Anyway, to wrap up as I have to go again, I agree with @Pulpstar that in the end it's the seats that would count. I think under the particular circumstances (ie that spread of seats) at the head of the post it's almost impossible to see how David Cameron could remain in office. Gordon Brown made himself even more hated by trying, something I would willingly have sworn was impossible, and since the only clearly viable government would be one led by Labour if not a full Lab/Lib coalition, I suspect Cameron would gracefully withdraw. As indeed did Baldwin in 1929. (Salisbury of course was ahead on seats in 1892, but as the Irish Nationalists were about as likely to back him as they were to campaign for reunion between Catholics and Presbyterians, that was rather irrelevant and he had to go.)
I fully accept that the people who were at Montgomery's funeral were a self-selecting sample and by definition that they were supportive on the old bugger. None the less I think their numbers were such as to present a majority view at the time (see also Haig's funeral).
War fighting incurs loss. I think the people who understand that most are the people that do the fighting. In WWI, the majority of those people, in the, British army, were conscripts. Yet there is no evidence that I am aware of that the the Army was less committed than that of 19114-16.
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with politics or betting, You can get me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com of you would like to continue the discussion further.
Mr. Llama, as arguably the most frequently off-topic chap here, nothing wrong with an interesting conversation (particularly a civil one) that doesn't adhere strictly to politics and betting.
Just think how diminished the site would be without my constant efforts to correct the errant thoughts of Mr. Eagles, or explain the wonder of differential front end grip.
In theory, you might expect the betting markets to be a more accurate predictor than the polls when the vote is some time away - because polls aren't predictions, just snapshots of opinion. A few academic types have tried to measure this sort of thing, but there isn't really enough evidence to come to a strong conclusion either way, in my opinion.
Bloomberg is reporting that Argentinian US dollar bonds are plummeting because it defaulted on its debt yet again. Negotiations with bond holders who actually wanted to get paid the full dollar have collapsed, by the look of it.
Markets rattled. Stocks down.
Nah, the MERV is just paring yesterday's gain on the hope of a deal. From what I can see it just looks like business as usual and markets are just waiting for a deal to be done.
Anyway, to wrap up as I have to go again, I agree with @Pulpstar that in the end it's the seats that would count. I think under the particular circumstances (ie that spread of seats) at the head of the post it's almost impossible to see how David Cameron could remain in office. Gordon Brown made himself even more hated by trying, something I would willingly have sworn was impossible, and since the only clearly viable government would be one led by Labour if not a full Lab/Lib coalition, I suspect Cameron would gracefully withdraw. As indeed did Baldwin in 1929. (Salisbury of course was ahead on seats in 1892, but as the Irish Nationalists were about as likely to back him as they were to campaign for reunion between Catholics and Presbyterians, that was rather irrelevant and he had to go.)
Looking at 1929 rather than 1924 makes alot more sense for your posts...
Precedents do form legal positions - why do you suppose lawyers cite them all the time? Once a precedent is set, it is followed. Silliest example imaginable, but constitutional protocol mandated for centuries that only the Royal Standard is flown above Buck House. When, in 1997, the Union flag was flown at half mast to commemorate a certain person, it set a precedent and now the Union flag flies when the Queen is not in residence. As with flags, so with Parliament. In 1660 a precedent was set that the King should be barred from entering the Commons by force if necessary after unfortunate incidents involving his father - and that's still in force to this day.
The Queen cannot, in theory or practice send for anyone who may form a government, only somebody who can form a government. The last time a commission on the Crown's initiative had to be declined was Bonar Law in 1916, because even he accepted Lloyd George was the clear choice to be PM.
I've already apologised for my silly blunder over 1970/74.
More errors.
There is a distinct difference between legal precedents that the courts acknowledge and a precedent within an unwritten constitution which carries weight but no definitive legal status.
The flying of the Royal Standard has nothing to do with constitutional protocol. It represents the presence of the monarch.
Finally I suggest you note the difference between "can" and "may" in the context of forming a government under the auspices of the Crown.
'Pundits are paid regardless of how right or wrong they are. It's more about attracting an audience for them than actually being correct' --- A very perceptive comment, Mr Morris Dancer.
'Pundits are paid regardless of how right or wrong they are. It's more about attracting an audience for them than actually being correct' --- A very perceptive comment, Mr Morris Dancer.
Does that make Dan Hodges and John Rentoul the equivalent of the lady with the Tarot cards at the Gypsy Fayre getting paid to talk claptrap about electoral fortunes ?
In F1, there's a line to be drawn between the wittering to fill space and insightful comments which can be provided, most typically by McNish and Coulthard (it was after a McNish comment I backed Perez for a podium in Bahrain, which came off).
Most seats don't necessarily lead to government. Labour formed a government in 1923, despite having 67 fewer seats than the Conservatives.
Baldwin was smart though. He knew that putting Labour in with fewer seats would pay dividends and it did - Resulted in the 1924 Conservatives landslide and the near obliteration of the Liberals
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Cameron had gone down that root in 2010. Tory landslide in 2011 after an economic meltdown?
Most seats don't necessarily lead to government. Labour formed a government in 1923, despite having 67 fewer seats than the Conservatives.
Baldwin was smart though. He knew that putting Labour in with fewer seats would pay dividends and it did - Resulted in the 1924 Conservatives landslide and the near obliteration of the Liberals
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Cameron had gone down that root in 2010. Tory landslide in 2011 after an economic meltdown?
We'll never know...
Baldwin wanted to stay in power, but lost a vote of confidence.
The sheer ineptitude of the Liberals in the 1923/24 Parliament was something he couldn't have counted on.
Just got stopped and searched at St Pancras International Station after arriving from the continent. Missed my train as a result.
Typical Blighty. No aggravation for two weeks in other countries and then the moment you arrive back in your own country you encounter the paranoia brigade.
Just got stopped and searched at St Pancras International Station after arriving from the continent. Missed my train as a result.
Typical Blighty. No aggravation for two weeks in other countries and then the moment you arrive back in your own country you encounter the paranoia brigade.
You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that:
Incidentally @HurstLlama, thanks for your detailed reply on my previous post. Absolutely my final word on the subject: I wonder whether those who turned up to Montgomery's funeral might have been the ones that liked him and perhaps that skewed the sample? I don't think too many survivors of 9th Armoured were there...but equally of course, my grandfather and his friends being my own source, that in itself is skewed! I got the feeling from my own reading that he was quite a polarising figure, but from what I know I would suggest he was disliked by a large section of his officer corps and by those men who liked their officers, which would not have been by any means all of them.
And of course he was popular at home - that's never been in dispute. But some right useless chancers have been popular at home due to propaganda (look at Zhukov, or Ulysses S. Grant, or for that matter George Washington) despite being unnecessarily brutal with their own men.
Ironically, given your reference to Haig, I've always thought of them as rather similar - possibly and indeed probably well-meaning, but too inclined to go for the grand gesture without getting all their support operations in order (we come back to 9th Armoured and Market Garden) and losing men needlessly as a result.
Your words show you don't know much about military history or military matters. Grant for instance was not a 'right useless chancer'. Your words are frankly imbecilic. Harsh words I admit but there is no other option open to me.
@HurstLlama Our last discussion contained your rebuttal of the German trench defensive by wittering on about the "slaughter of the innocents". Where the German Army conclusively proved that marching troops in close formation toward defensive positions, in the teeth of rapid fire (in this case rifles) was a mugs game. Our military geniuses were still trying the same tactic up till 10 minutes before the armistice.The first battle of Ypres, I forgot about it at the time because it was based on a myth, at least two thirds of the troops involved were regular or landwher, and they were singing as a form of recognition in the mist, the myth even gets the song wrong.
Utterly absurd. We were not trying the same tactics right up to the armistice. The British Army in particular evolved a whole series of sophisticated tactics involving all arms and significant innovations such as tanks machine gun tactics and the use of artillery.
Just got stopped and searched at St Pancras International Station after arriving from the continent. Missed my train as a result.
Typical Blighty. No aggravation for two weeks in other countries and then the moment you arrive back in your own country you encounter the paranoia brigade.
They didn't think you was bringing back Ebola did they?
Most seats don't necessarily lead to government. Labour formed a government in 1923, despite having 67 fewer seats than the Conservatives.
Baldwin was smart though. He knew that putting Labour in with fewer seats would pay dividends and it did - Resulted in the 1924 Conservatives landslide and the near obliteration of the Liberals
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Cameron had gone down that root in 2010. Tory landslide in 2011 after an economic meltdown?
We'll never know...
The sheer ineptitude of the Liberals in the 1923/24 Parliament was something he couldn't have counted on.
I was reading some Wiki pages about WW1 and the whole political situation from 1900's to 1920's and the conclusion I came to is that Asquith probably rates as the worst party leader and Prime Minister in history?
Most seats don't necessarily lead to government. Labour formed a government in 1923, despite having 67 fewer seats than the Conservatives.
Baldwin was smart though. He knew that putting Labour in with fewer seats would pay dividends and it did - Resulted in the 1924 Conservatives landslide and the near obliteration of the Liberals
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Cameron had gone down that root in 2010. Tory landslide in 2011 after an economic meltdown?
We'll never know...
The sheer ineptitude of the Liberals in the 1923/24 Parliament was something he couldn't have counted on.
I was reading some Wiki pages about WW1 and the whole political situation from 1900's to 1920's and the conclusion I came to is that Asquith probably rates as the worst party leader and Prime Minister in history?
You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer. This can happen if it is suspected that:
you’re in a specific location or area
Different provisions apply at the UK border, such as schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
@TheScreamingEagles Will you be leading the charge up Mount Tumbledown armed with a fruit knife having been transported there by Brittany Ferries? It may have escaped your notice, but we are in a worse position than when Maggie gave the order, and even then it was a "damned close run thing"
It was indeed a "damned close run thing", and I commend to you the book "Forgotten Voices of the Falklands" and to a lesser extent, "Don't Cry for Me Sergeant Major", which admirably illustrate just how close it was.
It is also true that the UK is wholly incapable of mounting a similar operation today, but then it will not need to. Argentina couldn't mount an invasion - their flagship (an ancient British Built Type 42 destroyer, sans all upgrades) sunk at its moorings a while back, FFS! . Probably the entire Argentine Air Force, well such of it that can actually take to the skies, could, without anyone breaking a sweat, be taken down by the half squadron of Typhoons that are stationed down there.
Of course, were Argentina able to put together a cunning plan to seize Mount Pleasant and so put troops on the ground then Cameron, or whoever the PM was at the time, would be destroyed - a bottle of whiskey and a revolver in the Library would be his best option. But that isn't likely.
If you want to worry about defence matters then think about the possibility of a freighter suddenly, and a out of a clear blue sky, exploding on the run into to Felixstowe.
Correct. But you forgot the nuclear submarine on station as well. There are 1200 military on duty and a Rapier missile system?
Just got stopped and searched at St Pancras International Station after arriving from the continent. Missed my train as a result.
Typical Blighty. No aggravation for two weeks in other countries and then the moment you arrive back in your own country you encounter the paranoia brigade.
My "favourite" stop and search was at Southampton Airport en route for Alderney some years ago. We were told to make sure everything in our cases could be seen, and in my case, all the Christmas presents for my elderly mother from us and from her grandchildren had to be unwrapped. Bloke behind me was furious; he had he said flown from Johannesburg, through three terminals; what the hell did security think was going to happen. Was it anticipated we'd hi-jack the plane and fly to France?
@Flightpath Yes, they did, but there were still commanders who (for a variety of reasons) were still trying the same routines. In one case apparently, because the idiot in charge fancied a bath and a comfortable bed, and assumed that the Germans would just surrender, it being so close to the armistice. "How the hell did that happen?" and 29 men dead and more wounded. Give it up? "BurstDrama" claiming that the British army were well equipped going into the Falklands? Granted the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor caused a lot of the glaring ones, but the amphibious combat force was due to be scrapped inside 8 weeks, if the Falklands war hadn't come along. Same old same old, they were scrabbling around for suitable equipment. In fact if you wanted to buy a green bergen from Blacks, you were out of luck, as the marines had bought up every one they could find.
One Nation Conference? Not for poor Labour members
You see for the unwaged, the carers, the disabled, the unemployed, the retired the cost to attend all 4 days at conference is £63. That is £1.65 more than my entire weeks carers allowance.
Most seats don't necessarily lead to government. Labour formed a government in 1923, despite having 67 fewer seats than the Conservatives.
Baldwin was smart though. He knew that putting Labour in with fewer seats would pay dividends and it did - Resulted in the 1924 Conservatives landslide and the near obliteration of the Liberals
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Cameron had gone down that root in 2010. Tory landslide in 2011 after an economic meltdown?
We'll never know...
The sheer ineptitude of the Liberals in the 1923/24 Parliament was something he couldn't have counted on.
I was reading some Wiki pages about WW1 and the whole political situation from 1900's to 1920's and the conclusion I came to is that Asquith probably rates as the worst party leader and Prime Minister in history?
No - that is Gordon Brown.
Bad as Gord was he did manage to avoid getting involved in a dubious World War and he also managed to avoid the complete destruction of his party.
That's probably the most positive thing I ever written on here about El Gord!
Britain's third party is looking forward to "crunch time" as it is poised to decide the make-up of the next Government.
However, while senior Conservatives described Mr Clegg's behaviour as "sordid", former Labour home secretary David Blunkett compared him with a "harlot".
"Can we trust the Liberal Democrats?" Mr Blunkett asked. "They’re behaving like every harlot in history."
Adding that the Conservatives were in a stronger position to form a stable Government, he urged his party's leadership to accept a period in opposition rather than an unworkable coalition.
"I don’t think it will bring stability, I think it will lead to a lack of legitimacy and I think it will make people think that we haven’t listened to them," he told the BBC.
That's a little harsh: the voters have certainly held the LibDems responsible
(as an aside, the most amusing use of that phrase I heard was when Eddie George wrote to congratulate my former economics tutor on his appointment to the MPC - and felt it was the most appropriate description of his new role!)
Interesting analysis, but I think it underestimates the momentum factor, which was relevant in 2010 - quite a few Labour MPs felt we couldn't really hang on to power after losing a lot of seats and the majority. On the figures shown by Mike, both the Tories and the LibDems would have lost a lot of seats, and it would really look like two losers clinging to power. I can't see the LibDems in particular buying it.
The problem with that logic Nick is that a Parliament like that could really only have a stable majority between the Lib Dems and Labour. So the Lib Dems get rejected by the voters (in terms of both seats and vote share) but then remain in office? That really could be wind up time for them.
My guess is that Labour would seek to have a minority government. As the man in position that would require more cooperation from Cameron than he got from Brown in 2010.
Suppose, we end up with Labour as the largest party but short of a majority. The Lib Dems are down to about 10% of the popular vote but hang on to enough seats to form a coalition with Labour. After the negotiations the SoS for Industry is Vince Cable, Laws retains his position at Education and Davey at energy and, worst of all, Clegg remains DPM.
One or all of those posts are plausible given a LabLib coalition. How do you think the public would react to that?
Who? Who?
(Note to TSE: this is the sort of occasion when long nineteenth century references are highly appropriate)
I also heard St. Helena is due to get an airstrip (from last night's commonwealth games). It occurred to me that might not be a total coincidence in this respect.
IIRC, that's coming out of DfID's budget.
Impressive how creative you can be when you try hard enough... ;-)
Betting as a predictor would work better if people didn't use betting as a wishing well.
(Good way to increase funding for the NHS would be stick a wishing well in hospital foyers.)
#
My take on Montgomery is he was overly cautious because of WWI experiences - which is fair enough imo.
I think being bold is better on balance but only if your general is substantially cleverer than the opposition. If not then playing safe is better.
#
I don't know what I think about WWI generals but tactics didn't stay exactly the same all the way through e.g. attempts at an airpower + tank blitzkrieg concept (admittedly with tanks that broke down all the time).
Most seats don't necessarily lead to government. Labour formed a government in 1923, despite having 67 fewer seats than the Conservatives.
Baldwin was smart though. He knew that putting Labour in with fewer seats would pay dividends and it did - Resulted in the 1924 Conservatives landslide and the near obliteration of the Liberals
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Cameron had gone down that root in 2010. Tory landslide in 2011 after an economic meltdown?
We'll never know...
The sheer ineptitude of the Liberals in the 1923/24 Parliament was something he couldn't have counted on.
I was reading some Wiki pages about WW1 and the whole political situation from 1900's to 1920's and the conclusion I came to is that Asquith probably rates as the worst party leader and Prime Minister in history?
No - that is Gordon Brown.
Bad as Gord was he did manage to avoid getting involved in a dubious World War and he also managed to avoid the complete destruction of his party.
That's probably the most positive thing I ever written on here about El Gord!
The Stranglers even wrote a song in his honour! (kidding!)
Mr. Jones, probably depends on technology as well. In the Hundred Years War, it's my understanding the advantage shifted from the besiegers to the besieged as new weapons/defences came into being.
Mr. Jones, probably depends on technology as well. In the Hundred Years War, it's my understanding the advantage shifted from the besiegers to the besieged as new weapons/defences came into being.
Yeah. I think that's the biggest point about WWI. Defensive technology took a sudden leap forward at just the wrong moment for a massive war.
Mr. Jones, probably depends on technology as well. In the Hundred Years War, it's my understanding the advantage shifted from the besiegers to the besieged as new weapons/defences came into being.
Yeah. I think that's the biggest point about WWI. Defensive technology took a sudden leap forward at just the wrong moment for a massive war.
Only if you consider developments over half a century as being sudden.
Once WWI kicked off there were all sorts of developments that came out of the pressure-cooker of war (as there were in WWII), but few, if any, could have been reasonably foreseen by the men who started the damn thing.
I was reading some Wiki pages about WW1 and the whole political situation from 1900's to 1920's and the conclusion I came to is that Asquith probably rates as the worst party leader and Prime Minister in history?
Mr. Jones, probably depends on technology as well. In the Hundred Years War, it's my understanding the advantage shifted from the besiegers to the besieged as new weapons/defences came into being.
Yeah. I think that's the biggest point about WWI. Defensive technology took a sudden leap forward at just the wrong moment for a massive war.
Only if you consider developments over half a century as being sudden.
Once WWI kicked off there were all sorts of developments that came out of the pressure-cooker of war (as there were in WWII), but few, if any, could have been reasonably foreseen by the men who started the damn thing.
"Only if you consider developments over half a century as being sudden."
yes
edit: It's like the science quote imo: "Science advances one funeral at a time."
@taffys " just as we are slashing our defence budget?" It's traditional. Before WW1 the Government had decided to let private companies supply the ammunition for the artillery. It made sound economic sense, except that when the shit hit the fan, they never geared up production till later, as the war would be over by Christmas, and they didn't want to have surplus stock left over.
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
For a different perspective it is worth reading Heinz Guderian's "Panzer Leader". Now this is a somewhat self-serving memoir however Guderian is seen as being the 'father' of Blitzkrieg and his views on 20th century military tactics should be listened to.. Blitzkrieg, he openly admits in Chapter 2 "The Creation of the German Armed Forces", as being borrowed from the British Army of WW1. Far from relying on outmoded tactics and dimwitted generals, the British Army of WW1 was arguably the most strategically and tactically revolutionary since the New Model Army, upon which it was, of course, based.
How many English seats for Labour with this result? That's the issue for Ed with a narrow victory. How can he run health, education etc in England with fewer seats and perhaps two million fewer votes in England? The West Lothian question still hasn't been answered and it's becoming more unfair by the year.
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
How can he run health, education etc in England with fewer seats and perhaps two million fewer votes in England?
Easy, votes at Westminster. The English want those things to be done in their parliament. If they wanted otherwise, you'd hear about it. But it's not clear that anyone apart from a couple of sub-UKIP gadflies cares about devolving any powers to England.
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
Dear God, Mr. B. of all the linguistic horrors the USA have dumped on us, surely there is none worse, none so least justified as "Airplane" . The word is "Aeroplane". Got that? Aeroplane, aeroplane, aeroplane, aeroplane, there is no letter "I" in the word but there is a primary "E" and an "O".
I know you have been over there for rather a long time, but there are limits.
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
In the Iliad Achilles says that he's off home, he has no quarrel with the Trojans who never stole his cattle or annexed his farmland. In a 19th c English translation this comes out as "Never drave they beeves of mine, nor clave the sod with alien plough".
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
Doesn't "beeves" refer to head of cattle?
That's what I was trying - obviously without success - to say
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
Dear God, Mr. B. of all the linguistic horrors the USA have dumped on us, surely there is none worse, none so least justified as "Airplane" . The word is "Aeroplane". Got that? Aeroplane, aeroplane, aeroplane, aeroplane, there is no letter "I" in the word but there is a primary "E" and an "O".
I know you have been over there for rather a long time, but there are limits.
When we moved back to the UK some 15 or so years ago, there was a discussion as to whether my daughter would call my wife mum or mom. Mom was the unanimous choice. Mum just seems so milquetoast somehow.
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
In the Iliad Achilles says that he's off home, he has no quarrel with the Trojans who never stole his cattle or annexed his farmland. In a 19th c English translation this comes out as "Never drave they beeves of mine, nor clave the sod with alien plough".
Other than spelling plow incorrectly, I always knew he was an All-American boy :-)
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
In the Iliad Achilles says that he's off home, he has no quarrel with the Trojans who never stole his cattle or annexed his farmland. In a 19th c English translation this comes out as "Never drave they beeves of mine, nor clave the sod with alien plough".
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
Dear God, Mr. B. of all the linguistic horrors the USA have dumped on us, surely there is none worse, none so least justified as "Airplane" . The word is "Aeroplane". Got that? Aeroplane, aeroplane, aeroplane, aeroplane, there is no letter "I" in the word but there is a primary "E" and an "O".
I know you have been over there for rather a long time, but there are limits.
Speaking of linguistic horrors, my favorite on that front is chaise lounge.
How can he run health, education etc in England with fewer seats and perhaps two million fewer votes in England?
Easy, votes at Westminster. The English want those things to be done in their parliament. If they wanted otherwise, you'd hear about it. But it's not clear that anyone apart from a couple of sub-UKIP gadflies cares about devolving any powers to England.
That's true so far but there has only been one or two minor policies forced through with Scots and Welsh votes (tuition fees is one I think). We're now talking about whole departments being run without a democratic mandate, for an entire parliament.
Besides, all the parties have committed to devolving income tax in the next parliament; if Scots votes raise English taxes all hell will break loose.
We deal with Americans quite a bit and our favourite Americanism is the term 'reach out' as in 'contact someone you don;t know who isn't expecting your call...
'I don;t deal with that sir, you need to reach out to (insert name) for that...'
Americans use the ancient past participle "gotten" and they never use "whilst", which they consider affected and anyway dates only from about the 14th century, while "while" pedates ad 900.
And they also tend to use the pronunciation CONtroversy, which is still considered by the Oxford English Dictionary to be preferred.
'Could care less' is the worst Americanism I've ever come across. First encountered it in Shadow Hearts: Covenant (Rasputin says it to Yuri) and thought I'd misheard, but the subtitles confirmed it. It sounds like an imbecile trying to be sarcastic.
It's also specifically criticised in Weird Al Yankovic's Word Crimes song, although I must admit (despite being occasionally a grammar Nazi) it's not my favourite of his.
Mr. Toms, 'gotten' can't be that ancient. I use it.
Mind you, I also use 'thou art' sometimes.
A friend of mine elsewhere shared a video about people in a certain part of America (Appalachian Mountains, I think) who used a particular sort of slang, and about half of it seemed to be old English terms.
Mr. Toms, 'gotten' can't be that ancient. I use it.
Mind you, I also use 'thou art' sometimes.
A friend of mine elsewhere shared a video about people in a certain part of America (Appalachian Mountains, I think) who used a particular sort of slang, and about half of it seemed to be old English terms.
Yorkshiremen (dwellers, persons?) merit special dispensations I feel. Oh b**ger: can somebody suggest how to turn "husbandry" into a unisex word?
Comments
PC gain Arfon ?
That gets to 14 !
It might be a touch optimistic on the Nats, but I've got cash on them picking up a few seats particularly from the Lib Dems.
I fully accept that the people who were at Montgomery's funeral were a self-selecting sample and by definition that they were supportive on the old bugger. None the less I think their numbers were such as to present a majority view at the time (see also Haig's funeral).
War fighting incurs loss. I think the people who understand that most are the people that do the fighting. In WWI, the majority of those people, in the, British army, were conscripts. Yet there is no evidence that I am aware of that the the Army was less committed than that of 19114-16.
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with politics or betting, You can get me on HurstLlama at gmail dot com of you would like to continue the discussion further.
Just think how diminished the site would be without my constant efforts to correct the errant thoughts of Mr. Eagles, or explain the wonder of differential front end grip.
The bookies (well, Ladbrokes) did quite well in the Euro elections.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/betting-markets-beat-pollsters-in-euro-elections/
In theory, you might expect the betting markets to be a more accurate predictor than the polls when the vote is some time away - because polls aren't predictions, just snapshots of opinion.
A few academic types have tried to measure this sort of thing, but there isn't really enough evidence to come to a strong conclusion either way, in my opinion.
You got the two mixed up I think
And indeed each time it seems it is the seats that count.
Pundits are paid regardless of how right or wrong they are. It's more about attracting an audience for them than actually being correct.
I do think there's an issue with having so many polls it can lead to polling affecting rather than reflecting public opinion.
There is a distinct difference between legal precedents that the courts acknowledge and a precedent within an unwritten constitution which carries weight but no definitive legal status.
The flying of the Royal Standard has nothing to do with constitutional protocol. It represents the presence of the monarch.
Finally I suggest you note the difference between "can" and "may" in the context of forming a government under the auspices of the Crown.
In F1, there's a line to be drawn between the wittering to fill space and insightful comments which can be provided, most typically by McNish and Coulthard (it was after a McNish comment I backed Perez for a podium in Bahrain, which came off).
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Cameron had gone down that root in 2010. Tory landslide in 2011 after an economic meltdown?
We'll never know...
The sheer ineptitude of the Liberals in the 1923/24 Parliament was something he couldn't have counted on.
Typical Blighty. No aggravation for two weeks in other countries and then the moment you arrive back in your own country you encounter the paranoia brigade.
you’re in a specific location or area
Con + 97
Lab - 90
LD -5
2015 ?
Con +/-10
Lab +30/15
LD - 15/-30
We were not trying the same tactics right up to the armistice. The British Army in particular evolved a whole series of sophisticated tactics involving all arms and significant innovations such as tanks machine gun tactics and the use of artillery.
Yes, they did, but there were still commanders who (for a variety of reasons) were still trying the same routines.
In one case apparently, because the idiot in charge fancied a bath and a comfortable bed, and assumed that the Germans would just surrender, it being so close to the armistice.
"How the hell did that happen?" and 29 men dead and more wounded.
Give it up?
"BurstDrama" claiming that the British army were well equipped going into the Falklands?
Granted the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor caused a lot of the glaring ones, but the amphibious combat force was due to be scrapped inside 8 weeks, if the Falklands war hadn't come along.
Same old same old, they were scrabbling around for suitable equipment.
In fact if you wanted to buy a green bergen from Blacks, you were out of luck, as the marines had bought up every one they could find.
You see for the unwaged, the carers, the disabled, the unemployed, the retired the cost to attend all 4 days at conference is £63. That is £1.65 more than my entire weeks carers allowance.
http://labourlist.org/2014/07/one-nation-conference-not-for-poor-labour-members/
That's probably the most positive thing I ever written on here about El Gord!
(as an aside, the most amusing use of that phrase I heard was when Eddie George wrote to congratulate my former economics tutor on his appointment to the MPC - and felt it was the most appropriate description of his new role!)
(Note to TSE: this is the sort of occasion when long nineteenth century references are highly appropriate)
Impressive how creative you can be when you try hard enough... ;-)
(Good way to increase funding for the NHS would be stick a wishing well in hospital foyers.)
#
My take on Montgomery is he was overly cautious because of WWI experiences - which is fair enough imo.
I think being bold is better on balance but only if your general is substantially cleverer than the opposition. If not then playing safe is better.
#
I don't know what I think about WWI generals but tactics didn't stay exactly the same all the way through e.g. attempts at an airpower + tank blitzkrieg concept (admittedly with tanks that broke down all the time).
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/cambrai.htm
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3897/dhm1555.jpg
Once WWI kicked off there were all sorts of developments that came out of the pressure-cooker of war (as there were in WWII), but few, if any, could have been reasonably foreseen by the men who started the damn thing.
yes
edit: It's like the science quote imo: "Science advances one funeral at a time."
The world is turning into a more unstable place, just as we are slashing our defence budget?
" just as we are slashing our defence budget?"
It's traditional. Before WW1 the Government had decided to let private companies supply the ammunition for the artillery.
It made sound economic sense, except that when the shit hit the fan, they never geared up production till later, as the war would be over by Christmas, and they didn't want to have surplus stock left over.
They could call it the Roublee.
SNP gains suppressing Lab?
Con +10, Lab +10, SNP +7, LD -27
Argyll & Bute, Gordon, Inverness Bairn & Strathspey; Ochil & South Perthshire and Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross ?
regarding Americanisms, my favorites are 'deplane' meaning disembark an airplane, and one from a book on The Alamo I read as a teenager, 'beeves', apparently the plural of beef.
For a different perspective it is worth reading Heinz Guderian's "Panzer Leader". Now this is a somewhat self-serving memoir however Guderian is seen as being the 'father' of Blitzkrieg and his views on 20th century military tactics should be listened to.. Blitzkrieg, he openly admits in Chapter 2 "The Creation of the German Armed Forces", as being borrowed from the British Army of WW1. Far from relying on outmoded tactics and dimwitted generals, the British Army of WW1 was arguably the most strategically and tactically revolutionary since the New Model Army, upon which it was, of course, based.
I know you have been over there for rather a long time, but there are limits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq-uMIZGETs
That's true so far but there has only been one or two minor policies forced through with Scots and Welsh votes (tuition fees is one I think). We're now talking about whole departments being run without a democratic mandate, for an entire parliament.
Besides, all the parties have committed to devolving income tax in the next parliament; if Scots votes raise English taxes all hell will break loose.
'I don;t deal with that sir, you need to reach out to (insert name) for that...'
And they also tend to use the pronunciation CONtroversy, which is still considered by the Oxford English Dictionary to be preferred.
'Could care less' is the worst Americanism I've ever come across. First encountered it in Shadow Hearts: Covenant (Rasputin says it to Yuri) and thought I'd misheard, but the subtitles confirmed it. It sounds like an imbecile trying to be sarcastic.
It's also specifically criticised in Weird Al Yankovic's Word Crimes song, although I must admit (despite being occasionally a grammar Nazi) it's not my favourite of his.
Mind you, I also use 'thou art' sometimes.
A friend of mine elsewhere shared a video about people in a certain part of America (Appalachian Mountains, I think) who used a particular sort of slang, and about half of it seemed to be old English terms.