Mr. Wanderer, worth noting that the last two General Election exit polls have been highly accurate, and highly disbelieved initially, due to being out of whack with pre-vote polling.
Edited extra bit: apparently 4-5" of rain expected for Cumbria.
Not just the last 2 - every one since 1997 onwards has been near spot on. If anything 2015's was unusually inaccurate in that it under predicted the Conservatives by about 20 seats.
Actually 2015 wasn't spot on was it? It was still saying NOM.
Silly question though. Do wearers of facial-hair shampoo their distinguishments or merely exercise soap-and-flannel...?
:maybe-one-for-mr-dancer:
Good grief, Mr. Thoughts, that is a jolly personal question. I know we have a habit on this site of disclosing personal information (see Miss Plato's post re Playboy for girls below as an example), but there are limits. How a chap maintains the health of his moustache really isn't a matter for discussion in mixed company.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
He had 200 suits, dozens of silk shirts/ties and 50+ pairs of shoes. I thought that was normal for years.
He varied his smalls to include snakeskin patterns. Bit of a brazen Lothario. Fortunately, my mother found it all darkly amusing and we pretended not to notice his Date Nights and choice of secretaries/photos of them draped across his car/field gates...
The super conservative nature of my HiL was a revelation!
Somethings are just so surprising. My dad used to wander round the house in his leopard print smalls, my husband didn't know if his dad had a hairy chest as he'd never seen him without shirt and tie. Both the same age - but totally different social values.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
Silly question though. Do wearers of facial-hair shampoo their distinguishments or merely exercise soap-and-flannel...?
:maybe-one-for-mr-dancer:
Good grief, Mr. Thoughts, that is a jolly personal question. I know we have a habit on this site of disclosing personal information (see Miss Plato's post re Playboy for girls below as an example), but there are limits. How a chap maintains the health of his moustache really isn't a matter for discussion in mixed company.
Does it involve anything that Norman Fowler wouldn't have heard of?
Well. I have fast-growing stubble and a reluctance to shave (I dislike shaving but don't want a beard) so often have 2-3 days of manly stubble. Not enough for me to encounter the perils of beard grooming, however.
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
Could you please withdraw that slur upon the 17th Century? It was the age that gave us Speaker Lenthall and William Laud.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
Good grief, Mr. Thoughts, that is a jolly personal question. I know we have a habit on this site of disclosing personal information (see Miss Plato's post re Playboy for girls below as an example), but there are limits. How a chap maintains the health of his moustache really isn't a matter for discussion in mixed company.
Prep for my 'Elf-n-Safety training (which is no doubt due soon due to FCA requirements).
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
He's not a prat. He's better suited to the academic life I think and probably lacks a certain amount of common-sense, for all his intelligence, and low political cunning. Mr Palmer of this parish has said that Letwin is a genuinely nice man.
Personally, I think the whole culture of taking offence and ersatz apologies is pernicious nonsense which should be stopped immediately. When I am a Benevolent Dictator Empress, it will be.
The Thatcher government was derided as "presidential" at the time, but the revelation that she allowed the majority view of her cabinet to prevail over her own regarding the AIDS awareness campaign showed that her government was still far more collegiate than today's. It's difficult to see Cameron, Blair or Brown allowing their cabinet to overrule them.
Uncorrect yourself, he was appointed Shadow Chancellor in December 2003 and reshuffled to Agriculture in May 2005 after Howard's defeat.
His appallingly inept response to the 2004 budget was one of the worst parliamentary performances I have seen. He spent most of it shrieking and shouting about figures he didn't know, things that hadn't been discussed and never once did he make any reasonable points. The best bit was when he broke off mid rant to drink an entire glass of water very slowly while waving his right hand high in the air. At least that was vaguely funny!
hard to know of Letwin or David Willetts is the bigger numpty.
That is a good one. David Willetts is supposed to be very clever. However, when I read his book 'The Pinch' I was appalled. Not only were most of its facts wrong - for example, most British people were not homeowners in the 1950s - but his English was terrible. Unintentionally, I am sure, he spent most of his time talking about the difficulties the Baby Boomer generation face in bringing up their baby goats and getting onto the housing ladder. Which makes no sense, as goats don't live in houses.
On the other hand, he did not drink a whole glass of water very slowly while waving his right hand inconsequentially in the air on the one chance he had per year to duff up Gordon Brown while people were actually listening. So I'll give that to Letwin.
I was listening to an interview with Willetts on R4 just before Xmas,
He was heading some think tank which was trying to sound concerned about young folk being crapped on. It didn't seem to occur to him that if you shaft the young with uni fees, push up house prices and raise their taxes while doshing up pensioners, then the gap between the baby boomers and the current 20 somethings is only going to get bigger.
Hypocrital or just plain stupid ? Hard to call.
Willetts pre 2010 GE was heading up a large meeting (circa 200) to "sell" some internal changes to party members in Hampshire. Went ok until he gave his opinion that we needed to build houses on all the green fields he passed by in his train from London. He also denied that immigration was avery large contributor to the shortage of housing..... A man out of touch with his own party and out of touch with facts. A real social democrat in the wrong party.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Are you acquainted with Mr James Gordon Brown?
I think Mandelson is a closer parallel with Letwin. A backroom operator constantly dogged by gaffes and scandal yet seemingly always forgiven and allowed to remain at the top table of party and government for 30 odd years (at least until Corbyn).
The fundamentals of economic competence and leadership meant that Labour were never going to win.Same will apply in 2020 under a gerry-mandered system rigged to favour the Tories.
The Thatcher government was derided as "presidential" at the time, but the revelation that she allowed the majority view of her cabinet to prevail over her own regarding the AIDS awareness campaign showed that her government was still far more collegiate than today's. It's difficult to see Cameron, Blair or Brown allowing their cabinet to overrule them.
Well. I have fast-growing stubble and a reluctance to shave (I dislike shaving but don't want a beard) so often have 2-3 days of manly stubble. Not enough for me to encounter the perils of beard grooming, however.
Yorvik-shire yet not Viking! No wonder you feel safer with Carthage....
Douglas Hurd had to be walked around a Dublin park to shift a hangover the morning after his first ministerial meeting with his Irish counterparts in 1984
Ronald Reagan risked Margaret Thatcher's wrath by suggesting she read a thriller by writer Tom Clancy to understand the Cold War
Margaret Thatcher's close adviser dismissed a controversial Church of Endland report as 'Marxist' after it fiercely criticised key policies
Schotterdämmerung was good, and especially because it can be understood in two ways. Dämmerung (twilight) means both dusk and dawn – the dawn of the SNP and the dusk of SLab. If you write it with a single t, thus Schoterdämmerung, it would mean the dusk or dawn of fools (Schote - coll fool).
The Thatcher government was derided as "presidential" at the time, but the revelation that she allowed the majority view of her cabinet to prevail over her own regarding the AIDS awareness campaign showed that her government was still far more collegiate than today's. It's difficult to see Cameron, Blair or Brown allowing their cabinet to overrule them.
Yes, that's the most striking thing. There is a mythical Margaret Thatcher that is somewhat different to the one that existed. (To some extent she encouraged this herself, I think.)
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
Could you please withdraw that slur upon the 17th Century? It was the age that gave us Speaker Lenthall and William Laud.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
YDoethur, No, no, no! Your post indicates the idea that people and society are on an upward curve and that past generations were inferior to ours. As you are a historian I am surprised to see you subscribing to such a view. Not only that but whilst the 17th century did produce men like Laud and Lenthall it also produced its fair share of 22 carat bastards as well as thickos in positions of power.
Mr. Wanderer, the prime sources are Livy (pro-Roman biased), Polybius (a Greek hostage, in a friendly way, of the Scipios) and Appian, which I haven't read.
I think there are descriptions but can't remember them, alas. Except that he only had one eye, which I recall because he lost it during a march through the Arnus Marshes (I think evading Flaminius on the way to Lake Trasimene).
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
Could you please withdraw that slur upon the 17th Century? It was the age that gave us Speaker Lenthall and William Laud.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
YDoethur, No, no, no! Your post indicates the idea that people and society are on an upward curve and that past generations were inferior to ours. As you are a historian I am surprised to see you subscribing to such a view. Not only that but whilst the 17th century did produce men like Laud and Lenthall it also produced its fair share of 22 carat bastards as well as thickos in positions of power.
There are Letwins, and worse, in every age.
Well, it could be read that way. Although by implication, there were definite disimprovements from the 5th to the 6th century (again, that could be controversial).
My main point was it was a bit unfair to suggest the poor old 17th Century was an appropriate place for Letwin. What has it ever done to deserve that?
Not only have I practically, um, doubled my bank-roll - but it has also been confirmed that England is indeed a country - I should be paid for the good work I do on behalf of our glorious union.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
I see that there are papers on the AIDS campaign being released as well. Time to remember some gems from the period.
Norman Fowler '(mops brow) Crikey!'
After a civil servant had explained to him what oral sex was. A reminder of a more innocent age?
But my favourite was his announcement of the AIDS campaign in the House of Commons:
'We're sending 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain.'
I suppose burying everyone in a huge mountain of paper would at least deter promiscuity!
I'm still slightly agog that Norman Fowler managed to reach late middle age without knowing what oral sex was........
I am struggling to believe that one. He must have been mystified a lot.
That's not so strange. When my mother was growing up in 1950's Ireland, sex was described as "something that men do.". Some women were unaware that it had any connection to procreation.
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
Could you please withdraw that slur upon the 17th Century? It was the age that gave us Speaker Lenthall and William Laud.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
YDoethur, No, no, no! Your post indicates the idea that people and society are on an upward curve and that past generations were inferior to ours. As you are a historian I am surprised to see you subscribing to such a view. Not only that but whilst the 17th century did produce men like Laud and Lenthall it also produced its fair share of 22 carat bastards as well as thickos in positions of power.
There are Letwins, and worse, in every age.
Well said. We are in my opinion one of the most foolish generations there has ever been - the effect of mass communication. By virtue of being the latest generation, we have the benefit of the sum of all human knowledge, but we've discarded much of it in favour of believing what the people on the telly say, with disastrous consequences in every sphere, not least pubic health. There are signs that the next generation will be a lot better in this regard.
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
Could you please withdraw that slur upon the 17th Century? It was the age that gave us Speaker Lenthall and William Laud.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
YDoethur, No, no, no! Your post indicates the idea that people and society are on an upward curve and that past generations were inferior to ours. As you are a historian I am surprised to see you subscribing to such a view. Not only that but whilst the 17th century did produce men like Laud and Lenthall it also produced its fair share of 22 carat bastards as well as thickos in positions of power.
There are Letwins, and worse, in every age.
Well, it could be read that way. Although by implication, there were definite disimprovements from the 5th to the 6th century (again, that could be controversial).
My main point was it was a bit unfair to suggest the poor old 17th Century was an appropriate place for Letwin. What has it ever done to deserve that?
Well, the 17th century did produce one of the worst, most tin-eared, politicians in England's history in the shape of Charles I (and some other great bloody fools as well). Against those Letwin could be judged a political colossus.
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
Could you please withdraw that slur upon the 17th Century? It was the age that gave us Speaker Lenthall and William Laud.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
YDoethur, No, no, no! Your post indicates the idea that people and society are on an upward curve and that past generations were inferior to ours. As you are a historian I am surprised to see you subscribing to such a view. Not only that but whilst the 17th century did produce men like Laud and Lenthall it also produced its fair share of 22 carat bastards as well as thickos in positions of power.
There are Letwins, and worse, in every age.
Well, it could be read that way. Although by implication, there were definite disimprovements from the 5th to the 6th century (again, that could be controversial).
My main point was it was a bit unfair to suggest the poor old 17th Century was an appropriate place for Letwin. What has it ever done to deserve that?
Well, the 17th century did produce one of the worst, most tin-eared, politicians in England's history in the shape of Charles I (and some other great bloody fools as well). Against those Letwin could be judged a political colossus.
But Charles I did not break off from complaining 'I see the birds have flown' to drink a glass of water very slowly while waving his other hand in the air. Whatever his other faults were!
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
I see that there are papers on the AIDS campaign being released as well. Time to remember some gems from the period.
Norman Fowler '(mops brow) Crikey!'
After a civil servant had explained to him what oral sex was. A reminder of a more innocent age?
But my favourite was his announcement of the AIDS campaign in the House of Commons:
'We're sending 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain.'
I suppose burying everyone in a huge mountain of paper would at least deter promiscuity!
I'm still slightly agog that Norman Fowler managed to reach late middle age without knowing what oral sex was........
I am struggling to believe that one. He must have been mystified a lot.
That's not so strange. When my mother was growing up in 1950's Ireland, sex was described as "something that men do.". Some women were unaware that it had any connection to procreation.
It is also connected to the Bill Clinton denial. Particularly to older generations, "heavy petting" did not count as "sexual relations" (and maybe still doesn't for the purposes of annulling non-consummated marriages -- ianal).
It's a peculiar phenomenon. I watched a docu about the behaviour a while ago - the stereotype being the gangsta who will kill you for disrespecting his mother, not because he feels slurred or wants to enjoy killing you, but because some *respectable behaviour* line has been crossed. Honour amongst thieves is another.
Miss Plato, the very same group with whom Corbyn believes we should negotiate.
Likewise, the loathing that "ordinary, decent, criminals" have towards sex offenders.
Thomas Sowell pointed out that the "Gangsta" culture bears a great deal of resemblance to the "culture" of the Southern slaveocrats. Perpetual drinking, actual work is considered a positive evil (unless done by others), savage misogyny combined with proprietorial violence, a system of honour which requires murderous violence against any infringement, real or imagined...
If you took all the people on Broadwater Farm in the 80s, and gave them the resources of the aristocracy, and vice versa, we would see racist aristocrats and high minded, liberal ex Broadwater Farmists
No, we wouldn't. Knowing the difference between right and wrong and behaving accordingly has nothing to do with wealth and certainly nothing to do with living on a council estate.
The pressure of scraping a living or relying on benefits due to unemployment is a major factor in the bad decisions people make
I fall somewhere in between you two. Chronic stress - including financial stress - releases chemicals into the brain which undermine our innovation, productivity and decision-making abilities. But right and wrong are pretty much hard-wired by the time we are adults and there are plenty of poor people around the world who have no problem inculcating their kids in the right thing to do. Part of the difference is whether people have been beaten down into a fatalist, hopeless victim mentality vs whether they feel empowered to improve their current state by their own actions.
Thus, it is in society's self-interest to help those in chronic financial stress to help themselves out of it. But dependence on welfare is not the way. IMO hope, self-confidence and the tools to sustain these are more valuable than welfare in helping people escape victim paralysis to become fully engaged and empowered members of society. I don't think our current welfare system is well set up to deliver this.
It's a peculiar phenomenon. I watched a docu about the behaviour a while ago - the stereotype being the gangsta who will kill you for disrespecting his mother, not because he feels slurred or wants to enjoy killing you, but because some *respectable behaviour* line has been crossed. Honour amongst thieves is another.
Miss Plato, the very same group with whom Corbyn believes we should negotiate.
Likewise, the loathing that "ordinary, decent, criminals" have towards sex offenders.
Thomas Sowell pointed out that the "Gangsta" culture bears a great deal of resemblance to the "culture" of the Southern slaveocrats. Perpetual drinking, actual work is considered a positive evil (unless done by others), savage misogyny combined with proprietorial violence, a system of honour which requires murderous violence against any infringement, real or imagined...
The most recent high-profile example of hatefact-avoidance was the debate about police shootings in America; numerous news sites published fatality rates by race, but no one in any mainstream newspaper on either side of the Atlantic (as far as I could see) actually pointed out that the demographics of the people getting shot match the demographics of the people who do violent crime and indeed who point guns at police offices – overwhelmingly young and male, disproportionately high black and low Asian. That would be a hatefact; it would also mean critical thinking.
The Thatcher government was derided as "presidential" at the time, but the revelation that she allowed the majority view of her cabinet to prevail over her own regarding the AIDS awareness campaign showed that her government was still far more collegiate than today's. It's difficult to see Cameron, Blair or Brown allowing their cabinet to overrule them.
Yes, it was Blair who killed off Cabinet government. The point of collective responsibility is to allow ministers to disagree with each other. Mrs Thatcher (like Mr Wilson and earlier PMs) was often openly at odds with various ministers. Now we have a fit of the vapours if Benn differs from Corbyn in a free vote.
Vaguely remembered anecdote I can't be bothered to google: a reporter told John Smith he'd ripped his trousers. "Aye, and if you look closely you can see the split in the Cabinet."
The Thatcher government was derided as "presidential" at the time, but the revelation that she allowed the majority view of her cabinet to prevail over her own regarding the AIDS awareness campaign showed that her government was still far more collegiate than today's. It's difficult to see Cameron, Blair or Brown allowing their cabinet to overrule them.
Yes, that's the most striking thing. There is a mythical Margaret Thatcher that is somewhat different to the one that existed. (To some extent she encouraged this herself, I think.)
There are various elements here - firstly, for the time, Thatcher was quite a strong leader. Secondly, sexism (as much from the Labour left as from the right) found it strange that a woman should be completely in charge rather than "guided" by the men around her. Antonia Fraser noted that most of the attacks on Thatcher match the classic responses to powerful women down the ages....
The real Thatcher carried out vigorous cabinet government. Which she led.
Perhaps the most damage done by this was to Labour - who "learn't" that the way to govern was the imagined version of what Thatcher did - destroying internal opposition, reducing ministers to automatons...
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
Could you please withdraw that slur upon the 17th Century? It was the age that gave us Speaker Lenthall and William Laud.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
YDoethur, No, no, no! Your post indicates the idea that people and society are on an upward curve and that past generations were inferior to ours. As you are a historian I am surprised to see you subscribing to such a view. Not only that but whilst the 17th century did produce men like Laud and Lenthall it also produced its fair share of 22 carat bastards as well as thickos in positions of power.
There are Letwins, and worse, in every age.
Well said. We are in my opinion one of the most foolish generations there has ever been - the effect of mass communication. By virtue of being the latest generation, we have the benefit of the sum of all human knowledge, but we've discarded much of it in favour of believing what the people on the telly say, with disastrous consequences in every sphere, not least pubic health. There are signs that the next generation will be a lot better in this regard.
This site is all the evidence you need that modern communication is a force for improving people's knowledge. It is a fount of wisdom about (almost) all things.
The most recent high-profile example of hatefact-avoidance was the debate about police shootings in America; numerous news sites published fatality rates by race, but no one in any mainstream newspaper on either side of the Atlantic (as far as I could see) actually pointed out that the demographics of the people getting shot match the demographics of the people who do violent crime and indeed who point guns at police offices – overwhelmingly young and male, disproportionately high black and low Asian. That would be a hatefact; it would also mean critical thinking.
Mr. Wanderer, the prime sources are Livy (pro-Roman biased), Polybius (a Greek hostage, in a friendly way, of the Scipios) and Appian, which I haven't read.
I think there are descriptions but can't remember them, alas. Except that he only had one eye, which I recall because he lost it during a march through the Arnus Marshes (I think evading Flaminius on the way to Lake Trasimene).
One-eyed like Horatius then.
It's interesting that, because the Romans ultimately won the Punic Wars and got to write the history, it's their accounts we have of the time when they were losing. Cannae is the most famous debacle in military history, still exercising the imagination of generals two millenia later, and yet it's the losers' account that we have.
(I might be completely wrong about this. I've never heard of any Carthaginian accounts though.)
If you took all the people on Broadwater Farm in the 80s, and gave them the resources of the aristocracy, and vice versa, we would see racist aristocrats and high minded, liberal ex Broadwater Farmists
No, we wouldn't. Knowing the difference between right and wrong and behaving accordingly has nothing to do with wealth and certainly nothing to do with living on a council estate.
The pressure of scraping a living or relying on benefits due to unemployment is a major factor in the bad decisions people make
I fall somewhere in between you two. Chronic stress - including financial stress - releases chemicals into the brain which undermine our innovation, productivity and decision-making abilities. But right and wrong are pretty much hard-wired by the time we are adults and there are plenty of poor people around the world who have no problem inculcating their kids in the right thing to do. Part of the difference is whether people have been beaten down into a fatalist, hopeless victim mentality vs whether they feel empowered to improve their current state by their own actions.
Thus, it is in society's self-interest to help those in chronic financial stress to help themselves out of it. But dependence on welfare is not the way. IMO hope, self-confidence and the tools to sustain these are more valuable than welfare in helping people escape victim paralysis to become fully engaged and empowered members of society. I don't think our current welfare system is well set up to deliver this.
Top post.
I have sympathy with isam's point of view - people in crap situations make crap decisions, ones which often make their situation even crappier.
You can get some of the way by improving the incentives present in the system; like him or loathe him this is what IDS is trying to do with welfare (whether it will be successful or not is a separate issue and one where we'll need to see the new system in place for a decade or so before we can really get a good idea about how it functions in practice). But even providing people with the correct incentives is not a guarantee that they will be taken.*
I think one of the strongest arguments in favour of a guaranteed minimum income is that it removes the kind of day-to-day survival stress that isam is talking about, which ought to improve people's capacity to make better decisions.
*Plenty of people with plenty of time on their hands to exercise, and sufficient cash to eat a relatively healthy diet (even if they could only afford a simple one), don't manage it, despite their health and wellbeing being a pretty clear and present motivator.
It seems the Romans were proud of beating Hannibal, so although they impugned his character (considering the use of tactical cunning to be low trickery) they didn't hold his abilities in contempt.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
I see that there are papers on the AIDS campaign being released as well. Time to remember some gems from the period.
Norman Fowler '(mops brow) Crikey!'
After a civil servant had explained to him what oral sex was. A reminder of a more innocent age?
But my favourite was his announcement of the AIDS campaign in the House of Commons:
'We're sending 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain.'
I suppose burying everyone in a huge mountain of paper would at least deter promiscuity!
I'm still slightly agog that Norman Fowler managed to reach late middle age without knowing what oral sex was........
I am struggling to believe that one. He must have been mystified a lot.
That's not so strange. When my mother was growing up in 1950's Ireland, sex was described as "something that men do.". Some women were unaware that it had any connection to procreation.
Sure, but Norman Fowler (so far as we know) didn't grow up as a girl in Ireland in the 50s.
Silly question though. Do wearers of facial-hair shampoo their distinguishments or merely exercise soap-and-flannel...?
:maybe-one-for-mr-dancer:
As someone who is currently bearded, the answer is... soap and water.
But I have a friend with a massive (think Amla) beard. He uses shampoo and conditioner. But then, he is a bit of a metrosexual. And he lives in Shoreditch.
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
Even with a pint in hand still no need for such a skew-whiff tie. What would Mr Farage think???
Of all the mortifications involved in writing this article, that picture is by some distance the most harrowing aspect for me.
This was a really good piece.
I think more pundits should publish their annual mea culpa. Having the discipline to list their predictions on an annual basis for future testing would reveal just how insightful our commentariat are.
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
May better pray Trump loses
Utterly absurd, and illiberal.
More evidence that May is not a serious politician.
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
Banning Donald Trump and not Robert Mugabe* or Xi Jinping would look, to say the least, a little odd and something of an over-reaction. It would also probably not be conducive to good trans-Atlantic relations.
*Only the subject of an EU wide ban, as I understand it, not a UK one. Didn't Tatchell once try to arrest him?
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Has a single person ever had such a malign effect for so long on a political party and still remained near the top ?
Are we fated to read about his idiocies of thirty years ago every year for the rest of our lives ?
Letwin is a great example of an out of touch prat. Born for an earlier age. Such as the 17th century?
Could you please withdraw that slur upon the 17th Century? It was the age that gave us Speaker Lenthall and William Laud.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
YDoethur, No, no, no! Your post indicates the idea that people and society are on an upward curve and that past generations were inferior to ours. As you are a historian I am surprised to see you subscribing to such a view. Not only that but whilst the 17th century did produce men like Laud and Lenthall it also produced its fair share of 22 carat bastards as well as thickos in positions of power.
There are Letwins, and worse, in every age.
Well said. We are in my opinion one of the most foolish generations there has ever been - the effect of mass communication. By virtue of being the latest generation, we have the benefit of the sum of all human knowledge, but we've discarded much of it in favour of believing what the people on the telly say, with disastrous consequences in every sphere, not least pubic health. There are signs that the next generation will be a lot better in this regard.
This site is all the evidence you need that modern communication is a force for improving people's knowledge. It is a fount of wisdom about (almost) all things.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
I see that there are papers on the AIDS campaign being released as well. Time to remember some gems from the period.
Norman Fowler '(mops brow) Crikey!'
After a civil servant had explained to him what oral sex was. A reminder of a more innocent age?
But my favourite was his announcement of the AIDS campaign in the House of Commons:
'We're sending 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain.'
I suppose burying everyone in a huge mountain of paper would at least deter promiscuity!
I'm still slightly agog that Norman Fowler managed to reach late middle age without knowing what oral sex was........
I am struggling to believe that one. He must have been mystified a lot.
That's not so strange. When my mother was growing up in 1950's Ireland, sex was described as "something that men do.". Some women were unaware that it had any connection to procreation.
Sure, but Norman Fowler (so far as we know) didn't grow up as a girl in Ireland in the 50s.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
I see that there are papers on the AIDS campaign being released as well. Time to remember some gems from the period.
Norman Fowler '(mops brow) Crikey!'
After a civil servant had explained to him what oral sex was. A reminder of a more innocent age?
But my favourite was his announcement of the AIDS campaign in the House of Commons:
'We're sending 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain.'
I suppose burying everyone in a huge mountain of paper would at least deter promiscuity!
I'm still slightly agog that Norman Fowler managed to reach late middle age without knowing what oral sex was........
I am struggling to believe that one. He must have been mystified a lot.
That's not so strange. When my mother was growing up in 1950's Ireland, sex was described as "something that men do.". Some women were unaware that it had any connection to procreation.
Sure, but Norman Fowler (so far as we know) didn't grow up as a girl in Ireland in the 50s.
Norman Fowler was defeated by Alan Clark for the nomination in Plymouth Sutton constituency prior to the Feb 1974 election....as such, Fowler is mentioned in a few early pages of Clark's diaries, in pretty unfavourable terms. Clark indeed found him an unworldly puritan type so the oral sex stuff is not a surprise, he was also very much a "party man" and CCO were apparently very upset that Sutton chose Clark in place of him despite a lot of subtle pressure on the association.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I hate stubble. Without careful manicuring it looks grubby hobo.
I've also noticed a lot of facial hair product advertising recently to ameliorate its worse impact on females. I imagine many will buy it as gifts to avoid getting a red chin.
Silly question though. Do wearers of facial-hair shampoo their distinguishments or merely exercise soap-and-flannel...?
:maybe-one-for-mr-dancer:
As someone who is currently bearded, the answer is... soap and water.
But I have a friend with a massive (think Amla) beard. He uses shampoo and conditioner. But then, he is a bit of a metrosexual. And he lives in Shoreditch.
This is not the first time that Letwin has apologised. I remember in one general election campaign he was actually grounded so that the media couldn't find him.
Why do the Tories think so highly of him ? I am sure they think he has good ideas but the proportion of daft / politically damaging opinions are too numerous to be ignored.
Norman Fowler was defeated by Alan Clark for the nomination in Plymouth Sutton constituency prior to the Feb 1974 election....as such, Fowler is mentioned in a few early pages of Clark's diaries, in pretty unfavourable terms. Clark indeed found him an unworldly puritan type so the oral sex stuff is not a surprise, he was also very much a "party man" and CCO were apparently very upset that Sutton chose Clark in place of him despite a lot of subtle pressure on the association.
lol, well I think there was no danger of Alan Clark being similarly ignorant
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I cannot imagine how much longer each work week would be for me to do all the research I do without access to the internet. It would certainly exceed a 168-hour week. I think it is easily possible now to research and learn in one year on the internet what would have been impossible in a lifetime just 30 years ago.
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
Banning Donald Trump and not Robert Mugabe* or Xi Jinping would look, to say the least, a little odd and something of an over-reaction. It would also probably not be conducive to good trans-Atlantic relations.
*Only the subject of an EU wide ban, as I understand it, not a UK one. Didn't Tatchell once try to arrest him?
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
Banning Donald Trump and not Robert Mugabe* or Xi Jinping would look, to say the least, a little odd and something of an over-reaction. It would also probably not be conducive to good trans-Atlantic relations.
*Only the subject of an EU wide ban, as I understand it, not a UK one. Didn't Tatchell once try to arrest him?
Isn't UK part of the EU ?
The point being it was not a UK specific ban. We were quite happy to let him in until Brussels stopped us even though for some reason we banned Peter Chinkoga instead.
Regarding Oliver Letwin, there are people in all parties that you wonder why others rate them. For Labour...well actually, I haven't space to go through them all, but we'll just go with 'Ed Miliband': for the Liberal Democrats, Chris Rennard; for the SNP, John Swinney.
I think it must be that they are good at sucking up to the right people.
Norman Fowler was defeated by Alan Clark for the nomination in Plymouth Sutton constituency prior to the Feb 1974 election....as such, Fowler is mentioned in a few early pages of Clark's diaries, in pretty unfavourable terms. Clark indeed found him an unworldly puritan type so the oral sex stuff is not a surprise, he was also very much a "party man" and CCO were apparently very upset that Sutton chose Clark in place of him despite a lot of subtle pressure on the association.
lol, well I think there was no danger of Alan Clark being similarly ignorant
A judge's wife and both daughters if I remember correctly ...
Didn't Plymouth have both Clark and David Owen as MPs at that time?
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I'm still not entirely sure. the internet gives us 4-chan and ni-channel (the original [possibly more poisonous] japanese version) and enables ISIS and co. Probably the pluses outweigh the minuses.
plus this site (and the USA in general) has the massive global warming blindspot
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
I see that there are papers on the AIDS campaign being released as well. Time to remember some gems from the period.
Norman Fowler '(mops brow) Crikey!'
After a civil servant had explained to him what oral sex was. A reminder of a more innocent age?
But my favourite was his announcement of the AIDS campaign in the House of Commons:
'We're sending 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain.'
I suppose burying everyone in a huge mountain of paper would at least deter promiscuity!
I'm still slightly agog that Norman Fowler managed to reach late middle age without knowing what oral sex was........
I am struggling to believe that one. He must have been mystified a lot.
That's not so strange. When my mother was growing up in 1950's Ireland, sex was described as "something that men do.". Some women were unaware that it had any connection to procreation.
Sure, but Norman Fowler (so far as we know) didn't grow up as a girl in Ireland in the 50s.
Surely several people who did not see their spouses naked. Or, are you saying you know of couples who did not see each other naked.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I'm still not entirely sure. the internet gives us 4-chan and ni-channel (the original [possibly more poisonous] japanese version) and enables ISIS and co. Probably the pluses outweigh the minuses.
plus this site (and the USA in general) has the massive global warming blindspot
I had thought that polls show public opinion in the UK and USA almost identical on AGW.
It doesn't say much for the rest of the world's batsmen, does it? But then look at India - hardly anyone apart from Pujara has scored big runs for them recently, and his are interrupted by strings of low scores. Cook scores a few every so often. Root starts, but his conversion rate remains poor. The Australians, with one exception, have been pretty woeful - and even Smith hid a few bad tests with a lot of good ones. The West Indians are - well. Pakistan have done all right, but have hardly played any matches so their batsmen's numbers are skewed. And Kumar Sangakarra has retired.
So really only Kane Williamson has been churning out the big scores all the time this year, which is how Amla and de Villiers are still in the mix after rather a lean run.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I'm still not entirely sure. the internet gives us 4-chan and ni-channel (the original [possibly more poisonous] japanese version) and enables ISIS and co. Probably the pluses outweigh the minuses.
plus this site (and the USA in general) has the massive global warming blindspot
I had thought that polls show public opinion in the UK and USA almost identical on AGW.
ah, maybe so. does that mean this site is representative of the UK, or am I wrong about the US?
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
No, but I suspect that unless she lived in a remote convent she was exposed to other aspects of mass media. As for her theories, I couldn't tell you whether or not I might agree with aspects of them unless I heard one.
I agree that the TV generation are *more* informed, but also more misinformed, or if you like, more disinformed. To continue to use the area of food and public health, pre-industrial peoples would not have necessarily been 'informed' on the best food to give their infants, but they would have had all the benefits of generations before them finding out what kept them healthy and what made them ill. This 'folk' wisdom led to a diet of fermented foods, soaked grains or legumes, raw 'live' milk, curds and whey, organ meats, butter. These are all the things we're belatedly appreciating the health benefits of after discarding them in favour of rancid vegetable oils, denatured dairy, quick rise bread, synthetic 'vitamins and iron', refined sugar, and the panoply of modern diet features that are leading to unprecedented levels of allergies, intolerances, and chronic disease.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I'm still not entirely sure. the internet gives us 4-chan and ni-channel (the original [possibly more poisonous] japanese version) and enables ISIS and co. Probably the pluses outweigh the minuses.
plus this site (and the USA in general) has the massive global warming blindspot
I had thought that polls show public opinion in the UK and USA almost identical on AGW.
I may be working off old data, but this is what I had in mind. Awareness/Caused by Human Activity/Perceived as a Threat:
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I'm still not entirely sure. the internet gives us 4-chan and ni-channel (the original [possibly more poisonous] japanese version) and enables ISIS and co. Probably the pluses outweigh the minuses.
plus this site (and the USA in general) has the massive global warming blindspot
If you regard a plurality of views and full and frank discussion on something as a 'blind spot' then you're unlikely to be convinced of the benefits of the internet in enlightening the masses.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
No, but I suspect that unless she lived in a remote convent she was exposed to other aspects of mass media. As for her theories, I couldn't tell you whether or not I might agree with aspects of them unless I heard one.
I agree that the TV generation are *more* informed, but also more misinformed, or if you like, more disinformed. To continue to use the area of food and public health, pre-industrial peoples would not have necessarily been 'informed' on the best food to give their infants, but they would have had all the benefits of generations before them finding out what kept them healthy and what made them ill. This 'folk' wisdom led to a diet of fermented foods, soaked grains or legumes, raw 'live' milk, curds and whey, organ meats, butter. These are all the things we're belatedly appreciating the health benefits of after discarding them in favour of rancid vegetable oils, denatured dairy, quick rise bread, synthetic 'vitamins and iron', refined sugar, and the panoply of modern diet features that are leading to unprecedented levels of allergies, intolerances, and chronic disease.
She is used to people listening to her, on the basis of her age. Her grandson - who's about 11 - constantly infuriates her by saying "I'm not sure about that Bea; let's Google it."
Josephdcassidy I have identified a phenomenon known as "Schrödinger's Labour" - where every "Momentum" Twitter account is simultaneously real AND a parody
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
No, but I suspect that unless she lived in a remote convent she was exposed to other aspects of mass media. As for her theories, I couldn't tell you whether or not I might agree with aspects of them unless I heard one.
I agree that the TV generation are *more* informed, but also more misinformed, or if you like, more disinformed. To continue to use the area of food and public health, pre-industrial peoples would not have necessarily been 'informed' on the best food to give their infants, but they would have had all the benefits of generations before them finding out what kept them healthy and what made them ill. This 'folk' wisdom led to a diet of fermented foods, soaked grains or legumes, raw 'live' milk, curds and whey, organ meats, butter. These are all the things we're belatedly appreciating the health benefits of after discarding them in favour of rancid vegetable oils, denatured dairy, quick rise bread, synthetic 'vitamins and iron', refined sugar, and the panoply of modern diet features that are leading to unprecedented levels of allergies, intolerances, and chronic disease.
She is used to people listening to her, on the basis of her age. Her grandson - who's about 11 - constantly infuriates her by saying "I'm not sure about that Bea; let's Google it."
Amusing - though I suspect google has enough different answers to prove them both right.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I'm still not entirely sure. the internet gives us 4-chan and ni-channel (the original [possibly more poisonous] japanese version) and enables ISIS and co. Probably the pluses outweigh the minuses.
plus this site (and the USA in general) has the massive global warming blindspot
There is no AGW blindspot on here. Just informed scepticism.
Re Letwin, I was working in London in the mid 80s, his views at the time were pretty widely held, right or wrong. I know nothing of Letwin but I do enjoy a fuss like this, if only because it stops the pb Tories chucking the race card around for a day or two.
You know who you are, let's see you start a campaign to have Letwin removed, if a kipper had aired these views you'd be foaming at the mouth.
I think you'll find most if not all PB Tories have a notion of judging comments and actions in context, for example the era it was done in. See the discussion regarding Rhodes lately.
In which case please name a single example of where Tories have "foamed at the mouth" about comments made 30 years earlier by a Kipper which have subsequently been apologised for. Comments made yesterday which haven't been apologised for are not comparable.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
I see that there are papers on the AIDS campaign being released as well. Time to remember some gems from the period.
Norman Fowler '(mops brow) Crikey!'
After a civil servant had explained to him what oral sex was. A reminder of a more innocent age?
But my favourite was his announcement of the AIDS campaign in the House of Commons:
'We're sending 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain.'
I suppose burying everyone in a huge mountain of paper would at least deter promiscuity!
I'm still slightly agog that Norman Fowler managed to reach late middle age without knowing what oral sex was........
I am struggling to believe that one. He must have been mystified a lot.
That's not so strange. When my mother was growing up in 1950's Ireland, sex was described as "something that men do.". Some women were unaware that it had any connection to procreation.
Sure, but Norman Fowler (so far as we know) didn't grow up as a girl in Ireland in the 50s.
Curiously, a girl growing up in Ireland in the 1750s would have been far better informed about sex than one growing up in the 1950s.
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Arguably this is because the 5 years long libdem campaign of belittling their own government - the government they were a significant part of - was overwhelmingly successful. Having succeeded in implementing their USP, coalition government, the entire libdem operation ran away from it in the manner of Kenneth Williams' Caesar running from the conspirators.
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Had Labour not lost eight seats to the Tories, then Labour would have deprived the Tories of their majority.
Plus thanks to the superior Tory ground game, the Tory share of the vote went up in the marginals whereas Lab piled up votes in their safe seats.
One pix here for @HurstLlama #Top10 Political Eponyms: Boris bikes, Barnett formula, Short money, Baker days, Wilson doctrine, Belisha beacon.. https://t.co/qjJtqVFmMF
1. English words without a rhyme
Bulb Rhythm Chimney False Walrus Width (and depth) Cushion Wasp Filth (and filthy) Angel We also had patio, acrid, silver, purple, squadron and month. And most ordinal numbers from fifth to thousandth.
Incidentally, i happened to notice earlier today that today is what would have been the 80th birthday of President Omar Bongo of Gabon. I noticed it because I have his Daily Telegraph obituary on my bedroom wall (it's next to those of Gwyneth Dunwoody and Nicholas Fairbairn).
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
Banning Donald Trump and not Robert Mugabe* or Xi Jinping would look, to say the least, a little odd and something of an over-reaction. It would also probably not be conducive to good trans-Atlantic relations.
*Only the subject of an EU wide ban, as I understand it, not a UK one. Didn't Tatchell once try to arrest him?
Isn't UK part of the EU ?
The point being it was not a UK specific ban. We were quite happy to let him in until Brussels stopped us even though for some reason we banned Peter Chinkoga instead.
Regarding Oliver Letwin, there are people in all parties that you wonder why others rate them. For Labour...well actually, I haven't space to go through them all, but we'll just go with 'Ed Miliband': for the Liberal Democrats, Chris Rennard; for the SNP, John Swinney.
I think it must be that they are good at sucking up to the right people.
Letwin is very intelligent and honest with the truth but has a somewhat unworldly innocence.
Somethings are just so surprising. My dad used to wander round the house in his leopard print smalls, my husband didn't know if his dad had a hairy chest as he'd never seen him without shirt and tie. Both the same age - but totally different social values.
Fowler saying CONDOM was my personal highlight. A very scary time, it changed my behaviour and a superb PR campaign. I can't find the clip of him on YouTube, boo.
Incidentally, i happened to notice earlier today that today is what would have been the 80th birthday of President Omar Bongo of Gabon. I noticed it because I have his Daily Telegraph obituary on my bedroom wall (it's next to those of Gwyneth Dunwoody and Nicholas Fairbairn).
An interesting selection indeed.
He was succeeded as President by his son, Ali Bongo.
As African Presidents go, he was quite decent. He preferred to bribe his opponents, rather than kill or imprison them.
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
Banning Donald Trump and not Robert Mugabe* or Xi Jinping would look, to say the least, a little odd and something of an over-reaction. It would also probably not be conducive to good trans-Atlantic relations.
*Only the subject of an EU wide ban, as I understand it, not a UK one. Didn't Tatchell once try to arrest him?
Isn't UK part of the EU ?
The point being it was not a UK specific ban. We were quite happy to let him in until Brussels stopped us even though for some reason we banned Peter Chinkoga instead.
Regarding Oliver Letwin, there are people in all parties that you wonder why others rate them. For Labour...well actually, I haven't space to go through them all, but we'll just go with 'Ed Miliband': for the Liberal Democrats, Chris Rennard; for the SNP, John Swinney.
I think it must be that they are good at sucking up to the right people.
Letwin is very intelligent and honest with the truth but has a somewhat unworldly innocence.
He is very intelligent but naïve. So what is he doing in politics ? He is a time bomb ticking.
2015 - not a bad year for a Spurs and English cricket supporting PB Tory betting against kippers and Team Ed & who got a superb new album from his fave band too....and saw them live. That exit poll at 10pm will take some beating however!! Fantasy footie coming right too vs a certain PB threadmaster also sees the year end high... I've not even mentioned the booming pensions advice market either or my profit on those annuity providers!
Incidentally, i happened to notice earlier today that today is what would have been the 80th birthday of President Omar Bongo of Gabon. I noticed it because I have his Daily Telegraph obituary on my bedroom wall (it's next to those of Gwyneth Dunwoody and Nicholas Fairbairn).
An interesting selection indeed.
He was succeeded as President by his son, Ali Bongo.
As African Presidents go, he was quite decent. He preferred to bribe his opponents, rather than kill or imprison them.
Bribing presumably helped with longevity and succession issues I imagine. Not that killing cannot manage that too of course.
Comments
Edit: Sorry, that's what you've just said.
He varied his smalls to include snakeskin patterns. Bit of a brazen Lothario. Fortunately, my mother found it all darkly amusing and we pretended not to notice his Date Nights and choice of secretaries/photos of them draped across his car/field gates...
The super conservative nature of my HiL was a revelation!
Well. I have fast-growing stubble and a reluctance to shave (I dislike shaving but don't want a beard) so often have 2-3 days of manly stubble. Not enough for me to encounter the perils of beard grooming, however.
I think we're going all the way back to about the 6th century to find someone as useless as poor old Letwin. Hengist and Horsa wouldn't have been afraid of him.
Personally, I think the whole culture of taking offence and ersatz apologies is pernicious nonsense which should be stopped immediately. When I am a Benevolent Dictator Empress, it will be.
But he must have come across the word fellatio. And he must have wondered what it was. A type of Italian dessert perhaps?
Likewise, did he just think that cunnilingus, as in the old joke, was a misspelling of the Irish airline?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12073556/national-archives-everything-we-know.html
Shades of Yes, Minister...
If you write it with a single t, thus Schoterdämmerung, it would mean the dusk or dawn of fools (Schote - coll fool).
There are Letwins, and worse, in every age.
I think there are descriptions but can't remember them, alas. Except that he only had one eye, which I recall because he lost it during a march through the Arnus Marshes (I think evading Flaminius on the way to Lake Trasimene).
My main point was it was a bit unfair to suggest the poor old 17th Century was an appropriate place for Letwin. What has it ever done to deserve that?
I could easily imagine this chap - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks - riding around in a stretched Hummer.
Thus, it is in society's self-interest to help those in chronic financial stress to help themselves out of it. But dependence on welfare is not the way. IMO hope, self-confidence and the tools to sustain these are more valuable than welfare in helping people escape victim paralysis to become fully engaged and empowered members of society. I don't think our current welfare system is well set up to deliver this.
Vaguely remembered anecdote I can't be bothered to google: a reporter told John Smith he'd ripped his trousers. "Aye, and if you look closely you can see the split in the Cabinet."
The real Thatcher carried out vigorous cabinet government. Which she led.
Perhaps the most damage done by this was to Labour - who "learn't" that the way to govern was the imagined version of what Thatcher did - destroying internal opposition, reducing ministers to automatons...
It's interesting that, because the Romans ultimately won the Punic Wars and got to write the history, it's their accounts we have of the time when they were losing. Cannae is the most famous debacle in military history, still exercising the imagination of generals two millenia later, and yet it's the losers' account that we have.
(I might be completely wrong about this. I've never heard of any Carthaginian accounts though.)
I have sympathy with isam's point of view - people in crap situations make crap decisions, ones which often make their situation even crappier.
You can get some of the way by improving the incentives present in the system; like him or loathe him this is what IDS is trying to do with welfare (whether it will be successful or not is a separate issue and one where we'll need to see the new system in place for a decade or so before we can really get a good idea about how it functions in practice). But even providing people with the correct incentives is not a guarantee that they will be taken.*
I think one of the strongest arguments in favour of a guaranteed minimum income is that it removes the kind of day-to-day survival stress that isam is talking about, which ought to improve people's capacity to make better decisions.
*Plenty of people with plenty of time on their hands to exercise, and sufficient cash to eat a relatively healthy diet (even if they could only afford a simple one), don't manage it, despite their health and wellbeing being a pretty clear and present motivator.
It seems the Romans were proud of beating Hannibal, so although they impugned his character (considering the use of tactical cunning to be low trickery) they didn't hold his abilities in contempt.
Anyway, I must be off.
But I have a friend with a massive (think Amla) beard. He uses shampoo and conditioner. But then, he is a bit of a metrosexual. And he lives in Shoreditch.
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
May better pray Trump loses
I think more pundits should publish their annual mea culpa. Having the discipline to list their predictions on an annual basis for future testing would reveal just how insightful our commentariat are.
(Anyway, I liked your coat!)
More evidence that May is not a serious politician.
*Only the subject of an EU wide ban, as I understand it, not a UK one. Didn't Tatchell once try to arrest him?
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Things have changed a great deal in recent decades.
More evidence that May is not a serious politician. ''
And counter productive.
Trump LOVES this kind of stuff. He loves to stir it up. He might threaten to ban Britons as well as muslims.
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I've also noticed a lot of facial hair product advertising recently to ameliorate its worse impact on females. I imagine many will buy it as gifts to avoid getting a red chin.
Why do the Tories think so highly of him ? I am sure they think he has good ideas but the proportion of daft / politically damaging opinions are too numerous to be ignored.
Your point brings home how hysterical other people get.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/military-strategist-explains-why-donald-trump-leads-and-how-he-will-fail/
(perhaps)
Somebody, I don;t know whether its Trump or May, clearly is not living in the real world.
Yet the No.3 and No.7 ranking batsman is playing for them.
Regarding Oliver Letwin, there are people in all parties that you wonder why others rate them. For Labour...well actually, I haven't space to go through them all, but we'll just go with 'Ed Miliband': for the Liberal Democrats, Chris Rennard; for the SNP, John Swinney.
I think it must be that they are good at sucking up to the right people.
Didn't Plymouth have both Clark and David Owen as MPs at that time?
plus this site (and the USA in general) has the massive global warming blindspot
Probably some did by choice !!!
It doesn't say much for the rest of the world's batsmen, does it? But then look at India - hardly anyone apart from Pujara has scored big runs for them recently, and his are interrupted by strings of low scores. Cook scores a few every so often. Root starts, but his conversion rate remains poor. The Australians, with one exception, have been pretty woeful - and even Smith hid a few bad tests with a lot of good ones. The West Indians are - well. Pakistan have done all right, but have hardly played any matches so their batsmen's numbers are skewed. And Kumar Sangakarra has retired.
So really only Kane Williamson has been churning out the big scores all the time this year, which is how Amla and de Villiers are still in the mix after rather a lean run.
I agree that the TV generation are *more* informed, but also more misinformed, or if you like, more disinformed. To continue to use the area of food and public health, pre-industrial peoples would not have necessarily been 'informed' on the best food to give their infants, but they would have had all the benefits of generations before them finding out what kept them healthy and what made them ill. This 'folk' wisdom led to a diet of fermented foods, soaked grains or legumes, raw 'live' milk, curds and whey, organ meats, butter. These are all the things we're belatedly appreciating the health benefits of after discarding them in favour of rancid vegetable oils, denatured dairy, quick rise bread, synthetic 'vitamins and iron', refined sugar, and the panoply of modern diet features that are leading to unprecedented levels of allergies, intolerances, and chronic disease.
United Kingdom 97 48 69
United States 97 49 63
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
Josephdcassidy
I have identified a phenomenon known as "Schrödinger's Labour" - where every "Momentum" Twitter account is simultaneously real AND a parody
https://twitter.com/josephdcassidy/status/681955627447529472
Plus thanks to the superior Tory ground game, the Tory share of the vote went up in the marginals whereas Lab piled up votes in their safe seats.
I used to think that way - but I honestly think that writing down things connects with the Jungian subconcious nowadays.
I used to laugh a bit at my profit-making betting friend who didn't write things down.
Anyways - what I'm trying to say is - (well I pretty much break-even (dunner-kruger) effect - life's too short.
BRB - literally gonna check my betfair P/L
As African Presidents go, he was quite decent. He preferred to bribe his opponents, rather than kill or imprison them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/12073903/UK-floods-Storm-Frank-Sir-Philip-Dilley-live.html