1951 and still won six seats as they did off 7.5% in 1970.
On to the rest of the questions - the Party leaders losing seats - hmm, Balfour lost his in 1906 (and remains the only PM to lose his seat at a GE in recent times). I would guess Ramsay McDonald and Herbert Asquith might be other possibles along with John Clynes and George Lansbury but that's just early thoughts.
My question - apart from the five in 1945 and the seven in 1997, name the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been defeated in General Elections since WW2 ?
Chris Patten in 1992 I would say. Wasn't Tory party chairman a Cabinet post back then (if it isn't now)?
Why is British taxpayer money being given to a country that allows such appalling abuse of human lives to go on?
You are back to Muslim bashing again ?
So highlighting the abduction, rape and forced marriage of Christian girls in a foreign country is just "Muslim bashing".
What would you have been like in the 1930s if people dared to mention kristellnacht?
Oh, you're just back to Nazi-bashing.
Surbiton would apparently prefer sexual slavery to be brushed under the carpet than people hear about something negative a Muslim has done. I guess a similar mentality happened with Jimmy Saville's victims, just with different people being protected.
"The events of 2008 onward may seem inevitable now but we have the huge gift of hindsight."
To anyone who saw or knew about Northern Rock et al offering 125% mortgages on 6-7 times salary well pre2008, the coming crash was blindingly obvious. The problem was that GB had split the financial regulation between 3 bodies - none of which knew what they were responsible for or knew what they were doing. Now in the 2010s people are suffering the results of that disastrous GB policy. He knew less about economics and financial control that the adjacent farm's champion ram.
I think increased renumeration for GPs would be untenable and ineffective at retention.
Pay GPs more but do nothing about their other grievances and they would just retire earlier and richer!
Doctors are like other people, motivated by money but not exclusively so. Improvements in other aspects of their working conditions would be both cheaper and better than pay as a solution.
Shortly we are to have a new Consultant contract that forces seven day working for Consultants for non emergency work, stops pay progression and Clinical Excellence Awards. Anyone care to speculate whether this will increase retention?
Maybe we should go back to the 18th Century where "general practice" was in the hands of the apothecaries rather than the physicians.
Was that really true? Apothecaries, physicians and surgeons all seem to have had a role to play depending what the problem was and what one wanted to do about it.
Along with introducing refundable bursaries as suggested by the good Dr. Fox below, I think great strides could be made by substantially increasing remuneration. I know we have all the fuss about GPs pay in recent years, but historically how does a doctor's earnings now compared with his predecessors of just fifty or sixty years ago? When I was growing up, in shitty South London, the local GP was a big cheese in the community and drove a car which reflected the fact of his wealth and status. Nowadays the cars in the doctors' spots at my local health centre are substantially tattier than those on the patients side of the car park.
Mind you I'd also require GPs to dress to the dignity of their office rather than turning up in holiday clothes as the current lot seem to do (just putting a decent shirt and a bleedin' tie would be an improvement).
Tony Benn lost his seat in 79. Wasn't he in the cabinet still as T and I minister?
I thought the late Tony Benn lost his seat in 1983 as part of the redrawing of the Bristol seats and got back in Chesterfield in 1987 but I sit to be corrected. He wasn't in Callaghan's Cabinet - he had been Industry Minister under Wilson,
Thanks for that DavidL, that is really interesting. I know that Better Together have been very busy in Aberdeen for a while now, twitter is quite useful for getting a good idea of what campaigning is going on where with both camps across Scotland. Labour appear a lot more organised in Aberdeen, and witness the very public way that Aberdeen Council has taken on and been fighting Salmond and the SNP Government over the last year. How solid did you feel the Libdem voters were on the doorsteps today considering their current polling? Despite their dire performance at the last Holyrood elections and their current polling here in Scotland, I think that some of their more entrenched and very familiar and locally connected MP's will be far harder to shift than some of those MSP's were.
Observations from the front line of the independence debate.
If the only area in Scotland voting was Bridge of Don this would be a massacre. I reckon we were averaging 80% no this morning even assuming those who did not or would not say were yes.
Quite a number who had voted SNP in local elections or the last Scottish election are voting no.
Salmond is personally unpopular, sturgeon less so.
Most of those in my group were Labour Party members including a local councillor.
The area we were canvassing was very mixed with Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and Tory in roughly that order There were very few undecideds and even less when you took out those probably voting yes.
Remember David Cameron's detoxification strategy? Now remember which Prime Minister "toxified" the party. There are vast numbers of voters, now middle-aged, who on demographic grounds "ought" to support the Conservatives but who cannot bring themselves to do so.
Rubbish. Cameron's 'detoxification' came about when he, wrongly, surmised that social democracy was the new order and that the Tories had to embrace its central precepts: generously splashing welfare handouts about, centralized health care as a secular religion, indulging middle-class fringe issues such as Greenism. Then came Gordon's massive crash and social democracy was dead - unaffordable on any sane economic reading. The Tories are now bending over backwards to present themselves as more Thatcherite, not less.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Don't agree with that. You can find people who loathe or love Thatcher in equal measure. With the exception of John Rentoul, is Blair not now hated by anyone?
"The events of 2008 onward may seem inevitable now but we have the huge gift of hindsight."
To anyone who saw or knew about Northern Rock et al offering 125% mortgages on 6-7 times salary well pre2008, the coming crash was blindingly obvious. The problem was that GB had split the financial regulation between 3 bodies - none of which knew what they were responsible for or knew what they were doing. Now in the 2010s people are suffering the results of that disastrous GB policy. He knew less about economics and financial control that the adjacent farm's champion ram.
I've heard this response before - is there any evidence that had Michael Howard become Prime Minister after the 2005 GE (with Oliver Letwin at No.11) the Government would have acted differently and global events unfolded differently ? I concede the public finances might not have been quite so bad but as I recall it was Vince Cable rather than anyone in David Cameron's Treasury Team who was warning of problems ahead.
On to the rest of the questions - the Party leaders losing seats - hmm, Balfour lost his in 1906 (and remains the only PM to lose his seat at a GE in recent times). I would guess Ramsay McDonald and Herbert Asquith might be other possibles along with John Clynes and George Lansbury but that's just early thoughts.
My question - apart from the five in 1945 and the seven in 1997, name the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been defeated in General Elections since WW2 ?
1950: Arthur Creech Jones (Secretary of State for the Colonies) 1964: Anthony Barber (Minister for Health), Geoffrey Rippon (Minister of Public Works) 1970: John Diamond (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) Feb 74: Gordon Campbell (Secretary of State for Scotland) 1979: Shirley Williams (Secretary of State for Education) 1992: Chris Patten (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)
Can't find an eighth.
Party Leaders losing since 1900: Bonar Law lost his in 1906, Asquith in 1918 and1924 (unique amongst major party leaders, I think, in losing his seat twice in General Elections), Henderson in 1931, Samuel in 1935, Sinclair in 45, Peter Robinson in 2010
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Don't agree with that. You can find people who loathe or love Thatcher in equal measure. With the exception of John Rentoul, is Blair not now hated by anyone?
Remember David Cameron's detoxification strategy? Now remember which Prime Minister "toxified" the party. There are vast numbers of voters, now middle-aged, who on demographic grounds "ought" to support the Conservatives but who cannot bring themselves to do so. Look at Scotland where Conservatives could count on two dozen MPs before Mrs Thatcher set to work.
Yet, Margaret Thatcher won three comfortable victories. Her more liberal successors failed to.
"The events of 2008 onward may seem inevitable now but we have the huge gift of hindsight."
To anyone who saw or knew about Northern Rock et al offering 125% mortgages on 6-7 times salary well pre2008, the coming crash was blindingly obvious. The problem was that GB had split the financial regulation between 3 bodies - none of which knew what they were responsible for or knew what they were doing. Now in the 2010s people are suffering the results of that disastrous GB policy. He knew less about economics and financial control that the adjacent farm's champion ram.
I've heard this response before - is there any evidence that had Michael Howard become Prime Minister after the 2005 GE (with Oliver Letwin at No.11) the Government would have acted differently and global events unfolded differently ? I concede the public finances might not have been quite so bad but as I recall it was Vince Cable rather than anyone in David Cameron's Treasury Team who was warning of problems ahead.
It would probably have been a bit too late by then. The Crash happened quickly but was years in the setting up. Brown's key mistakes were in the tripartite regulation system (which regulated some things heavily, others lightly, and had an ambiguity issue in the responsibilities breakdown (which was where they did break down ...) and in running a deficit during the boom (which gave the problem of hugely limiting elbow room for stimulus and lumbering us with the deficit issue today and throughout even the next Parliament). However, the response to the crisis itself was sound and deserved plaudits.
By the way, talking about foreseeing the crisis and the way it happened, how about this from 2002:
"Basel II is built on three pillars: Pillar One - the determination of regulatory capital, heavily influenced by the use of banks' internal risk weighting models and the views of ratings agencies; Pillar Two - banking supervision; and PillarThree - market discipline enforced by greater disclosure of banks' financial status and their internal risk management procedures.
In normal times the Pillar One and Pillar Three proposals may promote stability. But when a crisis hits, they will make things worse by strengthening the very forces they are supposed to counteract.
First, firms' internal risk management systems are, by definition, market sensitive. The models may differ in detail, but they are constructed on similar analytical principles, estimated on similar historical data, and sensitive to the same market information.
Good risk managers hold a portfolio of assets that are not volatile and the prices of which are not highly correlated - not correlated in normal times that is. But in a crisis the volatility of a given asset may rise sharply. The models will tell all firms to sell. As all try to sell, liquidity dries up. As liquidity dries up, volatility spreads from one asset to another. Previously uncorrelated assets are now correlated in the general sell-off, pumped up by the model driven behaviour of other institutions caught in the contagion. So whilst in normal times models may encompass a wide range of behaviour, in extreme circumstances they will encourage firms to act as a herd, charging toward the cliff edge together. "
Remember David Cameron's detoxification strategy? Now remember which Prime Minister "toxified" the party. There are vast numbers of voters, now middle-aged, who on demographic grounds "ought" to support the Conservatives but who cannot bring themselves to do so.
Rubbish. Cameron's 'detoxification' came about when he, wrongly, surmised that social democracy was the new order and that the Tories had to embrace its central precepts: generously splashing welfare handouts about, centralized health care as a secular religion, indulging middle-class fringe issues such as Greenism. Then came Gordon's massive crash and social democracy was dead - unaffordable on any sane economic reading. The Tories are now bending over backwards to present themselves as more Thatcherite, not less.
Cameron and his associates believed that Tony Blair ("the master") had won the social and economic arguments.
On to the rest of the questions - the Party leaders losing seats - hmm, Balfour lost his in 1906 (and remains the only PM to lose his seat at a GE in recent times). I would guess Ramsay McDonald and Herbert Asquith might be other possibles along with John Clynes and George Lansbury but that's just early thoughts.
My question - apart from the five in 1945 and the seven in 1997, name the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been defeated in General Elections since WW2 ?
1950: Arthur Creech Jones (Secretary of State for the Colonies) 1964: Anthony Barber (Minister for Health), Geoffrey Rippon (Minister of Public Works) 1970: John Diamond (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) Feb 74: Gordon Campbell (Secretary of State for Scotland) 1979: Shirley Williams (Secretary of State for Education) 1992: Chris Patten (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)
Can't find an eighth.
Party Leaders losing since 1900: Bonar Law lost his in 1906, Asquith in 1918 and1924 (unique amongst major party leaders, I think, in losing his seat twice in General Elections), Henderson in 1931, Samuel in 1935, Sinclair in 45, Peter Robinson in 2010
I doubt it, you are forgetting that the then Labour party would have no more appealed to Major than the then Conservative party would have appealed to Blair.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Blair and Major could have switched parties and both would have been more comfortable.
On to the rest of the questions - the Party leaders losing seats - hmm, Balfour lost his in 1906 (and remains the only PM to lose his seat at a GE in recent times). I would guess Ramsay McDonald and Herbert Asquith might be other possibles along with John Clynes and George Lansbury but that's just early thoughts.
My question - apart from the five in 1945 and the seven in 1997, name the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been defeated in General Elections since WW2 ?
1950: Arthur Creech Jones (Secretary of State for the Colonies) 1964: Anthony Barber (Minister for Health), Geoffrey Rippon (Minister of Public Works) 1970: John Diamond (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) Feb 74: Gordon Campbell (Secretary of State for Scotland) 1979: Shirley Williams (Secretary of State for Education) 1992: Chris Patten (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)
Can't find an eighth.
Party Leaders losing since 1900: Bonar Law lost his in 1906, Asquith in 1918 and1924 (unique amongst major party leaders, I think, in losing his seat twice in General Elections), Henderson in 1931, Samuel in 1935, Sinclair in 45, Peter Robinson in 2010
Michael Ancram 1987
Wasn't in the Cabinet - he was one of three Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland reporting to the Secretary of State
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Wasn't Shirley Williams in the Cabinet when she lost her seat?
Several Labour former ministers lost their seats in the 2011 landslide:
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) Tom McCabe (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow)
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Blair was not a Tory, but he - correctly - believed wealth had to be created before it could be redistributed and was not fixated on who delivered public services. Major was clearly a Tory who believed in low tax and a small state. Neither of them really lived up to their beliefs and got sidetracked by foreign policy.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
He played his part in the decline and fall of the Union. So, yes, he was a terrific chap.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Long into his retirement he was a regular around the pubs of Salisbury and Wilton (strange but true) and was very popular with the locals at the few pubs I frequented. As a politician he may not have been that popular, but the man certainly was.
Mr. Financier, I suspect Blair will be the most reviled PM of modern times (Brown will have leftwing supporters). Having his son as an MP or high profile candidate would give the press an excuse to rehash all Blair's many failures and cast an eye over how well he's doing.
Gordon Brown was firmly on the right, not the left, of the Labour Party, but was at least seen as being a party man, whereas even at his height, Blair was always regarded, rightly or wrongly, as being detached from (and even contemptuous of) the rest of the party. Even many Tories wondered if Blair was not in the wrong party.
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
Try to find anyone with a good word to say about Heath.
Heath was a great man.
Explain why please
Heath was a supporter of the Lancashire football club Burnley, and just after the end of his term as prime minister in 1974 he opened the £450,000 Bob Lord Stand at the club's Turf Moor stadium.
Comments
Hamilton had one DNF to Rosberg's three last season, but the Briton's was due to a mistake and the German's to reliability failures. A DNF will be very costly for either driver, as his rival is likely to get the full 25 points.
Since the start of the previous century and at a General Election:
A party has won the Popular Vote but won fewer seats than the winning party.- five times.
A major party leader has lost his seat at a GE - five times.
When was the last occasion for each event?
Will 2015 make it a sixth for both events?
It's going to be fun when a few get named and shamed.
The issues are not just financial. The governmens of the last 15 years have increadingly dumped admin and bureaucracy onto these GPs so that many do not want partnerships, preferring the lower pay but less hassle option of being a locum or salaried assistant.
What? I hear you all scream. Well, after the Romans left Britain the road network fell into disrepair, and the first milestones created in the country radiated out from the centre of Cambridge from 1725, including towards London (The 'Trinity Hall' series of milestones). Many are still visible on the roads radiating out from the city centre.
Hence cementing Cambridge's place as the true centre of civilisation. Where Cambridge goes, London copies. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St_Mary_the_Great,_Cambridge
http://milestones.megalithia.com/features/trinityhall.htm
I thought the last time a party won the popular vote but came second in terms of seats was or were the Conservatives in February 1974 (I think they finished maybe 0.5% ahead of Labour but finished up four seats behind).
On topic, I've always argued on here the London Borough elections in May are the ones to watch in terms of trying to read the 2015 GE runes. The two things of which I think we can be fairly certain with regard to next year are a) the LD vote will collapse in anything up to 500 seats with many a fourth, fifth or even worse to expect and b) UKIP are likely to pile up votes where it won't matter - in solid Conservative or Labour seats.
Trimming a majority from 15,000 to 5,000 looks and is good but makes no difference in terms of the Commons. Neither does a vote share falling from 20% to 3%.
It may be that a lot of churn will disguise a little change.
Another of the 'Scotland? Love it, but I wouldn't live there' Brigade.
Euan Blair is targeting one of Labour’s safest seats for the next general election, it was reported last night.
The ambitious 29-year-old, son of Tony Blair, is believed to have his eye on Bootle, Merseyside, just a stone’s throw from his mother Cherie’s childhood home.
She was raised in Waterloo, north of the tough Bootle patch which Labour holds with a majority of more than 21,000.
Bootle’s 81-year-old Labour MP, Joe Benton, has vowed to stand again for the seat in 2015. But he is fighting de-selection and has already lost at least one ward.
Labour HQ is considering throwing the seat open to a formal selection contest at the end of next month.
The former prime minister’s son could find himself grappling for the seat with the incumbent MP – who has held the position for 24 years – as well as local council leader Peter Dowd and other activists. Labour would have to sidestep its default all-women shortlist system to allow Mr Blair and other men to run.
Mr Blair lives with wife Suzanne, whom he married last year, in a £3million home in central London, which he jointly bought with his mother. He is believed to have quit his lucrative job at investment bank Morgan Stanley to focus on building his political career. But he caused controversy by working for the Republicans in Washington.
A Labour source said the idea of the ‘heir to Blair’ taking the Bootle seat would be a ‘disaster’.
The source told the Liverpool Echo newspaper: ‘There’s no way Labour is going to lose Bootle, but the idea of parachuting someone like Euan Blair in would be a disaster, a joke.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602920/Tony-Blairs-son-Euan-targets-ultra-safe-Labour-seat-Merseyside-close-mother-Cheries-childhood-home.html#ixzz2ygC2TaiY
On another note, by going online, apparently Hick's Hall in London (the start of the Great North Road) was also used at at one time, along with St Mary le Bow church and a place on Cornhill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hicks_Hall
Maybe we should go back to the 18th Century where "general practice" was in the hands of the apothecaries rather than the physicians.
Make no mistake. Ever since his dalliance with GWB , I am no supporter of TB.
There is one advantage with an independent Scotland. We can have permanent British Summer Time.
I am beginning to see the benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Sinclair,_1st_Viscount_Thurso
Eric Leslie Gandar Dower (Unionist) 5,564
Robert MacInnes (Labour) 5,558
Sir Archibald Sinclair (Liberal) 5,503
Note: there had not even been Unionist or Labour candidates at the previous GE in 1935.
On to the rest of the questions - the Party leaders losing seats - hmm, Balfour lost his in 1906 (and remains the only PM to lose his seat at a GE in recent times). I would guess Ramsay McDonald and Herbert Asquith might be other possibles along with John Clynes and George Lansbury but that's just early thoughts.
My question - apart from the five in 1945 and the seven in 1997, name the eight Cabinet Ministers who have been defeated in General Elections since WW2 ?
To my surprise, I came out 93%= Optimistic Contentment and 7% = Cosmopolitan Critic.
Am I a Tory ?
Balfour wasn't PM when he lost Manchester East in Jan '06. The government had changed to Liberal the previous month...
But the most reviled PM is surely Mrs Thatcher, although some might demand a recount once Scotland is independent.
The problem that MPs have is that they don't have any power any more because they've devolved it to the media, quangos, Robert Peston, Brussels etc. As a group, they are not the prospect they once were. Which is why their advances are being rebuffed and people are telling their tales. In the past people would have been flattered by the attention and gone along with it. But not any more.
The solution of course is for MPs to get off their arses, take back power from whoever's nicked it and to start showing some muscle. The people will then gladly bender over for them and their won't be all this tittle tattle in the newspapers.
To help, he was the only Cabinet casualty in 1992.
It's also worth recalling Blair was good at speeches. So's Obama. Just because Salmond can give a speech doesn't mean he knows his arse from his elbow.
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/04/08/national/1000-christian-hindu-girls-forced-to-convert-to-islam-report/
Why is British taxpayer money being given to a country that allows such appalling abuse of human lives to go on?
Mr. L, despite lefty revisionism* Thatcher will always have as many diehard supporters as attackers. Blair will have detractors galore, but precious few defenders.
*My favourite was on the Sky newspaper review a year or two ago. The chap doing it referred to the 'milk-snatcher' meme, whereupon the presenter, a decade or two his senior, said he was glad it had gone because the milk was always either frozen or horribly warm, whereupon the youth remarked it was before his time anyway.
The other party leaders to have lost their seat at a GE are:
1906 (Balfour)
1924 (Asquith)
1931 (Henderson) time of Labour splits - so arguable
1935 (Samuel)
Along with introducing refundable bursaries as suggested by the good Dr. Fox below, I think great strides could be made by substantially increasing remuneration. I know we have all the fuss about GPs pay in recent years, but historically how does a doctor's earnings now compared with his predecessors of just fifty or sixty years ago? When I was growing up, in shitty South London, the local GP was a big cheese in the community and drove a car which reflected the fact of his wealth and status. Nowadays the cars in the doctors' spots at my local health centre are substantially tattier than those on the patients side of the car park.
Mind you I'd also require GPs to dress to the dignity of their office rather than turning up in holiday clothes as the current lot seem to do (just putting a decent shirt and a bleedin' tie would be an improvement).
As for the economy, I don't recall many on either side objecting to increased spending from 1999 onward and indeed Hague's Conservatives often tried to outdo Labour on spending commitments. The events of 2008 onward may seem inevitable now but we have the huge gift of hindsight.
Likewise, it's hard for anyone to have conceived of the events of September 11th 2001 and the massive impact on foreign and defence policy they had. Had Hague or IDS been Prime Minister, we would have done exactly the same as did Blair. Indeed, if you want a poor foreign policy record, neither administration covered themselves in glory concerning either Yugoslavia or West Africa.
Blair got into office by convincing millions of voters (including many who had supported the Conservatives since 1979) that the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left and that the central tenets of Thatcherism (especially those relating to Unions) would be retained. On that basis, he won two landslide election victories.
The problem was that he either could not or would not be radical in Government in the second term as Thatcher had been after 1983 - perhaps had the events of September 11th not intervened, there would have been a more radical domestic agenda for the second term but I doubt it.
"Tory MPs have been asked to sign up to a new code of conduct as a result of the issues flagged up during the case. It states that MPs should treat their staff with “dignity, respect and courtesy” and should not “use their position to bully, abuse or harass employees”.
Any MPs that need to be asked to sign up to a code of conduct like that, shouldn't be anywhere near power.
"The events of 2008 onward may seem inevitable now but we have the huge gift of hindsight."
To anyone who saw or knew about Northern Rock et al offering 125% mortgages on 6-7 times salary well pre2008, the coming crash was blindingly obvious. The problem was that GB had split the financial regulation between 3 bodies - none of which knew what they were responsible for or knew what they were doing. Now in the 2010s people are suffering the results of that disastrous GB policy. He knew less about economics and financial control that the adjacent farm's champion ram.
Pay GPs more but do nothing about their other grievances and they would just retire earlier and richer!
Doctors are like other people, motivated by money but not exclusively so. Improvements in other aspects of their working conditions would be both cheaper and better than pay as a solution.
Shortly we are to have a new Consultant contract that forces seven day working for Consultants for non emergency work, stops pay progression and Clinical Excellence Awards. Anyone care to speculate whether this will increase retention?
I think three are Gordon Campbell (1974 Feb), Tony Newton and Roger Freeman in 1997 (I suspect others in Major's Cabinet also lost).
Two down, six to go.
1964: Anthony Barber (Minister for Health), Geoffrey Rippon (Minister of Public Works)
1970: John Diamond (Chief Secretary to the Treasury)
Feb 74: Gordon Campbell (Secretary of State for Scotland)
1979: Shirley Williams (Secretary of State for Education)
1992: Chris Patten (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster)
Can't find an eighth.
Party Leaders losing since 1900: Bonar Law lost his in 1906, Asquith in 1918 and1924 (unique amongst major party leaders, I think, in losing his seat twice in General Elections), Henderson in 1931, Samuel in 1935, Sinclair in 45, Peter Robinson in 2010
However, the response to the crisis itself was sound and deserved plaudits.
"Basel II is built on three pillars: Pillar One - the determination of regulatory capital, heavily influenced by the use of banks' internal risk weighting models and the views of ratings agencies; Pillar Two - banking supervision; and PillarThree - market discipline enforced by greater disclosure of banks' financial status and their internal risk management procedures.
In normal times the Pillar One and Pillar Three proposals may promote stability. But when a crisis hits, they will make things worse by strengthening the very forces they are supposed to counteract.
First, firms' internal risk management systems are, by definition, market sensitive. The models may differ in detail, but they are constructed on similar analytical principles, estimated on similar historical data, and sensitive to the same market information.
Good risk managers hold a portfolio of assets that are not volatile and the prices of which are not highly correlated - not correlated in normal times that is. But in a crisis the volatility of a given asset may rise sharply. The models will tell all firms to sell. As all try to sell, liquidity dries up. As liquidity dries up, volatility spreads from one asset to another. Previously uncorrelated assets are now correlated in the general sell-off, pumped up by the model driven behaviour of other institutions caught in the contagion. So whilst in normal times models may encompass a wide range of behaviour, in extreme circumstances they will encourage firms to act as a herd, charging toward the cliff edge together. "
That was almost exactly the way the regulations spread the crash from the risk-taking banks to the sensible ones and made it endemic across the financial sector.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/jun/09/theobserver.observerbusiness9
My hat is doffed to John Eatwell
1974 GE Feb. England only
Cons: 267 seats; 40.06% of the vote
Labour: 237 seats; 37.64% of vote
1974 GE Oct. Engalnd only
Cons: 252 seats: 38.78% of vote
Labour: 255 seats; 40.08% of vote
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central)
Andy Kerr (East Kilbride)
Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston)
Tom McCabe (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)
Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central)
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie)
Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-27002461
You know "what" they were trying to say, but no one will let you forget "how" you said it.