A brutal assessment of Labours present position and of ed's role in the catastrophe now engulfing them.
"Historically, Labour has been slow to seek medical treatment. Some of us naively thought that, having been brought back from four defeats in 1997, it would never need to go through such a long exile again. Now, if Labour is only defeated again in 2020 and 2025 it will have got off lightly"
Evidence-free question-begging from Rentoul. The only reason to supposed David Miliband might have done better is that he could hardly have done worse, but what would have been different? Bananas instead of bacon sandwiches? David too would have been attacked for looking weird, speaking in pseudo-academic wonkery, and having a father. David would have been pictured in the SNP's pocket. Conservatives would still have decimated the LibDems.
Quite.
Either Labour bats for the poor, in which case it alienates too much of the "centre ground", or else it doesn't - in which case it's utterly pointless as a Party. Class politics (at least within Britain) are finished. Labour is an idea whose time has gone. The Tories are in power for a generation or even longer.
Or... the left find a way to do social democracy and helping the poor without requiring large amounts of other peoples money, and especially without big dollops of borrowing. There really should be more to Labour than playing Robin Hood.
Borrowing began with WW1 - it's how Keynes paid for it (War Loan). Borrowing is OK if everyone signs up for it (usually described as "capital expenditure" - but is that really any more than an accounting device?) People will only sign up for social democracy in an ethnically homogenous society. Sad but true. That's why Labour is an idea whose time has gone.
Seriously? How do you think the wars against Napoleon were funded?
Or even earlier: Marlborough's wars in the early 18th Century led to the creation of the modern British debt market.
I think I'll offer an alternative view. The choice of leader is nowhere near as important as OGH and others claim it is. The view from some of the Tory-inclined on here that none of the Labour leadership candidates is credible as a Prime Minister and that the Conservatives are in for a generation is, apart from a weak attempt to dispirit those of us not in the Conservative camp, nonsense.
In essence, therefore, it's about luck and the failings of others. The LOTO is always defined by the performance of the Government he/she is opposing. The Coalition was a good Government and Labour from 2010-15 had no credible economic alternative narrative so in essence it probably didn't better whether it was one of the Miliband brothers or anyone else who had won the leadership in 2010. Worse for Labour, the Coalition retained its cohesion and for the better part of its life was seen to be in control of events.
Labour's best chance in 2020 will come from Conservative problems which will occur at some point whether self-inflicted or the fault of events and forces wholly outside its control. If the Conservatives implode over the EU or are in some way seen by the electorate to have lost the competence for Government, Labour will benefit (as will other parties).
Tory cock ups, and there is some good potential for them, offer Labour chances no question, but picking the right person to exploit that, which can be hard to predict in fairness, will be crucial for doing so. Could Davis had achieved the same or better as Cameronin 2010, setting things up for 2015? Hard to say, but it's unlikely things would have played the same way; labour have to try to figure out who is best placed to take on whatever the Tories throw up, not an easy task, but the frontman or woman does crucially effect how they respond to that.
I would say ideas of Tories being in power for generations is nonsense, but let us not forget labour people are saying it too. I think they are wrong, but that fear/hope is not being used purely to dispirit non conservatives.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
"Foreigners must be stopped from buying UK homes with "plundered or laundered cash" as part of a "global effort" to defeat corruption, David Cameron will say in a speech later.
Mr Cameron will vow to expose the use of "anonymous shell companies" to buy luxury UK properties - often in London.
Speaking in Singapore, he will say the UK must not become "a safe haven for corrupt money from around the world". He will say the international community must tackle the "cancer of corruption"....
More than 100,000 UK property titles are registered to overseas companies, with more than 36,000 properties in London owned by offshore firms.
The government is to publish Land Registry data later this year, setting out which foreign companies own land and property in England and Wales.
It will also consider forcing a foreign company bidding for a government contract to "publicly state who really owns it".
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
I think it's a combination of two things - one is the gap in seat numbers, to close that gap enough to win in 2020 would be a feat rarely accomplished unless the previous HMG has really effed-up/mega black swan.
And secondly, without such circumstances, it'd take two GEs to make it back with a fair wind against HMG/credible LotO in place with sensible policies that appealed to the centre and their own side.
Are Labour likely to achieve the first? Very unlikely. So that's GE2025 to aim for. It's just a case of maths and past experiences, not hubris.
The Tories were out from 1997-2015 with a halfway in 2010. Labour were out from 1979-1997.
I think I'll offer an alternative view. The choice of leader is nowhere near as important as OGH and others claim it is. The view from some of the Tory-inclined on here that none of the Labour leadership candidates is credible as a Prime Minister and that the Conservatives are in for a generation is, apart from a weak attempt to dispirit those of us not in the Conservative camp, nonsense.
In essence, therefore, it's about luck and the failings of others. The LOTO is always defined by the performance of the Government he/she is opposing. The Coalition was a good Government and Labour from 2010-15 had no credible economic alternative narrative so in essence it probably didn't better whether it was one of the Miliband brothers or anyone else who had won the leadership in 2010. Worse for Labour, the Coalition retained its cohesion and for the better part of its life was seen to be in control of events.
Labour's best chance in 2020 will come from Conservative problems which will occur at some point whether self-inflicted or the fault of events and forces wholly outside its control. If the Conservatives implode over the EU or are in some way seen by the electorate to have lost the competence for Government, Labour will benefit (as will other parties).
Tory cock ups, and there is some good potential for them, offer Labour chances no question, but picking the right person to exploit that, which can be hard to predict in fairness, will be crucial for doing so. Could Davis had achieved the same or better as Cameronin 2010, setting things up for 2015? Hard to say, but it's unlikely things would have played the same way; labour have to try to figure out who is best placed to take on whatever the Tories throw up, not an easy task, but the frontman or woman does crucially effect how they respond to that.
I would say ideas of Tories being in power for generations is nonsense, but let us not forget labour people are saying it too. I think they are wrong, but that fear/hope is not being used purely to dispirit non conservatives.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I didn't know that - my dad is convinced the Sheffield Rally did for him, but you probably have a point. And yes, he did change the Labour Party that allowed Blair to do what he did.
Labour's best chance in 2020 will come from Conservative problems which will occur at some point whether self-inflicted or the fault of events and forces wholly outside its control. If the Conservatives implode over the EU or are in some way seen by the electorate to have lost the competence for Government, Labour will benefit (as will other parties).
No, Labour's best chance in 2020 will come from espousing an economic policy that is coherent and based on pragmatic economics, not envy and class warfare. If the economy tanks, it will still require the Tories to be perceived as having caused it, or if it is another world recession (due to the collapse of China as a market, perhaps) to have fumbled the ball for Labour even to get a look in. Without a coherent Plan B, they are still unlikely to convince those who were unconvinced by Labour in 2010 and 2015.
A route to power based on the hope the Tories will implode is not much of a hope on its own.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
Many were paid up members of CND. As for Greenham common well there was the view at the time that they had every right to make their views known but having done so, go and do that in Russia and see how you get on. ........They never did of course.
The combined strength and will of the people of the west held and finally we had "openness" perestroika. Yet, if that election had gone the other way and a major European ally had taken an alternative view then what would have happened? Mind you we could have always asked France to protect our interests.
I think it's a combination of two things - one is the gap in seat numbers, to close that gap enough to win in 2020 would be a feat rarely accomplished unless the previous HMG has really effed-up/mega black swan.
Or the conservatives tear themselves apart over Europe. They seem pretty well disciplined at the moment, right enough
The collective insanity within Lab seems to be catching. Dan Hodges has rejoined in order to vote for Corbyn. His theory: test the Left to destruction by allowing them a go at trying to win an election. Blairites for Corbyn.
I watched a few Jerry Springers the other day and I honestly don't have a clue what's going on - it's on-stage fighting, effing so much that the broadcast is 80% beeped out, shoutinginastreamofincomprehensiblerage and an audience baying for blood.
I rather like Jeremy Kyle as he tries to keep control - Springer seems to like the bear-pit more. A decade ago I watched his show open-mouthed and appalled. Now after my recent diet of pulp reality TV, it seems quite restrained!
As an aside, is it normal for search warrants to be granted to raid the apartments of people suspected of having very small amounts of narcotics?
Not the drugs it's the possibility of blackMail etc while being in a position of trust and having access to goodness knows what. Pillow talk costs careers and has cost lives quite often
I often got the feeling that some Labourites had a bit of a soft-spot for the Soviets, and hated the US more. So going all CNDish was a way to covertly dress up their leanings with flower power.
I've never felt the teeniest bit keen on the Soviets - I've been impressed by some of their doings, but sympathetic never.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
Many were paid up members of CND. As for Greenham common well there was the view at the time that they had every right to make their views known but having done so, go and do that in Russia and see how you get on. ........They never did of course.
The combined strength and will of the people of the west held and finally we had "openness" perestroika. Yet, if that election had gone the other way and a major European ally had taken an alternative view then what would have happened? Mind you we could have always asked France to protect our interests.
I think it's a combination of two things - one is the gap in seat numbers, to close that gap enough to win in 2020 would be a feat rarely accomplished unless the previous HMG has really effed-up/mega black swan.
Or the conservatives tear themselves apart over Europe. They seem pretty well disciplined at the moment, right enough
I think the Conservatives should hold together either Europe. The only danger is if Cameron and Osborne come back and misrepresent what they've negotiated, which would then sow anger and distrust. As long as they are honest about what they've achieved, I think people in the party will have an honest and reasonable debate.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
In EU matters, when have Labour ever stood up for UK interests over the harmony of the EU? I have heard Labour supporters clearly argue that putting the UK's interests first is 'narrow nationalism' and we should put the wellbeing of all of Europe first in the name of 'solidarity'. I have heard similar arguments on immigration: yes, while it may be bad for the British working class, there is greater uplift for the immigrants coming here, so it is good for the world overall and should be done.
A brutal assessment of Labours present position and of ed's role in the catastrophe now engulfing them.
"Historically, Labour has been slow to seek medical treatment. Some of us naively thought that, having been brought back from four defeats in 1997, it would never need to go through such a long exile again. Now, if Labour is only defeated again in 2020 and 2025 it will have got off lightly"
Evidence-free question-begging from Rentoul. The only reason to supposed David Miliband might have done better is that he could hardly have done worse, but what would have been different? Bananas instead of bacon sandwiches? David too would have been attacked for looking weird, speaking in pseudo-academic wonkery, and having a father. David would have been pictured in the SNP's pocket. Conservatives would still have decimated the LibDems.
Quite.
Either Labour bats for the poor, in which case it alienates too much of the "centre ground", or else it doesn't - in which case it's utterly pointless as a Party. Class politics (at least within Britain) are finished. Labour is an idea whose time has gone. The Tories are in power for a generation or even longer.
Or... the left find a way to do social democracy and helping the poor without requiring large amounts of other peoples money, and especially without big dollops of borrowing. There really should be more to Labour than playing Robin Hood.
Borrowing began with WW1 - it's how Keynes paid for it (War Loan). Borrowing is OK if everyone signs up for it (usually described as "capital expenditure" - but is that really any more than an accounting device?) People will only sign up for social democracy in an ethnically homogenous society. Sad but true. That's why Labour is an idea whose time has gone.
Seriously? How do you think the wars against Napoleon were funded?
Or even earlier: Marlborough's wars in the early 18th Century led to the creation of the modern British debt market.
Indeed, but I always liked Paul Kennedy's theory that the fact that the UK was able to borrow at a couple of percent less than Napoleon was more decisive than the military brilliance of Wellington.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
Nah, the words "Chris" and "Grayling" in close proximity to each other was a sufficient clue.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
In EU matters, when have Labour ever stood up for UK interests over the harmony of the EU? I have heard Labour supporters clearly argue that putting the UK's interests first is 'narrow nationalism' and we should put the wellbeing of all of Europe first in the name of 'solidarity'. I have heard similar arguments on immigration: yes, while it may be bad for the British working class, there is greater uplift for the immigrants coming here, so it is good for the world overall and should be done.
Flightpath makes the same argument from the right with his tired drum-bang about "nativism" when talking about kippers. Both appear to be somewhat adrift from the great majority of public opinion. (TBF I think Flightpath would claim black was white if it gave him an opportunity to sneer at Farage )
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I didn't know that - my dad is convinced the Sheffield Rally did for him, but you probably have a point. And yes, he did change the Labour Party that allowed Blair to do what he did.
I think political historians tend to downplay the importance of Sheffield these days. Certainly there were other major factors during the campaign. The 'Jennifers Ear' stunt comes to mind.
As an aside, is it normal for search warrants to be granted to raid the apartments of people suspected of having very small amounts of narcotics?
Not the drugs it's the possibility of blackMail etc while being in a position of trust and having access to goodness knows what. Pillow talk costs careers and has cost lives quite often
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
It is a completely unprecedented (in the UK) intrusion into private property. Why should judges be in a better place to decide what people do with their own money than the owner themselves? And apart from anything else, it seems to be encouraging inequality: compelling rich people to leave money to their children just builds up some families more than others. It is the road to an even more entitlement society, where children born to rich families know they will inherit their parents' money regardless of what their parents feel.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
In EU matters, when have Labour ever stood up for UK interests over the harmony of the EU? I have heard Labour supporters clearly argue that putting the UK's interests first is 'narrow nationalism' and we should put the wellbeing of all of Europe first in the name of 'solidarity'. I have heard similar arguments on immigration: yes, while it may be bad for the British working class, there is greater uplift for the immigrants coming here, so it is good for the world overall and should be done.
Classic example being giving away our rebate. And complaining when Thatcher negotiated to get it in the first place.
A brutal assessment of Labours present position and of ed's role in the catastrophe now engulfing them.
"Historically, Labour has been slow to seek medical treatment. Some of us naively thought that, having been brought back from four defeats in 1997, it would never need to go through such a long exile again. Now, if Labour is only defeated again in 2020 and 2025 it will have got off lightly"
Evidence-free question-begging from Rentoul. The only reason to supposed David Miliband might have done better is that he could hardly have done worse, but what would have been different? Bananas instead of bacon sandwiches? David too would have been attacked for looking weird, speaking in pseudo-academic wonkery, and having a father. David would have been pictured in the SNP's pocket. Conservatives would still have decimated the LibDems.
Quite.
Either Labour bats for the poor, in which case it alienates too much of the "centre ground", or else it doesn't - in which case it's utterly pointless as a Party. Class politics (at least within Britain) are finished. Labour is an idea whose time has gone. The Tories are in power for a generation or even longer.
Or... the left find a way to do social democracy and helping the poor without requiring large amounts of other peoples money, and especially without big dollops of borrowing. There really should be more to Labour than playing Robin Hood.
Borrowing began with WW1 - it's how Keynes paid for it (War Loan). Borrowing is OK if everyone signs up for it (usually described as "capital expenditure" - but is that really any more than an accounting device?) People will only sign up for social democracy in an ethnically homogenous society. Sad but true. That's why Labour is an idea whose time has gone.
Seriously? How do you think the wars against Napoleon were funded?
Or even earlier: Marlborough's wars in the early 18th Century led to the creation of the modern British debt market.
Indeed, but I always liked Paul Kennedy's theory that the fact that the UK was able to borrow at a couple of percent less than Napoleon was more decisive than the military brilliance of Wellington.
Is that in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers? Is it good? Should I read it?
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
It is a completely unprecedented (in the UK) intrusion into private property. Why should judges be in a better place to decide what people do with their own money than the owner themselves? And apart from anything else, it seems to be encouraging inequality: compelling rich people to leave money to their children just builds up some families more than others. It is the road to an even more entitlement society, where children born to rich families know they will inherit their parents' money regardless of what their parents feel.
Its certainly going to encourage more wealthy parents to go out with a bang!
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
It is a completely unprecedented (in the UK) intrusion into private property. Why should judges be in a better place to decide what people do with their own money than the owner themselves? And apart from anything else, it seems to be encouraging inequality: compelling rich people to leave money to their children just builds up some families more than others. It is the road to an even more entitlement society, where children born to rich families know they will inherit their parents' money regardless of what their parents feel.
Actually its not. In Scots law we have the concept of legal rights which entitles the children to 1/3 of the moveable estate regardless of what the will says (this is a bit of an oversimplification but the details are not important).
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
It is a completely unprecedented (in the UK) intrusion into private property. Why should judges be in a better place to decide what people do with their own money than the owner themselves? And apart from anything else, it seems to be encouraging inequality: compelling rich people to leave money to their children just builds up some families more than others. It is the road to an even more entitlement society, where children born to rich families know they will inherit their parents' money regardless of what their parents feel.
Its certainly going to encourage more wealthy parents to go out with a bang!
It is not quite unprecedented. The challenge was based a right to “reasonable provision” which is contained in the 1975 Inheritance Act, for children.
I honestly never considered the Sheffield Rally as anything notable at the time. I was pretty convinced the Tories were on their last legs and voted LD just to mark a ballot paper. Jennifer's Ear was a very ugly spat that didn't do Labour any favours either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jennifer's_Ear
Kinnock had made a lot of progress, but pre-1979 was still too big in my mind to consider Labour being electable. I guess a lot of other voters felt the same.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I didn't know that - my dad is convinced the Sheffield Rally did for him, but you probably have a point. And yes, he did change the Labour Party that allowed Blair to do what he did.
I think political historians tend to downplay the importance of Sheffield these days. Certainly there were other major factors during the campaign. The 'Jennifers Ear' stunt comes to mind.
No, Labour's best chance in 2020 will come from espousing an economic policy that is coherent and based on pragmatic economics, not envy and class warfare. If the economy tanks, it will still require the Tories to be perceived as having caused it, or if it is another world recession (due to the collapse of China as a market, perhaps) to have fumbled the ball for Labour even to get a look in. Without a coherent Plan B, they are still unlikely to convince those who were unconvinced by Labour in 2010 and 2015.
A route to power based on the hope the Tories will implode is not much of a hope on its own.
I agree to a point though I appreciate you write from the viewpoint of a Conservative member and activist. We are nearly three months in to a sixty-month electoral cycle (or 5% through the life of this Government if you like). The next election is an eternity away and, without being unkind, if you think this Government, unlike every other Government, is going to go to 2020 without a significant mid-term fall in popularity or without facing some form of internal or external crisis, then you've no understanding of politics or government.
The Government's problems are of course the Opposition's opportunity but this is a staged process - stage 1 is pointing out the problems and ensuring the public know it's all the Government's fault (with no LD human shields this time, Cameron/Osborne will be forced to blame either the global economy, the EU or immigrants or some other group).
Stage 2 becomes "the Government's caused this mess, this is what we will do to fix it" and I wholeheartedly agree this was Labour's problem from 2010-15 not helped by the proximity to its own flawed period of Government which meant even if they had come up with a solution, the Conservative counter-response would have been "why didn't you do that when you were in power ?". After a decade, that argument won't wash.
If you follow that, it becomes irrelevant who Labour had as leader in 2010 - they were as damaged electorally as Hague was in 1997 by association and by the fact that a Party, defeated after a long period in Government, cannot immediately and completely do a rethink of its policy and programme.
Blair and Cameron (though not Thatcher) were not ideologically associated with the period in Government - had Dan Jarvis been standing now and won, he would have been a very much harder opponent for the Conservatives on a personal level but in terms of policy he faces exactly the same issues all the other candidates do.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
It is a completely unprecedented (in the UK) intrusion into private property. Why should judges be in a better place to decide what people do with their own money than the owner themselves? And apart from anything else, it seems to be encouraging inequality: compelling rich people to leave money to their children just builds up some families more than others. It is the road to an even more entitlement society, where children born to rich families know they will inherit their parents' money regardless of what their parents feel.
Its certainly going to encourage more wealthy parents to go out with a bang!
It is not quite unprecedented. The challenge was based a right to “reasonable provision” which is contained in the 1975 Inheritance Act, for children.
Yes, I quoted from that act below. It is the first time it has been used in the context of a child that has been grown up and out of contact with their parents for thirty years having been effectively disowned due to some family drama. The provision in question was apparently put in place to protect children (minors) whose parents died unexpected having not made provision or having an out of date will, not adults in their 50s that hadn't spoken to their parents for three decades.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
It is a completely unprecedented (in the UK) intrusion into private property. Why should judges be in a better place to decide what people do with their own money than the owner themselves? And apart from anything else, it seems to be encouraging inequality: compelling rich people to leave money to their children just builds up some families more than others. It is the road to an even more entitlement society, where children born to rich families know they will inherit their parents' money regardless of what their parents feel.
Its certainly going to encourage more wealthy parents to go out with a bang!
And charities receiving less money in the process. A really terrible decision. It puts rich kids ahead of charities, property rights and an equal society.
A brutal assessment of Labours present position and of ed's role in the catastrophe now engulfing them.
"Historically, Labour has been slow to seek medical treatment. Some of us naively thought that, having been brought back from four defeats in 1997, it would never need to go through such a long exile again. Now, if Labour is only defeated again in 2020 and 2025 it will have got off lightly"
Evidence-free question-begging from Rentoul. The only reason to supposed David Miliband might have done better is that he could hardly have done worse, but what would have been different? Bananas instead of bacon sandwiches? David too would have been attacked for looking weird, speaking in pseudo-academic wonkery, and having a father. David would have been pictured in the SNP's pocket. Conservatives would still have decimated the LibDems.
Or... the left find a way to do social democracy and helping the poor without requiring large amounts of other peoples money, and especially without big dollops of borrowing. There really should be more to Labour than playing Robin Hood.
Borrowing began with WW1 - it's how Keynes paid for it (War Loan). Borrowing is OK if everyone signs up for it (usually described as "capital expenditure" - but is that really any more than an accounting device?) People will only sign up for social democracy in an ethnically homogenous society. Sad but true. That's why Labour is an idea whose time has gone.
Seriously? How do you think the wars against Napoleon were funded?
Or even earlier: Marlborough's wars in the early 18th Century led to the creation of the modern British debt market.
Indeed, but I always liked Paul Kennedy's theory that the fact that the UK was able to borrow at a couple of percent less than Napoleon was more decisive than the military brilliance of Wellington.
Is that in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers? Is it good? Should I read it?
If I was only allowed to take 1 history book onto my desert island it would be a toss up between The Rise and Fall and Battle Cry of Freedom. Its brilliant.
O/T - if you want a good laugh, Lord Sewel's character assassinations on page 7 of the Metro this morning are very good.
It will be interesting to see how this spins out. Many in the media and in politics must be hoping this does not herald public opinion turning against hedonistic drug abuse by our betters.
.. drugs, prostitutes nothing new here, but wearing a bra opened him to ridicule. That's what did for him.
Orange bra, must get my computer monitor recalibrated, as it had a clear red hue.
My bank's ATM produced some new ones yesterday. It is only recently that if you draw out under £100, that the notes mix from my bank always includes some £5s.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
The Democrats have no problem with patriotism or pride in being American.
Labour do. They are uncomfortable with the whole concept of nationhood. The reality is that on defence, immigration, socio-cultural policies and in Europe, Labour have sold us down the river time and time again. Now they're doing it again, with high-profile MPs like Gerald Kaufman saying EVEL is "racist".
I could never consider voting for a party that does not have pride and self-respect for this country and, by design, betrays the interests of its people.
I accept you are not, and a patriotic man, but you are not representative of the leadership and key influencers within your party.
Anecdotal claim seen elsewhere: " The secretary of a CLP in a safe Tory seat in the South of England recently became aware that several members are going to be voting for Corbyn and after a "WTF are you secret Tories that want to destroy the party!?" moment he asked them why. Turns out they managed to get 60 - 1 odds on Corbyn at the beginning of the contest and decided to put some money on him, they have already decided that Labour are going to loose the next election whoever wins the leadership contest so they figure they may as well make some money."
If this kind of behaviour is at all common, it will inflate Corbyn's vote. It probably won't be enough to affect the election result, but it will leave the next Labour leader thinking Corbyn is more popular with the party than he actually is, leading to political miscalculations.
Is there any reliable non-anecdotal evidence of Labour party members betting on their leadership election in significant numbers?
Seems a good idea, will consider it for the Tories when Cameron hangs up his coat, sounds like fun.
O/T - if you want a good laugh, Lord Sewel's character assassinations on page 7 of the Metro this morning are very good.
It will be interesting to see how this spins out. Many in the media and in politics must be hoping this does not herald public opinion turning against hedonistic drug abuse by our betters.
.. drugs, prostitutes nothing new here, but wearing a bra opened him to ridicule. That's what did for him.
Orange bra, must get my computer monitor recalibrated, as it had a clear red hue.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
It is a completely unprecedented (in the UK) intrusion into private property. Why should judges be in a better place to decide what people do with their own money than the owner themselves? And apart from anything else, it seems to be encouraging inequality: compelling rich people to leave money to their children just builds up some families more than others. It is the road to an even more entitlement society, where children born to rich families know they will inherit their parents' money regardless of what their parents feel.
Its certainly going to encourage more wealthy parents to go out with a bang!
And charities receiving less money in the process. A really terrible decision. It puts rich kids ahead of charities, property rights and an equal society.
Incidentally, if one were on their metaphorical death bed. You have previously realised the cash value of most of your assets. The priest had been and the gentleman with the scythe was waiting in the corner, and you at that time gave all your money to charity with witnesses, presumably that is a living action and not part of your will so it would not be possible to overturn it?
A classic case of BBC balance. They've responded with the "Britain should pay billions of pounds to India" opinion with a "Britain should not pay billions of pounds to India" opinion:
Next up will be a "Socialism is the greatest achievement of mankind" opinion with a "Socialism is not the greatest achievement of mankind opinion". For balance.
O/T - if you want a good laugh, Lord Sewel's character assassinations on page 7 of the Metro this morning are very good.
It will be interesting to see how this spins out. Many in the media and in politics must be hoping this does not herald public opinion turning against hedonistic drug abuse by our betters.
.. drugs, prostitutes nothing new here, but wearing a bra opened him to ridicule. That's what did for him.
Orange bra, must get my computer monitor recalibrated, as it had a clear red hue.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
In EU matters, when have Labour ever stood up for UK interests over the harmony of the EU? I have heard Labour supporters clearly argue that putting the UK's interests first is 'narrow nationalism' and we should put the wellbeing of all of Europe first in the name of 'solidarity'. I have heard similar arguments on immigration: yes, while it may be bad for the British working class, there is greater uplift for the immigrants coming here, so it is good for the world overall and should be done.
I agree with Lord Tebbit that some of Labour's actions in these areas amount to being close to treason. Britain comes last. Because we are bigoted ignorant oafs whose noses need to be rubbed in mass immigration and internationalism before we can be trusted enough to be respected by any Labour politicians we vote for. Gordon Brown said as much in 2010 - it was very revealing.
Labour: the party that holds you, your interests, your culture and your history in contempt.
Stodge " The next election is an eternity away and, without being unkind, if you think this Government, unlike every other Government, is going to go to 2020 without a significant mid-term fall in popularity or without facing some form of internal or external crisis, then you've no understanding of politics or government."
We don't disagree on that. But what 2015 showed was that any mid-term fall should be utterly discounted. You'll lose councils and possibly a few MP's along this bumpy bit of road. But the voters still reserve judgment until they have seen what all the parties have to say about the way ahead for the next five years.
There's an intriguing piece by Ed Conway on the difference between perceptions and economic reality - he takes the Sky News polling about the economy/personal circumstances and compares it to what's actually the case http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4509952.ece
My bank's ATM produced some new ones yesterday. It is only recently that if you draw out under £100, that the notes mix from my bank always includes some £5s.
When ATMs were first introduced (and gave 5 and 10 notes), my uncle worked on the code to ensure it always gave out a mix to avoid running out of one denomination
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
The Democrats have no problem with patriotism or pride in being American.
Labour do. They are uncomfortable with the whole concept of nationhood. The reality is that on defence, immigration, socio-cultural policies and in Europe, Labour have sold us down the river time and time again. Now they're doing it again, with high-profile MPs like Gerald Kaufman saying EVEL is "racist".
I could never consider voting for a party that does not have pride and self-respect for this country and, by design, betrays the interests of its people.
I accept you are not, and a patriotic man, but you are not representative of the leadership and key influencers within your party.
Then there was the Labour parliamentary candidate who said people who flew English flags were "casual racists". I remember when Margaret Hodge criticised the Proms for being too white and needed to be targeted more at ethnic minorities. Perhaps they could incorporate some Afro-Caribbean beats?
@DavidL@rcs1000 "If I was only allowed to take 1 history book onto my desert island it would be a toss up between The Rise and Fall and Battle Cry of Freedom. Its brilliant."
Most of Kennedy's books are worth taking onto a desert island. Though the point re Bank of England is understated, the British were able to borrow at lower interest rates than France for most of the period from 1714.
His recent book Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned the Tide in the Second World War is also very good. Highlights the importance of questioning perceived wisdoms, but also turns a few myths upside down, particularly interesting is the section on the T34. Poor engineering & build quality undermined the value of that design. The Mustang on the other hand was an astounding aircraft once a Merlin was married to the airframe, but antipathy of USAAF to non US engines nearly condemned it as an also ran.
The section on the bombing war is harrowing, and highlights how blocked headed RAF Air Marshalls failed to learn from the lessons of the Battle of Britain.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
You can blame Labour for that as well , apparently based on one of Sunny Jim's acts, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
1(1)(c)a child of the deceased; ... that person may apply to the court for an order under section 2 of this Act on the ground that the disposition of the deceased’s estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant.
Personally I feel that having had nothing to do with each other for more than three decades and then making an application on the basis of inadequate financial provision is slightly taking the p155.
In a lot of ways, it's a good piece of legislation. Some testators do behave unconscionably towards surviving spouses, dependants, and minor children, and this gives them redress.
I'm not sure what ground this lady would have to claim financial provision, as I don't see her readily fitting into any of the categories of applicant (hitherto, adult children have had to be financially dependant).
It's worth noting that the charities were still awarded two thirds of the estate (although I imagine the legal costs probably now exceed the amount in question).
Judges generally are less sympathetic to charities, and more sympathetic to disappointed relatives than they used to be.
Not so sure about that. The growth in UK employment without much real growth in GDP is a mystery but it was probably driven in part by falling real wages. Wages are now rising strongly in real terms. Last month was not so much a blip as part of a trend. I think employment will grow but at a much, much slower rate than in the last Parliament.
@EdConwaySky: Here's the bit of the GDP release today saying GDP per capita back to pre-crisis levels. A big moment for UK economy http://t.co/QuBaDjLhrm
I think I'll offer an alternative view. The choice of leader is nowhere near as important as OGH and others claim it is. ...
In 1975, there weren't many who saw Margaret Thatcher as a credible Prime Minister and indeed had Callaghan gone to the country in the Autumn of 1978, it's entirely conceivable he would have won the election. The Winter of Discontent and the political collapse of the Government in early 1979 opened the door for the Conservatives but arguably any of a dozen Conservative candidates could have on that election.
... it's entirely possible John Smith would have defeated John Major anyway given the virtual political collapse of the Conservatives after 1992 ...
Cameron too benefited from events well beyond his leadership.
... In essence, therefore, it's about luck and the failings of others.
A credible leader is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria for an election victory.
I have faith in the Great British Public to assess who they want as their PM. Purists might not like it, but the leaders play a huge role in the in voting decisions of millions.
His piece in the Times is excellent - breaking out the South income figs shows that much of the disparity is down to a single bit of London, and that income is less in bits of London than in Cumbria.
@EdConwaySky: Here's the bit of the GDP release today saying GDP per capita back to pre-crisis levels. A big moment for UK economy http://t.co/QuBaDjLhrm
@DavidL@rcs1000 "If I was only allowed to take 1 history book onto my desert island it would be a toss up between The Rise and Fall and Battle Cry of Freedom. Its brilliant."
Most of Kennedy's books are worth taking onto a desert island. Though the point re Bank of England is understated, the British were able to borrow at lower interest rates than France for most of the period from 1714.
His recent book Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned the Tide in the Second World War is also very good. Highlights the importance of questioning perceived wisdoms, but also turns a few myths upside down, particularly interesting is the section on the T34. Poor engineering & build quality undermined the value of that design. The Mustang on the other hand was an astounding aircraft once a Merlin was married to the airframe, but antipathy of USAAF to non US engines nearly condemned it as an also ran.
The section on the bombing war is harrowing, and highlights how blocked headed RAF Air Marshalls failed to learn from the lessons of the Battle of Britain.
Thanks for that. I will drop unsubtle hints for my forthcoming birthday. He is an exceptionally lucid writer able to present very large quantities of information in a coherent and comprehensible way.
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were worried. So worried that some lunatic Leftie removing Polaris was never going to get into No 10.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
The Democrats have no problem with patriotism or pride in being American.
Labour do. They are uncomfortable with the whole concept of nationhood. The reality is that on defence, immigration, socio-cultural policies and in Europe, Labour have sold us down the river time and time again. Now they're doing it again, with high-profile MPs like Gerald Kaufman saying EVEL is "racist".
I could never consider voting for a party that does not have pride and self-respect for this country and, by design, betrays the interests of its people.
I accept you are not, and a patriotic man, but you are not representative of the leadership and key influencers within your party.
Then there was the Labour parliamentary candidate who said people who flew English flags were "casual racists". I remember when Margaret Hodge criticised the Proms for being too white and needed to be targeted more at ethnic minorities. Perhaps they could incorporate some Afro-Caribbean beats?
They've been including Indian classical music since at least 1983 it seems. And why not?
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
The Democrats are routinely accused by the Republicans of not standing up for the US's interests. The Tories have always thrown this accusation at Labour too. The reality, of course, is that British interests are in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't think that the cobbled together EV4EL solution proposed by Chris Grayling was in any way in Britain's interests. I am sure others disagree.
The Democrats have no problem with patriotism or pride in being American.
Labour do. They are uncomfortable with the whole concept of nationhood. The reality is that on defence, immigration, socio-cultural policies and in Europe, Labour have sold us down the river time and time again. Now they're doing it again, with high-profile MPs like Gerald Kaufman saying EVEL is "racist".
I could never consider voting for a party that does not have pride and self-respect for this country and, by design, betrays the interests of its people.
I accept you are not, and a patriotic man, but you are not representative of the leadership and key influencers within your party.
Then there was the Labour parliamentary candidate who said people who flew English flags were "casual racists". I remember when Margaret Hodge criticised the Proms for being too white and needed to be targeted more at ethnic minorities. Perhaps they could incorporate some Afro-Caribbean beats?
The tweet of that "image from Rochester", the desire of that key advisor to "rub their noses in diversity", the sneering Matthew Taylor bemoaning that the problem with most of Britain is that it is not as global, multicultural and diverse as London. Labour's despising of their own country and people runs deep.
This is why I - and many others - felt like Britain was almost an occupied country when they were in charge.
Why should people vote for a party that holds them in contempt?
"The section on the bombing war is harrowing, and highlights how blocked headed RAF Air Marshalls failed to learn from the lessons of the Battle of Britain."
Anyone who studies modern British military history and policy with an open mind comes to the conclusion that just about every policy put forward by the RAF was/is wrong and usually inimicable to the UK's interests.
@DavidL@rcs1000 "If I was only allowed to take 1 history book onto my desert island it would be a toss up between The Rise and Fall and Battle Cry of Freedom. Its brilliant."
Most of Kennedy's books are worth taking onto a desert island. Though the point re Bank of England is understated, the British were able to borrow at lower interest rates than France for most of the period from 1714.
His recent book Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned the Tide in the Second World War is also very good. Highlights the importance of questioning perceived wisdoms, but also turns a few myths upside down, particularly interesting is the section on the T34. Poor engineering & build quality undermined the value of that design. The Mustang on the other hand was an astounding aircraft once a Merlin was married to the airframe, but antipathy of USAAF to non US engines nearly condemned it as an also ran.
The section on the bombing war is harrowing, and highlights how blocked headed RAF Air Marshalls failed to learn from the lessons of the Battle of Britain.
Thanks for that. I will drop unsubtle hints for my forthcoming birthday. He is an exceptionally lucid writer able to present very large quantities of information in a coherent and comprehensible way.
If I were allowed to take only one history book onto a desert island I would take this one:
Amen to that but can you recall the latest indy polling - I believe yes is falling albeit only a little. Do the SNP really want another ref at the moment?
The tweet of that "image from Rochester", the desire of that key advisor to "rub their noses in diversity", the sneering Matthew Taylor bemoaning that the problem with most of Britain is that it is not as global, multicultural and diverse as London. Labour's despising of their own country and people runs deep.
This is why I - and many others - felt like Britain was almost an occupied country when they were in charge.
Why should people vote for a party that holds them in contempt?
labour doesn't have a monopoly on snobbery, however
We don't disagree on that. But what 2015 showed was that any mid-term fall should be utterly discounted. You'll lose councils and possibly a few MP's along this bumpy bit of road. But the voters still reserve judgment until they have seen what all the parties have to say about the way ahead for the next five years.
Again, I disagree. The main victims of the 2010-15 Coalition mid-term slump were the Liberal Democrats. Yes, the Conservatives lost a by-election and a few councils but nothing like on the scale of the 1990s reverses.
This Parliament will be very different - the 2017 County and 2018 London Borough elections will be informative. The problem, and this is the argument thrown by Conservatives at other parties when they lose seats, is the impact of lost local seats on membership and morale.
How does the local Conservative MP respond when his/her supportive Conservative-controlled council is replaced by a Labour-run Council ? Big local losses create a sense of crisis and calls for change in either the Ministerial team or Government policy.
To be honest, many of the newer generation of Conservative activists (those who've joined since Cameron became leader) don't know what real unpopularity is. I expect the Conservatives to poll sub-30% in mid term and perhaps even lower. We may see a change of tone on here for example with more non-Conservative posts and posters and even some of the Conservatives having "doubts".
As you say, none of this precludes another Conservative majority in 2020 - it doesn't preclude a Conservative defeat either.
@DavidL@rcs1000 "If I was only allowed to take 1 history book onto my desert island it would be a toss up between The Rise and Fall and Battle Cry of Freedom. Its brilliant."
Most of Kennedy's books are worth taking onto a desert island. Though the point re Bank of England is understated, the British were able to borrow at lower interest rates than France for most of the period from 1714.
His recent book Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned the Tide in the Second World War is also very good. Highlights the importance of questioning perceived wisdoms, but also turns a few myths upside down, particularly interesting is the section on the T34. Poor engineering & build quality undermined the value of that design. The Mustang on the other hand was an astounding aircraft once a Merlin was married to the airframe, but antipathy of USAAF to non US engines nearly condemned it as an also ran.
The section on the bombing war is harrowing, and highlights how blocked headed RAF Air Marshalls failed to learn from the lessons of the Battle of Britain.
Thanks for that. I will drop unsubtle hints for my forthcoming birthday. He is an exceptionally lucid writer able to present very large quantities of information in a coherent and comprehensible way.
If I were allowed to take only one history book onto a desert island I would take this one:
"The section on the bombing war is harrowing, and highlights how blocked headed RAF Air Marshalls failed to learn from the lessons of the Battle of Britain."
Anyone who studies modern British military history and policy with an open mind comes to the conclusion that just about every policy put forward by the RAF was/is wrong and usually inimicable to the UK's interests.
Yeah but they have had some really cool toys, I mean planes.
The tweet of that "image from Rochester", the desire of that key advisor to "rub their noses in diversity", the sneering Matthew Taylor bemoaning that the problem with most of Britain is that it is not as global, multicultural and diverse as London. Labour's despising of their own country and people runs deep.
This is why I - and many others - felt like Britain was almost an occupied country when they were in charge.
Why should people vote for a party that holds them in contempt?
labour doesn't have a monopoly on snobbery, however
Absolutely agree with that. Matthew Parris is one obvious example.
Beware the English - a nation with the potential for aggression and violence.
That's the warning from Home Secretary Jack Straw, who has aired his views on a BBC radio debate about what it means to be British.
The English used their "propensity to violence" to "subjugate" the other home nations - before turning their attention to Europe and the British Empire, Mr Straw says.
He adds that unpleasant national characteristics may come to the fore, as the English look to identify themselves in an era of devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Tory leader William Hague also voiced strong views on the programme.
He described English nationalism as "the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK".
Stodge - Labour should have won (or at least, the Tories should not have won) in 1992. But the people looked at Neil 'we're alright' Kinnock and thought 'no f****** way'.
Whichever way you view nuclear arms his statement that he would return all nuclear submarines to base the day after his election probably did for him as well. The "well alllllllright" thing was topical but the reality was people needed and wanted defence. Russia was a perceived threat and rightly or perhaps wrongly people were
I've never understood why standing up for Britain and defending its interests is so hard for Labour.
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
snip
snip
Then there was the Labour parliamentary candidate who said people who flew English flags were "casual racists". I remember when Margaret Hodge criticised the Proms for being too white and needed to be targeted more at ethnic minorities. Perhaps they could incorporate some Afro-Caribbean beats?
The tweet of that "image from Rochester", the desire of that key advisor to "rub their noses in diversity", the sneering Matthew Taylor bemoaning that the problem with most of Britain is that it is not as global, multicultural and diverse as London. Labour's despising of their own country and people runs deep.
This is why I - and many others - felt like Britain was almost an occupied country when they were in charge.
Why should people vote for a party that holds them in contempt?
Never mind about the I's headline featuring Labour's support collapsing, what caught my eye was the caption above, referring to Grace Dent's claim that "It's never too late to fool around." Blimey, that sounds like quite racey stuff ..... can you confirm Mike whether or not this piece alone justifies the cover price of the newspaper?
Then there was the Labour parliamentary candidate who said people who flew English flags were "casual racists". I remember when Margaret Hodge criticised the Proms for being too white and needed to be targeted more at ethnic minorities. Perhaps they could incorporate some Afro-Caribbean beats?
They've been including Indian classical music since at least 1983 it seems. And why not?
I'm not sure the Proms (except the last night) are really a celebration of British-ness anyway. At least 80% of the composers are foreign, and probably more than half of the orchestras.
Pam Ayres @PamAyres 16h16 hours ago All hypocrites should take due care, When snorting coke in Dolphin Square, An orange bra is not so cute, And best left on the prostitute.
Never mind about the I's headline featuring Labour's support collapsing, what caught my eye was the caption above, referring to Grace Dent's claim that "It's never too late to fool around." Blimey, that sounds like quite racey stuff ..... can you confirm Mike whether or not this piece alone justifies the cover price of the newspaper?
Wonder if Grace Dent had Lord Sewel in mind when she wrote it.
Then there was the Labour parliamentary candidate who said people who flew English flags were "casual racists". I remember when Margaret Hodge criticised the Proms for being too white and needed to be targeted more at ethnic minorities. Perhaps they could incorporate some Afro-Caribbean beats?
They've been including Indian classical music since at least 1983 it seems. And why not?
I'm not sure the Proms (except the last night) are really a celebration of British-ness anyway. At least 80% of the composers are foreign, and probably more than half of the orchestras.
Excepting for the new compositions, most of It has survived the centuries and is still as beautiful as ever - in contrast to a lot of the popular stuff of today which will be forgotten tomorrow.
Amen to that but can you recall the latest indy polling - I believe yes is falling albeit only a little. Do the SNP really want another ref at the moment?
Like it or not, he's actually saying 'stuff'. He's performing the best out of the candidates for sure in terms of setting out his position and vision and potential polices.
Huckabee isn't the same candidate he was in 2008. He was a folksy southern governor who has an inspiring personal story about weight-loss and a good sense of humour.
Now he's piled the pounds back on and seems to become a vehicle for the worst elements of the religious right.
Surely the issue is that the world has moved on and Labour hasn't. There is no money left. One look at Greece tells anyone who is awake what happens when you let spending run riot. The whole era of public sector largesse is ancient history. We're slowly heading back to actual surpluses. So...WTF is Labour for? WTF is their point? WTF do they have to say to the man in Nuneaton when they can't promise him jam and unicorns and rainbows and free owls? They don't have a leadership problem so much as a raison d'etre problem.
I remember the last time the end of history was declared. It turned out not to be the case.
Quite so. Three months quite a lot of us were assuming that Labour would be in power. There is a strong whiff of hubris: Labour are in a mess but the votes have not been cast yet and it is quite possible that Corbyn does not win or even come in 2nd or 3rd.
Labour still need to do a lot of hard thinking - and I am not confident that they are even remotely close to starting that - but announcing that they are finished as a party seems a tad premature.
"At one contest there were just 25 ballots: nine for Jeremy Corbyn, eight for Andy Burnham, four for Yvette Cooper, and one simply reading “Fuck Kendall”."
Comments
I would say ideas of Tories being in power for generations is nonsense, but let us not forget labour people are saying it too. I think they are wrong, but that fear/hope is not being used purely to dispirit non conservatives.
On the positive side he did manage to contain the loony left wing militant groups and probably paved the way for Blair although it would have been interesting to see how Smith would have faired.
Events...... It's always events.
Mr Cameron will vow to expose the use of "anonymous shell companies" to buy luxury UK properties - often in London.
Speaking in Singapore, he will say the UK must not become "a safe haven for corrupt money from around the world". He will say the international community must tackle the "cancer of corruption"....
More than 100,000 UK property titles are registered to overseas companies, with more than 36,000 properties in London owned by offshore firms.
The government is to publish Land Registry data later this year, setting out which foreign companies own land and property in England and Wales.
It will also consider forcing a foreign company bidding for a government contract to "publicly state who really owns it".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33684098
The Democrats do not seem to have a similar problem in the US.
And secondly, without such circumstances, it'd take two GEs to make it back with a fair wind against HMG/credible LotO in place with sensible policies that appealed to the centre and their own side.
Are Labour likely to achieve the first? Very unlikely. So that's GE2025 to aim for. It's just a case of maths and past experiences, not hubris.
The Tories were out from 1997-2015 with a halfway in 2010. Labour were out from 1979-1997.
A route to power based on the hope the Tories will implode is not much of a hope on its own.
The combined strength and will of the people of the west held and finally we had "openness" perestroika. Yet, if that election had gone the other way and a major European ally had taken an alternative view then what would have happened? Mind you we could have always asked France to protect our interests.
The collective insanity within Lab seems to be catching. Dan Hodges has rejoined in order to vote for Corbyn. His theory: test the Left to destruction by allowing them a go at trying to win an election. Blairites for Corbyn.
I rather like Jeremy Kyle as he tries to keep control - Springer seems to like the bear-pit more. A decade ago I watched his show open-mouthed and appalled. Now after my recent diet of pulp reality TV, it seems quite restrained!
I've never felt the teeniest bit keen on the Soviets - I've been impressed by some of their doings, but sympathetic never.
*had*?
I have to say that's a bit of a blot on his copybook, being such a low denomination note.
Kinnock had made a lot of progress, but pre-1979 was still too big in my mind to consider Labour being electable. I guess a lot of other voters felt the same.
The Government's problems are of course the Opposition's opportunity but this is a staged process - stage 1 is pointing out the problems and ensuring the public know it's all the Government's fault (with no LD human shields this time, Cameron/Osborne will be forced to blame either the global economy, the EU or immigrants or some other group).
Stage 2 becomes "the Government's caused this mess, this is what we will do to fix it" and I wholeheartedly agree this was Labour's problem from 2010-15 not helped by the proximity to its own flawed period of Government which meant even if they had come up with a solution, the Conservative counter-response would have been "why didn't you do that when you were in power ?". After a decade, that argument won't wash.
If you follow that, it becomes irrelevant who Labour had as leader in 2010 - they were as damaged electorally as Hague was in 1997 by association and by the fact that a Party, defeated after a long period in Government, cannot immediately and completely do a rethink of its policy and programme.
Blair and Cameron (though not Thatcher) were not ideologically associated with the period in Government - had Dan Jarvis been standing now and won, he would have been a very much harder opponent for the Conservatives on a personal level but in terms of policy he faces exactly the same issues all the other candidates do.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 24s24 seconds ago
UK economy grew by 0.7% from April to June, @ONS says http://bbc.in/1girUnK
Still, it's amusing to watch the BBC skirt around the tricky problem of his political affiliation.
Does Lord S and I use the same bank?
Labour do. They are uncomfortable with the whole concept of nationhood. The reality is that on defence, immigration, socio-cultural policies and in Europe, Labour have sold us down the river time and time again. Now they're doing it again, with high-profile MPs like Gerald Kaufman saying EVEL is "racist".
I could never consider voting for a party that does not have pride and self-respect for this country and, by design, betrays the interests of its people.
I accept you are not, and a patriotic man, but you are not representative of the leadership and key influencers within your party.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-33647422
Next up will be a "Socialism is the greatest achievement of mankind" opinion with a "Socialism is not the greatest achievement of mankind opinion". For balance.
Labour: the party that holds you, your interests, your culture and your history in contempt.
We don't disagree on that. But what 2015 showed was that any mid-term fall should be utterly discounted. You'll lose councils and possibly a few MP's along this bumpy bit of road. But the voters still reserve judgment until they have seen what all the parties have to say about the way ahead for the next five years.
Most of Kennedy's books are worth taking onto a desert island. Though the point re Bank of England is understated, the British were able to borrow at lower interest rates than France for most of the period from 1714.
His recent book Engineers of Victory: The Problem Solvers Who Turned the Tide in the Second World War is also very good. Highlights the importance of questioning perceived wisdoms, but also turns a few myths upside down, particularly interesting is the section on the T34. Poor engineering & build quality undermined the value of that design. The Mustang on the other hand was an astounding aircraft once a Merlin was married to the airframe, but antipathy of USAAF to non US engines nearly condemned it as an also ran.
The section on the bombing war is harrowing, and highlights how blocked headed RAF Air Marshalls failed to learn from the lessons of the Battle of Britain.
In a lot of ways, it's a good piece of legislation. Some testators do behave unconscionably towards surviving spouses, dependants, and minor children, and this gives them redress.
I'm not sure what ground this lady would have to claim financial provision, as I don't see her readily fitting into any of the categories of applicant (hitherto, adult children have had to be financially dependant).
It's worth noting that the charities were still awarded two thirds of the estate (although I imagine the legal costs probably now exceed the amount in question).
Judges generally are less sympathetic to charities, and more sympathetic to disappointed relatives than they used to be.
ITV News @itvnews 13s14 seconds ago
Colonel Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi sentenced to death for 2011 war crimes http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-28/colonel-gaddafis-son-sentenced-to-death-for-war-crimes/ …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33668976
I've paid no interest to those figures up to now.
I have faith in the Great British Public to assess who they want as their PM. Purists might not like it, but the leaders play a huge role in the in voting decisions of millions.
I hope it's reproduced elsewhere.
This is why I - and many others - felt like Britain was almost an occupied country when they were in charge.
Why should people vote for a party that holds them in contempt?
"The section on the bombing war is harrowing, and highlights how blocked headed RAF Air Marshalls failed to learn from the lessons of the Battle of Britain."
Anyone who studies modern British military history and policy with an open mind comes to the conclusion that just about every policy put forward by the RAF was/is wrong and usually inimicable to the UK's interests.
http://www.amazon.com/Civilization-Capitalism-15th-18th-Century-Vol/dp/0520081145
Volume 2 is also extremely good, volume 3 is less convincing.
This Parliament will be very different - the 2017 County and 2018 London Borough elections will be informative. The problem, and this is the argument thrown by Conservatives at other parties when they lose seats, is the impact of lost local seats on membership and morale.
How does the local Conservative MP respond when his/her supportive Conservative-controlled council is replaced by a Labour-run Council ? Big local losses create a sense of crisis and calls for change in either the Ministerial team or Government policy.
To be honest, many of the newer generation of Conservative activists (those who've joined since Cameron became leader) don't know what real unpopularity is. I expect the Conservatives to poll sub-30% in mid term and perhaps even lower. We may see a change of tone on here for example with more non-Conservative posts and posters and even some of the Conservatives having "doubts".
As you say, none of this precludes another Conservative majority in 2020 - it doesn't preclude a Conservative defeat either.
Blimey, that sounds like quite racey stuff ..... can you confirm Mike whether or not this piece alone justifies the cover price of the newspaper?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/625955886981222401
Leader vote given to more than 99% of new supporters http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4510304.ece
Not sure people will be too fussed by polls given we're ages from the next election and they were a bit dubious last time.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/625962155888803840
All hypocrites should take due care,
When snorting coke in Dolphin Square,
An orange bra is not so cute,
And best left on the prostitute.
#Youcouldn'tmakeitup
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/there-are-two-ways-of-growing-old--and-im-taking-lord-sewels-10419908.html
I see the Donald Trump news vacuum is forcing other GOP candidates to say some pretty wild things...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-huckabee-holocaustapologize_55b69f0ae4b0074ba5a5c043
Huckabee isn't the same candidate he was in 2008. He was a folksy southern governor who has an inspiring personal story about weight-loss and a good sense of humour.
Now he's piled the pounds back on and seems to become a vehicle for the worst elements of the religious right.
Labour still need to do a lot of hard thinking - and I am not confident that they are even remotely close to starting that - but announcing that they are finished as a party seems a tad premature.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/im-more-convinced-ever-jeremy-corbyn-going-win