Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
Countries that were conquered even briefly have an emotional bond with their conqueror, most of former occupied europe still looks to Germany as much as Japan looks to the USA.
"Question I've been asked - how can one discover the market value of a house in 1991? I have no clue - anyone have any idea?"
If you go onto Rightmove or one of the other sale sites you can look for house prices by street. This will give you both the current sale price of any houses on the market and also the price the last time it was sold. If the house you are looking at was last sold in 1991 then that price should be listed.
Edit : Alternatively you can go and look at the Land registry for the property which has all the sale values since it was built. Not sure if that can be done online though.
Thanks very much!
On an unrelated point, when did people start saying "Thanks very much"? It makes no sense. "Thanks" is a noun, so you can offer "many thanks", but "much" doesn't make any more sense than saying "thank you very many".
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
If the Germans had landed in Blighty I suspect our government would have exhibited exactly the same divisions. Churchill and the King would have packed off to Canada, and Halifax, Butler and others would most likely have recalled the Duke of Windsor and reached some accommodation with the New Order...
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
We might have lost London to Hitler, but we wouldn't have surrendered to him. We had plans to move the government to the north of England, then to Scotland, then to Canada. We wouldn't have needed a junior minister to start setting up a guerrilla resistance, as Churchill planned on doing that all along if it came to that. It was indeed a philosophy of "we will never surrender whatever the cost may be."
16 is truly damning. The Coalition's cuts have basically ended the UK as a major military power.
Maybe so, and it worries me that we no longer have the array of options we once had, but although people may have concerns about the risks, I thought slashing the budget was pretty popular. People do not want to pay what it requires to be a major military power, and the parties are not going to stand up to the people on that.
I don't think it was pretty popular. Regardless, a sensible government should aim to maintain credible armed forces. The current government is no prepared to do so.
Vaguely on topic, I've found out by direct personal experience just how big a readership pb has. Two of my articles have been linked to by TSE on his Nighthawks thread, and they both have by far the biggest page counts of any that I've written.
Curiously, the post that I regard as by some way my weakest has a relatively high post count. It has a good title, which I suppose is what interests the casual reader.
One of the things I've noticed in my last few stints of editing PB sometimes the oddest topics get the most views.
As a rule, recently, UKIP or Indyref pieces get a lot of views.
If you can back trace the IP addresses of your viewers, it can be fun.
Mike once told me of the back trace Robert once did, you'd be surprised how many people at Westminster read PB.
I can't backtrace IP addresses (or if I can, I don't know how). I can see where I have readers though. Intriguingly, I have a devoted reader in Ukraine who evidently has me in RSS. Moldova, Tajikistan and Singapore regularly feature in the listings.
I have absolutely no idea what interest my posts could have for anyone from those countries.
Ask Robert he should be able to tell you.
I'm not that interested! I put my posts up for my own benefit, not anyone else's. If others find them useful or enjoy them, that's a bonus.
It's mildly interesting, that's all.
Google traceroute, pick one of the responses that gives you a graphic interface and use it with the IP address of interest and it will plot the route on a map.
16 is truly damning. The Coalition's cuts have basically ended the UK as a major military power.
Maybe so, and it worries me that we no longer have the array of options we once had, but although people may have concerns about the risks, I thought slashing the budget was pretty popular. People do not want to pay what it requires to be a major military power, and the parties are not going to stand up to the people on that.
I don't think it was pretty popular. Regardless, a sensible government should aim to maintain credible armed forces. The current government is no prepared to do so.
I don't see that changing even if we had a change of government. And perhaps it isn't particularly popular, but ask people to pay for what it costs to be a major power and I guarantee they will say no. A sensible government would not risk cutting too far anyway, but I don't see that level of sense. Better to cut defence and not be able to act overseas than tackle the difficult other major areas of expenditure is the view.
There's a simple reason why earnings are rising at 0.7% while RPI is at 2.5%.
Namely that the new jobs being created are low skilled, low productivity, low paying and in wealth consuming sectors.
Thus making the median job lower productivity and lower paid.
Without government subsidies these new low skilled jobs wouldn't be created.
That is why the government deficit has hardly changed despite all the extra jobs and 'growf'.
Until we start focusing on wealth creation rather than 'growf' then all we are achieving is to pile up evermore debt, become evermore addicted to a level of spending we cannot afford and to give the upper middle classes an ever greater sense of entitlement of having a service class which washes their cars and wipes their arses.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
If the Germans had landed in Blighty I suspect our government would have exhibited exactly the same divisions. Churchill and the King would have packed off to Canada, and Halifax, Butler and others would most likely have recalled the Duke of Windsor and reached some accommodation with the New Order...
The existing government are the people that would have packed off to Canada and continued to fight. A handful of traitors might have set up an alternative government, but they would have been the minority. In France, it was the opposite. The government went into collaboration and it took a junior minister to continue the fight.
It's worth bearing in mind that plenty of other nations have this shame on their shoulders too. Democratic countries like Sweden and Ireland plumped for shameful neutrality rather than fight for what is right.
16 is truly damning. The Coalition's cuts have basically ended the UK as a major military power.
Matt Ridley, the former Chairman of Northern Wreck, thinks the Conservatives are now a pacifist party, actively hostile towards the armed forces. He thinks that's a good thing.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
Evening Sean. Congratulations on the new romance.
What I am wondering is whether she is a bonny north London leftie.
You ignore the possibility of a plural. Most of them are London lefties.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
We might have lost London to Hitler, but we wouldn't have surrendered to him. We had plans to move the government to the north of England, then to Scotland, then to Canada. We wouldn't have needed a junior minister to start setting up a guerrilla resistance, as Churchill planned on doing that all along if it came to that. It was indeed a philosophy of "we will never surrender whatever the cost may be."
My favourite Churchill quote, to his Cabinet; "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground".
I don't believe we *won* the war. I believe the combination of late-imperial Britain's gritty resistance, America's surging might, and Russia's stunning heroics, won the war, joined together, against the greatest evil man has faced (though Mao and, ironically, Stalin, come close in terms of historic malignity).
I believe it has been said that the War was won with British intelligence, American steel and Russian blood.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
Countries that were conquered even briefly have an emotional bond with their conqueror, most of former occupied europe still looks to Germany as much as Japan looks to the USA.
And Korea looks to Japan. And Zimbabwe looks to the UK. And the Congo looks to Belgium. And Panama looks to Scotland.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
The attack on the French fleet wasn't actually much of a success.
In the end it was the French themselves who destroyed most of their own ships in November 1942 rather than allow them to fall into German hands.
There's a simple reason why earnings are rising at 0.7% while RPI is at 2.5%.
Namely that the new jobs being created are low skilled, low productivity, low paying and in wealth consuming sectors.
Thus making the median job lower productivity and lower paid.
Without government subsidies these new low skilled jobs wouldn't be created.
That is why the government deficit has hardly changed despite all the extra jobs and 'growf'.
Until we start focusing on wealth creation rather than 'growf' then all we are achieving is to pile up evermore debt, become evermore addicted to a level of spending we cannot afford and to give the upper middle classes an ever greater sense of entitlement of having a service class which washes their cars and wipes their arses.
"Namely that the new jobs being created are low skilled, low productivity, low paying and in wealth consuming sectors."
I wonder if a lot of these "new" jobs are actually pre-existing service sector jobs (shops etc) that have been part of the shadow economy for a long time now being brought into the light.
If so then it will at least show the scale of the surplus labour problem that's been created over the last 14 years.
Again I expect that I will not satisfy everyone with my analysis.
You've made some very interesting points during your articles.
Just wanted to say thanks.
I have tried to be detached. I make no secret on here of my worldview, but I try not to let that get in the way of my analysis.
The next post I write will be in honour of you and the thoughts that you have inspired about how UKIP will affect the other parties' chances. I hope I do it justice.
16 is truly damning. The Coalition's cuts have basically ended the UK as a major military power.
Matt Ridley, the former Chairman of Northern Wreck, thinks the Conservatives are now a pacifist party, actively hostile towards the armed forces. He thinks that's a good thing.
Are you forgetting that we're an 'Aid Superpower' now ?
All we have to do to sort out the problems in Iraq is to threaten to divert the Overseas Aid spending elsewhere.
Mr. Eagles, if we left the Germans might well regret it. They would become 1 of 2 major powers than than 1 of 3, but they'd also lose their most significant sensible economic ally and the only other (I believe) major contributor.
Surely our departure would give Club Med the whip hand, by sheer weight of numbers?
After Brexit the French would demand that their right to lead in Europe should be satisfied.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
The attack on the French fleet wasn't actually much of a success.
In the end it was the French themselves who destroyed most of their own ships in November 1942 rather than allow them to fall into German hands.
I am not hostile to the armed forces. But I do wonder why a country that is no longer a world superpower seeks to project itself halfway across the world.
A braver government (perhaps a government in which the Lib Dems had focused on something important rather than process matters) would have taken the opportunity of the last recession to reassess our place in the world. Of all the opportunities missed by the present government, I regard that as by some way the most important.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
We might have lost London to Hitler, but we wouldn't have surrendered to him. We had plans to move the government to the north of England, then to Scotland, then to Canada. We wouldn't have needed a junior minister to start setting up a guerrilla resistance, as Churchill planned on doing that all along if it came to that. It was indeed a philosophy of "we will never surrender whatever the cost may be."
I think it's hard to know how we'd have reacted.
"It Happened Here" is a horribly plausible film about how some British people would have reacted to a successful German invasion.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
Countries that were conquered even briefly have an emotional bond with their conqueror, most of former occupied europe still looks to Germany as much as Japan looks to the USA.
And Korea looks to Japan. And Zimbabwe looks to the UK. And the Congo looks to Belgium. And Panama looks to Scotland.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
The attack on the French fleet wasn't actually much of a success.
In the end it was the French themselves who destroyed most of their own ships in November 1942 rather than allow them to fall into German hands.
By November 1942 the French could feel which way the wind was blowing. In 1940 they weren't so sure.
So the Lab lead with YouGov is 2 points for the second day in a row, and was 3 a few days earlier.
That doesn't sound like a big movement, but the LD still gradually falling is the bigger news. If (I say If) the LD get 6% in the GE will even the leadership team manage to retain their seats?
It would be quite funny if the only two Lib Dems left standing were Nick Clegg and Charles Kennedy.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
We might have lost London to Hitler, but we wouldn't have surrendered to him. We had plans to move the government to the north of England, then to Scotland, then to Canada. We wouldn't have needed a junior minister to start setting up a guerrilla resistance, as Churchill planned on doing that all along if it came to that. It was indeed a philosophy of "we will never surrender whatever the cost may be."
I think it's hard to know how we'd have reacted.
"It Happened Here" is a horribly plausible film about how some British people would have reacted to a successful German invasion.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
The attack on the French fleet wasn't actually much of a success.
In the end it was the French themselves who destroyed most of their own ships in November 1942 rather than allow them to fall into German hands.
By November 1942 the French could feel which way the wind was blowing. In 1940 they weren't so sure.
6% is about the same as the SDP in the beginning of 1989, though the LD dropped to that level by the end of 1989, their record low of 3% was achieved just after the berlin wall fell.
I am not hostile to the armed forces. But I do wonder why a country that is no longer a world superpower seeks to project itself halfway across the world.
A braver government (perhaps a government in which the Lib Dems had focused on something important rather than process matters) would have taken the opportunity of the last recession to reassess our place in the world. Of all the opportunities missed by the present government, I regard that as by some way the most important.
By increasing the overseas aid budget by 40%, the current government clearly thinks we do have interests overseas.
IMO, we are kept safe by virtue of the fact that we belong to a successful military alliance. Since 1990, that allïance has depended on the USA funding a growing share of it's expenditure. The USA can no longer afford this free-riding, so it's European allies should step up to the mark.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
If the Germans had landed in Blighty I suspect our government would have exhibited exactly the same divisions. Churchill and the King would have packed off to Canada, and Halifax, Butler and others would most likely have recalled the Duke of Windsor and reached some accommodation with the New Order...
The existing government are the people that would have packed off to Canada and continued to fight. A handful of traitors might have set up an alternative government, but they would have been the minority. In France, it was the opposite. The government went into collaboration and it took a junior minister to continue the fight.
It's worth bearing in mind that plenty of other nations have this shame on their shoulders too. Democratic countries like Sweden and Ireland plumped for shameful neutrality rather than fight for what is right.
I prefer cold analysis rather than emotional rhetoric.
Ireland joining the fight? Do me a favour. Their Air Force amounted to two spotter planes, their Armoured Corps a few Morris Minors dressed as "armoured cars", their Navy a few trawlers. Their Army kitted out in German uniforms, which would have made combat interesting, to say the least.
Why pick on poor, puny little Erin?
The USA, the 'beacon of democracy', with all its might, kept well out of it for over two years...
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
We might have lost London to Hitler, but we wouldn't have surrendered to him. We had plans to move the government to the north of England, then to Scotland, then to Canada. We wouldn't have needed a junior minister to start setting up a guerrilla resistance, as Churchill planned on doing that all along if it came to that. It was indeed a philosophy of "we will never surrender whatever the cost may be."
I think it's hard to know how we'd have reacted.
"It Happened Here" is a horribly plausible film about how some British people would have reacted to a successful German invasion.
I'm sure there would always be some traitors.
A football stadium in Glasgow was closed during Ww2 for a month due to chants in favour of the axis nations.
Without our history, good and bad, a nation is not much of a nation at all, and if the good is not celebrated, what is the point of being one?
Part of the EU backlash no doubt. The nation-state is not a flawless invention, but they seem to despise it, and are embarrassed by the presence of it in the past and present.
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. .
We might have lost London to Hitler, but we wouldn't have surrendered to him. We had plans to move the government to the north of England, then to Scotland, then to Canada. We wouldn't have needed a junior minister to start setting up a guerrilla resistance, as Churchill planned on doing that all along if it came to that. It was indeed a philosophy of "we will never surrender whatever the cost may be."
My favourite Churchill quote, to his Cabinet; "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground".
What a f*cking brilliant quote.
One for Gove's new British Values curriculum, although it's an old sentiment, New Hampshire's"Live free or die" springs to mind, and I'm sure someone on here can provide an earlier version.
It's always fine to reanalyze the choices of the past I think, as long as we don't fall into the trap of condemning those who took those choices for not being able to make them in a dispassionate or objective way, even if they could have decided even then it was wrong, but didn't.
The LD have never seen such low levels since the SDP splitters disintegrated, very worrisome for them. 6% is just 10 seats on UNS, any lower and it's the return of the yellow taxi.
On an unrelated point, when did people start saying "Thanks very much"? It makes no sense. "Thanks" is a noun, so you can offer "many thanks", but "much" doesn't make any more sense than saying "thank you very many".
Yep, I'm speaking a foreign dialect to somebody, possibly derived from Merci beaucoup. Moreover, I don't like tea or cricket. Time to revoke my passport.
Only teasing you. I guess that "Thanks" in this sense is a corruption of "I thank you". "Many thanks" is the more logical form, but quite rare now, isn't it? .
Plus we won the second world war, and were heroically brave, and defeated the Nazis, unconquered - after, at one point - standing entirely and globally alone - when France and everywhere else had been overrun.
The French especially can never forgive us for that. It gives them a huge moral inferiority complex. It irritates many others.
It's actually worse than that. The French PM, after their militarily collapse, wanted to retreat to North Africa to continue the good fight with a "we will never surrender" mentality. The rest of the French government turned on him, forced him to resign, and implemented a pro-collaboration fascist government. The fact the British responded to our military collapse by retreating overseas and, despite endless suffering, maintained our "We Will Never Surrender", mentality when all seemed lost, is deeply embarrassing to them.
Yup. I've got good French friends who - literally - squirm with embarrassment when all this is mentioned. Heck, we got lucky, we were an island. If we'd been part of the European continent we'd probably have lost to Hitler as well.
But we weren't. And, to make it worse for the French, our defense - the Battle of Britain - was peculiarly and captivatingly heroic. An incredibly story. Whereas their collapse was wrenchingly quick and effete.
It is bizarre that winners v losers in WW2 still divides Europe psychologically - but it does. At a rough guess, all the eurozone members were either conquered by the Fascists, (France etc) or were actively Fascist by themselves (Spain etc), or were sympathetic to Fascism (Ireland etc).
We might have lost London to Hitler, but we wouldn't have surrendered to him. We had plans to move the government to the north of England, then to Scotland, then to Canada. We wouldn't have needed a junior minister to start setting up a guerrilla resistance, as Churchill planned on doing that all along if it came to that. It was indeed a philosophy of "we will never surrender whatever the cost may be."
I think it's hard to know how we'd have reacted.
"It Happened Here" is a horribly plausible film about how some British people would have reacted to a successful German invasion.
I'm sure there would always be some traitors.
What's interesting about the film is that the main protagonist is a fairly decent young woman who is convinced she's doing the right thing by working for the collaborationist government. The fascists aren't portrayed as monsters, but as people who think Britain's best interests lie in alliance with Germany.
On an unrelated point, when did people start saying "Thanks very much"? It makes no sense. "Thanks" is a noun, so you can offer "many thanks", but "much" doesn't make any more sense than saying "thank you very many".
"Many thanks" is the more logical form, but quite rare now, isn't it? .
Do you not receive many work emails? It's the default, I find. Each to their own, I once got in trouble for using 'Wotcha' in an email. I just thought it was another word for hello, I didn't realize it was too informal.
We might have lost London to Hitler, but we wouldn't have surrendered to him. We had plans to move the government to the north of England, then to Scotland, then to Canada. We wouldn't have needed a junior minister to start setting up a guerrilla resistance, as Churchill planned on doing that all along if it came to that. It was indeed a philosophy of "we will never surrender whatever the cost may be."
My favourite Churchill quote, to his Cabinet; "If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground".
What a f*cking brilliant quote.
A very smart friend of mine the other day tried to claim that Britain was overly obsessed with its past, including and especially World War 2.
I gave him a right old earful.
1. We have an amazingly long history, so we are bound to be obsessed with our past. But all countries are obsessed with their *past*. Australia, one of the youngest countries, is definingly obsessed with Gallipoli, which was a relatively small part of a great war. America constantly rehearses its own triumphs and tragedies. All nations do this, unless they find that history embarassing. Look at Ireland and the Famine! History defines a country the way memory defines a personality. If you have no memory you have no personality.
2. Britain's role in WW2 really WAS uniquely heroic and extraordinary. We were alone. The Battle of Britain was nearly lost, yet it was won. We endured the Blitz - then, and only then, we handed out the spanking of Bomber Command.
We should be proud of our history. We ARE proud, and f*ck every f*cker that says otherwise.
We certainly obsess too much about WW2 as opposed to other parts of our history.
The Seven Years war is hardly known but its the reason why North America and India speak English and why free markets and democracy are so widespread.
And our military recovery from the disasters of the first year of the Seven Years War far outstrip those of WW2.
I prefer cold analysis rather than emotional rhetoric.
Morality can be analysed coldly, and I believe a cold analysis of the situation would show that all good men should have fought the Nazis. It follows logically from that that it was a moral failure for countries to opt for neutrality over that.
Ireland joining the fight? Do me a favour. Their Air Force amounted to two spotter planes, their Armoured Corps a few Morris Minors dressed as "armoured cars", their Navy a few trawlers. Their Army kitted out in German uniforms, which would have made combat interesting, to say the least.
Why pick on poor, puny little Erin?
The USA, the 'beacon of democracy', with all its might, kept well out of it for over two years...
Ireland could have reoriented its economy towards the war effort, not to mention provide a lot more men to the cause.
I do agree that the isolationists in the United States were equally shameful, but it deserves to be pointed out they provided a lot of industry and money to the effort before they formally entered the war.
From the Times, I can't find the original German article
A poll for Stern magazine yesterday revealed an alarming level of “Brexit fatigue” among Germans, with just 19 per cent agreeing that Mrs Merkel should put relations with Britain before support for the former Luxembourg prime minister.
“Merkel should support Juncker against British resistance,” ran the headline in Sternabove the Forsa poll results. “Sixty per cent of Germans are of the opinion that the chancellor should support Jean-Claude Juncker against the opposition of the British,” it added.
“While 51 per cent of Germans would regret a British departure from the EU, 41 per cent could accept a withdrawal.”
Would the 41% feel the same when they're asked to pay more to cover the vanished British contribution?
From the Times, I can't find the original German article
A poll for Stern magazine yesterday revealed an alarming level of “Brexit fatigue” among Germans, with just 19 per cent agreeing that Mrs Merkel should put relations with Britain before support for the former Luxembourg prime minister.
“Merkel should support Juncker against British resistance,” ran the headline in Sternabove the Forsa poll results. “Sixty per cent of Germans are of the opinion that the chancellor should support Jean-Claude Juncker against the opposition of the British,” it added.
“While 51 per cent of Germans would regret a British departure from the EU, 41 per cent could accept a withdrawal.”
Would the 41% feel the same when they're asked to pay more to cover the vanished British contribution?
I prefer cold analysis rather than emotional rhetoric.
Morality can be analysed coldly, and I believe a cold analysis of the situation would show that all good men should have fought the Nazis. It follows logically from that that it was a moral failure for countries to opt for neutrality over that.
Ireland joining the fight? Do me a favour. Their Air Force amounted to two spotter planes, their Armoured Corps a few Morris Minors dressed as "armoured cars", their Navy a few trawlers. Their Army kitted out in German uniforms, which would have made combat interesting, to say the least.
Why pick on poor, puny little Erin?
The USA, the 'beacon of democracy', with all its might, kept well out of it for over two years...
Ireland could have reoriented its economy towards the war effort, not to mention provide a lot more men to the cause.
I do agree that the isolationists in the United States were equally shameful, but it deserves to be pointed out they provided a lot of industry and money to the effort before they formally entered the war.
Ireland couldn't really have joined in.
What was disgraceful was the official hostility displayed towards Irishmen who did join the war effort.
On an unrelated point, when did people start saying "Thanks very much"? It makes no sense. "Thanks" is a noun, so you can offer "many thanks", but "much" doesn't make any more sense than saying "thank you very many".
Yep, I'm speaking a foreign dialect to somebody, possibly derived from Merci beaucoup. Moreover, I don't like tea or cricket. Time to revoke my passport.
Only teasing you. I guess that "Thanks" in this sense is a corruption of "I thank you". "Many thanks" is the more logical form, but quite rare now, isn't it? .
It wasn't a personal criticism - I just note it being used more and more and it sounds odd to my ear, and I thought this was the sort of place where I would be corrected or agreed with. I still use "many thanks", but maybe I'm alone in doing that? I don't believe "thanks" is an abbreviation of "thank you". The former I would guess would be from "have my thanks" (i.e. a noun), whereas the latter would be "I thank you" (i.e. a verb).
First we had gender segregation within universities. Now we discover primary schools with books advocating stoning, lashing and execution. (Ofsted are now looking at schools in Luton and East London as well as Bradford.) Whoever would have guessed that importing barbaric and medieval cultures and allowing them to flourish under the guise of tolerance would have resulted in such outcomes? And even now those who cannot face up to what is happening are trying hard to turn this into a "well, they're all as bad as each other so let's stop Christians running schools" thus showing that moral cowardice is often closely allied to malice and stupidity, usually in the most ostensibly educated (on paper, anyway) people.
This - from the Jacobinism blog - is spot on:-
"The belief that the State has no business interfering in the cultural affairs of individuals and groups is untenable in the face of the challenges to equality and liberty presented by regressive religious and cultural practices. The collision of Islamic and Western values is sometimes presented as a one-way street. Islam - inert, passive, abstract, victimised - is dominated by the arrogance of an equally abstract Occidental modernity. But inegalitarian values are not a bit passive or abstract when put into practice - they have real ongoing consequences and victims. State-sponsored multiculturalism ensures that these values are not just defended but given the space to be vigorously asserted………………….
At some point the liberal has to make a choice between disfiguring surgery and an untreated tumour. The laissez-faire approach to liberty in these circumstances is an act, not of principle, but of moral cowardice. Like the pacifist whose only concern is keeping his own hands free of blood, the liberal only concerned with his own reputation for tolerance ends up complicit in the crimes he ignores."
We don't need to work out British values. We need to stop wittering about tolerance when it is being used as an excuse for cowardice, both moral and physical. Proper liberalism does not require tolerance of the intolerable.
What we do need to say is that sharia has no place - none - in Britain, that death for apostasy has no place in Britain, that a belief in inequality for women has no place in Britain, that a belief that gays should be executed has no place in Britain, that a belief that women should be mutilated or forced into marriage or forced to have sex within marriage or killed to defend someone's peculiar idea of "honour" or beaten has no place in Britain, that a belief that children should not learn certain subjects because they conflict with their religion has no place in Britain, that anti-Semitism has no place in Britain, that threatening violence if you don't like what someone says about your religion has no place in Britain and that if people value these things more then they should live somewhere other than Britain.
"Question I've been asked - how can one discover the market value of a house in 1991? I have no clue - anyone have any idea?"
If you go onto Rightmove or one of the other sale sites you can look for house prices by street. This will give you both the current sale price of any houses on the market and also the price the last time it was sold. If the house you are looking at was last sold in 1991 then that price should be listed.
Edit : Alternatively you can go and look at the Land registry for the property which has all the sale values since it was built. Not sure if that can be done online though.
The Land Registry records all transactions on the open market (NOT necessarily auctions) that it's notified of. But not all transactions are notified, and not all property is transacted: I once had to puzzle out the transfer of ownership of a house where the parents bought it off the council in the 20's, then the father died, then the mother died, then the eldest child, then the second youngest, then the third youngest, then the child of the third youngest tried to sell it. She was asked for proof that she actually owned it, and of course there was none: each time ownership had transferred informally without title registration. I had to go through the probate of each death to confirm that the child of the second youngest had renounced his claim when his mother died.
The point is that the Land Registry may not know what the price was. It's by far the best place to start, but be prepared for a "dunno". In that event, try local estate agents, the local paper, or even Googling it.
First we had gender segregation within universities
The standard was carrying a story tonight where ofsted had admitted employing a male muslim inspector who refused to shake the hands of female teachers on religious grounds during inspections.
There had also been cases of male muslim teachers in trojan horse schools who refused to shake the hands of female inspectors.
The LD have never seen such low levels since the SDP splitters disintegrated, very worrisome for them. 6% is just 10 seats on UNS, any lower and it's the return of the yellow taxi.
This might sound like a daft question but how does UNS apply with 24 -> 6% when the party say starts off with 10% in a seat.
Does it project these seats to zero, or does it (Obviously incorrectly) swing them to -8% ?
Gladens my heart that Ozzie has decided to clean up the currency trading, though the more cynical of us might think that the American inquiry might have spurred him on a bit. Has our Inquiry actually started yet?
I have heard some argue that Churchill started it, the truth seems to be more prosaic.
There really is no argument.
'It may be Inconvenient History but England rather than Germany initiated the murderous slaughter of bombing civilians thus bringing about retaliation. Chamberlain conceded that it was "absolutely contrary to International law." It began in 1940 and Churchill believed it held the secret of victory. He was convinced that raids of sufficient intensity could destroy Germany's morale, and so his War Cabinet planned a campaign that abandoned the accepted practice of attacking the enemy's armed forces and, instead made civilians the primary target. Night after night, RAF bombers in ever increasing numbers struck throughout Germany, usually at working class housing, because it was more densely packed.' The Peoples' War, Angus Calder, 1969.
The LD have never seen such low levels since the SDP splitters disintegrated, very worrisome for them. 6% is just 10 seats on UNS, any lower and it's the return of the yellow taxi.
This might sound like a daft question but how does UNS apply with 24 -> 6% when the party say starts off with 10% in a seat.
Does it project these seats to zero, or does it (Obviously incorrectly) swing them to -8% ?
It simply doesn't work. UNS assumes relatively minor swings.
There is an important point here. The Lib Dems preen themselves on their ability to outperform UNS. If such a dramatic fall took place, the Lib Dems would underperform UNS.
To be gauche, I'll link to my own article illustrating this by reference to Scottish Lib Dems:
"The belief that the State has no business interfering in the cultural affairs of individuals and groups is untenable in the face of the challenges to equality and liberty presented by regressive religious and cultural practices. The collision of Islamic and Western values is sometimes presented as a one-way street. Islam - inert, passive, abstract, victimised - is dominated by the arrogance of an equally abstract Occidental modernity. But inegalitarian values are not a bit passive or abstract when put into practice - they have real ongoing consequences and victims. State-sponsored multiculturalism ensures that these values are not just defended but given the space to be vigorously asserted………………….
At some point the liberal has to make a choice between disfiguring surgery and an untreated tumour. The laissez-faire approach to liberty in these circumstances is an act, not of principle, but of moral cowardice. Like the pacifist whose only concern is keeping his own hands free of blood, the liberal only concerned with his own reputation for tolerance ends up complicit in the crimes he ignores."
We don't need to work out British values. We need to stop wittering about tolerance when it is being used as an excuse for cowardice, both moral and physical. Proper liberalism does not require tolerance of the intolerable.
What we do need to say is that sharia has no place - none - in Britain, that death for apostasy has no place in Britain, that a belief in inequality for women has no place in Britain, that a belief that gays should be executed has no place in Britain, that a belief that women should be mutilated or forced into marriage or forced to have sex within marriage or killed to defend someone's peculiar idea of "honour" or beaten has no place in Britain, that a belief that children should not learn certain subjects because they conflict with their religion has no place in Britain, that anti-Semitism has no place in Britain, that threatening violence if you don't like what someone says about your religion has no place in Britain and that if people value these things more then they should live somewhere other than Britain.
To some atheists, it's the Old Enemy, the Christians, that are the problem. They think that Islamism can be dealt with once the Christians have been put in their place.
What's interesting about the film is that the main protagonist is a fairly decent young woman who is convinced she's doing the right thing by working for the collaborationist government. The fascists aren't portrayed as monsters, but as people who think Britain's best interests lie in alliance with Germany.
Which was exactly what happened in France. I would still call these people moral cowards and traitors. Just because they reason themselves into the cowardly position rather than confront the obvious truths does not excuse this.
I know people react to my language on here sometimes (see Nick Palmer earlier today), but a successful society needs moral clarity on some things. It is right to be outraged when a political movement encourages people not to get health insurance. It is right to be outraged when taxpayer-funded schools in this country are engaging in sectarian hatred. It is right to be outraged when major powers invade and annex parts of their neighbours. One need not start shouting at people, but when something terrible is happening, it should be called out in no uncertain terms. Language which downplays the moral crime just encourages inaction.
First we had gender segregation within universities
The standard was carrying a story tonight where ofsted had admitted employing a male muslim inspector who refused to shake the hands of female teachers on religious grounds during inspections.
There had also been cases of male muslim teachers in trojan horse schools who refused to shake the hands of female inspectors.
Disgraceful. Mind you, the wife of a friend of mine is a head of a small primary and was told by her Ofsted inspector that, as he was an Orthodox Jew, he would not be shaking hands with any of the women teachers, which was pretty much all of them.
Quite apart from anything else, the selfish impoliteness of it all is staggering. It's putting their own feelings and self-importance first rather than understanding that, as public servants, they are there to serve the public and that if they want to become Ofsted inspectors, they need to behave with courtesy and politeness to the staff and not give the impression that they view them as lesser beings on account of their gender. How can someone inspected by such a person be sure that any criticism made of them is not based on prejudice?
I maybe the only one on here to say this, but we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqis, we buggered up their country, we need to help them restore it.
First we had gender segregation within universities
The standard was carrying a story tonight where ofsted had admitted employing a male muslim inspector who refused to shake the hands of female teachers on religious grounds during inspections.
There had also been cases of male muslim teachers in trojan horse schools who refused to shake the hands of female inspectors.
The sooner we make state-funded education a completely secular activity, the better. There can be no reason why the education system should ever consider permitting such behaviour from teachers and inspectors.
If parents want faith-based education, they will have to seek it outside of the state-sector.
Anyone refusing to shake hand with someone in their line of work because of their sex should be sacked from their government job. Being Jewish is no excuse.
Gladens my heart that Ozzie has decided to clean up the currency trading, though the more cynical of us might think that the American inquiry might have spurred him on a bit. Has our Inquiry actually started yet?
My guess: quite a few. I think it will be similar to Muslim gangrape/grooming. Now the dam has broken and the liberal censorship has ended, we will suddenly *realise* that Muslim fundamentalists have been attempting to Islamise state schools across the country.
I mean, why would it only be Brum? Is Birmingham unique? No. There is evidence of Islamisation of state schools since 1993. Twenty years ago. Just like grooming.
To be fair, if I was an Islamic parent I would want an Islamic education for my child. I can entirely see their logic, and the parental desire for a proper upbringing.
Trouble is, too much of Islam is utterly incompatible with modern British values.
I have no idea how we get round this. Something will have to give. Either British Islam "modernises", or Britain accepts that a severe new kind of social conservatism is quickly gaining ground, changing our country. The third alternative is too awful to contemplate.
These schools in Brum have been improving rapidly academically, probably because of the strict adherence to Islamic teachings
I cant help wondering about those improving grades in Tower Hamlets...
You just can't trust the news these days, They were reporting that the Americans were just about wrapped up, and our Treasury was discussing whether to start, a couple of weeks ago.
"The belief that the State has no business interfering in the cultural affairs of individuals and groups is untenable in the face of the challenges to equality and liberty presented by regressive religious and cultural practices. The collision of Islamic and Western values is sometimes presented as a one-way street. Islam - inert, passive, abstract, victimised - is dominated by the arrogance of an equally abstract Occidental modernity. But inegalitarian values are not a bit passive or abstract when put into practice - they have real ongoing consequences and victims. State-sponsored multiculturalism ensures that these values are not just defended but given the space to be vigorously asserted………………….
At some point the liberal has to make a choice between disfiguring surgery and an untreated tumour. The laissez-faire approach to liberty in these circumstances is an act, not of principle, but of moral cowardice. Like the pacifist whose only concern is keeping his own hands free of blood, the liberal only concerned with his own reputation for tolerance ends up complicit in the crimes he ignores."
We don't need to work out British values. We need to stop wittering about tolerance when it is being used as an excuse for cowardice, both moral and physical. Proper liberalism does not require tolerance of the intolerable.
What we do need to say is that sharia has no place - none - in Britain, that death for apostasy has no place in Britain, that a belief in inequality for women has no place in Britain, that a belief that gays should be executed has no place in Britain, that a belief that women should be mutilated or forced into marriage or forced to have sex within marriage or killed to defend someone's peculiar idea of "honour" or beaten has no place in Britain, that a belief that children should not learn certain subjects because they conflict with their religion has no place in Britain, that anti-Semitism has no place in Britain, that threatening violence if you don't like what someone says about your religion has no place in Britain and that if people value these things more then they should live somewhere other than Britain.
To some atheists, it's the Old Enemy, the Christians, that are the problem. They think that Islamism can be dealt with once the Christians have been put in their place.
I think it's worse than that. I think some of them see Islamism as allies because they are ethnic minorities, hate the US and Israel and the West. It's like those "useful idiots" who supported Communism. The fools don't realise that if Christianity is extirpated the foundations of our liberal enlightened West are more likely to fall and be replaced by the sort of ideologies that animate ISIS.
Again I expect that I will not satisfy everyone with my analysis.
You've made some very interesting points during your articles.
Just wanted to say thanks.
I have tried to be detached. I make no secret on here of my worldview, but I try not to let that get in the way of my analysis.
The next post I write will be in honour of you and the thoughts that you have inspired about how UKIP will affect the other parties' chances. I hope I do it justice.
Why do you say UKIP didnt do so well in Thurrock? They got 39% in the locals and 45% in the Euros
Agree that Dagenham & Rainham may not be such fertile ground, though the Rainham part voted Residents Association in the locals, and is probably more UKIP friendly than Dagenham
I livein Hornchurch & Upminster.. big Con majority, but they lost control of the local council and UKIP walked the Euros
First we had gender segregation within universities
The standard was carrying a story tonight where ofsted had admitted employing a male muslim inspector who refused to shake the hands of female teachers on religious grounds during inspections.
There had also been cases of male muslim teachers in trojan horse schools who refused to shake the hands of female inspectors.
Disgraceful. Mind you, the wife of a friend of mine is a head of a small primary and was told by her Ofsted inspector that, as he was an Orthodox Jew, he would not be shaking hands with any of the women teachers, which was pretty much all of them.
Quite apart from anything else, the selfish impoliteness of it all is staggering. It's putting their own feelings and self-importance first rather than understanding that, as public servants, they are there to serve the public and that if they want to become Ofsted inspectors, they need to behave with courtesy and politeness to the staff and not give the impression that they view them as lesser beings on account of their gender. How can someone inspected by such a person be sure that any criticism made of them is not based on prejudice?
That really is remarkable. As you say, why even become an Ofsted Inspector then? If you don't want to interact with people in such a way, don't get a job where it will constantly come up. Get a job on a phone line or something. If helping maintain education standards is so important to you, you cannot do it but try to act as though it is happening in your own little bubble of how the world should be and must conform to your will, it's happening in a world where there are other obligations and norms.
Again I expect that I will not satisfy everyone with my analysis.
You've made some very interesting points during your articles.
Just wanted to say thanks.
I have tried to be detached. I make no secret on here of my worldview, but I try not to let that get in the way of my analysis.
The next post I write will be in honour of you and the thoughts that you have inspired about how UKIP will affect the other parties' chances. I hope I do it justice.
Why do you say UKIP didnt do so well in Thurrock? They got 39% in the locals and 45% in the Euros
Agree that Dagenham & Rainham may not be such fertile ground, though the Rainham part voted Residents Association in the locals, and is probably more UKIP friendly than Dagenham
They fell short on taking seats in Thurrock, rather than racking up votes, which is the aim of first past the post elections. I did say that 5/1 was fair value!
The LD have never seen such low levels since the SDP splitters disintegrated, very worrisome for them. 6% is just 10 seats on UNS, any lower and it's the return of the yellow taxi.
This might sound like a daft question but how does UNS apply with 24 -> 6% when the party say starts off with 10% in a seat.
Does it project these seats to zero, or does it (Obviously incorrectly) swing them to -8% ?
Well the one on ukpollingreport doesn't work (they use the Additive model), if you put 0% it still gives seats to parties, the one on electoral calculus uses the Strong Transition model, LD get 0 seats on 3%. If you use a simple Transition model then the LD get 0 seats bellow 10%.
For me the lessons of trojan horse and Iraq are the same.
1. wherever there is islam there is islamism
2. Islam is completely and utterly incapable of standing up to Islamism. We have to do it for them.
Iraq has folded like a deckchair in gale in the face of a handful of fanatics. Islamism in schools in Britain isn't isolated cases, it is turning out to be endemic.
This 'vast majority of moderate muslims' argument just does not hold water in the face of the evidence.
Comments
If we won the war, how come the Russians managed to "liberate" so much territory (and keep it "liberated" for quite some time)?
Namely that the new jobs being created are low skilled, low productivity, low paying and in wealth consuming sectors.
Thus making the median job lower productivity and lower paid.
Without government subsidies these new low skilled jobs wouldn't be created.
That is why the government deficit has hardly changed despite all the extra jobs and 'growf'.
Until we start focusing on wealth creation rather than 'growf' then all we are achieving is to pile up evermore debt, become evermore addicted to a level of spending we cannot afford and to give the upper middle classes an ever greater sense of entitlement of having a service class which washes their cars and wipes their arses.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0753827050?pc_redir=1402018683&robot_redir=1
What really pissed off the cheese eaters was when Churchill ordered our fleet to sink theirs if it did not come over to the Free French.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir
It's worth bearing in mind that plenty of other nations have this shame on their shoulders too. Democratic countries like Sweden and Ireland plumped for shameful neutrality rather than fight for what is right.
No wonder you have shifted to the left.
You're only human.
"If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground".
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-latest-election-round-what-have-we_11.html
Again I expect that I will not satisfy everyone with my analysis.
In the end it was the French themselves who destroyed most of their own ships in November 1942 rather than allow them to fall into German hands.
Just wanted to say thanks.
I wonder if a lot of these "new" jobs are actually pre-existing service sector jobs (shops etc) that have been part of the shadow economy for a long time now being brought into the light.
If so then it will at least show the scale of the surplus labour problem that's been created over the last 14 years.
The next post I write will be in honour of you and the thoughts that you have inspired about how UKIP will affect the other parties' chances. I hope I do it justice.
I've just stuck in link 21
Antifrank: The latest election round: what have we learned about UKIP? Part 2: UKIP’s chances by location
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-latest-election-round-what-have-we_11.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/11/passport-office-relaxes-application-checks-overseas-home-office
If only ISIS had known, they could have invaded London instead.
All we have to do to sort out the problems in Iraq is to threaten to divert the Overseas Aid spending elsewhere.
A braver government (perhaps a government in which the Lib Dems had focused on something important rather than process matters) would have taken the opportunity of the last recession to reassess our place in the world. Of all the opportunities missed by the present government, I regard that as by some way the most important.
"It Happened Here" is a horribly plausible film about how some British people would have reacted to a successful German invasion.
"I'm sure there would always be some traitors"
JK Rowling? :-)
IMO, we are kept safe by virtue of the fact that we belong to a successful military alliance. Since 1990, that allïance has depended on the USA funding a growing share of it's expenditure. The USA can no longer afford this free-riding, so it's European allies should step up to the mark.
Am I allowed a little remorse about Dresden?
Ireland joining the fight? Do me a favour. Their Air Force amounted to two spotter planes, their Armoured Corps a few Morris Minors dressed as "armoured cars", their Navy a few trawlers. Their Army kitted out in German uniforms, which would have made combat interesting, to say the least.
Why pick on poor, puny little Erin?
The USA, the 'beacon of democracy', with all its might, kept well out of it for over two years...
There were still another 500 000 Soviet casualties to come. The Nazis were fighting ferociously.
Part of the EU backlash no doubt. The nation-state is not a flawless invention, but they seem to despise it, and are embarrassed by the presence of it in the past and present.
I wonder what caused the Germans to start the blitz? If they had continued the attacks on the radars and airfields, they would probably have won.
Note the change on the updated Mail front page #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers
pic.twitter.com/GZJZdUSm9K
I hear tomorrow's Survation poll results are interesting... #indyref
Paul Hutcheon @paulhutcheon 20m
.@petermacmahon more smiles on the Yes side
6% is just 10 seats on UNS, any lower and it's the return of the yellow taxi.
Only teasing you. I guess that "Thanks" in this sense is a corruption of "I thank you". "Many thanks" is the more logical form, but quite rare now, isn't it? .
The Seven Years war is hardly known but its the reason why North America and India speak English and why free markets and democracy are so widespread.
And our military recovery from the disasters of the first year of the Seven Years War far outstrip those of WW2.
I do agree that the isolationists in the United States were equally shameful, but it deserves to be pointed out they provided a lot of industry and money to the effort before they formally entered the war.
http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-ww2/the-bombing-offensive
Whatever the reason, it gave the RAF much needed respite
We will see in an hour if that is correct.
And I have news for you. The Germans didn't start the Blitz. Churchill did...
I have heard some argue that Churchill started it, the truth seems to be more prosaic.
Is there an Obama effect?
What was disgraceful was the official hostility displayed towards Irishmen who did join the war effort.
First we had gender segregation within universities. Now we discover primary schools with books advocating stoning, lashing and execution. (Ofsted are now looking at schools in Luton and East London as well as Bradford.) Whoever would have guessed that importing barbaric and medieval cultures and allowing them to flourish under the guise of tolerance would have resulted in such outcomes? And even now those who cannot face up to what is happening are trying hard to turn this into a "well, they're all as bad as each other so let's stop Christians running schools" thus showing that moral cowardice is often closely allied to malice and stupidity, usually in the most ostensibly educated (on paper, anyway) people.
This - from the Jacobinism blog - is spot on:-
"The belief that the State has no business interfering in the cultural affairs of individuals and groups is untenable in the face of the challenges to equality and liberty presented by regressive religious and cultural practices. The collision of Islamic and Western values is sometimes presented as a one-way street. Islam - inert, passive, abstract, victimised - is dominated by the arrogance of an equally abstract Occidental modernity. But inegalitarian values are not a bit passive or abstract when put into practice - they have real ongoing consequences and victims. State-sponsored multiculturalism ensures that these values are not just defended but given the space to be vigorously asserted………………….
At some point the liberal has to make a choice between disfiguring surgery and an untreated tumour. The laissez-faire approach to liberty in these circumstances is an act, not of principle, but of moral cowardice. Like the pacifist whose only concern is keeping his own hands free of blood, the liberal only concerned with his own reputation for tolerance ends up complicit in the crimes he ignores."
We don't need to work out British values. We need to stop wittering about tolerance when it is being used as an excuse for cowardice, both moral and physical. Proper liberalism does not require tolerance of the intolerable.
What we do need to say is that sharia has no place - none - in Britain, that death for apostasy has no place in Britain, that a belief in inequality for women has no place in Britain, that a belief that gays should be executed has no place in Britain, that a belief that women should be mutilated or forced into marriage or forced to have sex within marriage or killed to defend someone's peculiar idea of "honour" or beaten has no place in Britain, that a belief that children should not learn certain subjects because they conflict with their religion has no place in Britain, that anti-Semitism has no place in Britain, that threatening violence if you don't like what someone says about your religion has no place in Britain and that if people value these things more then they should live somewhere other than Britain.
The Land Registry records all transactions on the open market (NOT necessarily auctions) that it's notified of. But not all transactions are notified, and not all property is transacted: I once had to puzzle out the transfer of ownership of a house where the parents bought it off the council in the 20's, then the father died, then the mother died, then the eldest child, then the second youngest, then the third youngest, then the child of the third youngest tried to sell it. She was asked for proof that she actually owned it, and of course there was none: each time ownership had transferred informally without title registration. I had to go through the probate of each death to confirm that the child of the second youngest had renounced his claim when his mother died.
The point is that the Land Registry may not know what the price was. It's by far the best place to start, but be prepared for a "dunno". In that event, try local estate agents, the local paper, or even Googling it.
The standard was carrying a story tonight where ofsted had admitted employing a male muslim inspector who refused to shake the hands of female teachers on religious grounds during inspections.
There had also been cases of male muslim teachers in trojan horse schools who refused to shake the hands of female inspectors.
Does it project these seats to zero, or does it (Obviously incorrectly) swing them to -8% ?
Has our Inquiry actually started yet?
'It may be Inconvenient History but England rather than Germany initiated the murderous slaughter of bombing civilians thus bringing about retaliation. Chamberlain conceded that it was "absolutely contrary to International law." It began in 1940 and Churchill believed it held the secret of victory. He was convinced that raids of sufficient intensity could destroy Germany's morale, and so his War Cabinet planned a campaign that abandoned the accepted practice of attacking the enemy's armed forces and, instead made civilians the primary target. Night after night, RAF bombers in ever increasing numbers struck throughout Germany, usually at working class housing, because it was more densely packed.' The Peoples' War, Angus Calder, 1969.
There is an important point here. The Lib Dems preen themselves on their ability to outperform UNS. If such a dramatic fall took place, the Lib Dems would underperform UNS.
To be gauche, I'll link to my own article illustrating this by reference to Scottish Lib Dems:
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-hunt-for-2010-lib-dems-part-1.html
Could he have started it without that borked German raid though?
I know people react to my language on here sometimes (see Nick Palmer earlier today), but a successful society needs moral clarity on some things. It is right to be outraged when a political movement encourages people not to get health insurance. It is right to be outraged when taxpayer-funded schools in this country are engaging in sectarian hatred. It is right to be outraged when major powers invade and annex parts of their neighbours. One need not start shouting at people, but when something terrible is happening, it should be called out in no uncertain terms. Language which downplays the moral crime just encourages inaction.
Quite apart from anything else, the selfish impoliteness of it all is staggering. It's putting their own feelings and self-importance first rather than understanding that, as public servants, they are there to serve the public and that if they want to become Ofsted inspectors, they need to behave with courtesy and politeness to the staff and not give the impression that they view them as lesser beings on account of their gender. How can someone inspected by such a person be sure that any criticism made of them is not based on prejudice?
If parents want faith-based education, they will have to seek it outside of the state-sector.
Anyone refusing to shake hand with someone in their line of work because of their sex should be sacked from their government job. Being Jewish is no excuse.
Latest #IndyRef poll #Yes 39% #No 44% DK 17%
70% DK leaning to #Yes=17%
splits 12% #Yes,5% #No
Germany started indiscriminate aerial bombing of Poland in September 1939, no?
I cant help wondering about those improving grades in Tower Hamlets...
You just can't trust the news these days, They were reporting that the Americans were just about wrapped up, and our Treasury was discussing whether to start, a couple of weeks ago.
Agree that Dagenham & Rainham may not be such fertile ground, though the Rainham part voted Residents Association in the locals, and is probably more UKIP friendly than Dagenham
I livein Hornchurch & Upminster.. big Con majority, but they lost control of the local council and UKIP walked the Euros
http://www.havering.gov.uk/Pages/ServiceChild/European-election-results-2014.aspx
Night all.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html
1. wherever there is islam there is islamism
2. Islam is completely and utterly incapable of standing up to Islamism. We have to do it for them.
Iraq has folded like a deckchair in gale in the face of a handful of fanatics. Islamism in schools in Britain isn't isolated cases, it is turning out to be endemic.
This 'vast majority of moderate muslims' argument just does not hold water in the face of the evidence.
I for one just assumed it would have been already.
No wonder the "Markets" were honest, they had no laws to break.