Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
That is a misleading statement, Mr. Eagles, as I suspect you are well aware. Re-offending ates are awful for all sorts punishments for the same type of crime. Prison is not particularly worse than community service, fines or anything else.
The other thing is that for most common criminals by the time the get a custodial sentence they have a list of convictions/cautions as long as your arm and are living a criminal lifestyle. One of the reasons short sentences do not work. I sometimes think that reversing the order of punishments might be more effective at preventing re-offending. That is to say bang 'em up in some Victorian shithole for the first offence and if they still come back for more then look at social interventions.
Where prison definitely works is by stopping prolific offenders offending, at least offending against the law-abiding majority. If Billy the Burglar is doing three years in a closed prison then there is good chance that for three years he won't be burgling peoples houses.
TSE makes the killer point that parties don't pick the same leader twice. Very often a party which has had one leader for a long time go for someone who is, if not politically than socially and culturally the polar opposite.
Thus Thatcher begat Major and Blair begat Brown and Ashdown begat Kennedy. All completely different personalities and styles. To imagine Johnson following Cameron is to see someone repeating themselves. The next Conservative leader will be the social and personality antithesis of Cameron even if their politics are similar.
I think that's putting it far too strongly. Certainly there's a tendency, other things being equal, towards the thin-pop-fat-pope principle but it's no more than that.
To follow up on two of the examples, yes, Major was chosen because he was seen as the opposite to Thatcher in terms of character and personality but also because he was the closest to a continuity candidate as a Thatcherite. Brown was Blair's successor even before Blair became leader and no other alternative was available, so policy and personality don't come into it.
There are plenty of counter-examples of similar successions, Brown to Ed Miliband being just the most recent.
In any case, I'm not convinced that Boris is all that much the same as Cameron. True, they share an Etonian background but beyond that their leadership and political styles are quite different and that's more important. I've no doubt that the three people who read The Guardian would get enormously het up were one Old Etonian to succeed another as leader of the Tory party and they'd write all sorts of silly articles about the rest 'need not apply'. The rest of the country, on the other hand, would carry on as normal.
Could Boris be leader of the opposition and London Mayor from say September 2015 to May 2016?
Or would he had to give up the Mayoralty a few months early?
What we have to keep in mind is that if Cameron does get booted out next year, Osborne is finished with him - Both their fate's are inextricably linked.
In that case the leadership battle opens up for Boris and probably Theresa,
Don't write off Phil Hammond (an outer from the EU), Sajid Javid or Jeremy Hunt.
It depends when the leadership contest is.
If Cameron is out in 2015 then Osborne goes with him. In which case the Tories will be looking for a "big hittter" to try and get them back into government as quickly as possible.
In that situation I can't see beyond Boris and possibly Theresa. Hammond isn't well known enough. Javid not senior enough. Etc...
If Cameron win's and stands down in 2017 or 2018 then you have to say Osborne will be favourite. Boris will be in with a chance, but probably not that great. Theresa's time may have come and gone. But no doubt there will be opportunities for people like Hammond, Javid and possibly even two or three others that aren't really on the radar right now.
Boris's best chance of becoming leader is in the event of Cameron losing in 2015, that's why he needs to be in Parliament in case it happens. After 2015 things get much more complicated for him, IMO.
It is a shame that the debate seems to have been won or lost on the essentially negative tactic of threatening the Scots with taking away the pound, and what would you do instead.
I don't believe this would happen for a moment. UK business would be up in arms about anything that made doing business more expensive across fUK. This is essentially an empty threat on the part of better together. In the event of a 'yes' there will be a humiliating u-turn from Osborne, Cameron and co.
Personally, I hope for a 'no' vote, but I am left in no doubt that Salmond has won the campaign.
The pound question (and I think all three rUK parties are serious about no fiscal union without political union) does cast a light on Salmonds plans generally.
It exposes his bluster and lack of strategic planning, and most of all it exposes him as a man unwilling to be honest with the Scottish Electorate concerning the most important vote of their lives.
In that great political cliche: Would you buy a used car off this man?
Lucky all you experts are here to help him. What a bunch of fools there are on here, you claim to be educated but are so stupid that you think he has not thought through clearly on the currency. I sincerely hope you are never treating me or I will be in a box for sure.
If Salmond has a clear plan B, then why not trust the Electorate with it?
And of course my politics are quite separate from my medical skills!
He is not going to show his negotiating position at this stage. There was never any chance he can deviate from CU, he needs to keep all his options open. When they are down to negotiations it will be CU or no debt and then and if UK choose to cut off their nose to spite their face then it can be own currency and debt free. Only a fool would think that he has not considered every possible option on currency.
Then he should have crafted an answer along those lines... Instead he just looked evasive and flapping.
But he can't - he knows if he peddles the no debt line he'll be crucified by the markets - and EU membership will disappear into the very long grass.....
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Andy Cooke did a good article a while back about crime began declining within a couple of years of Michael Howard's decision to lock up more criminals.
Prison doesn't work, in the sense of making people better. It does, however, take a lot of anti-social people out of circulation, until they reach an age when crime doesn't seem so appealing.
Boris says he will in all probability try and stand for parliament in 2015
I'm not surprised. Boris is seemingly reneging on a commitment made during the 2012 Mayoral campaign that he would not seek a return to Westminster during his term.
He will of course (and rightly) use the point that Ken Livingstone remained MP for Brent from 2000 to 2001 so the two jobs aren't incompatible for a short timescale though some in London might argue otherwise and of course Boris stood down as MP for Henley in 2008 to run as London Mayor so if he couldn't do the two jobs then, how come he can do them now ?
Boris is also of course leaving the door open (if he can't find a seat or he doesn't get elected) to running for a third term as Mayor but it seems probable that, if elected, he would be out of the running. Current polls show a swing to Labour in London of some 4.5% which might be enough to topple 6-8 Conservatives but the outer seats (Uxbridge, Ruislip perhaps) would be quite safe.
Boris would likely get a personal vote in any London constituency which he stood for.
Mr. T, an interesting post but one I disagree with.
The Holocaust will remain firmly in the public consciousness because the Nazis perpetrated it. Many wars have been fought for power, over cockups and for other petty reasons. WWII was genuinely a fight for survival not only of ourselves, but others, and of democracy against tyranny. It's comparable with the Greek victories over Xerxes in that regard.
On crime and punishment: the reoffending rate of those subject to space cannon justice is 0%.
Re the Tory leadership election, I cant see the Parliamentary party going for someone from the 2010 intake simply because that would mean a huge proportion of them voting to effectively bypass themselves and their generation. I cant see past Osborne (who I think is much better placed now than I used to think) V May (better chance if the election is in 2015 but formidable in any case) V Johnson (surely not...?).
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
Pop quiz hot shot.
What do studies and stats across the world show
1) Those given non custodial sentences have a lower re-offending rate
or
2) Those given custodial sentences have a higher re-offending rate
I'll give you a clue, it's 1)
Oh dear, such smart arsery
You side with Owen Jones and the excuse makers, I'll stay with those who don't knowingly break the law
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
That is a misleading statement, Mr. Eagles, as I suspect you are well aware. Re-offending ates are awful for all sorts punishments for the same type of crime. Prison is not particularly worse than community service, fines or anything else.
The other thing is that for most common criminals by the time the get a custodial sentence they have a list of convictions/cautions as long as your arm and are living a criminal lifestyle. One of the reasons short sentences do not work. I sometimes think that reversing the order of punishments might be more effective at preventing re-offending. That is to say bang 'em up in some Victorian shithole for the first offence and if they still come back for more then look at social interventions.
Where prison definitely works is by stopping prolific offenders offending, at least offending against the law-abiding majority. If Billy the Burglar is doing three years in a closed prison then there is good chance that for three years he won't be burgling peoples houses.
When it comes to this topic, I'm like Scipio Africanus/Norman Schwarzkopf/James T Kirk.
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
Pop quiz hot shot.
What do studies and stats across the world show
1) Those given non custodial sentences have a lower re-offending rate
or
2) Those given custodial sentences have a higher re-offending rate
I'll give you a clue, it's 1)
Oh dear, such smart arsery
You side with Owen Jones and the excuse makers, I'll stay with those who don't knowingly break the law
It would have been easier if you'd just typed "yes, TSE you were right, and I was wrong"
I'm trying to reduce the victims of future crimes, you just want vengeance.
Re the Tory leadership election, I cant see the Parliamentary party going for someone from the 2010 intake simply because that would mean a huge proportion of them voting to effectively bypass themselves and their generation. I cant see past Osborne (who I think is much better placed now than I used to think) V May (better chance if the election is in 2015 but formidable in any case) V Johnson (surely not...?).
George Osborne's master strategy is bearing fruit for the economy, the Tory party and his leadership ambitions.
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Andy Cooke did a good article a while back about crime began declining within a couple of years of Michael Howard's decision to lock up more criminals.
Prison doesn't work, in the sense of making people better. It does, however, take a lot of anti-social people out of circulation, until they reach an age when crime doesn't seem so appealing.
Do you have a link?
No. I imagine it would be archived. Probably three to four years ago.
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Andy Cooke did a good article a while back about crime began declining within a couple of years of Michael Howard's decision to lock up more criminals.
Prison doesn't work, in the sense of making people better. It does, however, take a lot of anti-social people out of circulation, until they reach an age when crime doesn't seem so appealing.
Do you have a link?
No. I imagine it would be archived. Probably three to four years ago.
It's an excellent post. One difference, however, remains and will remain the existence of film footage of the more recent world wars. Even so, they too give both distance as well as immediacy: when you see so many reconstructions and re-enactments, how much more value can be placed on footage of the real thing when the people in the pictures are anonymous or famous only as historical characters, whose story and endings are well-known?
For a long time, I've thought that WWs 1 and 2 should really be numbered '4' and '5', after the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars, all of which were world wars as much as WWI was - yet the first two are largely unknown in Britain and the Napoleonic conflict known only through the eyes of Wellington and Nelson.
So yes, they will be not forgotten, but filed away in the history of 'horrible things that happened a long time ago when the world was a different place'.
Re the Tory leadership election, I cant see the Parliamentary party going for someone from the 2010 intake simply because that would mean a huge proportion of them voting to effectively bypass themselves and their generation. I cant see past Osborne (who I think is much better placed now than I used to think) V May (better chance if the election is in 2015 but formidable in any case) V Johnson (surely not...?).
George Osborne's master strategy is bearing fruit for the economy, the Tory party and his leadership ambitions.
Huzzah for George.
That as may be, but if he and Cameron aren't capable of translating that strategy into victory in 2015 (or at least another coalition) then he'll be out on his arse like Cameron.
Personally I still think it play's out thus:
May 2015 - Con largest party, most seat's, another coalition.
We have the EU referendum which results in us staying in.
Cameron quits in 2017 or 2018 and Osborne takes over.
Osborne proves about as popular as El Gord and takes the Tories to a heavy defeat in 2020.
The Tories move on to one of the 2010 intake in 2020 - Boris never becomes leader.
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
Pop quiz hot shot.
What do studies and stats across the world show
1) Those given non custodial sentences have a lower re-offending rate
or
2) Those given custodial sentences have a higher re-offending rate
I'll give you a clue, it's 1)
People who get an immediate custodial sentence are likely to be those who have already re-offended, often on multiple occasions. People don't get sent to jail the first time they get caught shop-lifting, or burgaling, or buying stolen goods, unless they're very unlucky. People who get sent to jail for such things are generally imprisoned once every alternative (cautions, fines, supervision orders, suspended prison sentences) has been tried. If someone is a repeat offender, taking them out of circulation is probably the best solution (unless one opts for more traditional punishments)
Generally, you have to do something pretty brutal, or else carry out a fraud in a position of trust, to get sent to prison for your first offence.
David Herdson - the 3 people who read the Guardian?????? You mean the 3 who buy it surely. It's one of the world's most popular newspaper websites. Many of those readers will be from outside the UK, but it's domestic influence should not be dismissed.
Cameron suffers because he is seen as out of touch with ordinary people. Boris would have a similar problem. I'm surprised you don't think so.
Mr. T, an interesting post but one I disagree with.
The Holocaust will remain firmly in the public consciousness because the Nazis perpetrated it. Many wars have been fought for power, over cockups and for other petty reasons. WWII was genuinely a fight for survival not only of ourselves, but others, and of democracy against tyranny. It's comparable with the Greek victories over Xerxes in that regard.
On crime and punishment: the reoffending rate of those subject to space cannon justice is 0%.
No, we will forget, because in the end we forget everything. Do you think there will be huge services and rituals in 2114 for the bicentenary of the Great War? No. We will note it, but the resonance will have gone for good.
Ditto the Nazi war and the Holocaust, no matter how incredible it seems to us, these will fade, and lose their emotional power. More recent enormities and atrocities will intervene and overshadow.
Indeed, as I say in the piece, you can already see the first hints of this - in the way that hotel got built in Berchtesgaden. We are beginning to let go.
I agree. We can read about Timur, Genghis Khan., the Heavenly King etc. leaving pyramids of skulls in their wake and think "how awful", but these things no longer have any emotional resonance.
David Herdson - the 3 people who read the Guardian?????? You mean the 3 who buy it surely. It's one of the world's most popular newspaper websites. Many of those readers will be from outside the UK, but it's domestic influence should not be dismissed.
Cameron suffers because he is seen as out of touch with ordinary people. Boris would have a similar problem. I'm surprised you don't think so.
So big a problem he trounced Ken twice.
It is not the same problem for Boris as it is for Dave as Boris communicates on a different wavelength.
Cameron suffers because he is seen as out of touch with ordinary people. Boris would have a similar problem. I'm surprised you don't think so.
Maybe, but right now there's no getting away from the fact that Boris is one of the most popular and successful Conservative politicians in modern times and just for that alone he will be in with a good chance of the leadership should the position become vacant next year.
Remember that Milliband will almost certainly become extraordinarily unpopular very rapidly should he get into Downing Street next year, so the popularity of Boris versus the unpopularity of Ed could make for an "interesting" dynamic. Not that I think it will happen.
Re the Tory leadership election, I cant see the Parliamentary party going for someone from the 2010 intake simply because that would mean a huge proportion of them voting to effectively bypass themselves and their generation. I cant see past Osborne (who I think is much better placed now than I used to think) V May (better chance if the election is in 2015 but formidable in any case) V Johnson (surely not...?).
George Osborne's master strategy is bearing fruit for the economy, the Tory party and his leadership ambitions.
Huzzah for George.
That as may be, but if he and Cameron aren't capable of translating that strategy into victory in 2015 (or at least another coalition) then he'll be out on his arse like Cameron.
Personally I still think it play's out thus:
May 2015 - Con largest party, most seat's, another coalition.
We have the EU referendum which results in us staying in.
Cameron quits in 2017 or 2018 and Osborne takes over.
Osborne proves about as popular as El Gord and takes the Tories to a heavy defeat in 2020.
The Tories move on to one of the 2010 intake in 2020 - Boris never becomes leader.
Patience.
The Tories have overhauled Labour's leads of 12% from 18-24 months ago, down to on average 2-3% and they lead with the Gold Standard.
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
Pop quiz hot shot.
What do studies and stats across the world show
1) Those given non custodial sentences have a lower re-offending rate
or
2) Those given custodial sentences have a higher re-offending rate
I'll give you a clue, it's 1)
Oh dear, such smart arsery
You side with Owen Jones and the excuse makers, I'll stay with those who don't knowingly break the law
It would have been easier if you'd just typed "yes, TSE you were right, and I was wrong"
I'm trying to reduce the victims of future crimes, you just want vengeance.
Don't tell me what I do or don't want
I think you are very wrong that's what I think
Bleeding hearts should watch this from 13:07 and then think about who's side they're on
Hammond's another matter. And don't forget future Prime Minister Justine Greening, or Priti Patel.
I've had a small wager on May for sometime, but have had some doubts recently that she'll get on the ballot. She doesn't work the tea-rooms.
Ms May is the only candidate for the Tory leadership to have had her "Thatcher Moment" when she utterly humiliated the coppers' union.This association is a huge advantage within the collective psyche of the Tory party.Neither Osborne or Johnson can match it. My outside wager on Owen Paterson could pay off as a trade.He is just the sort of wild card who would attract the Countryside Alliance types and form a right-wing bloc,which all 3 main candidates would need to swing over in the 2nd ballot.
People who get an immediate custodial sentence are likely to be those who have already re-offended, often on multiple occasions. People don't get sent to jail the first time they get caught shop-lifting, or burgaling, or buying stolen goods, unless they're very unlucky. People who get sent to jail for such things are generally imprisoned once every alternative (cautions, fines, supervision orders, suspended prison sentences) has been tried. If someone is a repeat offender, taking them out of circulation is probably the best solution (unless one opts for more traditional punishments)
Generally, you have to do something pretty brutal, or else carry out a fraud in a position of trust, to get sent to prison for your first offence.
Not really, to take two recent examples, Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce
Mr. T, an interesting post but one I disagree with.
The Holocaust will remain firmly in the public consciousness because the Nazis perpetrated it. Many wars have been fought for power, over cockups and for other petty reasons. WWII was genuinely a fight for survival not only of ourselves, but others, and of democracy against tyranny. It's comparable with the Greek victories over Xerxes in that regard.
On crime and punishment: the reoffending rate of those subject to space cannon justice is 0%.
No, we will forget, because in the end we forget everything. Do you think there will be huge services and rituals in 2114 for the bicentenary of the Great War? No. We will note it, but the resonance will have gone for good.
Ditto the Nazi war and the Holocaust, no matter how incredible it seems to us, these will fade, and lose their emotional power. More recent enormities and atrocities will intervene and overshadow.
Indeed, as I say in the piece, you can already see the first hints of this - in the way that hotel got built in Berchtesgaden. We are beginning to let go.
I agree. We can read about Timur, Genghis Khan., the Heavenly King etc. leaving pyramids of skulls in their wake and think "how awful", but these things no longer have any emotional resonance.
Yes we even forget 'holocausts' in our own country over time . Not many people in this country (as a percentage) would know what ' the harrying of the north' was let alone feel emotional about it
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
Pop quiz hot shot.
What do studies and stats across the world show
1) Those given non custodial sentences have a lower re-offending rate
or
2) Those given custodial sentences have a higher re-offending rate
I'll give you a clue, it's 1)
Oh dear, such smart arsery
You side with Owen Jones and the excuse makers, I'll stay with those who don't knowingly break the law
It would have been easier if you'd just typed "yes, TSE you were right, and I was wrong"
I'm trying to reduce the victims of future crimes, you just want vengeance.
Don't tell me what I do or don't want
I think you are very wrong that's what I think
Bleeding hearts should watch this from 13:07 and then think about who's side they're on
"Unbelievable as it may seem, Boris Johnson has a real chance of being elected London mayor today. Zoe Williams and other Londoners imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal capital"
"Vivienne Westwood Fashion designer
"Boris as mayor? Unthinkable. It just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don't vote for Ken - he's the best thing in politics. Unthinkable.""
"Arabella Weir Actor and writer
"I will go on hunger strike and throw myself in front of the next horse at Ascot if he wins"
"Diana Melly Writer
If Boris were to become mayor I think I might leave London, except I have no idea where I might go. Running London is an incredibly difficult job, and it seems blindingly obvious that one doesn't want a comedian doing it ·"
People who get an immediate custodial sentence are likely to be those who have already re-offended, often on multiple occasions. People don't get sent to jail the first time they get caught shop-lifting, or burgaling, or buying stolen goods, unless they're very unlucky. People who get sent to jail for such things are generally imprisoned once every alternative (cautions, fines, supervision orders, suspended prison sentences) has been tried. If someone is a repeat offender, taking them out of circulation is probably the best solution (unless one opts for more traditional punishments)
Generally, you have to do something pretty brutal, or else carry out a fraud in a position of trust, to get sent to prison for your first offence.
Not really, to take two recent examples, Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce
Perverting the course of justice and/or perjury are inevitably matters that the judiciary will take seriously. They aren't quite the same thing as fraud, but certainly come close to my comment about fraud by people in positions of trust.
Mr. T, an interesting post but one I disagree with.
The Holocaust will remain firmly in the public consciousness because the Nazis perpetrated it. Many wars have been fought for power, over cockups and for other petty reasons. WWII was genuinely a fight for survival not only of ourselves, but others, and of democracy against tyranny. It's comparable with the Greek victories over Xerxes in that regard.
On crime and punishment: the reoffending rate of those subject to space cannon justice is 0%.
No, we will forget, because in the end we forget everything. Do you think there will be huge services and rituals in 2114 for the bicentenary of the Great War? No. We will note it, but the resonance will have gone for good.
Ditto the Nazi war and the Holocaust, no matter how incredible it seems to us, these will fade, and lose their emotional power. More recent enormities and atrocities will intervene and overshadow.
Indeed, as I say in the piece, you can already see the first hints of this - in the way that hotel got built in Berchtesgaden. We are beginning to let go.
I agree. We can read about Timur, Genghis Khan., the Heavenly King etc. leaving pyramids of skulls in their wake and think "how awful", but these things no longer have any emotional resonance.
Yes we even forget 'holocausts' in our own country over time . Not many people in this country (as a percentage) would know what ' the harrying of the north' was let alone feel emotional about it
We even forgot over the relatively short time of 500 years where a king was buried FGS and tarmacked him over to make a car park!!
Surely the awful conditions in these prisons should be publicised and act as a deterrent for people who are considering breaking the law?
Prisons are making things worse, look at the re-offending rates.
Well the re offending rates are only significant when compared to how many offences would be committed if there were less prison wouldn't they? How do you know it would be better if we let people off?
Pop quiz hot shot.
What do studies and stats across the world show
1) Those given non custodial sentences have a lower re-offending rate
or
2) Those given custodial sentences have a higher re-offending rate
I'll give you a clue, it's 1)
Oh dear, such smart arsery
You side with Owen Jones and the excuse makers, I'll stay with those who don't knowingly break the law
It would have been easier if you'd just typed "yes, TSE you were right, and I was wrong"
I'm trying to reduce the victims of future crimes, you just want vengeance.
Don't tell me what I do or don't want
I think you are very wrong that's what I think
Bleeding hearts should watch this from 13:07 and then think about who's side they're on
Mr. T, disagree. It's not because of the carnage we'll remember, but because the enemy were as close to a uniformed embodiment of evil as is possible (the Caliphate is the closest modern equivalent, but we aren't in a war for survival with them).
That not only makes the enemy memorable but makes us feel great about both fighting and defeating them. It's good for the national psyche, and people like feeling proud of such things.
Mr. F, the Heavenly King? The only chap who springs to mind is Chao... someone, the temporary leader of the Outlaws of the Marsh, but I'm sure that's not who you're referring to.
Also, Tamerlane and Khan won. And they didn't fight us. And neither were pure evil [different moral standards applied so many centuries ago].
"Unbelievable as it may seem, Boris Johnson has a real chance of being elected London mayor today. Zoe Williams and other Londoners imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal capital"
"Vivienne Westwood Fashion designer
"Boris as mayor? Unthinkable. It just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don't vote for Ken - he's the best thing in politics. Unthinkable.""
"Arabella Weir Actor and writer
"I will go on hunger strike and throw myself in front of the next horse at Ascot if he wins"
"Diana Melly Writer
If Boris were to become mayor I think I might leave London, except I have no idea where I might go. Running London is an incredibly difficult job, and it seems blindingly obvious that one doesn't want a comedian doing it ·"
ETC ETC ETC
As so often with Comment is Free, it's difficult to tell what is meant seriously, and what is a parody.
Mr. T, an interesting post but one I disagree with.
The Holocaust will remain firmly in the public consciousness because the Nazis perpetrated it. Many wars have been fought for power, over cockups and for other petty reasons. WWII was genuinely a fight for survival not only of ourselves, but others, and of democracy against tyranny. It's comparable with the Greek victories over Xerxes in that regard.
On crime and punishment: the reoffending rate of those subject to space cannon justice is 0%.
No, we will forget, because in the end we forget everything. Do you think there will be huge services and rituals in 2114 for the bicentenary of the Great War? No. We will note it, but the resonance will have gone for good.
Ditto the Nazi war and the Holocaust, no matter how incredible it seems to us, these will fade, and lose their emotional power. More recent enormities and atrocities will intervene and overshadow.
Indeed, as I say in the piece, you can already see the first hints of this - in the way that hotel got built in Berchtesgaden. We are beginning to let go.
I agree. We can read about Timur, Genghis Khan., the Heavenly King etc. leaving pyramids of skulls in their wake and think "how awful", but these things no longer have any emotional resonance.
Even today we have people leaving school thinking Stalin was one of the good guys.
"Unbelievable as it may seem, Boris Johnson has a real chance of being elected London mayor today. Zoe Williams and other Londoners imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal capital"
"Vivienne Westwood Fashion designer
"Boris as mayor? Unthinkable. It just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don't vote for Ken - he's the best thing in politics. Unthinkable.""
"Arabella Weir Actor and writer
"I will go on hunger strike and throw myself in front of the next horse at Ascot if he wins"
"Diana Melly Writer
If Boris were to become mayor I think I might leave London, except I have no idea where I might go. Running London is an incredibly difficult job, and it seems blindingly obvious that one doesn't want a comedian doing it ·"
Not sure the Yes camp should be clinging so tightly to Salmond winning yesterday's debate among the undecided. Surely the fact that they remain undecided is the key point here. He did not do enough to push them into the Yes camp. And that's what he needs to do.
Not sure the Yes camp should be clinging so tightly to Salmond winning yesterday's debate among the undecided. Surely the fact that they remain undecided is the key point here.
Wasnt the statistic they quote the %age of people who were undecided at the start of the debate?
It's an excellent post. One difference, however, remains and will remain the existence of film footage of the more recent world wars. Even so, they too give both distance as well as immediacy: when you see so many reconstructions and re-enactments, how much more value can be placed on footage of the real thing when the people in the pictures are anonymous or famous only as historical characters, whose story and endings are well-known?
For a long time, I've thought that WWs 1 and 2 should really be numbered '4' and '5', after the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars, all of which were world wars as much as WWI was - yet the first two are largely unknown in Britain and the Napoleonic conflict known only through the eyes of Wellington and Nelson.
So yes, they will be not forgotten, but filed away in the history of 'horrible things that happened a long time ago when the world was a different place'.
Surely one significant difference between wars before 20th Century and the two big ones in it was that those two were fought by armies composed of soldiers (etc) of conscripts. Very few countries had the sort of universal conscription seen in WWI & II earlier.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
Mr. T, disagree. It's not because of the carnage we'll remember, but because the enemy were as close to a uniformed embodiment of evil as is possible (the Caliphate is the closest modern equivalent, but we aren't in a war for survival with them).
That not only makes the enemy memorable but makes us feel great about both fighting and defeating them. It's good for the national psyche, and people like feeling proud of such things.
Mr. F, the Heavenly King? The only chap who springs to mind is Chao... someone, the temporary leader of the Outlaws of the Marsh, but I'm sure that's not who you're referring to.
Also, Tamerlane and Khan won. And they didn't fight us. And neither were pure evil [different moral standards applied so many centuries ago].
The Heavenly King was the leader of the Taiping Rebellion in mid 19th century China.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
Not sure the Yes camp should be clinging so tightly to Salmond winning yesterday's debate among the undecided. Surely the fact that they remain undecided is the key point here.
Wasnt the statistic they quote the %age of people who were undecided at the start of the debate?
I am not sure. But overall support for Yes did not move from before to after.
MANY APOLOGIES TO PB-ERS. IF YOU ARE NOT SeanT OR DO NOT LIVE IN PRIMROSE HILL PLEASE SKIP THIS POST.
So to your post, Sean. Both bored by this I suspect; I will probably limit my responses to this topic after this (and after your acute, incisive and no doubt insulting response to it).
"perhaps you could give us a "politically correct" verbal formulation for describing the unusually effective lobbing by wealthy American Jews in Washington."
First off - the Jews are powerless. Some of them have some money (far, far less than their "enemies") but they have no power (outside Israel). They never have had.
They were powerless in 1182 and 1290 and 1492 and 1821 and 1905 and 1917 and 1939 and 1948 and...now. The Rothschilds famously financed some British wars (bizarrely because Napoleon brought significant benefits to the Jews in Europe), illustrating perhaps that it was the Rothschilds and not the Jews that the Rothschilds were seeking to advance.
Most recently, neither with the Bushes nor Clinton nor for sure Obama did they wield any kind of "power". What did happen, of course, was the proxy Cold War and then 9/11. The former embedded geo-political allegiances while the latter turned an at best indifferent GWB into a kind of my-enemy's-enemy.. type of guy. Yes some advisors were Jewish but they were advisors. GWB had, as is well documented, his own agenda for finishing off Saddam. I think a cursory glance at the make-up of the current Obama administration would surely give lie to the idea that they are driven by a pro-Jewish agenda
(As for the UK, if you really think the estonians had sway over the etonians then whatever you are smoking is worth every penny.)
So the premise of your point (the Jews wield influence through their "big wallets") is fallacious.
Therefore to answer your question, the Jews don't have power now; they never did have power. They lobby where and when they can and are sympathetic to Israel (although not all of them are uncritical) and some of them are high-profile, but no one especially listens or listened to them beyond wanting their bloc votes, or to secure campaign funding and also perhaps to try to illustrate regret for events 70 years ago. Steven Spielberg or Stanley Kalms ain't devising govt policy any time soon be assured.
What is very real, however, is that the perception and propogation of the idea that the Jews (Jewish Financiers, no less) are "controlling" us, an oft-used anti-semitic trope, is factually and demonstrably incorrect and has been used throughout history to discriminate against and persecute the Jews. And every time you propagate it here on PB I will call you out on it.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
I have been at events where the sense of electricity before he arrived has been tangible and the entire audience has hung on every word, adoring, literally adoring him. He is absolute 100% showbiz.
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) 06/08/2014 11:49 Eric Pickles takes on Faith brief. And the title Senior Minister of State, invented specially for Warsi, is no more.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
We didnt prop up Stalin either, Moniker.
1940, alone, Neil, alone.
Dont be silly, Moniker, everyone knows that the UK was the junior partner to the USA in 1940.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
We didnt prop up Stalin either, Moniker.
1940, alone, Neil, alone.
Dont be silly, Moniker, everyone knows that the UK was the junior partner to the USA in 1940.
Cameron will never be forgiven for that gaffe. Thanks for rubbing it in.
Zac Goldsmith at 33/1 looks a very good value bet for next London mayor and saver for those on who have followed my recommendation on Sadiq Khan a year ago.
YouGov (@YouGov) 06/08/2014 12:28 Perceptions of Cameron and Miliband have little in common, but both have prominent negatives y-g.co/1lzBaPX pic.twitter.com/kKmWzTBWJD
I have been at events where the sense of electricity before he arrived has been tangible and the entire audience has hung on every word, adoring, literally adoring him. He is absolute 100% showbiz.
But PM?
Nah.
Substitute "PM" for "Mayor" and you have every man and his dog in 2008.
My outside wager on Owen Paterson could pay off as a trade.
Has Paterson ever had a major political role he hasnt failed at? If he's the answer the Tories are f*cked.
He's enormously popular in the Tory shires.His is the kind of failure more traditional Tories seem to like and he has attracted sympathy for being defenestrated from Cameron's cabinet from such influential sources as Charles Moore.He may not win but as the leader of a few dozen "Irreconcilables" or "Headbangers",depending upon your point of view,he has the potential to influence the outcome for sure.The Chelsea Tractor brigade are right behind him too so the climate change deniers have a leader as well.
Mr Herdson - I take your point but really I think the 7 Years War is probably the only other war that can be said to be 'World War' both in its scope and its aftermath. WW1 was of course known at the time or in its immediate aftermath as The Great War. it would be interesting to know when in fact the 7 Years War became known as that and for that matter when WW1 got its name? Was World War 2 called that at the time?
I have been at events where the sense of electricity before he arrived has been tangible and the entire audience has hung on every word, adoring, literally adoring him. He is absolute 100% showbiz.
But PM?
Nah.
Substitute "PM" for "Mayor" and you have every man and his dog in 2008.
Who have been proved wrong.
Perhaps but London had just had Ken Livingstone as mayor who had made the job into quite a comical one by the time of the election and made it into personality politics where Boris out-personalitied him.
For a long time, I've thought that WWs 1 and 2 should really be numbered '4' and '5', after the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars, all of which were world wars as much as WWI was - yet the first two are largely unknown in Britain and the Napoleonic conflict known only through the eyes of Wellington and Nelson.
The Thirty Years War (1618-48) was confined to Europe, so I wouldn't call that a "World War".
I have been at events where the sense of electricity before he arrived has been tangible and the entire audience has hung on every word, adoring, literally adoring him. He is absolute 100% showbiz.
But PM?
Nah.
Substitute "PM" for "Mayor" and you have every man and his dog in 2008.
Who have been proved wrong.
Perhaps but London had just had Ken Livingstone as mayor who had made the job into quite a comical one by the time of the election and made it into personality politics where Boris out-personalitied him.
PM is grown up sh1t.
What inventing roles for token ministers then scrapping them ?
Yeah right - totally different.
Mayor isn't a comic role anymore - London has done some serious booming and seen many improvements under Boris - but yeah his haircut is what matters.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
We didnt prop up Stalin either, Moniker.
1940, alone, Neil, alone.
Dont be silly, Moniker, everyone knows that the UK was the junior partner to the USA in 1940.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
We didnt prop up Stalin either, Moniker.
1940, alone, Neil, alone.
And the Empire! And the Free Poles, Dutch, Norwegians, Belgians and French. Also, Greece was still unoccupied during the Winter of 1940-1, having repelled the first Axis (ie. Italian) invasion.
I have been at events where the sense of electricity before he arrived has been tangible and the entire audience has hung on every word, adoring, literally adoring him. He is absolute 100% showbiz.
But PM?
Nah.
Substitute "PM" for "Mayor" and you have every man and his dog in 2008.
Who have been proved wrong.
Perhaps but London had just had Ken Livingstone as mayor who had made the job into quite a comical one by the time of the election and made it into personality politics where Boris out-personalitied him.
PM is grown up sh1t.
Considering that the whole country is run from the capital, and it is often a criticism that uk is too london centric, I'm not sure that there is a big difference, or much of a step up...
Surely having run one of the worlds major cities is more experience than most PMs have on their CVs?
I have been at events where the sense of electricity before he arrived has been tangible and the entire audience has hung on every word, adoring, literally adoring him. He is absolute 100% showbiz.
But PM?
Nah.
Substitute "PM" for "Mayor" and you have every man and his dog in 2008.
Who have been proved wrong.
Perhaps but London had just had Ken Livingstone as mayor who had made the job into quite a comical one by the time of the election and made it into personality politics where Boris out-personalitied him.
PM is grown up sh1t.
What inventing roles for token ministers then scrapping them ?
Yeah right - totally different.
Mayor isn't a comic role anymore - London has done some serious booming and seen many improvements under Boris - but yeah his haircut is what matters.
His haircut happened to irritate me today. It was so contrived. You can't just get your hair to stick out forward like that without serious application (of gel/elbow grease/special advisors).
London Mayor may be important, probably taking a lead from Rudi which set the trend of Mayor being more involved but it is still Mayor of a fantasy land ie. London. It is not real life.
I don't think it's worth an argument about it but my $0.02 says no to PM for Boris.
Mr. Neil, it's an interesting thing to consider. If Hitler had been slightly less aggressive and Stalin more so, might we have ended up fighting with the Nazis against the Communists?
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
We didnt prop up Stalin either, Moniker.
1940, alone, Neil, alone.
Dont be silly, Moniker, everyone knows that the UK was the junior partner to the USA in 1940.
"As for next year’s general election, Boris coming back is good news for Cameron because it means he can add a genuine political star to his firmament. And it’s bad, bad news for Ukip because it means that the Tories now have a respected, nay loved, right-winger making their case."
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
The Cranborne report[edit]
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter on 21 February 1945 to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939–1945:[47]
@TGOHF " Boris coming back is good news for Cameron" Every leader wants to go into an election with speculation about his putative successor in the news, and a few of his MP's suggesting it should be sooner rather than later? If you say so.
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
The Cranborne report[edit]
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter on 21 February 1945 to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939–1945:[47]
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
The Cranborne report[edit]
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter on 21 February 1945 to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939–1945:[47]
Published: 10:41, 7 May 2013 | Updated: 03:17, 8 May 2013 A pardon for thousands of Irish soldiers who joined the British to fight Nazi Germany will help make amends for the shameful way they were treated after the Second World War, Ireland's Justice Minister has said.
The Irish Government has enacted legislation to grant an amnesty to the former troops - who were blacklisted and branded deserters at home.
Ahead of the historic move, Alan Shatter said tens of thousands of Irish people put their lives at risk during the global conflict in the fight against fascism and tyranny.
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
The Cranborne report[edit]
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter on 21 February 1945 to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939–1945:[47]
Published: 10:41, 7 May 2013 | Updated: 03:17, 8 May 2013 A pardon for thousands of Irish soldiers who joined the British to fight Nazi Germany will help make amends for the shameful way they were treated after the Second World War, Ireland's Justice Minister has said.
The Irish Government has enacted legislation to grant an amnesty to the former troops - who were blacklisted and branded deserters at home.
Ahead of the historic move, Alan Shatter said tens of thousands of Irish people put their lives at risk during the global conflict in the fight against fascism and tyranny.
The behaviour of thousands of Irish citizens in the last war was heroic. The behaviour of the Irish government towards them was disgraceful.
That "we" is inappropriate. Neil's people didn't fight the fascist beast in WWII.
The Cranborne report[edit]
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter on 21 February 1945 to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939–1945:[47]
Published: 10:41, 7 May 2013 | Updated: 03:17, 8 May 2013 A pardon for thousands of Irish soldiers who joined the British to fight Nazi Germany will help make amends for the shameful way they were treated after the Second World War, Ireland's Justice Minister has said.
The Irish Government has enacted legislation to grant an amnesty to the former troops - who were blacklisted and branded deserters at home.
Ahead of the historic move, Alan Shatter said tens of thousands of Irish people put their lives at risk during the global conflict in the fight against fascism and tyranny.
The behaviour of thousands of Irish citizens in the last war was heroic. The behaviour of the Irish government towards them was disgraceful.
The Free State wasnt without risk of invasion from either Germany or the UK and couldnt exactly encourage desertion from its armed forces.
Published: 10:41, 7 May 2013 | Updated: 03:17, 8 May 2013 A pardon for thousands of Irish soldiers who joined the British to fight Nazi Germany will help make amends for the shameful way they were treated after the Second World War, Ireland's Justice Minister has said.
The Irish Government has enacted legislation to grant an amnesty to the former troops - who were blacklisted and branded deserters at home.
Ahead of the historic move, Alan Shatter said tens of thousands of Irish people put their lives at risk during the global conflict in the fight against fascism and tyranny.
The behaviour of thousands of Irish citizens in the last war was heroic. The behaviour of the Irish government towards them was disgraceful.
Founded in the mid-1920s following the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the Directorate of Intelligence was originally the military intelligence branch of the Irish Army, hence its code-name "G2", which is a term used in western armed forces to refer to their Intelligence and Security branch. Later the Directorate became the intelligence service for the entire Irish armed forces, the Defence Forces (Army, Naval Service and Air Corps) and took on more national security roles. The G2 spent much of its early efforts combating the Anti-Treaty IRA, in the Republic of Ireland, and also operated in Northern Ireland.[9] G2 first came to public attention during World War II, known in Ireland as The Emergency. Although Ireland had a policy of neutrality and was "non-belligerent" during WWII, G2 formed secret agreements with the United Kingdom's Military Intelligence Section 5 (MI5) and the United States' Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). During this period, G2 intercepted German naval and aerial communications through listening stations located across Ireland, sharing the information with Allied forces.[10] Under the legendary Colonel Daniel "Dan" Bryan, Director of Intelligence, the G2 apprehended all thirteen Nazi spies sent to Ireland and broke German codes during the war. During the Cold War, G2 monitored communists and agents of communist governments operating in Ireland, primarily through embassies in Dublin, sharing information with western allies. G2 was involved through The Troubles, and gathered intelligence on many paramilitary groups which became proscribed terrorist organisations in Ireland and the UK.
Johnson to land Uxbridge has been backed from 4-1 to 7-4 with PP.There is a simple matter of geography at work here.Uxbridge offers maintaining links with the chumocracy but most of all it is close to Eton and its' playingfields.
Johnson to land Uxbridge has been backed from 4-1 to 7-4 with PP.There is a simple matter of geography at work here.Uxbridge offers maintaining links with the chumocracy but most of all it is close to Eton and its' playingfields.
While "none" remains at 10/11!
I did say that 4/1 wouldnt last long. I hope some pb-ers got on.
You'd think the Whips or Central Office would have had the common sense to tell the Warsi detractors to STFU. It turns out they are just as useless as the twerps around Ed Miliband.
Johnson to land Uxbridge has been backed from 4-1 to 7-4 with PP.There is a simple matter of geography at work here.Uxbridge offers maintaining links with the chumocracy but most of all it is close to Eton and its' playingfields.
How will Boris's advocacy for a new airport (presumably at the expense of Heathrow) go down in Uxbridge? Will constituents prefer less noise or fewer jobs?
Not necessarily, but Boris's only real chance of getting the leadership is in 2015 off the back of a Cameron (and Osborne) defeat, so it makes sense he want's to "be around" just in case...
Not necessarily, but Boris's only real chance of getting the leadership is in 2015 off the back of a Cameron (and Osborne) defeat, so it makes sense he want's to "be around" just in case...
Cameron is almost certainly going to go in the next Parliament. While it is possible that Boris could find a seat between the end of his mayoral term and Cameron's resignation (if he contrived to "win" the GE) it wouldnt be the best way of going about getting the PM job. So Boris has to move now whether he thinks the Tories are on course to win or lose.
Comments
The other thing is that for most common criminals by the time the get a custodial sentence they have a list of convictions/cautions as long as your arm and are living a criminal lifestyle. One of the reasons short sentences do not work. I sometimes think that reversing the order of punishments might be more effective at preventing re-offending. That is to say bang 'em up in some Victorian shithole for the first offence and if they still come back for more then look at social interventions.
Where prison definitely works is by stopping prolific offenders offending, at least offending against the law-abiding majority. If Billy the Burglar is doing three years in a closed prison then there is good chance that for three years he won't be burgling peoples houses.
To follow up on two of the examples, yes, Major was chosen because he was seen as the opposite to Thatcher in terms of character and personality but also because he was the closest to a continuity candidate as a Thatcherite. Brown was Blair's successor even before Blair became leader and no other alternative was available, so policy and personality don't come into it.
There are plenty of counter-examples of similar successions, Brown to Ed Miliband being just the most recent.
In any case, I'm not convinced that Boris is all that much the same as Cameron. True, they share an Etonian background but beyond that their leadership and political styles are quite different and that's more important. I've no doubt that the three people who read The Guardian would get enormously het up were one Old Etonian to succeed another as leader of the Tory party and they'd write all sorts of silly articles about the rest 'need not apply'. The rest of the country, on the other hand, would carry on as normal.
If Cameron is out in 2015 then Osborne goes with him. In which case the Tories will be looking for a "big hittter" to try and get them back into government as quickly as possible.
In that situation I can't see beyond Boris and possibly Theresa. Hammond isn't well known enough. Javid not senior enough. Etc...
If Cameron win's and stands down in 2017 or 2018 then you have to say Osborne will be favourite. Boris will be in with a chance, but probably not that great. Theresa's time may have come and gone. But no doubt there will be opportunities for people like Hammond, Javid and possibly even two or three others that aren't really on the radar right now.
Boris's best chance of becoming leader is in the event of Cameron losing in 2015, that's why he needs to be in Parliament in case it happens. After 2015 things get much more complicated for him, IMO.
Boris would likely get a personal vote in any London constituency which he stood for.
The Holocaust will remain firmly in the public consciousness because the Nazis perpetrated it. Many wars have been fought for power, over cockups and for other petty reasons. WWII was genuinely a fight for survival not only of ourselves, but others, and of democracy against tyranny. It's comparable with the Greek victories over Xerxes in that regard.
On crime and punishment: the reoffending rate of those subject to space cannon justice is 0%.
You side with Owen Jones and the excuse makers, I'll stay with those who don't knowingly break the law
Unbeatable.
But you make some fair points.
I'm trying to reduce the victims of future crimes, you just want vengeance.
Huzzah for George.
For a long time, I've thought that WWs 1 and 2 should really be numbered '4' and '5', after the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars, all of which were world wars as much as WWI was - yet the first two are largely unknown in Britain and the Napoleonic conflict known only through the eyes of Wellington and Nelson.
So yes, they will be not forgotten, but filed away in the history of 'horrible things that happened a long time ago when the world was a different place'.
Personally I still think it play's out thus:
May 2015 - Con largest party, most seat's, another coalition.
We have the EU referendum which results in us staying in.
Cameron quits in 2017 or 2018 and Osborne takes over.
Osborne proves about as popular as El Gord and takes the Tories to a heavy defeat in 2020.
The Tories move on to one of the 2010 intake in 2020 - Boris never becomes leader.
Generally, you have to do something pretty brutal, or else carry out a fraud in a position of trust, to get sent to prison for your first offence.
Cameron suffers because he is seen as out of touch with ordinary people. Boris would have a similar problem. I'm surprised you don't think so.
It is not the same problem for Boris as it is for Dave as Boris communicates on a different wavelength.
Remember that Milliband will almost certainly become extraordinarily unpopular very rapidly should he get into Downing Street next year, so the popularity of Boris versus the unpopularity of Ed could make for an "interesting" dynamic. Not that I think it will happen.
The Tories have overhauled Labour's leads of 12% from 18-24 months ago, down to on average 2-3% and they lead with the Gold Standard.
There's a few more months to go.
I think you are very wrong that's what I think
Bleeding hearts should watch this from 13:07 and then think about who's side they're on
http://youtu.be/lx5gFwBMH80
My outside wager on Owen Paterson could pay off as a trade.He is just the sort of wild card who would attract the Countryside Alliance types and form a right-wing bloc,which all 3 main candidates would need to swing over in the 2nd ballot.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/01/boris.livingstone
"Unbelievable as it may seem, Boris Johnson has a real chance of being elected London mayor today. Zoe Williams and other Londoners imagine what it would be like if this bigoted, lying, Old Etonian buffoon got his hands on our diverse and liberal capital"
"Vivienne Westwood
Fashion designer
"Boris as mayor? Unthinkable. It just exposes democracy as a sham, especially if people don't vote for Ken - he's the best thing in politics. Unthinkable.""
"Arabella Weir
Actor and writer
"I will go on hunger strike and throw myself in front of the next horse at Ascot if he wins"
"Diana Melly
Writer
If Boris were to become mayor I think I might leave London, except I have no idea where I might go. Running London is an incredibly difficult job, and it seems blindingly obvious that one doesn't want a comedian doing it ·"
ETC ETC ETC
That not only makes the enemy memorable but makes us feel great about both fighting and defeating them. It's good for the national psyche, and people like feeling proud of such things.
Mr. F, the Heavenly King? The only chap who springs to mind is Chao... someone, the temporary leader of the Outlaws of the Marsh, but I'm sure that's not who you're referring to.
Also, Tamerlane and Khan won. And they didn't fight us. And neither were pure evil [different moral standards applied so many centuries ago].
Always loved Westwoods London accent
"Has Paterson ever had a major political role he hasnt failed at? If he's the answer the Tories are f*cked."
Anyone who wants to shoot badgers can't be all bad. I expect Salmond now comes into that category.
MANY APOLOGIES TO PB-ERS. IF YOU ARE NOT SeanT OR DO NOT LIVE IN PRIMROSE HILL PLEASE SKIP THIS POST.
So to your post, Sean. Both bored by this I suspect; I will probably limit my responses to this topic after this (and after your acute, incisive and no doubt insulting response to it).
"perhaps you could give us a "politically correct" verbal formulation for describing the unusually effective lobbing by wealthy American Jews in Washington."
First off - the Jews are powerless. Some of them have some money (far, far less than their "enemies") but they have no power (outside Israel). They never have had.
They were powerless in 1182 and 1290 and 1492 and 1821 and 1905 and 1917 and 1939 and 1948 and...now. The Rothschilds famously financed some British wars (bizarrely because Napoleon brought significant benefits to the Jews in Europe), illustrating perhaps that it was the Rothschilds and not the Jews that the Rothschilds were seeking to advance.
Most recently, neither with the Bushes nor Clinton nor for sure Obama did they wield any kind of "power". What did happen, of course, was the proxy Cold War and then 9/11. The former embedded geo-political allegiances while the latter turned an at best indifferent GWB into a kind of my-enemy's-enemy.. type of guy. Yes some advisors were Jewish but they were advisors. GWB had, as is well documented, his own agenda for finishing off Saddam. I think a cursory glance at the make-up of the current Obama administration would surely give lie to the idea that they are driven by a pro-Jewish agenda
(As for the UK, if you really think the estonians had sway over the etonians then whatever you are smoking is worth every penny.)
So the premise of your point (the Jews wield influence through their "big wallets") is fallacious.
Therefore to answer your question, the Jews don't have power now; they never did have power. They lobby where and when they can and are sympathetic to Israel (although not all of them are uncritical) and some of them are high-profile, but no one especially listens or listened to them beyond wanting their bloc votes, or to secure campaign funding and also perhaps to try to illustrate regret for events 70 years ago. Steven Spielberg or Stanley Kalms ain't devising govt policy any time soon be assured.
What is very real, however, is that the perception and propogation of the idea that the Jews (Jewish Financiers, no less) are "controlling" us, an oft-used anti-semitic trope, is factually and demonstrably incorrect and has been used throughout history to discriminate against and persecute the Jews. And every time you propagate it here on PB I will call you out on it.
I have been at events where the sense of electricity before he arrived has been tangible and the entire audience has hung on every word, adoring, literally adoring him. He is absolute 100% showbiz.
But PM?
Nah.
It was something along the lines of-
Why are we giving money to pensioners in the form of pensions..... when this money should be spent on gaelic language resources
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman)
06/08/2014 11:49
Eric Pickles takes on Faith brief. And the title Senior Minister of State, invented specially for Warsi, is no more.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/post-warsi-reshuffle-kills-off-senior-minister-of-state/
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/06/Labour-Press-Officer-on-UKIP-Defection/
06/08/2014 12:28
Perceptions of Cameron and Miliband have little in common, but both have prominent negatives y-g.co/1lzBaPX pic.twitter.com/kKmWzTBWJD
Who have been proved wrong.
WW1 was of course known at the time or in its immediate aftermath as The Great War.
it would be interesting to know when in fact the 7 Years War became known as that and for that matter when WW1 got its name? Was World War 2 called that at the time?
PM is grown up sh1t.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), UK electorate's a different bag of monkeys to London alone, though.
Yeah right - totally different.
Mayor isn't a comic role anymore - London has done some serious booming and seen many improvements under Boris - but yeah his haircut is what matters.
The USA didn't enter the war until December 1941.
Surely having run one of the worlds major cities is more experience than most PMs have on their CVs?
London Mayor may be important, probably taking a lead from Rudi which set the trend of Mayor being more involved but it is still Mayor of a fantasy land ie. London. It is not real life.
I don't think it's worth an argument about it but my $0.02 says no to PM for Boris.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296551/David-Cameron-describes-Britain-junior-partner-Americans-1940.html
"As for next year’s general election, Boris coming back is good news for Cameron because it means he can add a genuine political star to his firmament. And it’s bad, bad news for Ukip because it means that the Tories now have a respected, nay loved, right-winger making their case."
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter on 21 February 1945 to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939–1945:[47]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Mercantile_Marine_during_World_War_II
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320615/Irish-soldiers-branded-deserters-leaving-neutral-army-fight-Allies-WWII-finally-pardoned.html
" Boris coming back is good news for Cameron"
Every leader wants to go into an election with speculation about his putative successor in the news, and a few of his MP's suggesting it should be sooner rather than later?
If you say so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11015567/Baroness-Warsi-resigns-Sexist-Tory-playground-bullies-have-a-field-day.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/its-refusal-to-resist-hitler-still-shames-ireland/story-fnb64oi6-1226639632040?nk=fccf3dbd8f36aa6a63b80fe58ae52eaf
Published: 10:41, 7 May 2013 | Updated: 03:17, 8 May 2013
A pardon for thousands of Irish soldiers who joined the British to fight Nazi Germany will help make amends for the shameful way they were treated after the Second World War, Ireland's Justice Minister has said.
The Irish Government has enacted legislation to grant an amnesty to the former troops - who were blacklisted and branded deserters at home.
Ahead of the historic move, Alan Shatter said tens of thousands of Irish people put their lives at risk during the global conflict in the fight against fascism and tyranny.
I rather fear we soon will be.
Mr brother-in-law's dad (Carlow farmers both) always described WW2 as the "emergency".
Founded in the mid-1920s following the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the Directorate of Intelligence was originally the military intelligence branch of the Irish Army, hence its code-name "G2", which is a term used in western armed forces to refer to their Intelligence and Security branch. Later the Directorate became the intelligence service for the entire Irish armed forces, the Defence Forces (Army, Naval Service and Air Corps) and took on more national security roles. The G2 spent much of its early efforts combating the Anti-Treaty IRA, in the Republic of Ireland, and also operated in Northern Ireland.[9] G2 first came to public attention during World War II, known in Ireland as The Emergency. Although Ireland had a policy of neutrality and was "non-belligerent" during WWII, G2 formed secret agreements with the United Kingdom's Military Intelligence Section 5 (MI5) and the United States' Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). During this period, G2 intercepted German naval and aerial communications through listening stations located across Ireland, sharing the information with Allied forces.[10] Under the legendary Colonel Daniel "Dan" Bryan, Director of Intelligence, the G2 apprehended all thirteen Nazi spies sent to Ireland and broke German codes during the war. During the Cold War, G2 monitored communists and agents of communist governments operating in Ireland, primarily through embassies in Dublin, sharing information with western allies. G2 was involved through The Troubles, and gathered intelligence on many paramilitary groups which became proscribed terrorist organisations in Ireland and the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G2_(Republic_of_Ireland)
I did say that 4/1 wouldnt last long. I hope some pb-ers got on.
Osborne vs. Johnson vs. May
The only question that remains is who is the unknown outsider who will actually win the thing. Probably a right winger.