Average lenght of service: 9.5 years 67.3% were male 96% white 13.2% disabled or with long term health problems 46.6% are retired 19.2% are in full time employment (highest % in London) 9.5% work part-time 16% are self employed 26.9% work in the public sector 5.2% have no qualification 58.8% have degrees Average age: 60.2 Average hours per week worked on council and group business claimed: 25.1 hours 10.4% use skype or phone conferencing for their councilllor work Cllrs in North East use smartphone much more than average (53% to 33%) Green Cllrs use Skype more than average (14.4 vs 6.5% of Conservatives and 4.4% of Labourites) 60.6% of Cllrs have a webpage, 36.8% run a blog, 29,7% are on facebook. 7% think they are ineffective
I actually think Osborne should be wary of helping the old at the expense of the young in his final budget. It could be what finally breaks the dam.
The Tories are already doing very well amongst pensioners. Can they get any more juice out of that Lemon. As has also been pointed out last week, Ukip voters are strangely unconcerned bout pensions.
This morning I'm building a new computer table for my wife; from a flat-pack. More a jigsaw than a true carpentering job. I promise, this is the last one I do. At least there are none in my garage. LOL
On Miliband's mad energy policy (the impact of which was widely predicted immediately), honour must go to Ammianus Marcellinus who correctly stated in the 4th century that Julian the Apostate was wrong to try and fix commodity prices as they ultimately lead to shortages.
Mr. Gin, Letwin's the most useful idiot Labour have ever had.
Wasn't Letwin involved in the "gerry can" fiasco as well?
This is the strangest yet.
Even if Tory MPs were being honest to their own views a flat tax would be defeated by an overwhelming majority.
Part of me now wonders if Letwin comes out with this rubbish just so the party can rule it out int he misguided belief that'll be a net positive (it won't, for the same reason Ed's comments won't work: there is too much of an existing narrative).
Can we please ensure that DavidL is not able to comment on the cricket today??
Oh I am hurt.
Surely the odd "X is batting really well" cannot do any harm?
That only works if you are talking about England batsmen. If you say it about Indian ones you merely perpetuate their excellence.
I remember being at Lords and every time my pal went for a comfort break India lost a wicket. By the last session the Indian supporters around us were not willing to let him out.
I actually think Osborne should be wary of helping the old at the expense of the young in his final budget. It could be what finally breaks the dam.
The Tories are already doing very well amongst pensioners. Can they get any more juice out of that Lemon. As has also been pointed out last week, Ukip voters are strangely unconcerned bout pensions.
I suggest that the more tales of woe we hear from our grandchildren, the less likely my generation will be to vote Tory. Perhaps that goes some way to explain the UKIP shift although there’s no way my wife and I are voting Kipper!
Mr. Gin, now may be an opportune moment to remind the site that the space cannon is capable of being double-shotted and firing two fellows into space with one shot.
Was the flat tax plan not once championed by George Osborne as a “very exciting idea”
UKIP policy was also this wasn't it?
"“We need to make the case for lower, simpler and flatter taxes as a distinct alternative to the higher and more complex tax system foisted on us by Gordon Brown”. He added: “A flat tax can be very progressive … A much larger personal allowance would mean that many low-income people are taken out of tax altogether. And those on middle incomes find that a big slice of that income is tax-free.”
I see the absurd Oliver Letwin has once again said something completely stupid and caused embarrassment for the Conservative Party.
From the poll tax, to having to go into hiding during the 2001 election, to claiming that he wanted to stop "normal people" being able to fly, to eating Pizza and falling asleep while Ed Milliband and Hacked Off dictated media regulation, this loser has been a one man, walking, talking political disaster area for the best part of 30 years!
Can somebody please explain to me how this ridiculous, brainless, idiot is still involved in our public life?
I see the absurd Oliver Letwin has once again said something completely stupid and caused embarrassment for the Conservative Party.
From the poll tax, to having to go into hiding during the 2001 election, to claiming that he wanted to stop "normal people" being able to fly, to eating Pizza and falling asleep while Ed Milliband and Hacked Off dictated media regulation, this loser has been a one man, walking, talking political disaster area for the best part of 30 years!
Can somebody please explain to me how this ridiculous, brainless, idiot is still involved in our public life?
It really is one of those mysteries, isn't it?
You can add, letting a burglar into his house in the early hours of the morning, and attending a Sikh religious festival dressed like the Karsi of Kalabar.
Montgomery (from lower down) He replaced Aukinleck. Alexander replaced Wavell I think.
Montgomery in fact was concerned with conserving troops not wasting them, as we had relatively few. This was a big constraint. There is no way you can attack without losing the lives of soldiers. A sad but simple fact. Whether by accident or design we drew most odf the german armour agianst us in normandy and facilitated Patton (who was well suited to the task) to break out.
Mr. Owls, if Miliband does for the whole nation what he did for energy policy it'll be 4-5 years of pain inflicted by idiotic policies.
The Coalition hasn't covered itself with glory on energy (hampered by the simpleton Davey) but is still a league better than Miliband's greenist zealotry.
Also, experience would have taught him that the Prussians were quite easy to defeat. Their battle record against him in 1813-14 was pretty dire.
Except for the Battle of Leipzig/The Nations in 1813. A massive French defeat there as they were chased across Europe after having to leave Russian territory.
Mr. Owls, if Miliband does for the whole nation what he did for energy policy it'll be 4-5 years of pain inflicted by idiotic policies.
The Coalition hasn't covered itself with glory on energy (hampered by the simpleton Davey) but is still a league better than Miliband's greenist zealotry.
The Coalition put a stop to the sort of environmental land grab starting to happen under Labour - an Energy Secretary primarily concerned with renewables, a Communities secretary concerned with recycling, and an Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural affairs almost entirely occupied with the former. I know that success in tackling climate change (assuming that is right as I am prepared to) will have to come from across government, but any obsession is unhealthy and won't work in the long run.
@Sunil_Prasannan A plan very seldom survives the first contact with the enemy. My complaint is that in far to many cases, the "plan" looks very much like all the similar plans. an advance in force against well organized defenses.
Local knowledge of the few constituencies which actually count is going to be key in predicting the eventual outcome.Watford is a 3-way which are always the most interesting.In Watford the NHS has already emerged as an issue and the local NHS has dire financial problems.Another Watford issue has arisen regarding the sale of allotments.Now if any Pber who thinks "so what?" you know nothing of the power of these local issues.People care a great deal about allotments and may be the issue of allotments decides which way Watford decides to swing.
Montgomery (from lower down) He replaced Aukinleck. Alexander replaced Wavell I think.
Montgomery in fact was concerned with conserving troops not wasting them, as we had relatively few. This was a big constraint. There is no way you can attack without losing the lives of soldiers. A sad but simple fact. Whether by accident or design we drew most odf the german armour agianst us in normandy and facilitated Patton (who was well suited to the task) to break out.
I thought it was by design - it was Monty that volunteered to take on Caen after all to show what British/Empire troops could do
NHS financial problems will be a big issue in lots of marginal seats.
Probably too late to neutralize IMO
Much will depend on what the winter is like.
Perhaps Mike should put up a poll about the NHS. e,g What is your experience of using the NHS where you live during say the last 2 years.
I have not used the NHS (touch wood) during the last 2 years, but I have heard a few grumbles about delayed operations from some people. But I guess that operation appointments have always been subject to cancellation.
In case you are wondering, my source for much of the detail in this is my grandfather. He was an officer in the Eighth Army, and although he died many years ago, I vividly remember how he had few good words to say about Montgomery. I was inclined to think at first that he was exaggerating due to the fact that his brother was in one of the wrecked tanks of 9th Armoured, but when I came to research Montgomery myself, I have to say I came to agree.
I've no strong views myself, but for interest on the same anecdotal basis, my uncle commanded the only XXX Corps artillery unit that got within range of the Arnhem bridge before the Germans recaptured the pocket; his view was that the Arnhem operation did have a very good chance of success, had failed by a very narrow margin due to faulty intelligence on the SS unit in the area, and had acquired a reputation as a mistake rather unfairly - he thought a perhaps 50% chance of (arguably) shortening the war by some months had been worth taking.
NHS financial problems will be a big issue in lots of marginal seats.
Probably too late to neutralize IMO
Much will depend on what the winter is like.
It could be the most benign winter on record. There would still be a 'winter crisis' etc. Some of my lefty friends on Facebook have been busily proclaiming a genocide of the poor for the last few years. A mild winter won't stop their histrionics.
@bigjohnowls The one that is hysterical, is the idea that people with mental health problems will have benefits cut if they do not participate in other forms of treatment. Leaving aside the ethics of forcing treatment on individuals, at the moment, GP's are struggling to cope with the lack of even basic facilities for those that wish them, let alone trying to get the unwilling to attend.
@bigjohnowls Yes, Dave has assured us it is fixed, the GP's and their governing bodies seem to disagree. The "plan" was that the GP's would do the commissioning of services, instead they are having to provide these services themselves. The latest wheeze is to train the GP's in mental health care, which in itself is no bad idea, but it would appear that they will have to fit a psychiatric analysis inside the standard GP appointment times.
The correct debate on GPs is are they the correct gate keepers to the NHS and are they a concept and idea that was suited to a Health System of 50 years ago?
Hanging onto the idea that the GP is an essential part of the Health Service may hold back development, positive outcomes and efficiency (ie speed of treatment) in the Health Service.
The correct debate on GPs is are they the correct gate keepers to the NHS and are they a concept and idea that was suited to a Health System of 50 years ago?
Hanging onto the idea that the GP is an essential part of the Health Service may hold back development, positive outcomes and efficiency (ie speed of treatment) in the Health Service.
Agreed which is why Lansley is an idiot to give them the Commissioning role in a conflict of interest Governance sort of way
Local knowledge of the few constituencies which actually count is going to be key in predicting the eventual outcome.Watford is a 3-way which are always the most interesting.In Watford the NHS has already emerged as an issue and the local NHS has dire financial problems.Another Watford issue has arisen regarding the sale of allotments.Now if any Pber who thinks "so what?" you know nothing of the power of these local issues.People care a great deal about allotments and may be the issue of allotments decides which way Watford decides to swing.
The two issues are interlinked as the allotments are due to be sold as part of the new health campus scheme which would give brand new hospital buildings in Watford. This might ease the current financial deficit problems at WHH Trust, if planned properly. That is a big if.
This is also an issue for St Albans next door, which has a smaller non A&E hospital part of WHH trust. There is a significant strategic review of the health services requirements in West Herts which is due to report draft findings later this year.
This will be big issues locally for St Albans, Watford and Hemel Hempsted constituencies.
NHS financial problems will be a big issue in lots of marginal seats.
Probably too late to neutralize IMO
Much will depend on what the winter is like.
Perhaps Mike should put up a poll about the NHS. e,g What is your experience of using the NHS where you live during say the last 2 years.
I have not used the NHS (touch wood) during the last 2 years, but I have heard a few grumbles about delayed operations from some people. But I guess that operation appointments have always been subject to cancellation.
Our local NHS trust (Colchester) was placed into special measures, on the face of it for manipulating cancer treatment/waiting stats but also for the problem that that was an attempt to cover up. It's got a lot better since (unfortunately a relative has had the same acute problem twice, which made it easier to compare) but we still find a huge problem at the gap between care provision and the NHS. The GP should be at the heart of that - and it's going to be a growing problem - whereas they have let us down, sometimes badly, several times over the last few years. This last time we simply went around them because we were so frustrated - and when all was said and done we were entirely vindicated in that decision.
Clearly I expected you to be on the side of the vested interests
I'm on the side of those tasked with keeping your lights on.
Ed Miliband? Not so much, given his lamentable previous stint in Government....
Fallen for the scare stories.
Tasked with generating massive profits rather than electricity i think.
It's not massive profits though is it? Large amounts of money yes, but the margins (which is the measure of profitability) is not huge in residential energy.
The correct debate on GPs is are they the correct gate keepers to the NHS and are they a concept and idea that was suited to a Health System of 50 years ago?
Hanging onto the idea that the GP is an essential part of the Health Service may hold back development, positive outcomes and efficiency (ie speed of treatment) in the Health Service.
Agreed which is why Lansley is an idiot to give them the Commissioning role in a conflict of interest Governance sort of way
It appears from local anecdote that UNLESS individual GP’s are heavily involved in CCG’s they feel just as isolated and “put upon” as before.
It's not massive profits though is it? Large amounts of money yes, but the margins (which is the measure of profitability) is not huge in residential energy.
The psychology of Labour supporters' post-2010 wish to attack business is quite interesting. I think it comes from the fact that they've reluctantly half-accepted that the wheeze of grabbing unlimited amounts of dosh from current and future taxpayers has no future, so they are casting around for some other load of dosh they can raid: the "1%", Banks (or even more stupidly, Bankers), Financial Transactions, Energy Companies, House Builders, Mansion tax, etc etc. Of course a cursory glance at the figures and constraints in each case shows that this is fantasy.
I suppose you could argue that Ed M has been quite smart, in a cynical sort of way, playing to this fantasy. It gives his supporters a straw to clutch on to.
The problem, of course, is that it is a straw which won't keep him afloat if, God forbid, he becomes PM.
It's not massive profits though is it? Large amounts of money yes, but the margins (which is the measure of profitability) is not huge in residential energy.
The psychology of Labour supporters' post-2010 wish to attack business is quite interesting. I think it comes from the fact that they've reluctantly half-accepted that the wheeze of grabbing unlimited amounts of dosh from current and future taxpayers has no future, so they are casting around for some other load of dosh they can raid: the "1%", Banks (or even more stupidly, Bankers), Financial Transactions, Energy Companies, House Builders, Mansion tax, etc etc. Of course a cursory glance at the figures and constraints in each case shows that this is fantasy.
I suppose you could argue that Ed M has been quite smart, in a cynical sort of way, playing to this fantasy. It gives his supporters a straw to clutch on to.
The problem, of course, is that it is a straw which won't keep him afloat if, God forbid, he becomes PM.
Don't forget
Evil slum landlords Newspaper proprietors Banks that aren't the wonderful Coop
Local knowledge of the few constituencies which actually count is going to be key in predicting the eventual outcome.Watford is a 3-way which are always the most interesting.In Watford the NHS has already emerged as an issue and the local NHS has dire financial problems.Another Watford issue has arisen regarding the sale of allotments.Now if any Pber who thinks "so what?" you know nothing of the power of these local issues.People care a great deal about allotments and may be the issue of allotments decides which way Watford decides to swing.
The two issues are interlinked as the allotments are due to be sold as part of the new health campus scheme which would give brand new hospital buildings in Watford. This might ease the current financial deficit problems at WHH Trust, if planned properly. That is a big if.
This is also an issue for St Albans next door, which has a smaller non A&E hospital part of WHH trust. There is a significant strategic review of the health services requirements in West Herts which is due to report draft findings later this year.
This will be big issues locally for St Albans, Watford and Hemel Hempsted constituencies.
Many moons ago my old dad eventually found his vocation in later life and,with the help of good legal advice-I advise Eric Pickles does the same-defeated a council proposal to remove all the allotments,including his-without replacements- for a proposed swimming pool which then had to go to another site.I still have his picture,leaning on his fork,defiant.The threatened civil disobedience included placing items of interest to the general public,manure,chickens and other assorted wild-fowl,along with the odd goat, in the foyers of the council offices. There are even opportunities for a similar peasants revolt in Watford,St Albans and Hemel Hempstead.That should put Pickles back in his jar.
It's not massive profits though is it? Large amounts of money yes, but the margins (which is the measure of profitability) is not huge in residential energy.
The psychology of Labour supporters' post-2010 wish to attack business is quite interesting. I think it comes from the fact that they've reluctantly half-accepted that the wheeze of grabbing unlimited amounts of dosh from current and future taxpayers has no future, so they are casting around for some other load of dosh they can raid: the "1%", Banks (or even more stupidly, Bankers), Financial Transactions, Energy Companies, House Builders, Mansion tax, etc etc. Of course a cursory glance at the figures and constraints in each case shows that this is fantasy.
I suppose you could argue that Ed M has been quite smart, in a cynical sort of way, playing to this fantasy. It gives his supporters a straw to clutch on to.
The problem, of course, is that it is a straw which won't keep him afloat if, God forbid, he becomes PM.
Quite mad I think that Ed Miliband even in supposedly breaking with New Labour has now given the electorate a choice between the Tories/Coalition and a not-even-nationalisation-of-the-railways. As far as the balance between state and private enterprise, the public has rarely had such a limited choice.
@bigjohnowls How can the NHS be a problem, the master plan of bottom up reorganization has fixed it? Dave can show you the figures to prove it.
...I am sure Dave will find a dodgy stat to claim otherwise or tell us the 3rd world (Wales) is doing worse.
You think that NHS Wales is better? So you may be unaware of the situation in heart operations. "Some heart patients in Wales will continue to be sent to England for surgery in a bid to cut waiting lists. Cardiac patients are supposed to be seen within six months, but the Welsh NHS has not met that target for more than two years." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28527258 29 July 2014 I have no interest in getting into a p***ing contest, but for Labour to currently cling onto the hope that the NHS will bring victory next year is fraught with holes. But if you believe in this and the magic money tree, so be it. Let us all move on.
Take 10 grand away and it's the Government's fault.
I think the people who own houses are on side with the tories.
Its the millions of workers who don;t Dave has to convince. And a 10 grand reduction might make a difference.Especially if wages start to rise at the same time.
A downshift would also puncture labour's''you're only ever a rent slave with the tories'' meme.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question so fully. I am not sure I agree with your analysis.
I have never been a fan of Montgomery but for reasons different to yours. Whilst I fully respect your grandfather's views, and I will have to go and read-up in the ninth armoured at Alamein, Montgomery was really a big battle sort of chap. Not for him the delicate rapier thrust and fancy tactic he wanted lots an lots of artillery and superiority of numbers to bludgeon the enemy. Auchinleck, who laid, the foundations for the victory at Alamein was sacked, if memory serves, because he refused to attack before he was ready. Montgomery replaced him and attacked at the same time the Awk wanted to.
Look too at Montgomery's battles in Normandy and especially Operation Varsity, the Rhine Crossing. Montgomery spent months of detailed planning and required huge numbers of troops and munitions for that battle. Not for him the wing and a prayer thrust of a single column on a fortuitously found weak-point that Patton used for the same objective. (by the way, it was not Patton that forced the break-out from Normandy, the hole was created by Bradley in Operation Cobra, Patton's third army was used to exploit it, anyway I digress). The main criticism then of Montgomery was that he was a plodder, a wielder of the bludgoen rather than the clever thrust. It is ironic that the only campaign in which he failed was when tried to be clever.
The question that brings us to is why was Montgomery so keen on careful detailed planning, why did he keep his subordinate commanders on such a tight leash, why did he want overwhelming numbers and firepower? The answer I think is to be found in the battles of Arras and Passchendale nearly thirty years earlier, when the young colonel Montgomery learned first hand what happened when generals lost control of the battles they were fighting. Yes in 1944/45 the UK and Canada were at the end of their manpower string, so lives could not be hazarded wastefully, but also I think that Montgomery was determined that no unnecessary slaughter of his men would ever occur.
What I think is beyond doubt is that, the opinion of your grandfather not withstanding, Montgomery was immensely popular amongst the troops and on the home front. Some of that was partly due to propaganda (spin doctors are not a wholly new phenomena), and some of it was due to the fact that he gave the Brits their first victory on land and therefore hope that the war would be won, part of it too was the feeling that he was not careless with the lives of his troops. I did his funeral in 1976 (my regiment was a descendant of his one before he went off to the Staff and we had to provide pall bearers, guards of honour and the like). Chatting to the WW2 vets that day and at the drinkies later, there is no doubt in my mind how much they held him in esteem.
For the past 20 years Labour and their chums in the media have erroneously painted the Conservatives as evil and incompetent. The past four years have demonstrated that they are not, I am not at all surprised their vote is holding up despite UKIP.
For the past 20 years Labour and their chums in the media have erroneously painted the Conservatives as evil and incompetent. The past four years have demonstrated that they are not, I am not at all surprised their vote is holding up despite UKIP.
Errm Aren't the Cons portrayed as evil, and Labour as incompetent generally ?
Monty lacked Napoleon's luck with those SS divisions resting up in Arnhem, expect it would have worked otherwise although the column was well off schedule.
In case you are wondering, my source for much of the detail in this is my grandfather. He was an officer in the Eighth Army, and although he died many years ago, I vividly remember how he had few good words to say about Montgomery. I was inclined to think at first that he was exaggerating due to the fact that his brother was in one of the wrecked tanks of 9th Armoured, but when I came to research Montgomery myself, I have to say I came to agree.
I've no strong views myself, but for interest on the same anecdotal basis, my uncle commanded the only XXX Corps artillery unit that got within range of the Arnhem bridge before the Germans recaptured the pocket; his view was that the Arnhem operation did have a very good chance of success, had failed by a very narrow margin due to faulty intelligence on the SS unit in the area, and had acquired a reputation as a mistake rather unfairly - he thought a perhaps 50% chance of (arguably) shortening the war by some months had been worth taking.
Nick, I too had a relative with XXX Corps. He was a Green Howard and shot up and captured on the wrong side of the Rhine trying to get the Paras out (a tale that is seldom told - ordinary British infantry crossed the Rhine to try and rescue the super-men of the Parachute Regiment). He spent the rest of the war in German military hospitals and as a result was disabled for life (not the German's fault, apparently, just at that stage of the war they didn't have the drugs and treatments that were routine on our side). Anyway, Uncle Bill had the same view as your uncle, it was worth the attempt and it damn nearly worked.
Historians often get lost in their own narratives and revisions and sometimes forget to look at events form the eyes of people who lived through them. In military terms Haig is a good example, there are many who will tell you he was an incompetent butcher, a fool, blinkered, short-sighted who cared not a jot for his troops. Yet his funeral was massive and most of the hundreds of thousands lining the route were his veterans who thought of him very differently to the popular narrative of today.
Perhaps Mike should put up a poll about the NHS. e,g What is your experience of using the NHS where you live during say the last 2 years.
I have not used the NHS (touch wood) during the last 2 years, but I have heard a few grumbles about delayed operations from some people. But I guess that operation appointments have always been subject to cancellation.
The science is quite well-established on this. If hospitals run at 85% capacity, they have enough margin to cope with surges in demand for any reason bar some enormous catastrophe. Anything over that and routine fluctuations push them over 100% and force cancellations. A very cost-focused approach (and that's what tight budgets make necessary) encourages pushing up towards 100% - this maximises throughput at the expense of messing people around more.
One thing we tried in Notts which made sense to me - not sure if it's generally used - is to offer patients to be put on an opportunist list for not-very-urgent ops - the deal was that if a slot opened up they'd get an offer of an appointment at short notice, but they would accept that it might get cancelled again if there was a surge of emergencies.Anecdotally, lots of people felt this was a reasonable offer and put up with appointments appearing and vanishing if necessary with some stoicism, because in general they did get seen faster than people who insisted on greater certainty.
For the past 20 years Labour and their chums in the media have erroneously painted the Conservatives as evil and incompetent. The past four years have demonstrated that they are not, I am not at all surprised their vote is holding up despite UKIP.
Errm Aren't the Cons portrayed as evil, and Labour as incompetent generally ?
No? Labour managed to abolish boom and bust, Gordon the Iron Chancellor and its only in the past year Labour have given up on attempting to portray the economy as their strong point. Sadly real world experience eventually usurps what the BBC keeps telling people.
Maths question: What should the true price be for there to be a dead heat in any one of the 650 constituencies at the general election? I've tried to make an estimate and was surprised at the answer.
This morning I'm building a new computer table for my wife; from a flat-pack. More a jigsaw than a true carpentering job. I promise, this is the last one I do. At least there are none in my garage. LOL
It's not from Pikea, is it? Them Swedish computer tables, comin' over 'ere, putting our young British computer tables out of a job...Cameron you numpty...etc etc....
Also, experience would have taught him that the Prussians were quite easy to defeat. Their battle record against him in 1813-14 was pretty dire.
Except for the Battle of Leipzig/The Nations in 1813. A massive French defeat there as they were chased across Europe after having to leave Russian territory.
Napoleon was actually doing pretty well at Leipzig until allied desertions changed the odds against him from 3:2 to 3:1, which he couldn't handle.
However, a look at the outcome of French battles against the Prussians tells an interesting story:
Lutzen: 78,000 French beat 93,000 Prussians / Russians Bautzen: 115,000 French beat 100,000 Prussians / Russians Grossbeeren: 80,000 Prussians / Swedes beat 60,000 French Katzbach: 114,000 Prussians / Russians beat 100,000 French Dresden: 135,000 French beat 215,000 Pruss / Russ / Austrians Kulm: 60,000 Pruss / Russ / Austr beat 32,000 French Dennewitz: Pruss / Russ beat French; numbers, ?? Leipzig: 430,000 Allies beat 155,000 French (eventually) Brienne: 30,000 French beat 30,000 Prussians La Rothiere: 110,000 Prussians beat 40,000 French Craonne: 37,000 French beat 85,000 Russians / Prussians Laon: 90,000 Prussians beat 37,000 French Rheims: 10,000 French beat 15,000 Prussians Montmartre: 107,000 Allies beat 23,000 French Ligny: 68,000 French beat 84,000 Prussians Wavre: 33,000 French beat 18,000 Prussians Waterloo: 120,000 Allies beat 72,000 French.
The facts are that the Prussians usually lost against the French unless they had a more effective ally on the field and / or very substantial numerical superiority; and that these were necessary but not sufficient conditions for their army to win, because even then they frequently lost.
It would be a different matter if they lost mainly when they had an ally. This would suggest that the difficulty of co-ordinating with another army made them less effective. One finds this with British armies in Spain, for example, where fighting alongside the Spanish proved to be pretty inadvisable.
We find the opposite, however; Prussians alone were more likely to get beaten than Prussians assisted by Russians, Swedes, Anglo-Netherlands, etc.
For the past 20 years Labour and their chums in the media have erroneously painted the Conservatives as evil and incompetent. The past four years have demonstrated that they are not, I am not at all surprised their vote is holding up despite UKIP.
Oh, c'mon, no-one thinks the Tories are evil or incompetent. They are amoral and ruthlessly competent in furthering their own ends.
For example, the Tories fundamentally dislike the poorest in the country, who they see as the undeserving poor, so they have been wildly successful in making suffer them by increasing their taxes (via the VAT increase), cutting benefits and support structures that many rely on, and limiting their childrens access to further education through huge increases in tuition fees and removing EMA.
The reason the Conservative popular vote is holding up is because Tory-leaning voters have ghettoised themselves into narrow areas of the country, meaning they don't see the suffering this causes.
Of course, as a side-effect, this ghettoisation has also concentrated the Tory vote. They are racking up huge majorities in Tory heartlands. That is why the Tories were attempting to gerrymander the boundaries.
Perhaps Mike should put up a poll about the NHS. e,g What is your experience of using the NHS where you live during say the last 2 years.
I have not used the NHS (touch wood) during the last 2 years, but I have heard a few grumbles about delayed operations from some people. But I guess that operation appointments have always been subject to cancellation.
The science is quite well-established on this. If hospitals run at 85% capacity, they have enough margin to cope with surges in demand for any reason bar some enormous catastrophe. Anything over that and routine fluctuations push them over 100% and force cancellations. A very cost-focused approach (and that's what tight budgets make necessary) encourages pushing up towards 100% - this maximises throughput at the expense of messing people around more.
One thing we tried in Notts which made sense to me - not sure if it's generally used - is to offer patients to be put on an opportunist list for not-very-urgent ops - the deal was that if a slot opened up they'd get an offer of an appointment at short notice, but they would accept that it might get cancelled again if there was a surge of emergencies.Anecdotally, lots of people felt this was a reasonable offer and put up with appointments appearing and vanishing if necessary with some stoicism, because in general they did get seen faster than people who insisted on greater certainty.
I think it was tried in a few places, but fell foul of the target culture.
Maths question: What should the true price be for there to be a dead heat in any one of the 650 constituencies at the general election? I've tried to make an estimate and was surprised at the answer.
It is interesting that a combination of high employment and low wage growth isn't being reflected in government popularity... Maybe future governments will be tempted to do the opposite: encourage high wage growth even if that's at the expense of high unemployment... After all, the Tories won in 83 and 92 coming out of recessions with high unemployment...
On the question of low wage growth, this is partly the result of Gordon Brown's strategic genius... The changes to single parent and disability benefits pushed through by Brown has increased the supply of labour and is suppressing wages (plus the level of immigration too, of course)... Add in the minimum wage acting as a signal to employers what to pay unskilled workers..
So, genius by Brown to act 10 years or more ahead to undermine Tory hopes in 2015... Tax credits are having an effect too but I haven't worked that one out yet....
Maths question: What should the true price be for there to be a dead heat in any one of the 650 constituencies at the general election? I've tried to make an estimate and was surprised at the answer.
Exclude the safe seats, i.e. any where you expect a majority of >3000. For those where a maj <3000 is expected the chances of a dead heat assuming a 2 way contest would be about 1 in 1500. (If you expect a majority of <3000 party A could get any one of 6000 results. The chances of party B matching that exactly are 1 in 6000 but that ignores the fact that if A tends to an extreme that tends to push B away to the other extreme. So we focus on the bit in the middle.) So 1 in 1500 x [number of non safe constituencies].
Perhaps Mike should put up a poll about the NHS. e,g What is your experience of using the NHS where you live during say the last 2 years.
I have not used the NHS (touch wood) during the last 2 years, but I have heard a few grumbles about delayed operations from some people. But I guess that operation appointments have always been subject to cancellation.
The science is quite well-established on this. If hospitals run at 85% capacity, they have enough margin to cope with surges in demand for any reason bar some enormous catastrophe. Anything over that and routine fluctuations push them over 100% and force cancellations. A very cost-focused approach (and that's what tight budgets make necessary) encourages pushing up towards 100% - this maximises throughput at the expense of messing people around more.
One thing we tried in Notts which made sense to me - not sure if it's generally used - is to offer patients to be put on an opportunist list for not-very-urgent ops - the deal was that if a slot opened up they'd get an offer of an appointment at short notice, but they would accept that it might get cancelled again if there was a surge of emergencies.Anecdotally, lots of people felt this was a reasonable offer and put up with appointments appearing and vanishing if necessary with some stoicism, because in general they did get seen faster than people who insisted on greater certainty.
I think it was tried in a few places, but fell foul of the target culture.
Mr. Cole, we all find it very easy to criticise what ever plan is put forward, it is even easier to put up examples of dreadful outcomes and blame them on the latest plan. It is easier yet to rely on well-worn stereotypes. However, when it comes to the NHS none of that actually does any good.
The population of the UK continues to rise every year, that population is ageing (not least because of the success of the NHS), new drugs and treatments continue to be invented. In other words the demands and costs rise every year. However, the wealth of the nation does not. So a way forward has to be found to resolve this conundrum.
Might, I suggest that party politics is not the best method of finding that path. Furthermore, throwing ever larger proportions of the national income at it can at best be a stop gap. Surely this is the time and the subject to take Charles Clarke's ideas of "The Too Difficult Box" out of the cupboard.
The Conservative problem is that the Labour vote is primarily comprised of people who dislike them, and it's extraordinarily difficult to win votes from people who dislike you even if they'll concede various agreeable things about you.
They don't help themselves in this regard though, do they? Their rhetoric is so anti-North, anti-public sector and anti-benefits that very few in the North, in the public sector or on benefits can bring themselves to vote for them. Look at the polling on teachers. The Conservatives had a lead among teachers at the last election and now Labour is 40 points in front with that group. That's what four years of slagging people off does: it turns them against you. Likewise, look at Cameron's visit to Middlesboro last week. He went on local radio and referred several times to 'Tyneside'. But Middlesboro is on the Tees, not the Tyne, which is 40 miles away.
If people sense that you don't like them or aren't interested in them, it's extraordinarily difficult to persuade them to vote for you.
Comments
Average lenght of service: 9.5 years
67.3% were male
96% white
13.2% disabled or with long term health problems
46.6% are retired
19.2% are in full time employment (highest % in London)
9.5% work part-time
16% are self employed
26.9% work in the public sector
5.2% have no qualification
58.8% have degrees
Average age: 60.2
Average hours per week worked on council and group business claimed: 25.1 hours
10.4% use skype or phone conferencing for their councilllor work
Cllrs in North East use smartphone much more than average (53% to 33%)
Green Cllrs use Skype more than average (14.4 vs 6.5% of Conservatives and 4.4% of Labourites)
60.6% of Cllrs have a webpage, 36.8% run a blog, 29,7% are on facebook.
7% think they are ineffective
Full document
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/LGCL01/LGCL01.pdf
Surely the odd "X is batting really well" cannot do any harm?
And who was it who reduced the competition between energy companies by reducing their number? Why that business whizz Miliband of course.
You can trust him with his Energy Minister experience.
http://moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/why-britain-has-the-nastiest-new-homes-in-europe/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17545258
The Tories are already doing very well amongst pensioners. Can they get any more juice out of that Lemon. As has also been pointed out last week, Ukip voters are strangely unconcerned bout pensions.
More a jigsaw than a true carpentering job. I promise, this is the last one I do. At least there are none in my garage. LOL
On Miliband's mad energy policy (the impact of which was widely predicted immediately), honour must go to Ammianus Marcellinus who correctly stated in the 4th century that Julian the Apostate was wrong to try and fix commodity prices as they ultimately lead to shortages.
UKIP policy was also this wasn't it?
Even if Tory MPs were being honest to their own views a flat tax would be defeated by an overwhelming majority.
Part of me now wonders if Letwin comes out with this rubbish just so the party can rule it out int he misguided belief that'll be a net positive (it won't, for the same reason Ed's comments won't work: there is too much of an existing narrative).
Could be wrong though. There's not a lot to choose between Maude and Letwin at the best of time's.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/flat-tax-fat-chance-labour-oliver-letwin
You can add, letting a burglar into his house in the early hours of the morning, and attending a Sikh religious festival dressed like the Karsi of Kalabar.
It never ceases to amaze that this site remains obsessed with the most unreliable indicators of all - opinion polls...
The system is flawed as is all privatisation of monopolies IMHO
He replaced Aukinleck. Alexander replaced Wavell I think.
Montgomery in fact was concerned with conserving troops not wasting them, as we had relatively few. This was a big constraint.
There is no way you can attack without losing the lives of soldiers. A sad but simple fact. Whether by accident or design we drew most odf the german armour agianst us in normandy and facilitated Patton (who was well suited to the task) to break out.
What are your views on "Monte Casino" and the strategy we employed there?
The Coalition hasn't covered itself with glory on energy (hampered by the simpleton Davey) but is still a league better than Miliband's greenist zealotry.
If you believe an overall Tory majority is on the cards. Clearly lots of free money available on Betfair.
The system that allows private energy providers to generate soaring profits to obscene levels has to be addressed.
I do not expect the vested interests to like that but nevertheless it needs to happen.
The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution to sue President Barack Obama for allegedly exceeding his constitutional powers.
The 225-201 vote along party lines means House lawyers will now draft legal documents to launch a lawsuit.
A plan very seldom survives the first contact with the enemy.
My complaint is that in far to many cases, the "plan" looks very much like all the similar plans.
an advance in force against well organized defenses.
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2014/07/25/veg-on-show-at-allotment-court-case/
Probably too late to neutralize IMO
How can the NHS be a problem, the master plan of bottom up reorganization has fixed it?
Dave can show you the figures to prove it.
Unfortunately the top down reorganisation has tripled the numbers of hospitals in serious financial trouble in just 2 years.
I am sure Dave will find a dodgy stat to claim otherwise or tell us the 3rd world (Wales) is doing worse.
I have not used the NHS (touch wood) during the last 2 years, but I have heard a few grumbles about delayed operations from some people. But I guess that operation appointments have always been subject to cancellation.
14th in series (same as Broad)
The one that is hysterical, is the idea that people with mental health problems will have benefits cut if they do not participate in other forms of treatment.
Leaving aside the ethics of forcing treatment on individuals, at the moment, GP's are struggling to cope with the lack of even basic facilities for those that wish them, let alone trying to get the unwilling to attend.
Yes, Dave has assured us it is fixed, the GP's and their governing bodies seem to disagree.
The "plan" was that the GP's would do the commissioning of services, instead they are having to provide these services themselves.
The latest wheeze is to train the GP's in mental health care, which in itself is no bad idea, but it would appear that they will have to fit a psychiatric analysis inside the standard GP appointment times.
Could not bring myself to sign up to that.
Did make me wonder if Acute Trusts and GPs are both getting a smaller share of NHS budget. Where the hell is the money going.
Regulators seem to be well off with Monitor recording a 100% increase in expenditure.
Hanging onto the idea that the GP is an essential part of the Health Service may hold back development, positive outcomes and efficiency (ie speed of treatment) in the Health Service.
Ed Miliband? Not so much, given his lamentable previous stint in Government....
Tasked with generating massive profits rather than electricity i think.
This is also an issue for St Albans next door, which has a smaller non A&E hospital part of WHH trust. There is a significant strategic review of the health services requirements in West Herts which is due to report draft findings later this year.
This will be big issues locally for St Albans, Watford and Hemel Hempsted constituencies.
Even labour had to stuff their mouths with gold to get them to accept the NHS.
Figures today show the market has stalled, even in the hotspots. A gentle decline in the coming months might help the tories a bit.
Add 10 grand to a British person's house value and they'll carry on like nothing has happened.
Take 10 grand away and it's the Government's fault.
I suppose you could argue that Ed M has been quite smart, in a cynical sort of way, playing to this fantasy. It gives his supporters a straw to clutch on to.
The problem, of course, is that it is a straw which won't keep him afloat if, God forbid, he becomes PM.
Evil slum landlords
Newspaper proprietors
Banks that aren't the wonderful Coop
There are even opportunities for a similar peasants revolt in Watford,St Albans and Hemel Hempstead.That should put Pickles back in his jar.
Give peas a chance!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28527258 29 July 2014
I have no interest in getting into a p***ing contest, but for Labour to currently cling onto the hope that the NHS will bring victory next year is fraught with holes. But if you believe in this and the magic money tree, so be it. Let us all move on.
I think the people who own houses are on side with the tories.
Its the millions of workers who don;t Dave has to convince. And a 10 grand reduction might make a difference.Especially if wages start to rise at the same time.
A downshift would also puncture labour's''you're only ever a rent slave with the tories'' meme.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question so fully. I am not sure I agree with your analysis.
I have never been a fan of Montgomery but for reasons different to yours. Whilst I fully respect your grandfather's views, and I will have to go and read-up in the ninth armoured at Alamein, Montgomery was really a big battle sort of chap. Not for him the delicate rapier thrust and fancy tactic he wanted lots an lots of artillery and superiority of numbers to bludgeon the enemy. Auchinleck, who laid, the foundations for the victory at Alamein was sacked, if memory serves, because he refused to attack before he was ready. Montgomery replaced him and attacked at the same time the Awk wanted to.
Look too at Montgomery's battles in Normandy and especially Operation Varsity, the Rhine Crossing. Montgomery spent months of detailed planning and required huge numbers of troops and munitions for that battle. Not for him the wing and a prayer thrust of a single column on a fortuitously found weak-point that Patton used for the same objective. (by the way, it was not Patton that forced the break-out from Normandy, the hole was created by Bradley in Operation Cobra, Patton's third army was used to exploit it, anyway I digress). The main criticism then of Montgomery was that he was a plodder, a wielder of the bludgoen rather than the clever thrust. It is ironic that the only campaign in which he failed was when tried to be clever.
The question that brings us to is why was Montgomery so keen on careful detailed planning, why did he keep his subordinate commanders on such a tight leash, why did he want overwhelming numbers and firepower? The answer I think is to be found in the battles of Arras and Passchendale nearly thirty years earlier, when the young colonel Montgomery learned first hand what happened when generals lost control of the battles they were fighting. Yes in 1944/45 the UK and Canada were at the end of their manpower string, so lives could not be hazarded wastefully, but also I think that Montgomery was determined that no unnecessary slaughter of his men would ever occur.
What I think is beyond doubt is that, the opinion of your grandfather not withstanding, Montgomery was immensely popular amongst the troops and on the home front. Some of that was partly due to propaganda (spin doctors are not a wholly new phenomena), and some of it was due to the fact that he gave the Brits their first victory on land and therefore hope that the war would be won, part of it too was the feeling that he was not careless with the lives of his troops. I did his funeral in 1976 (my regiment was a descendant of his one before he went off to the Staff and we had to provide pall bearers, guards of honour and the like). Chatting to the WW2 vets that day and at the drinkies later, there is no doubt in my mind how much they held him in esteem.
Historians often get lost in their own narratives and revisions and sometimes forget to look at events form the eyes of people who lived through them. In military terms Haig is a good example, there are many who will tell you he was an incompetent butcher, a fool, blinkered, short-sighted who cared not a jot for his troops. Yet his funeral was massive and most of the hundreds of thousands lining the route were his veterans who thought of him very differently to the popular narrative of today.
One thing we tried in Notts which made sense to me - not sure if it's generally used - is to offer patients to be put on an opportunist list for not-very-urgent ops - the deal was that if a slot opened up they'd get an offer of an appointment at short notice, but they would accept that it might get cancelled again if there was a surge of emergencies.Anecdotally, lots of people felt this was a reasonable offer and put up with appointments appearing and vanishing if necessary with some stoicism, because in general they did get seen faster than people who insisted on greater certainty.
I've tried to make an estimate and was surprised at the answer.
However, a look at the outcome of French battles against the Prussians tells an interesting story:
Lutzen: 78,000 French beat 93,000 Prussians / Russians
Bautzen: 115,000 French beat 100,000 Prussians / Russians
Grossbeeren: 80,000 Prussians / Swedes beat 60,000 French
Katzbach: 114,000 Prussians / Russians beat 100,000 French
Dresden: 135,000 French beat 215,000 Pruss / Russ / Austrians
Kulm: 60,000 Pruss / Russ / Austr beat 32,000 French
Dennewitz: Pruss / Russ beat French; numbers, ??
Leipzig: 430,000 Allies beat 155,000 French (eventually)
Brienne: 30,000 French beat 30,000 Prussians
La Rothiere: 110,000 Prussians beat 40,000 French
Craonne: 37,000 French beat 85,000 Russians / Prussians
Laon: 90,000 Prussians beat 37,000 French
Rheims: 10,000 French beat 15,000 Prussians
Montmartre: 107,000 Allies beat 23,000 French
Ligny: 68,000 French beat 84,000 Prussians
Wavre: 33,000 French beat 18,000 Prussians
Waterloo: 120,000 Allies beat 72,000 French.
The facts are that the Prussians usually lost against the French unless they had a more effective ally on the field and / or very substantial numerical superiority; and that these were necessary but not sufficient conditions for their army to win, because even then they frequently lost.
It would be a different matter if they lost mainly when they had an ally. This would suggest that the difficulty of co-ordinating with another army made them less effective. One finds this with British armies in Spain, for example, where fighting alongside the Spanish proved to be pretty inadvisable.
We find the opposite, however; Prussians alone were more likely to get beaten than Prussians assisted by Russians, Swedes, Anglo-Netherlands, etc.
For example, the Tories fundamentally dislike the poorest in the country, who they see as the undeserving poor, so they have been wildly successful in making suffer them by increasing their taxes (via the VAT increase), cutting benefits and support structures that many rely on, and limiting their childrens access to further education through huge increases in tuition fees and removing EMA.
The reason the Conservative popular vote is holding up is because Tory-leaning voters have ghettoised themselves into narrow areas of the country, meaning they don't see the suffering this causes.
Of course, as a side-effect, this ghettoisation has also concentrated the Tory vote. They are racking up huge majorities in Tory heartlands. That is why the Tories were attempting to gerrymander the boundaries.
33-1 maybe ?
On the question of low wage growth, this is partly the result of Gordon Brown's strategic genius... The changes to single parent and disability benefits pushed through by Brown has increased the supply of labour and is suppressing wages (plus the level of immigration too, of course)... Add in the minimum wage acting as a signal to employers what to pay unskilled workers..
So, genius by Brown to act 10 years or more ahead to undermine Tory hopes in 2015... Tax credits are having an effect too but I haven't worked that one out yet....
The population of the UK continues to rise every year, that population is ageing (not least because of the success of the NHS), new drugs and treatments continue to be invented. In other words the demands and costs rise every year. However, the wealth of the nation does not. So a way forward has to be found to resolve this conundrum.
Might, I suggest that party politics is not the best method of finding that path. Furthermore, throwing ever larger proportions of the national income at it can at best be a stop gap. Surely this is the time and the subject to take Charles Clarke's ideas of "The Too Difficult Box" out of the cupboard.
If people sense that you don't like them or aren't interested in them, it's extraordinarily difficult to persuade them to vote for you.