Regarding Spain, people also talk of Spanish culture becoming introverted and suspicious of any external influence even if it was Catholic. In this view the "open Spain" of ~1500 became the "closed Spain" of ~1650.
It's also poignant that the greatest glories of Habsburg Spanish culture, Cervantes and Velazquez, date from the period of its decline, not its zenith, and are shot through with fatalism and a sense of transience.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
One word. Capitalism.
The British and Spanish Empires were organised slightly differently. Both had their share of stupid noblemen heading private armies to futz around, but the Brits eventually bent their will to money-making activities (planting tea, planting tobacco, selling opium, coughcoughslaverycoughcough, etc) and prioritised things like trade. The Spanish bent their will to conquest for its own sake, religious-conversion-or-else, and their colonies (although huge) were neither prosperous nor well-run. The Brits generated wealth, the Spanish destroyed it, with the obvious result
Additionally (and famously), the Spanish confused "money" and "wealth". When they discovered stacks of gold they thought it made them rich, so they bought it back and invented inflation.
Niall Ferguson's "Civilisation" has a fascinating comparison of Spanish colonial South America and English colonial North America along those lines.
Thanks for all the great answers re. Spain. It seems much more complex than I thought, which might be why Wiki didn't seem to provide an answer.
I guess I''d better start by reading up on the War of the Spanish Succession then. A problem is, never having been to Spain and knowing little about it, all the places and people will be rather confusing at first. Especially when the biscuits and whiskey get involved.
geoffw: I saw that short series was on, but didn't record it (my PVR is almost full atm).
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
I thought the War of the Spanish Succession was mainly fought in Belgium and Germany, between the English and the French?
More importantly, in my view, is the impact of the gold trade: large conveys of bullion arriving at random intervals resulted in exogenous inflationary shocks on a repeated basis while encouraging flow of capital away from sustainable development into fortune hunting
Though ignorant of the history of Spain and the relative size of their gold input, but incurably theoretical, I wonder if their initiative and enterprise might not have suffered from such an extrinsic source of wealth.
30 years ago (when I was an undergraduate) John Elliott's Imperial Spain was a good introduction. It's very well written and readable. I'm not sure how it stands up against modern scholarship though. Also, he makes breezily approving remarks about the conquistadores that you wouldn't find any modern book!
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost. The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain. The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent. The Spanish despised trade and industry. Spain expelled many of their useful minorities. The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.
For England the opposites happened.
Roughly accurate.
Of course I might add the "dutch disease" from all the gold and silver which decimated Spanish industry and agriculture. Also that Spain was so overextended that it fought wars almost continuously from Charles V till the end of the 30 years war in 1648 against everyone and everywhere. The impossibility to defend Spanish possessions is very illustrated by simply looking at the geography of the Spanish Road. The final fact was that the spanish conquests in the new world although vast were largely empty, 98% of the locals had died within a generation.
Once the gold dried up the Spanish were still stuck fighting a dozen wars to defend their vast but empty possessions and having to pay for their basic needs by importing them since they no longer produced anything. So they went bust.
Thanks for all the great answers re. Spain. It seems much more complex than I thought, which might be why Wiki didn't seem to provide an answer.
I guess I''d better start by reading up on the War of the Spanish Succession then. A problem is, never having been to Spain and knowing little about it, all the places and people will be rather confusing at first. Especially when the biscuits and whiskey get involved.
geoffw: I saw that short series was on, but didn't record it (my PVR is almost full atm).
I would actually start earlier with the unification under Ferdinand and Isabella which is when you can date the rise of Spain as an imperial power to. The War of Spanish Succession was the final act in a long long decline.
It's one of the most engrossing subjects in early modern history.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
I thought the War of the Spanish Succession was mainly fought in Belgium and Germany, between the English and the French?
More importantly, in my view, is the impact of the gold trade: large conveys of bullion arriving at random intervals resulted in exogenous inflationary shocks on a repeated basis while encouraging flow of capital away from sustainable development into fortune hunting
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
I thought the War of the Spanish Succession was mainly fought in Belgium and Germany, between the English and the French?
More importantly, in my view, is the impact of the gold trade: large conveys of bullion arriving at random intervals resulted in exogenous inflationary shocks on a repeated basis while encouraging flow of capital away from sustainable development into fortune hunting
Though ignorant of the history of Spain and the relative size of their gold input, but incurably theoretical, I wonder if their initiative and enterprise might not have suffered from such an extrinsic source of wealth.
That's one of the arguments that is advanced. Also that Spaniards came to seek careers in the army or church, not commerce.
Of course, there can be an element of special-pleading in these arguments. We know Spain declined. We know what we think makes nations prosperous. Look for evidence that the Spanish didn't do those things.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
I thought the War of the Spanish Succession was mainly fought in Belgium and Germany, between the English and the French?
More importantly, in my view, is the impact of the gold trade: large conveys of bullion arriving at random intervals resulted in exogenous inflationary shocks on a repeated basis while encouraging flow of capital away from sustainable development into fortune hunting
Spain reached the nadir of its fortunes c.1650, with Barcelona and The Two Sicilies lost to the French. The second half of the 17th century saw some recovery.
The first Bourbon rulers of Spain after 1714 were very effective. The Two Sicilies and Parma were regained in the 1730's and 1740's, and more of South America was conquered. Under Carlos III, (1759-88) the Spanish Empire was the world's largest.
But his two successors, Carlos IV and Ferdinand VII, were appalling, and managed to lose virtually everything.
Regarding Spain, people also talk of Spanish culture becoming introverted and suspicious of any external influence even if it was Catholic. In this view the "open Spain" of ~1500 became the "closed Spain" of ~1650.
It's also poignant that the greatest glories of Habsburg Spanish culture, Cervantes and Velazquez, date from the period of its decline, not its zenith, and are shot through with fatalism and a sense of transience.
Spain was trying to live with fantasies of it's glorious past in a period of general decline, much like Britain today and period TV shows of Victorian and interwar eras.
Did the Spanish have primogeniture? It seems to me, again speaking from ignorance, that that must have been a major spur in Britain as an initiative for the younger scions to get out and do things.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
Regarding Spain, people also talk of Spanish culture becoming introverted and suspicious of any external influence even if it was Catholic. In this view the "open Spain" of ~1500 became the "closed Spain" of ~1650.
It's also poignant that the greatest glories of Habsburg Spanish culture, Cervantes and Velazquez, date from the period of its decline, not its zenith, and are shot through with fatalism and a sense of transience.
Spain was trying to live with fantasies of it's glorious past in a period of general decline, much like Britain today and period TV shows of Victorian and interwar eras.
Don Quixote is more of a satire of the "glorious" past and present.
Not sure what to compare Velazquez to. Some people don't "get" him of course.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
I paid £180 for mine and consider it some of the best money I've spent.
The best price is obviously the lowest you can get for ones that meet your need.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
I paid £180 for mine and consider it some of the best money I've spent.
The best price is obviously the lowest you can get for ones that meet your need.
I paid a tenner and they're still waterproof a few months later, which is suitable. On the other hand I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Unless his apparent weaknessness I keep hearing about start hitting him hard as we ramp into the actual campaign, he is looking like a sensible candidate to have picked - not driving people away or to another party, and sensible enough not to mess up.
From out here in the provinces it appears that Sadiq is making all the running. Is that how it seems in London? Is Zac actually campaigning hard and we just don't hear about it in the stix?
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
I paid £180 for mine and consider it some of the best money I've spent.
The best price is obviously the lowest you can get for ones that meet your need.
I paid a tenner and they're still waterproof a few months later, which is suitable. On the other hand I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Right. I mean, I am expecting mine to last a lot of years, and as the ground is pretty boggy round here there is a lot of occasion to wear them.
On a serious note per a comment downthread, if a senior (£900 per hour) Solicitor is really charging 5,500 hours in three years, he should have some pretty good justification to back it up. Leaving aside the huge hourly rate, this equates to more than 36 hours a week (not including any holiday etc.) - Full time, essentially. He should be asked to explain his activities over the three year period and should be made to explain the timings to the Law Society.
A while back I bought a pair of leather Oxford shoes with a German sounding maker's name. They were handsome & comfortable, but their soles split across after a couple of weeks use. The shop replaced them twice more, after which I gave up wearing them and reverted to trainers. They used to make shoes for walking, but I expect those Oxfords were just meant for getting to the car & back.
On a serious note per a comment downthread, if a senior (£900 per hour) Solicitor is really charging 5,500 hours in three years, he should have some pretty good justification to back it up. Leaving aside the huge hourly rate, this equates to more than 36 hours a week (not including any holiday etc.) - Full time, essentially. He should be asked to explain his activities over the three year period and should be made to explain the timings to the Law Society.
Its noticeable how often the PB legal fraternity are able to post comments during work hours.
Thanks for all the great answers re. Spain. It seems much more complex than I thought, which might be why Wiki didn't seem to provide an answer.
I guess I''d better start by reading up on the War of the Spanish Succession then. A problem is, never having been to Spain and knowing little about it, all the places and people will be rather confusing at first. Especially when the biscuits and whiskey get involved.
geoffw: I saw that short series was on, but didn't record it (my PVR is almost full atm).
I would actually start earlier with the unification under Ferdinand and Isabella which is when you can date the rise of Spain as an imperial power to. The War of Spanish Succession was the final act in a long long decline.
It's one of the most engrossing subjects in early modern history.
Absolutely; nothing makes sense unless you start- at the latest- with Philip II
On a serious note per a comment downthread, if a senior (£900 per hour) Solicitor is really charging 5,500 hours in three years, he should have some pretty good justification to back it up. Leaving aside the huge hourly rate, this equates to more than 36 hours a week (not including any holiday etc.) - Full time, essentially. He should be asked to explain his activities over the three year period and should be made to explain the timings to the Law Society.
Its noticeable how often the PB legal fraternity are able to post comments during work hours.
No doubt, but I would suggest most of the PB legal fraternity are not charging the taxpayer top dollar 36+ hours a week, 50 weeks of the year! If this is true, the Law Society should be very interested indeed.
On a serious note per a comment downthread, if a senior (£900 per hour) Solicitor is really charging 5,500 hours in three years, he should have some pretty good justification to back it up. Leaving aside the huge hourly rate, this equates to more than 36 hours a week (not including any holiday etc.) - Full time, essentially. He should be asked to explain his activities over the three year period and should be made to explain the timings to the Law Society.
Its noticeable how often the PB legal fraternity are able to post comments during work hours.
No doubt, but I would suggest most of the PB legal fraternity are not charging the taxpayer top dollar 36+ hours a week, 50 weeks of the year! If this is true, the Law Society should be very interested indeed.
On a serious note per a comment downthread, if a senior (£900 per hour) Solicitor is really charging 5,500 hours in three years, he should have some pretty good justification to back it up. Leaving aside the huge hourly rate, this equates to more than 36 hours a week (not including any holiday etc.) - Full time, essentially. He should be asked to explain his activities over the three year period and should be made to explain the timings to the Law Society.
Its noticeable how often the PB legal fraternity are able to post comments during work hours.
No doubt, but I would suggest most of the PB legal fraternity are not charging the taxpayer top dollar 36+ hours a week, 50 weeks of the year! If this is true, the Law Society should be very interested indeed.
I would have hoped that the government and especially this individual:
Ah, one of the highlights of Palmer's "It's a shoo in" commentary on his journey to victory in 2015. How we laughed as Anna Soubry increased her majority.
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I never skimp on shoes.
So many people tell me they can tell a lot about a man by his footwear.
On a serious note per a comment downthread, if a senior (£900 per hour) Solicitor is really charging 5,500 hours in three years, he should have some pretty good justification to back it up. Leaving aside the huge hourly rate, this equates to more than 36 hours a week (not including any holiday etc.) - Full time, essentially. He should be asked to explain his activities over the three year period and should be made to explain the timings to the Law Society.
Its noticeable how often the PB legal fraternity are able to post comments during work hours.
No doubt, but I would suggest most of the PB legal fraternity are not charging the taxpayer top dollar 36+ hours a week, 50 weeks of the year! If this is true, the Law Society should be very interested indeed.
The Court of Appeal may have struck some of the fee down, but my basic question remains. Was Mr. Day charging £5M for his OWN services (at £900 per hour) in a three year period? If he was, this is 5,555 hours, which divided by 150 weeks in the three year period is a little over 37 hours per week, with two weeks per annum for holiday, or anything else! Was he really able to bill and to work these hours? Did he do anything else over the period?
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I never skimp on shoes.
So many people tell me they can tell a lot about a man by his footwear.
Yep. For instance you can tell that my younger brother, a lawyer, has very big feet. I have found that well fitting good quality trainers do the trick: in my case including some tens of thousands of miles running. And lots of walking too.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
I thought the War of the Spanish Succession was mainly fought in Belgium and Germany, between the English and the French?
More importantly, in my view, is the impact of the gold trade: large conveys of bullion arriving at random intervals resulted in exogenous inflationary shocks on a repeated basis while encouraging flow of capital away from sustainable development into fortune hunting
Though ignorant of the history of Spain and the relative size of their gold input, but incurably theoretical, I wonder if their initiative and enterprise might not have suffered from such an extrinsic source of wealth.
Ultimately the gold was cross-docked onto Dutch ships - it's ironic that the Spaniards were impoverished by their massive external flows of bullion.
By 1800, much of Spanish America was as advanced as Western Europe. Which is one reason why it's upper classes broke away from Spain.
Can you recommend a good introduction to that subject? (South American independence and after I mean.)
The Birth of the Modern, by Paul Johnson, has some good chapters.
Without being overly-simplistic where did it all go wrong then? Or is it that it didn't go as right as in western Europe instead?
I didn't think South America was ever as developed as France and the UK at least.
Well, there were parts that were and remained very poor.
But, there are parts of South America that have been wealthier than most of Europe at various points in the past 200 years (eg Venezuela, Argentina, the coast of Peru, the environs of Mexico city, Panama). But, a succession of military coups, dictators, and economically illiterate governments set things back
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
On a serious note per a comment downthread, if a senior (£900 per hour) Solicitor is really charging 5,500 hours in three years, he should have some pretty good justification to back it up. Leaving aside the huge hourly rate, this equates to more than 36 hours a week (not including any holiday etc.) - Full time, essentially. He should be asked to explain his activities over the three year period and should be made to explain the timings to the Law Society.
Its noticeable how often the PB legal fraternity are able to post comments during work hours.
No doubt, but I would suggest most of the PB legal fraternity are not charging the taxpayer top dollar 36+ hours a week, 50 weeks of the year! If this is true, the Law Society should be very interested indeed.
The Court of Appeal may have struck some of the fee down, but my basic question remains. Was Mr. Day charging £5M for his OWN services (at £900 per hour) in a three year period? If he was, this is 5,555 hours, which divided by 150 weeks in the three year period is a little over 37 hours per week, with two weeks per annum for holiday, or anything else! Was he really able to bill and to work these hours? Did he do anything else over the period?
I assume that he was doing other chargeable matters as c.1850 hours per year is not very high. Plus BD on top.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
Ah, one of the highlights of Palmer's "It's a shoo in" commentary on his journey to victory in 2015. How we laughed as Anna Soubry increased her majority.
Indeed - you'd think he'd have the grace to stay silent on this kind of thing.
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I never skimp on shoes.
So many people tell me they can tell a lot about a man by his footwear.
Some people, such as Boris, have a natural charisma that money cannot buy.
Other more insecure, attention seeking mummy's boy types do immature things like wear outrageous shoes in a sad bid to attract attention.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
By 1800, much of Spanish America was as advanced as Western Europe. Which is one reason why it's upper classes broke away from Spain.
Can you recommend a good introduction to that subject? (South American independence and after I mean.)
The Birth of the Modern, by Paul Johnson, has some good chapters.
Without being overly-simplistic where did it all go wrong then? Or is it that it didn't go as right as in western Europe instead?
I didn't think South America was ever as developed as France and the UK at least.
Well, there were parts that were and remained very poor.
But, there are parts of South America that have been wealthier than most of Europe at various points in the past 200 years (eg Venezuela, Argentina, the coast of Peru, the environs of Mexico city, Panama). But, a succession of military coups, dictators, and economically illiterate governments set things back
Latin American wealth was dominated by resource exploitation which led to the wealth being concentrated among the landowners.
In Europe wealth was increasingly generated by trade and industry leading to more widespread wealth distribution and allowing rapid increases in productivity through improved technology.
Peruvian wealth, for example, was based upon the exploitation of seagullshit. When the chemical industry developed better fertilizers the Peruvian economy turned to shit.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
It really really didn't. I would welcome something that would genuinely undermine Sturgeon, due to how much I fear her success and its consequence for my country.
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I used to be a bit poor (not any more, thankfully). Shit clothes are not a problem, but shit shoes are: you do not want to have cold wet feet in winter. I'm not a shoe whore and I'm not recommending Sarah Jessica Parker shoe stupidity, but buy the longest-lasting shoes you can get. Come to think of it, that's good advice in general...
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I never skimp on shoes.
So many people tell me they can tell a lot about a man by his footwear.
Some people, such as Boris, have a natural charisma that money cannot buy.
Other more insecure, attention seeking mummy's boy types do immature things like wear outrageous shoes in a sad bid to attract attention.
There's so much wrong with that.
But I do love the obsession that some Kippers have with me.
Really doesn't reinforce any stereotypes about you lot.
From out here in the provinces it appears that Sadiq is making all the running. Is that how it seems in London? Is Zac actually campaigning hard and we just don't hear about it in the stix?
I can't honestly say that either of them are in evidence in my area in terms of actual campaign literature delivered, though I think cyclefree said she was getting quite a lot and she liked Goldsmith's material more. Khan is I think getting more stories into the Standard, which is probably the most important channel for this election (and whose vitriolic campaign against Livingstone has been replaced by apparent neutrality this time). There does seem to be a certain coolness in some Tory sectors about Goldsmith, as we've seen now and then here: he's not seen as quite "one of us" by some.
Really too soon to say, but the polls showing Khan a bit ahead are probably about right.
From out here in the provinces it appears that Sadiq is making all the running. Is that how it seems in London? Is Zac actually campaigning hard and we just don't hear about it in the stix?
I can't honestly say that either of them are in evidence in my area in terms of actual campaign literature delivered, though I think cyclefree said she was getting quite a lot and she liked Goldsmith's material more. Khan is I think getting more stories into the Standard, which is probably the most important channel for this election (and whose vitriolic campaign against Livingstone has been replaced by apparent neutrality this time). There does seem to be a certain coolness in some Tory sectors about Goldsmith, as we've seen now and then here: he's not seen as quite "one of us" by some.
Really too soon to say, but the polls showing Khan a bit ahead are probably about right.
Thanks. I'm expecting Khan to win. Wish I was on at 33-1 like seemingly everyone else here
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
From out here in the provinces it appears that Sadiq is making all the running. Is that how it seems in London? Is Zac actually campaigning hard and we just don't hear about it in the stix?
I can't honestly say that either of them are in evidence in my area in terms of actual campaign literature delivered, though I think cyclefree said she was getting quite a lot and she liked Goldsmith's material more. Khan is I think getting more stories into the Standard, which is probably the most important channel for this election (and whose vitriolic campaign against Livingstone has been replaced by apparent neutrality this time). There does seem to be a certain coolness in some Tory sectors about Goldsmith, as we've seen now and then here: he's not seen as quite "one of us" by some.
Really too soon to say, but the polls showing Khan a bit ahead are probably about right.
Thanks. I'm expecting Khan to win. Wish I was on at 33-1 like seemingly everyone else here
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I used to be a bit poor (not any more, thankfully). Shit clothes are not a problem, but shit shoes are: you do not want to have cold wet feet in winter. I'm not a shoe whore and I'm not recommending Sarah Jessica Parker shoe stupidity, but buy the longest-lasting shoes you can get. Come to think of it, that's good advice in general...
I don't own that many pairs of shoes but those I do have are all good ones. I have a pair of Dr. Marten Chelsea boots for the winter that I paid £100 for six years ago, they look much better than the normal DM boots and are still as good as news, and a pair of Rockports. I have three pairs of shoes for work, including a pair of Charles Church I have had for ten years and Loakes I've had for five years. In the summer i buy a pair of Converse shoes for £30 that last me the summer, plus the usual Sebago or Timberland boat shoes.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
I am a deep cover cybernat actually.
Turnip! Sassenach bampot! (Am I doing it right?)
No.
I haven't been trained
Sassenach is the give away.
Think German spies parachuted into England in tweed plus fours and speaking pure Bertie Woosterish.
Ok so another country shoots in nukes at us and we being a pseudo nuclear power quickly re- arm to shoot back in the 15 minutes* allowed before the nukes arrive. Yeah I can see how that would work....
* ok perhaps half an hour then?
"One option, that is to be considered, is for Britain to become a “virtual nuclear state” like Japan and Iran – free of nuclear weapons but with the possibility of re-arming in a short period of time"
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I never skimp on shoes.
So many people tell me they can tell a lot about a man by his footwear.
Some people, such as Boris, have a natural charisma that money cannot buy.
Other more insecure, attention seeking mummy's boy types do immature things like wear outrageous shoes in a sad bid to attract attention.
There's so much wrong with that.
But I do love the obsession that some Kippers have with me.
Really doesn't reinforce any stereotypes about you lot.
No idea what you are talking about, though your hatred of Kippers is laughable.
I just paid £50 for a new hat, which given most people don't wear hats, is probably seen as unforgivable extravagance.
Not at all
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
Never skimp on shoes. Expensive ones last longer and more than justify the expense.
Advice I know I should take, and I've always been taken by the 'Samuel Vimes Boots Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness' as advanced by Sir Terry Pratchett, but for some reason there are some things I'm happy to spend a lot on, and others I am not. Shoes I have an upper limit on, along with most clothes in general to be honest.
I never skimp on shoes.
So many people tell me they can tell a lot about a man by his footwear.
Some people, such as Boris, have a natural charisma that money cannot buy.
Other more insecure, attention seeking mummy's boy types do immature things like wear outrageous shoes in a sad bid to attract attention.
There's so much wrong with that.
But I do love the obsession that some Kippers have with me.
Really doesn't reinforce any stereotypes about you lot.
No idea what you are talking about, though your hatred of Kippers is laughable.
Lol, I don't hate anyone. I like mocking Kippers yes, but hatred no.
Kippers are quite entertaining, every zoo should have a pair.
I see the Independent has now joined the ranks of the right-wing media.
When you consider that the simple move of Eagle from defence precipitates a change in policy of such magnitude then you wonder why she went so quietly. The real thrust as well, as outlined in the article, is to neuter the shadow cabinet. So if it happens then we will really see just what if anything they are made of. Not that it matters because labour MPs were clearly dim and useless and incompetent in putting Corbyn on the ticket in the first place. It's all too late now.
@ShippersUnbound: “So far this year we have not seen one pence for a Labour majority at the next election,” said William Hill spokesman Rupert Adams.
I never really understand things like that though. It's not like £0 implies 0% chance, simply that William Hill's odds are too short. They're 9/2 (5.5) - way too short. I think 9/1 would be approaching the right area...
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
You can get perfectly comfortable wellies without paying such an absurd price.
The discussion illustrated the absurd mindset of people complaining about someone paying too much for a pair of wellies and someone not paying enough. Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
No it didn't - it centred around the inability of some to allow any criticism of Sturgeon because she isn't just any hypocrite she's a Scottish hypocrite!
I am a deep cover cybernat actually.
Turnip! Sassenach bampot! (Am I doing it right?)
No.
I haven't been trained
Sassenach is the give away.
Think German spies parachuted into England in tweed plus fours and speaking pure Bertie Woosterish.
@ShippersUnbound: “So far this year we have not seen one pence for a Labour majority at the next election,” said William Hill spokesman Rupert Adams.
I never really understand things like that though. It's not like £0 implies 0% chance, simply that William Hill's odds are too short. They're 9/2 (5.5) - way too short. I think 9/1 would be approaching the right area...
To win a majority Labour would need a 9% swing in 2020.
I'd want more than 9/1 for Labour to win some of these constituencies:
So Nicola, what you're saying is the SNP hasn't decided whether a commitment to an independence referendum will be in the 2016 manifesto? Pull the other one. Finalised or not, the SNP must have a clear view on that already.
@ShippersUnbound: “So far this year we have not seen one pence for a Labour majority at the next election,” said William Hill spokesman Rupert Adams.
I never really understand things like that though. It's not like £0 implies 0% chance, simply that William Hill's odds are too short. They're 9/2 (5.5) - way too short. I think 9/1 would be approaching the right area...
To win a majority Labour would need a 9% swing in 2020.
I'd want more than 9/1 for Labour to win some of these constituencies:
@ShippersUnbound: “So far this year we have not seen one pence for a Labour majority at the next election,” said William Hill spokesman Rupert Adams.
I never really understand things like that though. It's not like £0 implies 0% chance, simply that William Hill's odds are too short. They're 9/2 (5.5) - way too short. I think 9/1 would be approaching the right area...
Labour majority is very difficult. With a good leader 9/2 might be fair.
Ok so another country shoots in nukes at us and we being a pseudo nuclear power quickly re- arm to shoot back in the 15 minutes* allowed before the nukes arrive. Yeah I can see how that would work....
* ok perhaps half an hour then?
"One option, that is to be considered, is for Britain to become a “virtual nuclear state” like Japan and Iran – free of nuclear weapons but with the possibility of re-arming in a short period of time"
That is an extremely stupid idea, much like the Lib Dem idea of keeping the subs in port and only putting them to sea in a crisis.
Both ideas would be exceedingly provocative if put into action, and if anything would invite a first strike before the subs can be put to sea or the warheads manufactured/rearmed (whatever degree of virtual state you choose).
Comments
It's also poignant that the greatest glories of Habsburg Spanish culture, Cervantes and Velazquez, date from the period of its decline, not its zenith, and are shot through with fatalism and a sense of transience.
I guess I''d better start by reading up on the War of the Spanish Succession then. A problem is, never having been to Spain and knowing little about it, all the places and people will be rather confusing at first. Especially when the biscuits and whiskey get involved.
geoffw: I saw that short series was on, but didn't record it (my PVR is almost full atm).
Of course I might add the "dutch disease" from all the gold and silver which decimated Spanish industry and agriculture.
Also that Spain was so overextended that it fought wars almost continuously from Charles V till the end of the 30 years war in 1648 against everyone and everywhere. The impossibility to defend Spanish possessions is very illustrated by simply looking at the geography of the Spanish Road.
The final fact was that the spanish conquests in the new world although vast were largely empty, 98% of the locals had died within a generation.
Once the gold dried up the Spanish were still stuck fighting a dozen wars to defend their vast but empty possessions and having to pay for their basic needs by importing them since they no longer produced anything.
So they went bust.
It's one of the most engrossing subjects in early modern history.
The Spanish theatre of operations is not well known about in Britain.
That might be because the French won there while Britain won at Blenheim, Ramillies etc
Although Gibraltar being British is a direct consequence of its capture during the War of the Spanish Succession.
Of course, there can be an element of special-pleading in these arguments. We know Spain declined. We know what we think makes nations prosperous. Look for evidence that the Spanish didn't do those things.
The first Bourbon rulers of Spain after 1714 were very effective. The Two Sicilies and Parma were regained in the 1730's and 1740's, and more of South America was conquered. Under Carlos III, (1759-88) the Spanish Empire was the world's largest.
But his two successors, Carlos IV and Ferdinand VII, were appalling, and managed to lose virtually everything.
Can we have a politically acceptable level to pay please.
*Innocent Face*
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/jan/09/london-mayor-race-the-new-labour-flavour-of-sadiq-khan
Not sure what to compare Velazquez to. Some people don't "get" him of course.
The best price is obviously the lowest you can get for ones that meet your need.
One should have nice stuff if one can afford it. And better to have one good hat than five bad ones.
"Mr Day charged £5 million for his services, at a rate of £900 per hour."
The Court of Appeal knocked more than 40% off the bill in the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Buckland
would have been even more interested.
In my experience professional bodies are rarely concerned about their members troughing at the taxpayers expense.
I didn't think South America was ever as developed as France and the UK at least.
So many people tell me they can tell a lot about a man by his footwear.
The Court of Appeal may have struck some of the fee down, but my basic question remains. Was Mr. Day charging £5M for his OWN services (at £900 per hour) in a three year period? If he was, this is 5,555 hours, which divided by 150 weeks in the three year period is a little over 37 hours per week, with two weeks per annum for holiday, or anything else! Was he really able to bill and to work these hours? Did he do anything else over the period?
I have found that well fitting good quality trainers do the trick: in my case including some tens of thousands of miles running. And lots of walking too.
But, there are parts of South America that have been wealthier than most of Europe at various points in the past 200 years (eg Venezuela, Argentina, the coast of Peru, the environs of Mexico city, Panama). But, a succession of military coups, dictators, and economically illiterate governments set things back
Other more insecure, attention seeking mummy's boy types do immature things like wear outrageous shoes in a sad bid to attract attention.
https://twitter.com/rolandoflondon/status/685925360651866116
Turnip! Sassenach bampot! (Am I doing it right?)
In Europe wealth was increasingly generated by trade and industry leading to more widespread wealth distribution and allowing rapid increases in productivity through improved technology.
Peruvian wealth, for example, was based upon the exploitation of seagullshit. When the chemical industry developed better fertilizers the Peruvian economy turned to shit.
But I do love the obsession that some Kippers have with me.
Really doesn't reinforce any stereotypes about you lot.
Really too soon to say, but the polls showing Khan a bit ahead are probably about right.
It shows the natural instincts of Corbyn coming to the fore. He is not interest in compromise. He is driven by dogma not debate.
http://www.splendidtable.org/recipes/turnips-in-coconut-and-mustard-seed-curry
Good shoes are essential.
@JonAshworth: 2. Proposals only go in final policy programme when endorsed by two thirds of Conference on a card vote
@JonAshworth: 3. Joint Policy Ctte - jointly chaired by Leader & NEC officer overseas work of NPF. Made up of NEC members, shad ministers, NPF members
Think German spies parachuted into England in tweed plus fours and speaking pure Bertie Woosterish.
Full story in tomorrow's paper
* ok perhaps half an hour then?
"One option, that is to be considered, is for Britain to become a “virtual nuclear state” like Japan and Iran – free of nuclear weapons but with the possibility of re-arming in a short period of time"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-jeremy-corbyn-hopes-to-alter-labours-stance-on-nuclear-weapons-by-stripping-shadow-cabinet-a6804376.html
Kippers are quite entertaining, every zoo should have a pair.
The real thrust as well, as outlined in the article, is to neuter the shadow cabinet. So if it happens then we will really see just what if anything they are made of.
Not that it matters because labour MPs were clearly dim and useless and incompetent in putting Corbyn on the ticket in the first place. It's all too late now.
She's probably lying.
I'd want more than 9/1 for Labour to win some of these constituencies:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
Both ideas would be exceedingly provocative if put into action, and if anything would invite a first strike before the subs can be put to sea or the warheads manufactured/rearmed (whatever degree of virtual state you choose).