Well he hasn't taken the mick w the over round so that's one good thing to say
Given that people will surely vote for their man, and everyone hates Ukip, isn't farage much too short? It's the yougov panel in charge of this right ?
Would've thought the value is to back ed and Dave at 6/5 if that's so
Tricky one - the key thing is that the 'winner' is usually defined by exceeding expectations. I agree Farage is too short because everyone will be expecting him to do well. My hunch (and I stress it's no more than that) is Nicola on 8/1
I like Lianne Wood. She's long because no one has heard of her, and she's a Welsh nationalist so might not get much recognition, but if she comes across as likeable, sensible and pleasant. Who knows?
All the more reputable pollsters that report the Midlands separately have the Tories 6-9 ahead across half a dozen poll averages.
They all have Labour 13-17 points clear oop North.
Piling up Lib Dem votes in places they've already won?
So it would seem.
Baxtering the Lord Ashcroft National Figures (C33,L33, LD7, SNP6, UKIP 13, Green 5) with Scottish figures ( C17, L20, LD4, SNP56, UKIP 1 GN 1gives:
LABOUR 38 SHORT OF MAJORITY
C 269 L 288 LD 11 UKIP 0 Gn 1 SNP 59 PC 4 Minor 0 NI 18
Baxtering the lord archer national (33,33,7) plus regional figures (inc SNP+PC) in Baxters User-defined Regional Poll page and equating Baxters Regions to Ashcrofts Regions as shown below:
Southeast = London, Southeast, Anglia Southwest & Wales Midlands = East & West Midlands North = North West, North East, Yorkshire & Humber Scotland
Equivalent National
Con 33.7 Lab 33.2 Lib 7.2
Gives CONSERVATIVES 42 SHORT OF MAJORITY
C 284 L 265 LD 7 SNP 59 PC 3 Minor 14 (ie UKIP + Respect + Green etc) NI 18
Ed has won if those are the final numbers, but my God it'll be an awful victory !
I think that's a key point. I think it's likely he will "win" in the sense of ending up in no 10 given the polls are where they are and they have to move by at least 3 and probably 4/5 net to the Tories for him not to end up in no 10 ( however worrying a prospect I personally feel that is, there's no point denying current reality unless there's a change). But I do believe this might be a good one to lose. He will end up wriggling on the Scottish hook post Holyrood's 2016 elections ( I think the Nats will behave quite well till then), then I suspect Edinburgh would turn the heat up demanding more and more ( Revised Barnett? Right To call Indy Ref 2.0? Majority of tax raising? And from their point of view why not?
None of this is likely to go down well in Middle England to (small minority) PM Ed's detriment.
We honour Richard III because he was a king. All kings until the civil war were killers. Sick joke by marf.
I thought it was quite funny.
I really, really don't get those maniacs on the radio this morning from the Richard III society looking to rebuild his reputation. I mean, is there not something more, I dunno, relevant to worry about?
I think the point is the RIII Society are rather typical of the insane conspiracy-theorist types who have always been with us (cf Alvin Boyd Kuhn, if anyone wants to look up his wildly inaccurate hagiography on Wikipedia) who have flourished in the age of the internet. Although they have been with us for nine decades, it is instructive to note that it is in the last ten years and especially the last 30 months, with this huge news story to their credit, they have almost become mainstream in their views. It's hard to imagine that woeful TV series the White Queen, which was as well-written as English as She is Spoke, well-acted as a Sylvester Stallone tribute band and as historically accurate as the work of David Irving, would have succeeded without it, for example.
In vain do all bar one professional historian of the period point out that Richard was accused of murdering his nephews long before the Tudors arrived on the scene. In vain do they note that actually, the Tudors never bothered to accuse him of infanticide, indeed they steered clear of the topic. In vain do they point out that the reasons Richard lost at Bosworth field are (1) two-thirds of his army abandoned him and (2) he led a suicide charge to try and redress the odds, typical of his recklessness. In vain do they point out that he was a usurper who murdered, executed, distrained upon, attainted and generally damaged more people than all his five predecessors (God knows none of them saints) put together. Richard has suddenly become the martyred saint, 'a man of integrity and courage' as that appalling sycophant said yesterday, and the Tudors the evil barstewards who usurped the throne from this saint.
And I know this because I am an expert on Richard in culture, and I have tried, hard, to put the record straight only to get mindless abuse for my pains.
Whether it's relevant or not is a different question, but I'm always angry about pseudohistory. If anyone is genuinely interested, steer clear of Ashdown-Hill - try Michael Hicks or Charles Ross: Michael Bennett's Road to Bosworth is also very good but I'm not sure if it's still in print. David Baldwin is the only professional historian who still tends to the Ricardian side - but I'm not impressed by his arguments, as perhaps you can tell.
Oh and having finished my rant, I did love that cartoon!
Well he hasn't taken the mick w the over round so that's one good thing to say
Given that people will surely vote for their man, and everyone hates Ukip, isn't farage much too short? It's the yougov panel in charge of this right ?
Would've thought the value is to back ed and Dave at 6/5 if that's so
Tricky one - the key thing is that the 'winner' is usually defined by exceeding expectations. I agree Farage is too short because everyone will be expecting him to do well. My hunch (and I stress it's no more than that) is Nicola on 8/1
I like Lianne Wood. She's long because no one has heard of her, and she's a Welsh nationalist so might not get much recognition, but if she comes across as likeable, sensible and pleasant. Who knows?
Lianne Wood isn't very good.
I would go so far as to say 99% of the electorate do not know who she is.
Gorgeous George has about as much right to be there as she does.
2 seats ! Like wow! Crikey who'd have thunk it 5 years ago.
Of course they will almost certainly do better but they must now be wondering just how much better? As must the numerous Scottish MPs who are about to lose long held seats and become Ed's "McCannon fodder".
All we need now is for one of them at PMQs to shout Freedom and lob a sword at Ed Milliband.
Well he hasn't taken the mick w the over round so that's one good thing to say
Given that people will surely vote for their man, and everyone hates Ukip, isn't farage much too short? It's the yougov panel in charge of this right ?
Would've thought the value is to back ed and Dave at 6/5 if that's so
Tricky one - the key thing is that the 'winner' is usually defined by exceeding expectations. I agree Farage is too short because everyone will be expecting him to do well. My hunch (and I stress it's no more than that) is Nicola on 8/1
I like Lianne Wood. She's long because no one has heard of her, and she's a Welsh nationalist so might not get much recognition, but if she comes across as likeable, sensible and pleasant. Who knows?
Lianne Wood isn't very good.
I would go so far as to say 99% of the electorate do not know who she is.
Gorgeous George has about as much right to be there as she does.
Clearly you are quite correct, since her name is spelled 'Leanne'...
But I don't suppose she cares much about that - as long as she's known in Wales, that's really the only constituency she's interested in.
Love him or loathe him Ali Campbell's a classy commentator
Jon Snow calling Thatcher 'bonkers' in poor taste I think
Did you watch the poor performance from snow yesterday on the Richard the third programme on ch 4,I cringed every interview he did on history,best part was when David starkey came on - lol
No, really, I won't be offended at all. Not remotely. Fire away. Feel free. Ask me anything you like about the review I got, today, in Publishers Weekly.
"When pushed who they would vote for, Labour have a narrow lead over the Conservatives amongst undecided voters (21% vs 18%), followed by UKIP on 14%. However, even when pushed about who to vote if the election were tomorrow and it were a legal requirement to vote, more undecided voters don’t know who they would vote for (27%) than say they are inclined towards any particular political party."
No, really, I won't be offended at all. Not remotely. Fire away. Feel free. Ask me anything you like about the review I got, today, in Publishers Weekly.
You're making me think of Billy Bunter denying complicity. ok, do tell.
"When pushed who they would vote for, Labour have a narrow lead over the Conservatives amongst undecided voters (21% vs 18%), followed by UKIP on 14%. However, even when pushed about who to vote if the election were tomorrow and it were a legal requirement to vote, more undecided voters don’t know who they would vote for (27%) than say they are inclined towards any particular political party."
I get not being sure who you'd vote for, I really do, but how can someone be so undecided that they don't know who they'd vote for if they were mandated to vote tomorrow? I guess even trying to hypothesize they have trouble picturing it.
I think the point is the RIII Society are rather typical of the insane conspiracy-theorist types who have always been with us (cf Alvin Boyd Kuhn, if anyone wants to look up his wildly inaccurate hagiography on Wikipedia) who have flourished in the age of the internet. Although they have been with us for nine decades, it is instructive to note that it is in the last ten years and especially the last 30 months, with this huge news story to their credit, they have almost become mainstream in their views. It's hard to imagine that woeful TV series the White Queen, which was as well-written as English as She is Spoke, well-acted as a Sylvester Stallone tribute band and as historically accurate as the work of David Irving, would have succeeded without it, for example.
(snip good stuff)
Oh and having finished my rant, I did love that cartoon!
A thought-provoking post, thanks. I am not a (an?) historian, but I tend to treat all such history as nothing more than stories, especially when we get into events about which not much is written, and we are trying to discern people's thoughts and intentions.
They may be important stories, but the *truth* of them seems rather nebulous. We may know that Henry VIII had six wives, or that Richard III died in 1485, but can we really be sure of the dynamic between Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell that led to the latter's death, or between Richard III and Buckingham?
To this decidedly non-expert, this seems to be where many historians make their living: using sparse documentary sources and reading the runes. To me, the really good historians try to find new evidence (e.g. battlefield explorations, archaeological digs, document searches), or try to wind back the layers of propaganda that have built up over time to get to the bare original 'facts', however nebulous they may be, without adding new layers of interpretation and modern spin.
But again, IANAE.
However I will defend Philippa Gregory's books to a certain degree: they got me interested in this period a few years ago, and I treated them as a source from which to dive into a little exploration of the real history of the period, even if mostly (although nit exclusively) via Wikipedia (yes, I know). Popularism can get people interested in something, where a dry tome might not.
No, really, I won't be offended at all. Not remotely. Fire away. Feel free. Ask me anything you like about the review I got, today, in Publishers Weekly.
I'll bite. How was it?
*ducks head in case of offense*
Must I? Oh well. OK then.
First you need to know that Publishers Weekly is the most important trade paper in US publishing. It's the one read by all the booksellers, libraries, chain buyers, Hollywood studios looking for projects, agents, publicists, etc
No, really, I won't be offended at all. Not remotely. Fire away. Feel free. Ask me anything you like about the review I got, today, in Publishers Weekly.
I'll bite. How was it?
*ducks head in case of offense*
Must I? Oh well. OK then.
First you need to know that Publishers Weekly is the most important trade paper in US publishing. It's the one read by all the booksellers, libraries, chain buyers, Hollywood studios looking for projects, agents, publicists, etc
Then, if you insist, I will copy and paste the first line from my starred review today.
"The death of one of the twin daughters of Sarah and Angus Moorcroft jump-starts this superb tale from the pseudonymous Tremayne."
Did you see that?
"Superb"
Hah.
Having read a couple of reviews I am wondering if you have been channelling the late (and much lamented) Iain Banks who made his debut in the Wasp Factory with some completely left-field deaths. Sadly, I have now read the last book he will ever write.
"When pushed who they would vote for, Labour have a narrow lead over the Conservatives amongst undecided voters (21% vs 18%), followed by UKIP on 14%. However, even when pushed about who to vote if the election were tomorrow and it were a legal requirement to vote, more undecided voters don’t know who they would vote for (27%) than say they are inclined towards any particular political party."
I get not being sure who you'd vote for, I really do, but how can someone be so undecided that they don't know who they'd vote for if they were mandated to vote tomorrow? I guess even trying to hypothesize they have trouble picturing it.
1) The election isn't tomorrow 2) We are still missing a large amount of information e.g. the party manifestos
No, really, I won't be offended at all. Not remotely. Fire away. Feel free. Ask me anything you like about the review I got, today, in Publishers Weekly.
I downloaded it last night and I'm only 10% of the way through, but so far I'd say it's the best book I've read so far this year. You can use that in a review. "The best first 10% of a book JJ's read in three months (although that did include a hideously-written biography of George Stephenson."
It's far better than the other book of yours I read. Then again, I'm not reading this one whilst in a tent on some godforsaken mountain during a storm, which might help. :-)
Seriously though, the voice is so unlike yours, so... feminine. I keep on expecting to find a SeanT-esque rant on the next page. Perhaps that'll be in the next ten percent?
(In fact, it might be fun if you could do the next rant on here in her personae)
We honour Richard III because he was a king. All kings until the civil war were killers. Sick joke by marf.
I thought it was quite funny.
I really, really don't get those maniacs on the radio this morning from the Richard III society looking to rebuild his reputation. I mean, is there not something more, I dunno, relevant to worry about?
I think the point is the RIII Society are rather typical of the insane conspiracy-theorist types who have always been with us (cf Alvin Boyd Kuhn, if anyone wants to look up his wildly inaccurate hagiography on Wikipedia) who have flourished in the age of the internet. Although they have been with us for nine decades, it is instructive to note that it is in the last ten years and especially the last 30 months, with this huge news story to their credit, they have almost become mainstream in their views. It's hard to imagine that woeful TV series the White Queen, which was as well-written as English as She is Spoke, well-acted as a Sylvester Stallone tribute band and as historically accurate as the work of David Irving, would have succeeded without it, for example.
Oh and having finished my rant, I did love that cartoon!
That was a good rant. My view is that Richard was no bigger a bastard than any other medieval king, and in any case having found his mortal remains we should pay him the respect due a King of England. But the journos need to learn some new words, such as bier (the Metro called it a gun carriage) and "man at arms" not "knight in armour" . Was also shocked by the euphemisms deployed, not "the coffin" but the king's body. Personally I always refer to people dying, not "passing away" we should return to plain speaking.
"When pushed who they would vote for, Labour have a narrow lead over the Conservatives amongst undecided voters (21% vs 18%), followed by UKIP on 14%. However, even when pushed about who to vote if the election were tomorrow and it were a legal requirement to vote, more undecided voters don’t know who they would vote for (27%) than say they are inclined towards any particular political party."
I get not being sure who you'd vote for, I really do, but how can someone be so undecided that they don't know who they'd vote for if they were mandated to vote tomorrow? I guess even trying to hypothesize they have trouble picturing it.
1) The election isn't tomorrow
Um, that's why it was a hypothetical for them to imagine, what's your point? That some people simply refuse to postulate about hypothetical elections held tomorrow? I know we don't have all the information, and if someone simply cannot make up their mind until they have all that, that's great, but we all know most undecideds are not going to be the people obsessively seeking out every bit of relevant information - they'll be the ones making the call with their guts like the rest of us, in which case what are they waiting for, and why does that prevent them from from making a guess for a pollster? They don't have to, and fair play to them for not saying one thing when they are still unsure, but it's a no-cost situation, why the hesitancy?
@JosiasJessop: Interesting reply. Some thoughts occur to me:
'Can we really be sure of the dynamic between Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell that led to the latter's death, or between Richard III and Buckingham?'
We can't. This is why in order to advance beyond GCSE you have to show that you understand all the different interpretations that have been put on it.
'To me, the really good historians try to find new evidence...or try to wind back the layers of propaganda that have built up over time to get to the bare original 'facts', however nebulous they may be, without adding new layers of interpretation and modern spin.'
Agree up to a point. All historians, to gain a PhD, have to show that they have provided original material (so for example I got a number of classified archives opened up). However this has happened in the case of Richard III over the last 50-60 years without making any substantial difference to the allegations against him. Indeed, it is arguably more difficult to defend him now than it was when Paul Kendall tried to in the 1950s, because of the new material that has been unearthed. The most important was Dominic Mancini's account of the usurpation (although admittedly that was in the 1930s, but it was published later) which confirmed that Richard had acted illegally and contrary to the wishes of the population in seizing the crown, and had put forward one theory after another to justify it until he hit on one that seemed vaguely plausible (that Edward was already married when he married Elizabeth Grey - incidentally, protestations of the RIII society to the contrary, he almost certainly wasn't and even if he was, it would actually have made no difference under the circumstances to Edward V's legitimacy so the point is moot).
'However I will defend Philippa Gregory's books to a certain degree: they got me interested in this period a few years ago... Popularism can get people interested in something, where a dry tome might not.'
You may notice that I very specifically attacked the TV series, because I must confess I do think Gregory is a very capable writer if we just talk about her prose style (because this is her main strength, her novels do not translate well to the screen where dialogue, character and plot matter more). However, I also find her very arrogant and very dishonest. She is not, and never has been, a professional historian. She is not, and never has been, an ordinary researcher. She is, rather, a doctor in English Literature with a BA from Sussex when it was going through a bad patch, and a writer of fiction. If she were willing to admit that, awesome. As she isn't, we have a problem. Again, this is less in her books than in her supposed 'non-fiction', which is equally inaccurate and causes a great many problems.
Hope that is of interest, and hope you have fun finding out more - may I again recommend those books above as maybe a bit better than WP?
No, really, I won't be offended at all. Not remotely. Fire away. Feel free. Ask me anything you like about the review I got, today, in Publishers Weekly.
I'll bite. How was it?
*ducks head in case of offense*
Must I? Oh well. OK then.
First you need to know that Publishers Weekly is the most important trade paper in US publishing. It's the one read by all the booksellers, libraries, chain buyers, Hollywood studios looking for projects, agents, publicists, etc
Then, if you insist, I will copy and paste the first line from my starred review today.
"The death of one of the twin daughters of Sarah and Angus Moorcroft jump-starts this superb tale from the pseudonymous Tremayne."
Did you see that?
"Superb"
Hah.
Oh well. Better luck next time.
Keep trying. I'm sure you'll make it eventually.
I think I am at Peak Smugness. I think this is it. I also got this review today in Aftenposten, the most important/bestselling paper in Norway (the 2nd time they've recommended it, for some reason):
"psychological writing of a precious kind... intelligent and clairvoyant.... an irresistibly riveting psychodrama with great impact, and universal validity"
I DID IT. I WROTE THE BOOK.
Now I can just spend the rest of my days pleasantly drinking myself to death.
DID IT.
You clever smug bugger.
I can only imagine how it feels, 'cos achieving this is against all the odds in your game.
How long did it take to write and plan? I remember you spent some time on a Northern Britain (slips into PB piss take lingo) remote island a while ago. Was that a part of this book?
That was a good rant. My view is that Richard was no bigger a bastard than any other medieval king, and in any case having found his mortal remains we should pay him the respect due a King of England. But the journos need to learn some new words, such as bier (the Metro called it a gun carriage) and "man at arms" not "knight in armour" . Was also shocked by the euphemisms deployed, not "the coffin" but the king's body. Personally I always refer to people dying, not "passing away" we should return to plain speaking.
A reasonable point of view but, and an important but, in one crucial way he was a bigger bastard than any other KoE. He murdered his nephews, while they were children and while they were in his care (even if he was by some fluke innocent and it was done without orders by Buckingham, Tyrell or Brackenbury, he was responsible for their welfare and therefore in the eyes of contemporaries guilty by negligence).
The only other king who even remotely compared to that was John, who caused Artur, Duc de Bretagne and his nephew, to 'disappear' in much the same way as Richard did Edward V (because Artur was ahead of John in the line of succession). That was a crime that bedevilled his reign and made him very unpopular. But Artur was a lot older than Edward and had at least fought against John to take the crown. Edward was a helpless child. His murder, and that of his brother, was a real shock.
If you need evidence of that, remember that only one member of the southern gentry - the Duke of Norfolk - was willing to fight for Richard at Bosworth. All others declared for the other side, and most of them had done so as early as 1483. These were men with everything to lose and nothing to gain from rebellion. They were clearly absolutely horrified with Richard. It can't have been because of his personal tyranny because he was not actually a bad ruler. It cannot have been the usurpation - they had backed Edward IV, after all. It can only really have been the murder of the princes.
I agree entirely about silly euphemisms. Richard did not 'pass away' he was brutally hacked to pieces. He was, in fact, killed. Why not say so?
I say a 3-point Tory lead just to troll us / keep us on our toes.
*chants* we want smiling daves!
Those were the days when our way of illustrating polls was to have pics of smiling Daves or Gordons. A nine point lead would result in 9 pictures and so on.
I say a 3-point Tory lead just to troll us / keep us on our toes.
*chants* we want smiling daves!
Those were the days when our way of illustrating polls was to have pics of smiling Daves or Gordons. A nine point lead would result in 9 pictures and so on.
I say a 3-point Tory lead just to troll us / keep us on our toes.
*chants* we want smiling daves!
Those were the days when our way of illustrating polls was to have pics of smiling Daves or Gordons. A nine point lead would result in 9 pictures and so on.
Can we please not have 9 pictures of a smiling Dave? I'm not Labour, but there are limits.
The only thing worse than that would be 9 pictures of a smiling Ed...but that's (a) too awful to contemplate and (b) not likely to happen.
I say a 3-point Tory lead just to troll us / keep us on our toes.
*chants* we want smiling daves!
Those were the days when our way of illustrating polls was to have pics of smiling Daves or Gordons. A nine point lead would result in 9 pictures and so on.
Can we please not have 9 pictures of a smiling Dave? I'm not Labour, but there are limits.
The only thing worse than that would be 9 pictures of a smiling Ed...but that's (a) too awful to contemplate and (b) not likely to happen.
That was a good rant. My view is that Richard was no bigger a bastard than any other medieval king, and in any case having found his mortal remains we should pay him the respect due a King of England. But the journos need to learn some new words, such as bier (the Metro called it a gun carriage) and "man at arms" not "knight in armour" . Was also shocked by the euphemisms deployed, not "the coffin" but the king's body. Personally I always refer to people dying, not "passing away" we should return to plain speaking.
A reasonable point of view but, and an important but, in one crucial way he was a bigger bastard than any other KoE. He murdered his nephews, while they were children and while they were in his care (even if he was by some fluke innocent and it was done without orders by Buckingham, Tyrell or Brackenbury, he was responsible for their welfare and therefore in the eyes of contemporaries guilty by negligence).
I often think that a good way to empathize with these chaps is to imagine you were born and brought up in a powerful family in the pseudo-royal court of contemporary North Korea. Now try and figure out how to survive....
Are all Labour donors hedge fund managers nowadays?
Mr Leslie said in an email to Mr Wilmott after the meeting that he had "made some good points ahead of our manifesto". He said he would "appreciate any updates you have along the way". Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards and Public Life, said: "The point about having access to opposition key leaders like Crhis Leslie is of course normally their policies are much more fluid. "They're trying to develop policies they think are going to be attractive to the public and you see a specific reference to the manifesto. So here he is at the point of development of the policies of the Labour Party where he might actually influence a manifesto pledge."
Top Quality Journo. ."made some good points ahead of our manifesto"....means pay us the wonga and you can influence our manifesto. ARF!
Over the last 50 years, there've been more than a dozen votes lost by the government on its Finance Bill of the day, some quite serious (the Tories forced a cut in the basic rate of Income Tax on Callaghan's government). The Budgets themselves carried the House though.
Wikipedia has a page of government defeats: "List of Government defeats in the House of Commons (1945–present)"
This was the exact point Salmond was making on Andrew Marr about HS2 before it was misreported by the press, hence he framed it "what would Ed Balls do if we raised an ammendment?"
Arf indeed Compouter. It is indeed amusing that hedgies feature so prominently in Labour's fundraising efforts whilst they are targeted in another of Ed's attacks on vested interests. hedgies clearly are a vested interest ho ho.
That was a good rant. My view is that Richard was no bigger a bastard than any other medieval king, and in any case having found his mortal remains we should pay him the respect due a King of England. But the journos need to learn some new words, such as bier (the Metro called it a gun carriage) and "man at arms" not "knight in armour" . Was also shocked by the euphemisms deployed, not "the coffin" but the king's body. Personally I always refer to people dying, not "passing away" we should return to plain speaking.
I agree entirely about silly euphemisms. Richard did not 'pass away' he was brutally hacked to pieces. He was, in fact, killed. Why not say so?
The public may not be ready for the brutality I guess. I recall around the time of the announcement I got an alumnus magazine from the University of Leicester which described the wounds, and I think it included the phrase 'post mortem humiliation wounds' regarding sword scratches found on the pelvis.
Are all Labour donors hedge fund managers nowadays?
Top Quality Journo. ."made some good points ahead of our manifesto"....means pay us the wonga and you can influence our manifesto. ARF!
While the implication may be a bit strong, I think your ridicule is a bit overdone, as it would suggest anything short of a ' I say, sir, I am thrilled to put things in the manifesto at your direction for cold hard cash' would be taken as not definitive.
Ooops, I almost forgot to mention, there is a pb-er concealed in The Ice Twins.
Yes. One of the characters is based on someone who posts here.
If anyone can guess who it is, I will send them a free copy, though of course, you'd probably have to buy a copy to guess in the first place.
But there it is. Who is the mystery pb-er in S K Tremayne's The Ice Twins? And, perhaps more importantly, who will play him or her in the surely-inevitable movie?
I wondered where Tim has been hiding all this time.
Ooops, I almost forgot to mention, there is a pb-er concealed in The Ice Twins.
Yes. One of the characters is based on someone who posts here.
If anyone can guess who it is, I will send them a free copy, though of course, you'd probably have to buy a copy to guess in the first place.
Hmm, would we have to guess the pb-er and name the character based on them? Otherwise it'd be a bit easy to suggest, say, NPXMP and be done with it I suppose.
Well my blue Monday theory has taken a bit of a beating today. If they follow the normal pattern and fall off from here for the rest of the week some of those on Tory most seats are going to start to panic.
Ooops, I almost forgot to mention, there is a pb-er concealed in The Ice Twins.
Yes. One of the characters is based on someone who posts here.
If anyone can guess who it is, I will send them a free copy, though of course, you'd probably have to buy a copy to guess in the first place.
But there it is. Who is the mystery pb-er in S K Tremayne's The Ice Twins? And, perhaps more importantly, who will play him or her in the surely-inevitable movie?
Yes, I think I spotted it! I actually picked up a copy after someone recommended it on here but - and this is God's honest truth - didn't realize it was by you until the end where one of the characters uses one of your insults about female hygiene products. Good creepy stuff. I felt a bit unnerved over the four days I took to read it.
However I will defend Philippa Gregory's books to a certain degree: they got me interested in this period a few years ago, and I treated them as a source from which to dive into a little exploration of the real history of the period, even if mostly (although nit exclusively) via Wikipedia (yes, I know). Popularism can get people interested in something, where a dry tome might not.
What do you make of C.J. Sansom's books? I like their spirit (humane, mildly pro-reform lawyer trying to survive the vicious current of reform and counter-reform) though I feel they've somewhat lost momentum in the latest one. I have no idea how accurate they are.
Comments
Didn't work. Would have been Johnny Cash's best promo directed by Tony Kaye
None of this is likely to go down well in Middle England to (small minority) PM Ed's detriment.
In vain do all bar one professional historian of the period point out that Richard was accused of murdering his nephews long before the Tudors arrived on the scene. In vain do they note that actually, the Tudors never bothered to accuse him of infanticide, indeed they steered clear of the topic. In vain do they point out that the reasons Richard lost at Bosworth field are (1) two-thirds of his army abandoned him and (2) he led a suicide charge to try and redress the odds, typical of his recklessness. In vain do they point out that he was a usurper who murdered, executed, distrained upon, attainted and generally damaged more people than all his five predecessors (God knows none of them saints) put together. Richard has suddenly become the martyred saint, 'a man of integrity and courage' as that appalling sycophant said yesterday, and the Tudors the evil barstewards who usurped the throne from this saint.
And I know this because I am an expert on Richard in culture, and I have tried, hard, to put the record straight only to get mindless abuse for my pains.
Whether it's relevant or not is a different question, but I'm always angry about pseudohistory. If anyone is genuinely interested, steer clear of Ashdown-Hill - try Michael Hicks or Charles Ross: Michael Bennett's Road to Bosworth is also very good but I'm not sure if it's still in print. David Baldwin is the only professional historian who still tends to the Ricardian side - but I'm not impressed by his arguments, as perhaps you can tell.
Oh and having finished my rant, I did love that cartoon!
Gorgeous George has about as much right to be there as she does.
Only season ticket holders of city, arsenal, west ham, west brom, Southampton, palace and Burnley are allowed to vote on who won
Of course they will almost certainly do better but they must now be wondering just how much better? As must the numerous Scottish MPs who are about to lose long held seats and become Ed's "McCannon fodder".
All we need now is for one of them at PMQs to shout Freedom and lob a sword at Ed Milliband.
Thank you. I'll give one of those books a try.
Do you know if I can get good odds on her saying Fandabidozi?
But I don't suppose she cares much about that - as long as she's known in Wales, that's really the only constituency she's interested in.
http://www.alphavilleonline.net/see-what-happens-when-the-boss-is-not-in-the-work-video/
Mentally I added to your caption the phrase "and also because there's money in it."
Tory minister mocks the poor and jokes about buying luxury cars on MPs' expenses
Oh dear Tories need to shut idiots like this up.
*ducks head in case of offense*
ComRes Undecided voters poll
"When pushed who they would vote for, Labour have a narrow lead over the Conservatives amongst undecided voters (21% vs 18%), followed by UKIP on 14%. However, even when pushed about who to vote if the election were tomorrow and it were a legal requirement to vote, more undecided voters don’t know who they would vote for (27%) than say they are inclined towards any particular political party."
http://comres.co.uk/polls/gmb-undecided-voters-poll/
(Yeah, right.....)
They may be important stories, but the *truth* of them seems rather nebulous. We may know that Henry VIII had six wives, or that Richard III died in 1485, but can we really be sure of the dynamic between Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell that led to the latter's death, or between Richard III and Buckingham?
To this decidedly non-expert, this seems to be where many historians make their living: using sparse documentary sources and reading the runes. To me, the really good historians try to find new evidence (e.g. battlefield explorations, archaeological digs, document searches), or try to wind back the layers of propaganda that have built up over time to get to the bare original 'facts', however nebulous they may be, without adding new layers of interpretation and modern spin.
But again, IANAE.
However I will defend Philippa Gregory's books to a certain degree: they got me interested in this period a few years ago, and I treated them as a source from which to dive into a little exploration of the real history of the period, even if mostly (although nit exclusively) via Wikipedia (yes, I know). Popularism can get people interested in something, where a dry tome might not.
Ave it now recognises, in line with every thread header, that everything is bad for CON and that LAB will romp it!
LAB gain Bedford!
LAB gain Watford!!
LAB gain Surrey Heath!!!
Oh well. Better luck next time.
Keep trying. I'm sure you'll make it eventually.
He missed Ave it off his list of likely replacements?
2) We are still missing a large amount of information e.g. the party manifestos
It's far better than the other book of yours I read. Then again, I'm not reading this one whilst in a tent on some godforsaken mountain during a storm, which might help. :-)
Seriously though, the voice is so unlike yours, so... feminine. I keep on expecting to find a SeanT-esque rant on the next page. Perhaps that'll be in the next ten percent?
(In fact, it might be fun if you could do the next rant on here in her personae)
CON 22 LAB 62 OTH 16
'Can we really be sure of the dynamic between Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell that led to the latter's death, or between Richard III and Buckingham?'
We can't. This is why in order to advance beyond GCSE you have to show that you understand all the different interpretations that have been put on it.
'To me, the really good historians try to find new evidence...or try to wind back the layers of propaganda that have built up over time to get to the bare original 'facts', however nebulous they may be, without adding new layers of interpretation and modern spin.'
Agree up to a point. All historians, to gain a PhD, have to show that they have provided original material (so for example I got a number of classified archives opened up). However this has happened in the case of Richard III over the last 50-60 years without making any substantial difference to the allegations against him. Indeed, it is arguably more difficult to defend him now than it was when Paul Kendall tried to in the 1950s, because of the new material that has been unearthed. The most important was Dominic Mancini's account of the usurpation (although admittedly that was in the 1930s, but it was published later) which confirmed that Richard had acted illegally and contrary to the wishes of the population in seizing the crown, and had put forward one theory after another to justify it until he hit on one that seemed vaguely plausible (that Edward was already married when he married Elizabeth Grey - incidentally, protestations of the RIII society to the contrary, he almost certainly wasn't and even if he was, it would actually have made no difference under the circumstances to Edward V's legitimacy so the point is moot).
'However I will defend Philippa Gregory's books to a certain degree: they got me interested in this period a few years ago... Popularism can get people interested in something, where a dry tome might not.'
You may notice that I very specifically attacked the TV series, because I must confess I do think Gregory is a very capable writer if we just talk about her prose style (because this is her main strength, her novels do not translate well to the screen where dialogue, character and plot matter more). However, I also find her very arrogant and very dishonest. She is not, and never has been, a professional historian. She is not, and never has been, an ordinary researcher. She is, rather, a doctor in English Literature with a BA from Sussex when it was going through a bad patch, and a writer of fiction. If she were willing to admit that, awesome. As she isn't, we have a problem. Again, this is less in her books than in her supposed 'non-fiction', which is equally inaccurate and causes a great many problems.
Hope that is of interest, and hope you have fun finding out more - may I again recommend those books above as maybe a bit better than WP?
@GuidoFawkes: You're quiet today @chrislesliemp
All of it?
12 hours 12 minutes 12 seconds
I can only imagine how it feels, 'cos achieving this is against all the odds in your game.
How long did it take to write and plan? I remember you spent some time on a Northern Britain (slips into PB piss take lingo) remote island a while ago. Was that a part of this book?
I doff my cap in respect to you.
I say a 3-point Tory lead just to troll us / keep us on our toes.
The only other king who even remotely compared to that was John, who caused Artur, Duc de Bretagne and his nephew, to 'disappear' in much the same way as Richard did Edward V (because Artur was ahead of John in the line of succession). That was a crime that bedevilled his reign and made him very unpopular. But Artur was a lot older than Edward and had at least fought against John to take the crown. Edward was a helpless child. His murder, and that of his brother, was a real shock.
If you need evidence of that, remember that only one member of the southern gentry - the Duke of Norfolk - was willing to fight for Richard at Bosworth. All others declared for the other side, and most of them had done so as early as 1483. These were men with everything to lose and nothing to gain from rebellion. They were clearly absolutely horrified with Richard. It can't have been because of his personal tyranny because he was not actually a bad ruler. It cannot have been the usurpation - they had backed Edward IV, after all. It can only really have been the murder of the princes.
I agree entirely about silly euphemisms. Richard did not 'pass away' he was brutally hacked to pieces. He was, in fact, killed. Why not say so?
The only thing worse than that would be 9 pictures of a smiling Ed...but that's (a) too awful to contemplate and (b) not likely to happen.
Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards and Public Life, said: "The point about having access to opposition key leaders like Crhis Leslie is of course normally their policies are much more fluid.
"They're trying to develop policies they think are going to be attractive to the public and you see a specific reference to the manifesto. So here he is at the point of development of the policies of the Labour Party where he might actually influence a manifesto pledge."
Top Quality Journo. ."made some good points ahead of our manifesto"....means pay us the wonga and you can influence our manifesto. ARF!
Hope not. He's a ticking timebomb under the flailing Tory campaign.
You've repented and now you're with the light. Welcome...
With that, I'm off to bed to try and purge that frightful image from my mind.
If I have nightmares, I'll blame you...
Good night all.
Ave_It has turned to the dark side...
Go Ed!!
Go Rachel Reeves!!!
Like an alcoholic, it is sad when someone relapses into the bad old ways.
LOL
No Bulmer's, Coates or Strongbow I suspect :-(
Yes 62.5%