I have a lot of respect for Antifrank, but I flatly disagree with this thread for one very simple reason. However much you lower the nominations threshold, unless it is actually fixed at proposer and seconder Macdonnell would never get enough nominations. Even then, if he is not allowed to nominate himself it might be tight.
His disadvantages are huge - even when weighed against Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is no intellectual, but he is personally liked and was sentimentally regarded, in a very British way, as a gallant loser who deserved at least a clap. Corbyn had not spent years (or in Macdonnell's case, a few weeks) floundering helplessly in a role far beyond his intellectual and political capabilities before he won. Corbyn was able to profit from the belief in the parliamentary party that the left was dead.
Macdonnell is only marginally less hated than George Osborne, and is if anything even more rude and arrogant, has already managed to look like a complete idiot in his shadow role, and after recent weeks nobody is going to be fooled into thinking that the Labour membership will not vote for him merely because he has as much chance of winning the next election as I have of a date with Margot Robbie. Moreover, he is not that much younger than Corbyn and has a similar track record of serial disloyalty and avowed support for dangerous elements.
The key question, as noted upthread, is whether there is a hard left candidate who could command such loyalty? I would suggest that John Trickett is probably the only really left-wing candidate who could make it on to the shortlist in his own strength. However, I doubt if he would be able to pose as an insurgent in the way Corbyn has.
I remain convinced - and maybe here I am indulging in wishful thinking - that the next Labour leader will come from the centre, simply because the electoral arithmetic and the relative levels of talent stack a properly run contest in their favour by making it near-impossible for any insurgent candidate to be shortlisted.
There is no one of Healeys stature in the Labour Party today..the old hands must be weeping..
Mind you there is no one in the Tory Party of his stature either apart from perhaps Ken Clarke
Well great leaders are a product of crisis, from 1914 till 1993 the country was more or less in a state of permanent crisis with the occasional break.
The 30s and 40s and 70s and early 80s yes, the 20s, 50s and 60s and 90s were rather calmer
The 20's was filled with strikes and attempts of revolution. The 50's started with the Korean war which took till 1953 to end. The 60's had increasingly social and economic instability towards it's end, the first union troubles, the 70's malaise and race riots made their first appearances in the late 60's. The 90's had the ERM fiasco with Britain stuck in recession from 1990 till the ERM collapse.
So in essence the calm years between 1914 and 1993 were 1927-1929, 1935-1938, 1954-1955, 1957-1966, 1986-1989.
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
He was indeed the best candidate for those wanting Conservative victory at the next election. Unelectable SPAD weathervane politician. He would have lost seats to UKIP oop-north
I have to disagree Mortimer. Burnham was the best candidate for Labour in 2015, just as EM was in 2010. The problem is that they were relatively because the others were even more useless than they were and not because they were any actual good.
Labour are now, having selected the best candidate in 2010, trying the opposite by electing the weakest candidate, presumably on the grounds that relative quality didn't work last time. It's a point of view I suppose...
I'm very sorry to hear about Denis. A personal anecdote - when I was standing in his area (E Sussex & S Kent) in the 1995 Euros, our only big fundraiser had him as a guest speaker. The day before, John Smith died. I thought we'd have a minute's silence at the event and then press on, but Denis said he was devastated and couldn't possibly speak. I said it was a pity, as we had no other way of raising significant funds. He said sorry, but no.
Two days later, an anonymous gift of £1000 arrived via the regional party, and as the election progressed and we again ran low, a further £1000 arrived. Bemused, I asked Region where all this was coming from. "Denis, of course," they said. "But he asked for it to be kept private, he didn't want to speak when his friend had just died, but he also didn't want you to lose out. And he doesn't want any fuss or credit."
I'm very sorry to hear about Denis. A personal anecdote - when I was standing in his area (E Sussex & S Kent) in the 1995 Euros, our only big fundraiser had him as a guest speaker. The day before, John Smith died. I thought we'd have a minute's silence at the event and then press on, but Denis said he was devastated and couldn't possibly speak. I said it was a pity, as we had no other way of raising significant funds. He said sorry, but no.
Two days later, an anonymous gift of £1000 arrived via the regional party, and as the election progressed and we again ran low, a further £1000 arrived. Bemused, I asked Region where all this was coming from. "Denis, of course," they said. "But he asked for it to be kept private, he didn't want to speak when his friend had just died, but he also didn't want you to lose out. And he doesn't want any fuss or credit."
A remarkable anecdote particularly as he was hardly a rich man, but from what I know of him it doesn't surprise me. If Labour had one Denis Healey now...
A very nice anecdote about Healey and one that doesn't surprise me at all. Someone gave me a book of his photographs and they were surprisingly accomplished and sensitive
Our clueless PM has just announced that Russia are making matters worse 'by attacking the wrong rebels'. He didn't elaborate on how this makes matters worse or which were the wrong rebels or even why one group of rebels were wronger than the others.
Meanwhile he or his allies have just killed 19 patients in a Medecin sans frontiere hospital near Kabul. The 'allied' spokesman said the Taliban have been known to hide in hospitals in the past from which we must assume the attack wasn't an accident.
I'm starting to think the world would be a much better place if he stuck to shagging pigs and left international affairs to Putin.
Cameron is especially inept at foreign policy, fortunately he's insignificant.
I'm very sorry to hear about Denis. A personal anecdote - when I was standing in his area (E Sussex & S Kent) in the 1995 Euros, our only big fundraiser had him as a guest speaker. The day before, John Smith died. I thought we'd have a minute's silence at the event and then press on, but Denis said he was devastated and couldn't possibly speak. I said it was a pity, as we had no other way of raising significant funds. He said sorry, but no.
Two days later, an anonymous gift of £1000 arrived via the regional party, and as the election progressed and we again ran low, a further £1000 arrived. Bemused, I asked Region where all this was coming from. "Denis, of course," they said. "But he asked for it to be kept private, he didn't want to speak when his friend had just died, but he also didn't want you to lose out. And he doesn't want any fuss or credit."
RIP Healey was probably one of the greatest PMs we never had and Labour were as mad selecting Foot over Healey as the Tories were selecting IDS over Clarke
I applaud your restraint in not adding 'Corbyn over Burnham' into the mix.
@JohnRentoul: Antifrank’s on why he's taken 50/1 on John McDonnell to be next Labour leader: well, why not?
I agree with John Rentoul and Antifrank.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS* then we should remember when IDS was toppled it was his Shadow Chancellor that replaced him.
*I have huge doubts that Corbyn is Labour's IDS, he's much much worse and toxic.
Michael Howard had served in John Major's Government, I do not remember John McDonnell serving Tony Blair? Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn on the other hand...
So it's official, Hillary Benn has replaced Andy Burnham as your latest mancrush
Well he is the best option Labour now have before the 2020 election
In your opinion, in your opinion.
No, because it is blatantly obvious he is the only candidate leftwing enough for the membership, helped by his surname, while experienced enough and centrist enough to appeal to party moderates. Labour are not going to win the next election having elected Corbyn, just as the Tories were not going to win in 2005 having picked IDS, it is about saving the furniture. An election winner can come post defeat
Just like it was blatantly obvious that Burnham was going to win the Labour leadership this year?
No, it was blatantly obvious he was the best candidate, that did not mean Labour would pick him, which they did not
He was indeed the best candidate for those wanting Conservative victory at the next election. Unelectable SPAD weathervane politician. He would have lost seats to UKIP oop-north
Wrong on every count, every poll that asked had Burnham ahead amongst the public, he also had a big lead in the north amongst the public, Cameron, Blair and Major, our last 3 election winning PMs were arguably all weathervanes on most issues
It was only a few days ago that I commented that Denis Healey actuarial lay had a probability of about 43% of living to the age of 100. Vera Lynn, meanwhile, has a probability of about 56%.
Jeremy Corbyn 'Denis Healey was a giant of the Labour Party whose record of service to his party and his country stands as his testament. He distinguished himself with his military service during the Second World War and continued that commitment to the British people as a Labour politician at the highest levels of government. His wit and personality transcended politics itself, making him one of the most recognisable politicians of his era. Speaking personally, we had many interesting conversations when I was first elected to Parliament in 1983 and I found him a decent and very knowledgeable man who I enjoyed engaging with, particularly in his work as Shadow Foreign Secretary. Labour is built on people with the commitment of those who devote their lives to public service, as Denis Healey did. The thoughts of everyone in the Labour Party are with his family at this time.' https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153687873398872&id=330250343871&refid=52&_ft_=top_level_post_id.10153687873398872:tl_objid.10153687873398872
Well one of the fitting tributes has to include the moment Healey started the ball rolling for the Labour party splitting:
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
The 1920s saw a very intractable problem of unemployment and deprivation especially in coal mining areas. They were hit hard by changes in fuel use, by underinvestment from the war years, and by a series of strikes, wage cuts and reductions in hours, culminating in the lock out of 1926 (usually forgotten because it is subsumed in the wider narrative of the rather shorter General Strike). Agriculture also suffered badly and there were periodic crises in steel making and shipbuilding, masked by the growth of the car and aircraft industry. Although the problems worsened in 1929-31, they were definitely already there.
In the 1930s on the other hand, large areas of the South of England had one of its most prosperous decades, with record numbers of houses built, the development of an effective and substantial electricity network, and the expansion of white goods and consumer goods (cars, radios, even televisions). The City had what is known as a 'golden age' due to the collapse in American banking seriously weakening a key rival. In the north, life was almost as terrible as it is portrayed in BBC documentaries.
We come back again to the problem of different experiences across even quite small areas (London for example was divided far beyond anything we would see today).
On topic: I also agree that the odds for Labour right wingers are too short, the Labour party is left wing and still has bad memories from Blair, as such not even Hillary Benn has much chances as does any member of the last Labour government, whom the public and the members are trying to forget. But it is very premature to speculate about the next party leaders, especially Labour, future events and personalities of the next 5 years are too obscure right know to make a judgement.
Hilary Benn will only take over if, say, Labour come third behind UKIP in a by election just as Howard took over when the Tories came third in Brent East. If Labour then elect another leftwinger especially after a Corbyn election defeat then as I said it will be the catalyst for a realignment in UK politics with Labour moderates leaving, perhaps to form a new SDP as David H suggested with the LDs and the Tory right moving to UKIP post EU ref
Labour has already come 3rd in many by-elections behind UKIP already, in Eastleigh back in 2013 it came 4th. Keep your powder dry, 5 years is a long time.
Eastleigh was a LD-Tory marginal seat, coming third in a seat Labour used to hold would be a totally different ballgame
There is no one of Healeys stature in the Labour Party today..the old hands must be weeping..
Mind you there is no one in the Tory Party of his stature either apart from perhaps Ken Clarke
Well great leaders are a product of crisis, from 1914 till 1993 the country was more or less in a state of permanent crisis with the occasional break.
The 30s and 40s and 70s and early 80s yes, the 20s, 50s and 60s and 90s were rather calmer
The 20's was filled with strikes and attempts of revolution. The 50's started with the Korean war which took till 1953 to end. The 60's had increasingly social and economic instability towards it's end, the first union troubles, the 70's malaise and race riots made their first appearances in the late 60's. The 90's had the ERM fiasco with Britain stuck in recession from 1990 till the ERM collapse.
So in essence the calm years between 1914 and 1993 were 1927-1929, 1935-1938, 1954-1955, 1957-1966, 1986-1989.
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
Nope, the 20's were beset with the Irish civil war next door, the Liberal collapse at home, huge strikes like the 1926 one that had the army on alert for a possible marxist revolution, and the first red scare.
As for the Korean War, Britain was a very active participant in it and it drove the country to the financial brink at a time it could barely pay the loans from WWII. And not to forget the Rivers of Blood, the 1967 sterling crisis and the dock strikes of that year.
I do not disagree about the 90's assessment, just that the early 90's until the ERM was buried 6 feet under was a terrible time, it even cost Thatcher's head and Major's too later on.
It was only a few days ago that I commented that Denis Healey actuarial lay had a probability of about 43% of living to the age of 100. Vera Lynn, meanwhile, has a probability of about 56%.
I am sure Dame Vera will be delighted by your confidence. Mind you still only a fraction of the population get to their nineties let alone 100 so Denis still had a good innings
I think he's worse than Blair. At least Blair sincerely believed in what he was doing in Iraq and took the trouble to explain it to anyone who'd listen. Cameron is just totally cavalier and as with so many other things doesn't even seem to have an idea of what he's doing or why.
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
The 1920s saw a very intractable problem of unemployment and deprivation especially in coal mining areas. They were hit hard by changes in fuel use, by underinvestment from the war years, and by a series of strikes, wage cuts and reductions in hours, culminating in the lock out of 1926 (usually forgotten because it is subsumed in the wider narrative of the rather shorter General Strike). Agriculture also suffered badly and there were periodic crises in steel making and shipbuilding, masked by the growth of the car and aircraft industry. Although the problems worsened in 1929-31, they were definitely already there.
In the 1930s on the other hand, large areas of the South of England had one of its most prosperous decades, with record numbers of houses built, the development of an effective and substantial electricity network, and the expansion of white goods and consumer goods (cars, radios, even televisions). The City had what is known as a 'golden age' due to the collapse in American banking seriously weakening a key rival. In the north, life was almost as terrible as it is portrayed in BBC documentaries.
We come back again to the problem of different experiences across even quite small areas (London for example was divided far beyond anything we would see today).
Compared to the devastation of the previous decade the roaring twenties were generally quite comfortable for most until at least 1929, the thirties saw the outbreak of the most devastating war in human history
I have a lot of respect for Antifrank, but I flatly disagree with this thread for one very simple reason. However much you lower the nominations threshold, unless it is actually fixed at proposer and seconder Macdonnell would never get enough nominations. Even then, if he is not allowed to nominate himself it might be tight.
His disadvantages are huge - even when weighed against Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is no intellectual, but he is personally liked and was sentimentally regarded, in a very British way, as a gallant loser who deserved at least a clap. Corbyn had not spent years (or in Macdonnell's case, a few weeks) floundering helplessly in a role far beyond his intellectual and political capabilities before he won. Corbyn was able to profit from the belief in the parliamentary party that the left was dead.
Macdonnell is only marginally less hated than George Osborne, and is if anything even more rude and arrogant, has already managed to look like a complete idiot in his shadow role, and after recent weeks nobody is going to be fooled into thinking that the Labour membership will not vote for him merely because he has as much chance of winning the next election as I have of a date with Margot Robbie. Moreover, he is not that much younger than Corbyn and has a similar track record of serial disloyalty and avowed support for dangerous elements.
The key question, as noted upthread, is whether there is a hard left candidate who could command such loyalty? I would suggest that John Trickett is probably the only really left-wing candidate who could make it on to the shortlist in his own strength. However, I doubt if he would be able to pose as an insurgent in the way Corbyn has.
I remain convinced - and maybe here I am indulging in wishful thinking - that the next Labour leader will come from the centre, simply because the electoral arithmetic and the relative levels of talent stack a properly run contest in their favour by making it near-impossible for any insurgent candidate to be shortlisted.
I agree. The successor to Jezza will be a lot younger, but I expect Jezza to go the distance to a catastrophic 2020 campaign. He is nothing if not stubbon.
RIP Denis Healey. A great politician, and really quite accomplished photographer.
Roger.. By your logic, Putin and Obama know exactly what they are doing...One kills over 30 and the other one kills in the teens of number.. and you blame Cameron..that figures....Personally I don't give a toss about the body count.. one day there will simply be no one left to kill.. and we can all go home to tea and biscuits.
I have a lot of respect for Antifrank, but I flatly disagree with this thread for one very simple reason. However much you lower the nominations threshold, unless it is actually fixed at proposer and seconder Macdonnell would never get enough nominations. Even then, if he is not allowed to nominate himself it might be tight.
His disadvantages are huge - even when weighed against Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is no intellectual, but he is personally liked and was sentimentally regarded, in a very British way, as a gallant loser who deserved at least a clap. Corbyn had not spent years (or in Macdonnell's case, a few weeks) floundering helplessly in a role far beyond his intellectual and political capabilities before he won. Corbyn was able to profit from the belief in the parliamentary party that the left was dead.
Macdonnell is only marginally less hated than George Osborne, and is if anything even more rude and arrogant, has already managed to look like a complete idiot in his shadow role, and after recent weeks nobody is going to be fooled into thinking that the Labour membership will not vote for him merely because he has as much chance of winning the next election as I have of a date with Margot Robbie. Moreover, he is not that much younger than Corbyn and has a similar track record of serial disloyalty and avowed support for dangerous elements.
The key question, as noted upthread, is whether there is a hard left candidate who could command such loyalty? I would suggest that John Trickett is probably the only really left-wing candidate who could make it on to the shortlist in his own strength. However, I doubt if he would be able to pose as an insurgent in the way Corbyn has.
I remain convinced - and maybe here I am indulging in wishful thinking - that the next Labour leader will come from the centre, simply because the electoral arithmetic and the relative levels of talent stack a properly run contest in their favour by making it near-impossible for any insurgent candidate to be shortlisted.
I agree. The successor to Jezza will be a lot younger, but I expect Jezza to go the distance to a catastrophic 2020 campaign. He is nothing if not stubbon.
RIP Denis Healey. A great politician, and really quite accomplished photographer.
Jeremy Corbyn 'Denis Healey was a giant of the Labour Party whose record of service to his party and his country stands as his testament. He distinguished himself with his military service during the Second World War and continued that commitment to the British people as a Labour politician at the highest levels of government. His wit and personality transcended politics itself, making him one of the most recognisable politicians of his era. Speaking personally, we had many interesting conversations when I was first elected to Parliament in 1983 and I found him a decent and very knowledgeable man who I enjoyed engaging with, particularly in his work as Shadow Foreign Secretary. Labour is built on people with the commitment of those who devote their lives to public service, as Denis Healey did. The thoughts of everyone in the Labour Party are with his family at this time.' https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153687873398872&id=330250343871&refid=52&_ft_=top_level_post_id.10153687873398872:tl_objid.10153687873398872
Well one of the fitting tributes has to include the moment Healey started the ball rolling for the Labour party splitting:
It was the moderates who split off in the end, not the left, though Healey stayed
He started the collision course, even in that conference you could see and hear both those cheering him and those booing him and calling for his head at the same time.
Going cap in hand to the IMF was a terrible and unnecessary mistake that proved in one stroke that Labour was incapable to handle the economy and defend the country's sovereignty. It made everyone dissatisfied over if it was too little or too much or even on the principle of it and gave weapons to all sides to gun down Callaghan.
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
The 1920s saw a very intractable problem of unemployment and deprivation especially in coal mining areas. They were hit hard by changes in fuel use, by underinvestment from the war years, and by a series of strikes, wage cuts and reductions in hours, culminating in the lock out of 1926 (usually forgotten because it is subsumed in the wider narrative of the rather shorter General Strike). Agriculture also suffered badly and there were periodic crises in steel making and shipbuilding, masked by the growth of the car and aircraft industry. Although the problems worsened in 1929-31, they were definitely already there.
In the 1930s on the other hand, large areas of the South of England had one of its most prosperous decades, with record numbers of houses built, the development of an effective and substantial electricity network, and the expansion of white goods and consumer goods (cars, radios, even televisions). The City had what is known as a 'golden age' due to the collapse in American banking seriously weakening a key rival. In the north, life was almost as terrible as it is portrayed in BBC documentaries.
We come back again to the problem of different experiences across even quite small areas (London for example was divided far beyond anything we would see today).
Compared to the devastation of the previous decade the roaring twenties were generally quite comfortable for most until at least 1929, the thirties saw the outbreak of the most devastating war in human history
The thirties were also quite comfortable for 'most' people, and fighting by British forces was limited until 1940 (the famous 'bore war'). It was the 1940s that were the really desperate decade in terms of damage and hardship.
Well he was 98, you cannot blame him, when Labour really needed him was 1980. John McDonnell praising him on BBC News now for staying loyal to Labour when other moderates defected to the SDP and for his service in WW2, humour and hinterland
That is true. Dennis Healey remained to remind everyone of the Callaghan government, both ups and downs. If he was elected leader in 1980 Labour would had split between it's establishment and it's base though. Labour was ripe for a major split over the economy since Healey's IMF situation, Foot was the only candidate that could and did limit the inevitable split as he kept the left wing base and stood up to Benn, while losing only a few from it's right.
Healey never had the credentials to stand up to the far-left.
Had Healey been leader though there would have been no SDP and the 1983 election much closer
With the likely consequence being Tony Benn elected leader in 1983.
Yesterday my book, Le Doute (i.e. the French translation of The Ice Twins) was languishing at a frankly miserable 4,341 on amazon France. i.e. A flop.
Then some French TV presenters on an afternoon health show called it their book of the week, yesterday, and now it is at number 20. And it's completely sold out.
Sorry Sean, but 'The Ice Twins is no longer the best book I've read this year. I read 'The Martian' this week before going to see it at the cinema, and I found Weir's debut much more entertaining and interesting.
Still, second place isn't too bad.
You should adjust my praise for your book accordingly ...
Well he was 98, you cannot blame him, when Labour really needed him was 1980. John McDonnell praising him on BBC News now for staying loyal to Labour when other moderates defected to the SDP and for his service in WW2, humour and hinterland
That is true. Dennis Healey remained to remind everyone of the Callaghan government, both ups and downs. If he was elected leader in 1980 Labour would had split between it's establishment and it's base though. Labour was ripe for a major split over the economy since Healey's IMF situation, Foot was the only candidate that could and did limit the inevitable split as he kept the left wing base and stood up to Benn, while losing only a few from it's right.
Healey never had the credentials to stand up to the far-left.
Had Healey been leader though there would have been no SDP and the 1983 election much closer
With the likely consequence being Tony Benn elected leader in 1983.
That's true, only Foot had the credentials to stop Benn.
There is no one of Healeys stature in the Labour Party today..the old hands must be weeping..
Mind you there is no one in the Tory Party of his stature either apart from perhaps Ken Clarke
Well great leaders are a p
The 30s and 40s and 70s and early 80s yes, the 20s, 50s and 60s and 90s were rather calmer
The 20's was filled with strikes and attempts of revolution.
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
As for the Korean War, Britain was a very active participant in it and it drove the country to the financial brink at a time it could barely pay the loans from WWII. And not to forget the Rivers of Blood, the 1967 sterling crisis and the dock strikes of that year.
I do not disagree about the 90's assessment, just that the early 90's until the ERM was buried 6 feet under was a terrible time, it even cost Thatcher's head and Major's too later on.
The Irish Civil War did not affect the mainland to the extent it did even in the 70s. The Liberal collapse had zero affect on the average person on the street, one or two strikes does not change the fact it was generally a time of prosperity and peace for most compared to the preceding and subsequent decades.
The Korean War affected almost no-one except a few on national service, the country had just fought the most bloody war in its history the previous decade a few difficulties paying back war loans again had next to no affect on the average person and it was a relative period of peace and prosperity.
Enoch Powell's speech again had little impact on most people's lives, nor did the sterling crisis nor the dock strikes outside those affected directly, we were not even in Vietnam unlike the US.
The only negatives in the 90s were a little negative equity and a short recession at the beginning, overall for most Britons it was the most peaceful and prosperous decade in our history. For most of the decade the economy grew and jobs were plentiful, house prices were affordable, there were no tuition fees, and apart from a successful Gulf War in 1990 there were almost no wars UK forces were involved in
Yesterday my book, Le Doute (i.e. the French translation of The Ice Twins) was languishing at a frankly miserable 4,341 on amazon France. i.e. A flop.
Then some French TV presenters on an afternoon health show called it their book of the week, yesterday, and now it is at number 20. And it's completely sold out.
Sorry Sean, but 'The Ice Twins is no longer the best book I've read this year. I read 'The Martian' this week before going to see it at the cinema, and I found Weir's debut much more entertaining and interesting.
Still, second place isn't too bad.
You should adjust my praise for your book accordingly ...
My book is now successful enough for me to take your downgrade with suitable sangfroid.
I didn't actually know there was a book behind Martian the movie. It's got fabulous reviews on amazon (just checked). Though I hear the film is just a bit *meh*? Which is a shame as I was hoping to see it.
The film knocked my socks off, but then again I'd only just finished reading the book, which had affected me somewhat emotionally. I chatted to a stranger and son outside the cinema, neither of whom were scifi fans, and they both loved the film.
The book works because the central character is so easy to get behind: you want him to survive, even as that git Weir chucks more perils his way. There's also some very geeky humour that is unobtrusive ("Project Elrond")
Basically: go and see it. Although I might be biased because I loved the book so much.
Yesterday my book, Le Doute (i.e. the French translation of The Ice Twins) was languishing at a frankly miserable 4,341 on amazon France. i.e. A flop.
Then some French TV presenters on an afternoon health show called it their book of the week, yesterday, and now it is at number 20. And it's completely sold out.
Sorry Sean, but 'The Ice Twins is no longer the best book I've read this year. I read 'The Martian' this week before going to see it at the cinema, and I found Weir's debut much more entertaining and interesting.
Still, second place isn't too bad.
You should adjust my praise for your book accordingly ...
My book is now successful enough for me to take your downgrade with suitable sangfroid.
I didn't actually know there was a book behind Martian the movie. It's got fabulous reviews on amazon (just checked). Though I hear the film is just a bit *meh*? Which is a shame as I was hoping to see it.
The film knocked my socks off, but then again I'd only just finished reading the book, which had affected me somewhat emotionally. I chatted to a stranger and son outside the cinema, neither of whom were scifi fans, and they both loved the film.
The book works because the central character is so easy to get behind: you want him to survive, even as that git Weir chucks more perils his way. There's also some very geeky humour that is unobtrusive ("Project Elrond")
Basically: go and see it. Although I might be biased because I loved the book so much.
Would you say it's up with Ridley Scott's best work?
Well he was 98, you cannot blame him, when Labour really needed him was 1980. John McDonnell praising him on BBC News now for staying loyal to Labour when other moderates defected to the SDP and for his service in WW2, humour and hinterland
That is true. Dennis Healey remained to remind everyone of the Callaghan government, both ups and downs. If he was elected leader in 1980 Labour would had split between it's establishment and it's base though. Labour was ripe for a major split over the economy since Healey's IMF situation, Foot was the only candidate that could and did limit the inevitable split as he kept the left wing base and stood up to Benn, while losing only a few from it's right.
Healey never had the credentials to stand up to the far-left.
Had Healey been leader though there would have been no SDP and the 1983 election much closer
With the likely consequence being Tony Benn elected leader in 1983.
No, as Healey would have made the 1983 election far closer and may even have got a hung parliament and stayed as leader
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
The 1920s saw a very intractable problem of unemployment and deprivation especially in coal mining areas. They were hit hard by changes in fuel use, by underinvestment from the war years, and by a series of strikes, wage cuts and reductions in hours, culminating in the lock out of 1926 (usually forgotten because it is subsumed in the wider narrative of the rather shorter General Strike). Agriculture also suffered badly and there were periodic crises in steel making and shipbuilding, masked by the growth of the car and aircraft industry. Although the problems worsened in 1929-31, they were definitely already there.
In the 1930s on the other hand, large areas of the South of England had one of its most prosperous decades, with record numbers of houses built, the development of an effective and substantial electricity network, and the expansion of white goods and consumer goods (cars, radios, even televisions). The City had what is known as a 'golden age' due to the collapse in American banking seriously weakening a key rival. In the north, life was almost as terrible as it is portrayed in BBC documentaries.
We come back again to the problem of different experiences across even quite small areas (London for example was divided far beyond anything we would see today).
Compared to the devastation of the previous decade the roaring twenties were generally quite comfortable for most until at least 1929, the thirties saw the outbreak of the most devastating war in human history
The thirties were also quite comfortable for 'most' people, and fighting by British forces was limited until 1940 (the famous 'bore war'). It was the 1940s that were the really desperate decade in terms of damage and hardship.
In relative terms yes I would agree the 40s were most difficult
Jeremy Corbyn 'Denis Healey was a giant of the Labour Party whose record of service to his party and his country stands as his testament. He distinguished himself with his military service during the Second World War and continued that commitment to the British people as a Labour politician at the highest levels of government. His wit and personality transcended politics itself, making him one of the most recognisable politicians of his era. Speaking personally, we had many interesting conversations when I was first elected to Parliament in 1983 and I found him a decent and very knowledgeable man who I enjoyed engaging with, particularly in his work as Shadow Foreign Secretary. Labour is built on people with the commitment of those who devote their lives to public service, as Denis Healey did. The thoughts of everyone in the Labour Party are with his family at this time.' https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153687873398872&id=330250343871&refid=52&_ft_=top_level_post_id.10153687873398872:tl_objid.10153687873398872
Well one of the fitting tributes has to include the moment Healey started the ball rolling for the Labour party splitting:
It was the moderates who split off in the end, not the left, though Healey stayed
He started the collision course, even in that conference you could see and hear both those cheering him and those booing him and calling for his head at the same time.
Going cap in hand to the IMF was a terrible and unnecessary mistake that proved in one stroke that Labour was incapable to handle the economy and defend the country's sovereignty. It made everyone dissatisfied over if it was too little or too much or even on the principle of it and gave weapons to all sides to gun down Callaghan.
The speech also saw him emphasise spending restraint, wholly sensible at the time
Been in Germany on hols the last week and read Ice Twins, which was a good read. Mrs B got gripped by it and wouldn't set it down until she finshed it.
Though apparently you didn't write the ending she wanted !
Yesterday my book, Le Doute (i.e. the French translation of The Ice Twins) was languishing at a frankly miserable 4,341 on amazon France. i.e. A flop.
Then some French TV presenters on an afternoon health show called it their book of the week, yesterday, and now it is at number 20. And it's completely sold out.
Sorry Sean, but 'The Ice Twins is no longer the best book I've read this year. I read 'The Martian' this week before going to see it at the cinema, and I found Weir's debut much more entertaining and interesting.
Still, second place isn't too bad.
You should adjust my praise for your book accordingly ...
My book is now successful enough for me to take your downgrade with suitable sangfroid.
I didn't actually know there was a book behind Martian the movie. It's got fabulous reviews on amazon (just checked). Though I hear the film is just a bit *meh*? Which is a shame as I was hoping to see it.
It's an interesting book. The prose is workmanlike at best. I think you have to like science and numbers to truly love it. However, the concept is fantastic.
@JohnRentoul: Antifrank’s on why he's taken 50/1 on John McDonnell to be next Labour leader: well, why not?
I agree with John Rentoul and Antifrank.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS* then we should remember when IDS was toppled it was his Shadow Chancellor that replaced him.
*I have huge doubts that Corbyn is Labour's IDS, he's much much worse and toxic.
Michael Howard had served in John Major's Government, I do not remember John McDonnell serving Tony Blair? Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn on the other hand...
So it's official, Hillary Benn has replaced Andy Burnham as your latest mancrush
Well he is the best option Labour now have before the 2020 election
In your opinion, in your opinion.
No, because it is blatantly obvious he is the only candidate leftwing enough for the membership, helped by his surname, while experienced enough and centrist enough to appeal to party moderates. Labour are not going to win the next election having elected Corbyn, just as the Tories were not going to win in 2005 having picked IDS, it is about saving the furniture. An election winner can come post defeat
Just like it was blatantly obvious that Burnham was going to win the Labour leadership this year?
No, it was blatantly obvious he was the best candidate, that did not mean Labour would pick him, which they did not
He was indeed the best candidate for those wanting Conservative victory at the next election. Unelectable SPAD weathervane politician. He would have lost seats to UKIP oop-north
Wrong on every count, every poll that asked had Burnham ahead amongst the public, he also had a big lead in the north amongst the public, Cameron, Blair and Major, our last 3 election winning PMs were arguably all weathervanes on most issues
Burnham would have destroyed the one card that Labour, somewhat bizarrely, seem to have - the NHS. Stafford would have been hung like an albatross around his neck....
Inability to actually lead and a failure to come up with actual policy would not help in the North come actual elections.
"Would you say it's up with Ridley Scott's best work?"
I would say it was one of his three worst films. When you think back to other of his sci fi works like Bladerunner or the first Alien its almost tragic to see how he's gone off.
Yesterday my book, Le Doute (i.e. the French translation of The Ice Twins) was languishing at a frankly miserable 4,341 on amazon France. i.e. A flop.
Then some French TV presenters on an afternoon health show called it their book of the week, yesterday, and now it is at number 20. And it's completely sold out.
Sorry Sean, but 'The Ice Twins is no longer the best book I've read this year. I read 'The Martian' this week before going to see it at the cinema, and I found Weir's debut much more entertaining and interesting.
Still, second place isn't too bad.
You should adjust my praise for your book accordingly ...
My book is now successful enough for me to take your downgrade with suitable sangfroid.
I didn't actually know there was a book behind Martian the movie. It's got fabulous reviews on amazon (just checked). Though I hear the film is just a bit *meh*? Which is a shame as I was hoping to see it.
It's an interesting book. The prose is workmanlike at best. I think you have to like science and numbers to truly love it. However, the concept is fantastic.
That was my one concern after reading it: the book is so novel that the author might find it hard to write another book in similar style, and that style would not necessarily work in another genre.
Still, enough people complained about J.K.Rowling's poor grasp of English in the first Harry Potter books, and that hardly hurt her
Been in Germany on hols the last week and read Ice Twins, which was a good read. Mrs B got gripped by it and wouldn't set it down until she finshed it.
Though apparently you didn't write the ending she wanted !
Many thanks for not point spoilers in there, appreciated ... I am about a third through.
@JohnRentoul: Antifrank’s on why he's taken 50/1 on John McDonnell to be next Labour leader: well, why not?
I agree with John Rentoul and Antifrank.
If Corbyn is Labour's IDS* then we should remember when IDS was toppled it was his Shadow Chancellor that replaced him.
*I have huge doubts that Corbyn is Labour's IDS, he's much much worse and toxic.
Michael Howard had served in John Major's Government, I do not remember John McDonnell serving Tony Blair? Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn on the other hand...
So it's official, Hillary Benn has replaced Andy Burnham as your latest mancrush
Well he is the best option Labour now have before the 2020 election
In your opinion, in your opinion.
No, because it is blatantly obvious he is the only candidate leftwing enough for the membership, helped by his surname, while experienced enough and centrist enough to appeal to party moderates. Labour are not going to win the next election having elected Corbyn, just as the Tories were not going to win in 2005 having picked IDS, it is about saving the furniture. An election winner can come post defeat
Just like it was blatantly obvious that Burnham was going to win the Labour leadership this year?
No, it was blatantly obvious he was the best candidate, that did not mean Labour would pick him, which they did not
He was indeed the best candidate for those wanting Conservative victory at the next election. Unelectable SPAD weathervane politician. He would have lost seats to UKIP oop-north
Wrong on every count, every poll that asked had Burnham ahead amongst the public, he also had a big lead in the north amongst the public, Cameron, Blair and Major, our last 3 election winning PMs were arguably all weathervanes on most issues
Burnham would have destroyed the one card that Labour, somewhat bizarrely, seem to have - the NHS. Stafford would have been hung like an albatross around his neck....
Inability to actually lead and a failure to come up with actual policy would not help in the North come actual elections.
He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them
Yesterday my book, Le Doute (i.e. the French translation of The Ice Twins) was languishing at a frankly miserable 4,341 on amazon France. i.e. A flop.
Then some French TV presenters on an afternoon health show called it their book of the week, yesterday, and now it is at number 20. And it's completely sold out.
Sorry Sean, but 'The Ice Twins is no longer the best book I've read this year. I read 'The Martian' this week before going to see it at the cinema, and I found Weir's debut much more entertaining and interesting.
Still, second place isn't too bad.
You should adjust my praise for your book accordingly ...
My book is now successful enough for me to take your downgrade with suitable sangfroid.
I didn't actually know there was a book behind Martian the movie. It's got fabulous reviews on amazon (just checked). Though I hear the film is just a bit *meh*? Which is a shame as I was hoping to see it.
The film knocked my socks off, but then again I'd only just finished reading the book, which had affected me somewhat emotionally. I chatted to a stranger and son outside the cinema, neither of whom were scifi fans, and they both loved the film.
The book works because the central character is so easy to get behind: you want him to survive, even as that git Weir chucks more perils his way. There's also some very geeky humour that is unobtrusive ("Project Elrond")
Basically: go and see it. Although I might be biased because I loved the book so much.
Would you say it's up with Ridley Scott's best work?
It's a thousand times better than Prometheus, but less good than Blade Runner. Mark Kermode made a point yesterday that Scott's best work is when he has not written or developed the source material.
"Would you say it's up with Ridley Scott's best work?"
I would say it was one of his three worst films. When you think back to other of his sci fi works like Bladerunner or the first Alien its almost tragic to see how he's gone off.
"Would you say it's up with Ridley Scott's best work?"
I would say it was one of his three worst films. When you think back to other of his sci fi works like Bladerunner or the first Alien its almost tragic to see how he's gone off.
Which are the other stinkers? Hannibal ? Thelma and Louise ?
He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them
Not this old chestnut again. He was not Health Secretary, but he was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality).
There is no one of Healeys stature in the Labour Party today..the old hands must be weeping..
Mind you there is no one in the Tory Party of his stature either apart from perhaps Ken Clarke
Well great leaders are a p
The 30s and 40s and 70s and early 80s yes, the 20s, 50s and 60s and 90s were rather calmer
The 20's was filled with strikes and attempts of revolution.
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
As for the Korean War, Britain was a very active participant in it and it drove the country to the financial brink at a time it could barely pay the loans from WWII. And not to forget the Rivers of Blood, the 1967 sterling crisis and the dock strikes of that year.
The Korean War affected almost no-one except a few on national service, the country had just fought the most bloody war in its history the previous decade a few difficulties paying back war loans again had next to no affect on the average person and it was a relative period of peace and prosperity.
Enoch Powell's speech again had little impact on most people's lives, nor did the sterling crisis nor the dock strikes outside those affected directly, we were not even in Vietnam unlike the US.
The only negatives in the 90s were a little negative equity and a short recession at the beginning, overall for most Britons it was the most peaceful and prosperous decade in our history. For most of the decade the economy grew and jobs were plentiful, house prices were affordable, there were no tuition fees, and apart from a successful Gulf War in 1990 there were almost no wars UK forces were involved in
In 1953 I was almost put on a draft for Korea as part of a medical team direct from the Guards camp of Pirbright. Luckily my immediate CO got me out of it and I went to Trieste instead. Much better.
In 1953 I was almost put on a draft for Korea as part of a medical team direct from the Guards camp of Pirbright. Luckily my immediate CO got me out of it and I went to Trieste instead. Much better.
He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them
Not this old chestnut again. He was not Health Secretary, but he was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality).
And you also ignore his rather sick attitude to inquiries, which is where he really deserves criticism.
It was Johnson who was Secretary of State with overall responsibility, and Burnham was not on the wards in Stafford was he. Inquiries tend to be talking shops in most cases which achieve little. In any case, leaving this issue aside even when the Sun etc had tried to push Stafford Burnham still had a clear lead with the public as to who would be the best Labour leader
In 1953 I was almost put on a draft for Korea as part of a medical team direct from the Guards camp of Pirbright. Luckily my immediate CO got me out of it and I went to Trieste instead. Much better.
crossed wires there.
My uncle got trained up in mine clearance in the UK and shipped out to Korea. Three days after he arrived, and before he got moved to a unit, the ceasefire was declared.
He then spent a few months lazing around in the sun before being shipped out again.
My family have been very lucky when it comes to wars. I can only hope there are no more wars to test our luck further.
There is no one of Healeys stature in the Labour Party today..the old hands must be weeping..
Mind you there is no one in the Tory Party of his stature either apart from perhaps Ken Clarke
Well great leaders are a p
The 30s and 40s and 70s and early 80s yes, the 20s, 50s and 60s and 90s were rather calmer
The 20's was filled with strikes and attempts of revolution.
That was really the 30s, the 20s were generally a time of prosperity after the devastation of WW1 The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
As for the Korean War, Britain was a very active participant in it and it drove the country to the financial brink at a time it could barely pay the loans from WWII. And not to forget the Rivers of Blood, the 1967 sterling crisis and the dock strikes of that year.
The Korean War affected almost no-one except a few on national service, the country had just fought the most bloody war in its history the previous decade a few difficulties paying back war loans again had next to no affect on the average person and it was a relative period of peace and prosperity.
Enoch Powell's speech again had little impact on most people's lives, nor did the sterling crisis nor the dock strikes outside those affected directly, we were not even in Vietnam unlike the US.
The only negatives in the 90s were a little negative equity and a short recession at the beginning, overall for most Britons it was the most peaceful and prosperous decade in our history. For most of the decade the economy grew and jobs were plentiful, house prices were affordable, there were no tuition fees, and apart from a successful Gulf War in 1990 there were almost no wars UK forces were involved in
In 1953 I was almost put on a draft for Korea as part of a medical team direct from the Guards camp of Pirbright. Luckily my immediate CO got me out of it and I went to Trieste instead. Much better.
He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them
Not this old chestnut again. He was not Health Secretary, but he was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality).
And you also ignore his rather sick attitude to inquiries, which is where he really deserves criticism.
It was Johnson who was Secretary of State with overall responsibility, and Burnham was not on the wards in Stafford was he. Inquiries tend to be talking shops in most cases which achieve little. In any case, leaving this issue aside even when the Sun etc had tried to push Stafford Burnham still had a clear lead with the public as to who would be the best Labour leader
What do you think the Minister of State (Delivery and Quality) does?
As for your inquiries point; even the chair of the private, limited inquiry Burnham set up said the terms of reference were inadequate. It was only the coalition's public inquiry that finally got to the truth. Yet Burnham feels free to call for public inquiries into everything else...
He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them
Not this old chestnut again. He was not Health Secretary, but he was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality).
And you also ignore his rather sick attitude to inquiries, which is where he really deserves criticism.
It was Johnson who was Secretary of State with overall responsibility, and Burnham was not on the wards in Stafford was he. Inquiries tend to be talking shops in most cases which achieve little. In any case, leaving this issue aside even when the Sun etc had tried to push Stafford Burnham still had a clear lead with the public as to who would be the best Labour leader
What do you think the Minister of State (Delivery and Quality) does?
As for your inquiries point; even the chair of the private, limited inquiry Burnham set up said the terms of reference were inadequate. It was only the coalition's public inquiry that finally got to the truth. Yet Burnham feels free to call for public inquiries into everything else...
Not really sure why HYUFD is still defending Burnham. He lost, and surely won't run a third time
He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them
Not this old chestnut again. He was not Health Secretary, but he was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality).
And you also ignore his rather sick attitude to inquiries, which is where he really deserves criticism.
It was Johnson who was Secretary of State with overall responsibility, and Burnham was not on the wards in Stafford was he. Inquiries tend to be talking shops in most cases which achieve little. In any case, leaving this issue aside even when the Sun etc had tried to push Stafford Burnham still had a clear lead with the public as to who would be the best Labour leader
What do you think the Minister of State (Delivery and Quality) does?
As for your inquiries point; even the chair of the private, limited inquiry Burnham set up said the terms of reference were inadequate. It was only the coalition's public inquiry that finally got to the truth. Yet Burnham feels free to call for public inquiries into everything else...
Not really sure why HYUFD is still defending Burnham. He lost, and surely won't run a third time
I was looking in retrospect, of the 2015 candidates he was clearly the best of the 4
He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them
Not this old chestnut again. He was not Health Secretary, but he was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality).
And you also ignore his rather sick attitude to inquiries, which is where he really deserves criticism.
It was Johnson who was Secretary of State with overall responsibility, and Burnham was not on the wards in Stafford was he. Inquiries tend to be talking shops in most cases which achieve little. In any case, leaving this issue aside even when the Sun etc had tried to push Stafford Burnham still had a clear lead with the public as to who would be the best Labour leader
What do you think the Minister of State (Delivery and Quality) does?
As for your inquiries point; even the chair of the private, limited inquiry Burnham set up said the terms of reference were inadequate. It was only the coalition's public inquiry that finally got to the truth. Yet Burnham feels free to call for public inquiries into everything else...
The buck stops with the S of State and as I said none of the publicity around this issue stopped Burnham leading polls of the public as to the best Labour contendor for the leadership
Maybe slightly more watchable in that there were entertaining moments but as a film it was all over the place. Was the book a comedy? Ridley obviously couldn't decide
"Twelve Doctors Without Borders staff along with seven patients, including three children, were killed after an apparent U.S. airstrike hit the international charity's hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz."
"Coalition spokesman Col. Brian Tribus confirmed that a U.S. airstrike conducted at around 2:15 a.m. local time on Saturday (5:45 p.m. ET Friday) "may have caused collateral damage to a nearby health facility." The incident was being investigated, he added."
I hope that none of the victims were British doctors, for political reasons at least.
Dair and TUD,,Scotland lost...but do not let that stop the flow of your magnificent posts..please.. they are so intellectually stimulating...the Laurel and Hardy PB tag team..
In 1953 I was almost put on a draft for Korea as part of a medical team direct from the Guards camp of Pirbright. Luckily my immediate CO got me out of it and I went to Trieste instead. Much better.
crossed wires there.
My uncle got trained up in mine clearance in the UK and shipped out to Korea. Three days after he arrived, and before he got moved to a unit, the ceasefire was declared.
He then spent a few months lazing around in the sun before being shipped out again.
My family have been very lucky when it comes to wars. I can only hope there are no more wars to test our luck further.
I am obviously older.
My father spent 3 years in India, Palestine and Burma in WW2 - basically fighting the Japanese in a Sikh regiment. He was injured during all this. Not a subject he ever discussed.. I read the regimental history he had at home: some pretty horrendous stories. One of his brothers was killed as a pilot. My mother lived in London at the time: born in Somerset with 6 brothers/sisters..Stories of the Blitz etc.. Post WW2 was as bad as the war for rationing and REAL Austerity ,, Not the ersatz variety people complain of and post about using their I Phone on Twitter.
If any Chancellor cut consumer spending as Cripps did in post WW2 there would be riots..Not to mention a wage freeze..
"Twelve Doctors Without Borders staff along with seven patients, including three children, were killed after an apparent U.S. airstrike hit the international charity's hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz."
"Coalition spokesman Col. Brian Tribus confirmed that a U.S. airstrike conducted at around 2:15 a.m. local time on Saturday (5:45 p.m. ET Friday) "may have caused collateral damage to a nearby health facility." The incident was being investigated, he added."
I hope that none of the victims were British doctors, for political reasons at least.
Isn't this a War Crime with absolutely no wiggle room?
Although it seems that "it was the Americans" is acceptable wiggle room regardless of the law.
Any pension provider should look to strike a balance between maximising returns and minimising risk. It should not be for a provider who offers only one product to deliberately reduce their returns on political grounds.
If they want to run other schemes that don't invest in certain sectors and give employees the right to opt-in then that's fair enough. Similarly, if there is a genuine case that like-for-like, arms manufacturers show consistently worse returns than other sectors then that is an arguable case.
He was indeed the best candidate for those wanting Conservative victory at the next election. Unelectable SPAD weathervane politician. He would have lost seats to UKIP oop-north
I have to disagree Mortimer. Burnham was the best candidate for Labour in 2015, just as EM was in 2010. The problem is that they were relatively because the others were even more useless than they were and not because they were any actual good.
Labour are now, having selected the best candidate in 2010, trying the opposite by electing the weakest candidate, presumably on the grounds that relative quality didn't work last time. It's a point of view I suppose...
EdM the best candidate? He was neither the best alternative PM (DM) or the best LOTO (EdB).
He was not even Health Secretary at the time of Stafford, Alan Johnson was. If Burnham had an inability to lead, heaven help Labour now they have Corbyn 'leading' them
Not this old chestnut again. He was not Health Secretary, but he was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality).
And you also ignore his rather sick attitude to inquiries, which is where he really deserves criticism.
It was Johnson who was Secretary of State with overall responsibility, and Burnham was not on the wards in Stafford was he. Inquiries tend to be talking shops in most cases which achieve little. In any case, leaving this issue aside even when the Sun etc had tried to push Stafford Burnham still had a clear lead with the public as to who would be the best Labour leader
What do you think the Minister of State (Delivery and Quality) does?
As for your inquiries point; even the chair of the private, limited inquiry Burnham set up said the terms of reference were inadequate. It was only the coalition's public inquiry that finally got to the truth. Yet Burnham feels free to call for public inquiries into everything else...
none of the publicity around this issue stopped Burnham leading polls of the public as to the best Labour contendor for the leadership
And you see that as a good thing? He was the best candidate, it should scare the crap out of you.
Maybe slightly more watchable in that there were entertaining moments but as a film it was all over the place. Was the book a comedy? Ridley obviously couldn't decide
The book gets away with the prose because the majority of it is written in the first person, and that person was (to me, and seemingly others) a very pleasant guy who you ended up wanting to live. Its Apollo 13 without the rather obvious clue about the ending that A13 suffered from. Perhaps you did not feel the same way about him.
In fact, it's a classic man-versus-nature film. It's just that the nature isn't Earths.
The film's biggest flaw is perhaps that it focusses too much on the other characters (e.g. the guys and gals at NASA, or the crew of the Hermes). Then again, the book might be very hard to film directly without those other viewpoints.
Many people use humour to help them through hard times. The main character in the film uses humour in this way, as do some of the people in NASA. It didn't grate with me (then again, I'm a techie who has worked with some rather colourful characters). And the Elrond joke and consequent casting was brilliant.
Hey, but I'm not a novelist or filmmaker! I just know I loved the book, and really enjoyed the film.
The book gets away with the prose because the majority of it is written in the first person, and that person was (to me, and seemingly others) a very pleasant guy who you ended up wanting to live.
I enjoyed the book, but others have recommended the audio book even more. Apparently some of the characters are voiced differently which helps
"Twelve Doctors Without Borders staff along with seven patients, including three children, were killed after an apparent U.S. airstrike hit the international charity's hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz."
"Coalition spokesman Col. Brian Tribus confirmed that a U.S. airstrike conducted at around 2:15 a.m. local time on Saturday (5:45 p.m. ET Friday) "may have caused collateral damage to a nearby health facility." The incident was being investigated, he added."
I hope that none of the victims were British doctors, for political reasons at least.
Isn't this a War Crime with absolutely no wiggle room?
Although it seems that "it was the Americans" is acceptable wiggle room regardless of the law.
"Twelve Doctors Without Borders staff along with seven patients, including three children, were killed after an apparent U.S. airstrike hit the international charity's hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz."
"Coalition spokesman Col. Brian Tribus confirmed that a U.S. airstrike conducted at around 2:15 a.m. local time on Saturday (5:45 p.m. ET Friday) "may have caused collateral damage to a nearby health facility." The incident was being investigated, he added."
I hope that none of the victims were British doctors, for political reasons at least.
Any pension provider should look to strike a balance between maximising returns and minimising risk. It should not be for a provider who offers only one product to deliberately reduce their returns on political grounds.
If they want to run other schemes that don't invest in certain sectors and give employees the right to opt-in then that's fair enough. Similarly, if there is a genuine case that like-for-like, arms manufacturers show consistently worse returns than other sectors then that is an arguable case.
Absolutely agree. I do not have a conventional pension scheme, as I prefer my own judgement,but I was a trustee of my company pension scheme, and felt obliged to use best advice to obtain the best returns for the members,whilst balancing risk/return. I do not smoke,hate smoking, but for the pension scheme I would agree to these investments. Many people would be surprised at where their pension funds are invested.
Comments
His disadvantages are huge - even when weighed against Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is no intellectual, but he is personally liked and was sentimentally regarded, in a very British way, as a gallant loser who deserved at least a clap. Corbyn had not spent years (or in Macdonnell's case, a few weeks) floundering helplessly in a role far beyond his intellectual and political capabilities before he won. Corbyn was able to profit from the belief in the parliamentary party that the left was dead.
Macdonnell is only marginally less hated than George Osborne, and is if anything even more rude and arrogant, has already managed to look like a complete idiot in his shadow role, and after recent weeks nobody is going to be fooled into thinking that the Labour membership will not vote for him merely because he has as much chance of winning the next election as I have of a date with Margot Robbie. Moreover, he is not that much younger than Corbyn and has a similar track record of serial disloyalty and avowed support for dangerous elements.
The key question, as noted upthread, is whether there is a hard left candidate who could command such loyalty? I would suggest that John Trickett is probably the only really left-wing candidate who could make it on to the shortlist in his own strength. However, I doubt if he would be able to pose as an insurgent in the way Corbyn has.
I remain convinced - and maybe here I am indulging in wishful thinking - that the next Labour leader will come from the centre, simply because the electoral arithmetic and the relative levels of talent stack a properly run contest in their favour by making it near-impossible for any insurgent candidate to be shortlisted.
http://www.addictinggames.com/strategy-games/oiligarchy.jsp
The Korean War was a conflict in a fraction of the Far East which had little impact on most people at home
Again most of the problems you mention occurred in the 70s not the 60s
The 1990s was the first decade after the end of the Cold War which after a brief recession for a year or two in about 1991-1992, saw economic growth and prosperity unparalleled over the last century
Labour are now, having selected the best candidate in 2010, trying the opposite by electing the weakest candidate, presumably on the grounds that relative quality didn't work last time. It's a point of view I suppose...
A very nice anecdote about Healey and one that doesn't surprise me at all. Someone gave me a book of his photographs and they were surprisingly accomplished and sensitive
In the 1930s on the other hand, large areas of the South of England had one of its most prosperous decades, with record numbers of houses built, the development of an effective and substantial electricity network, and the expansion of white goods and consumer goods (cars, radios, even televisions). The City had what is known as a 'golden age' due to the collapse in American banking seriously weakening a key rival. In the north, life was almost as terrible as it is portrayed in BBC documentaries.
We come back again to the problem of different experiences across even quite small areas (London for example was divided far beyond anything we would see today).
As for the Korean War, Britain was a very active participant in it and it drove the country to the financial brink at a time it could barely pay the loans from WWII.
And not to forget the Rivers of Blood, the 1967 sterling crisis and the dock strikes of that year.
I do not disagree about the 90's assessment, just that the early 90's until the ERM was buried 6 feet under was a terrible time, it even cost Thatcher's head and Major's too later on.
I think he's worse than Blair. At least Blair sincerely believed in what he was doing in Iraq and took the trouble to explain it to anyone who'd listen. Cameron is just totally cavalier and as with so many other things doesn't even seem to have an idea of what he's doing or why.
RIP Denis Healey. A great politician, and really quite accomplished photographer.
Going cap in hand to the IMF was a terrible and unnecessary mistake that proved in one stroke that Labour was incapable to handle the economy and defend the country's sovereignty.
It made everyone dissatisfied over if it was too little or too much or even on the principle of it and gave weapons to all sides to gun down Callaghan.
Are you alright there?
Still, second place isn't too bad.
You should adjust my praise for your book accordingly ...
The Korean War affected almost no-one except a few on national service, the country had just fought the most bloody war in its history the previous decade a few difficulties paying back war loans again had next to no affect on the average person and it was a relative period of peace and prosperity.
Enoch Powell's speech again had little impact on most people's lives, nor did the sterling crisis nor the dock strikes outside those affected directly, we were not even in Vietnam unlike the US.
The only negatives in the 90s were a little negative equity and a short recession at the beginning, overall for most Britons it was the most peaceful and prosperous decade in our history. For most of the decade the economy grew and jobs were plentiful, house prices were affordable, there were no tuition fees, and apart from a successful Gulf War in 1990 there were almost no wars UK forces were involved in
Come on RSA..
The book works because the central character is so easy to get behind: you want him to survive, even as that git Weir chucks more perils his way. There's also some very geeky humour that is unobtrusive ("Project Elrond")
Basically: go and see it. Although I might be biased because I loved the book so much.
Though apparently you didn't write the ending she wanted !
Inability to actually lead and a failure to come up with actual policy would not help in the North come actual elections.
Guess this proves it.
Probably some anger management issues there as well.
"Would you say it's up with Ridley Scott's best work?"
I would say it was one of his three worst films. When you think back to other of his sci fi
works like Bladerunner or the first Alien its almost tragic to see how he's gone off.
Still, enough people complained about J.K.Rowling's poor grasp of English in the first Harry Potter books, and that hardly hurt her
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/andy-burnham/1427
And you also ignore his rather sick attitude to inquiries, which is where he really deserves criticism.
crossed wires there.
He then spent a few months lazing around in the sun before being shipped out again.
My family have been very lucky when it comes to wars. I can only hope there are no more wars to test our luck further.
As for your inquiries point; even the chair of the private, limited inquiry Burnham set up said the terms of reference were inadequate. It was only the coalition's public inquiry that finally got to the truth. Yet Burnham feels free to call for public inquiries into everything else...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1003/732211-right2change/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/03/conservatives-stop-militant-leftwing-councils-boycotting-products
The Counselor and Promethius. All sadly recent. I thought Thelma and Louise was one of his best and Hanibal was watchable. He's nearly 80 though.
" Would you say it's better than Prometheus?"
Maybe slightly more watchable in that there were entertaining moments but as a film it was all over the place. Was the book a comedy? Ridley obviously couldn't decide
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/16-dead-after-charity-hospital-hit-apparent-u-s-airstrike-n438001
"Twelve Doctors Without Borders staff along with seven patients, including three children, were killed after an apparent U.S. airstrike hit the international charity's hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz."
"Coalition spokesman Col. Brian Tribus confirmed that a U.S. airstrike conducted at around 2:15 a.m. local time on Saturday (5:45 p.m. ET Friday) "may have caused collateral damage to a nearby health facility." The incident was being investigated, he added."
I hope that none of the victims were British doctors, for political reasons at least.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/less-than-the-whole-truth/#more-76217
My father spent 3 years in India, Palestine and Burma in WW2 - basically fighting the Japanese in a Sikh regiment. He was injured during all this. Not a subject he ever discussed.. I read the regimental history he had at home: some pretty horrendous stories. One of his brothers was killed as a pilot. My mother lived in London at the time: born in Somerset with 6 brothers/sisters..Stories of the Blitz etc.. Post WW2 was as bad as the war for rationing and REAL Austerity ,, Not the ersatz variety people complain of and post about using their I Phone on Twitter.
If any Chancellor cut consumer spending as Cripps did in post WW2 there would be riots..Not to mention a wage freeze..
Although it seems that "it was the Americans" is acceptable wiggle room regardless of the law.
If they want to run other schemes that don't invest in certain sectors and give employees the right to opt-in then that's fair enough. Similarly, if there is a genuine case that like-for-like, arms manufacturers show consistently worse returns than other sectors then that is an arguable case.
In fact, it's a classic man-versus-nature film. It's just that the nature isn't Earths.
The film's biggest flaw is perhaps that it focusses too much on the other characters (e.g. the guys and gals at NASA, or the crew of the Hermes). Then again, the book might be very hard to film directly without those other viewpoints.
Many people use humour to help them through hard times. The main character in the film uses humour in this way, as do some of the people in NASA. It didn't grate with me (then again, I'm a techie who has worked with some rather colourful characters). And the Elrond joke and consequent casting was brilliant.
Hey, but I'm not a novelist or filmmaker! I just know I loved the book, and really enjoyed the film.
"Isn't this a War Crime with absolutely no wiggle room?"
Yes.
The allied spokesman said the Taliban had been known to use hospitals in the past so it was almost certainly deliberate.
Meanwhile our Prime Minister said the Russians were attacking the wrong sort of targets making the situation infinitely worse.....
Many people would be surprised at where their pension funds are invested.