So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
I think that's a good forecast, with the proviso that construction and the housing market are the biggest risks as we head towards the end of the year.
Yes, I think construction might see some falls based on less overseas investment but that's what brings it down from a higher growth level.
Surely the favourite episode for everyone on here has to be "Dish and Dishonesty"?
(if you can accidentally forget Corporal Punishment in series 4 of course...)
I really liked the one with Stephen Fry as the Duke of Wellington beating up Hugh Laurie. And also the line, "Alaska, your Highness. In case Boney should try and trick us by coming via the North Pole".
I do wonder if a line about a minister in charge of religious genocide would get the green light today, though.
I was thinking along those lines while watching Porridge the other day, when the gang are trapped in a church and the suggestion is made to break the windows.
Fletcher: This is a church this is. Don't you have no sense of flaming reverence? Dear dear, you're a Palestine, that's what you are, a Palestine. Barrowclough: A philistine I think you mean. Fletcher: Well, depends whether you're jewish or not.
So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
I think that's a good forecast, with the proviso that construction and the housing market are the biggest risks as we head towards the end of the year.
Question to both Robert and Max: Where do you expect sterling to settle vs US$ once all the dust of Brexit has settled? My gut instinct is in the 1.35-1.40 range.
This begs the question of when will the Brexit dust settle?
I see it as a two- or three-step process. The first 'settling of the dust' is now, getting used to the decision before the UK has its negotiating position sorted but when real world data on how the economy has responded starts to come in.
The second step is once negotiations have started but before they are concluded, but once we have a sense of how well they are going (how the EU is responding to the UK's position).
The final step will be the reaction to the actual deal once it is done.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
A formula for successful sit-coms seems to be to employ the best comic talent you can afford and then get them to be the "straight man", giving the best lines etc to the surrounding characters.
Surely the favourite episode for everyone on here has to be "Dish and Dishonesty"?
(if you can accidentally forget Corporal Punishment in series 4 of course...)
I really liked the one with Stephen Fry as the Duke of Wellington beating up Hugh Laurie. And also the line, "Alaska, your Highness. In case Boney should try and trick us by coming via the North Pole".
What do we have for royalty? A mad kraut sasusage sucker, and a son who can't keep his own sausage to himself.
Sir, whether Prince or pauper when a man soils a wellington he puts his foot in it. Please note this is not a joke, I do not find my name remotely funny and people who do end up dead. I invite you a duel tonight at 1800 hours at which you will die.
Ok, enough of that, I have work to do - but I think I've proven I can just about quote all of the final 3 seasons.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
Ian Wrigglesworth lost Stockton South to the Tories in 1987.
He won it in 1983 though for the SDP
Yes he did - largely because the Tories had selected a former National Front member as their candidate.
He only lost it by 774 votes in 1987 even when the Tories did not have a former NF member as their candidate. Wirral West would also be a target, voted for Blair, Cameron in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015 and the Liberals beat Labour in the seat in 1983. They may have a shot in Wirral South too which has a Labour MP but where the SDP beat Labour in 1983
Demographically I think the Wirral has shifted sharply leftwards since the 1980s.
I keep hearing the talk about if Labour split the moderate party won't have the finances to set up a party. Are we sure about this? There must be some Labour donors that were put off by Corbyn's Trot takeover and might be willing to put some serious money into a party that operates on a centre-left platform again.
Oh they can find the money, they can't find the votes.
The only place Benn, Kinnock and the rest have a hope in getting elected is probably Kensington and Chelsea, and even there most voters would prefer the Tories than their cheap imitations.
And that's their problem, they will be popular among the centre-right but will always be the second choice of those voters.
They would not win in Kensington and Chelsea, the Tories comfortably won the area in 1983 and 1987 against the SDP and under Blair. Seats like Stockton South and Plymouth Sutton and Devenport, which now have a Tory MP, were Labour under Blair and had an SDP MP in 1983 or 1987, are much more likely targets
Ian Wrigglesworth lost Stockton South to the Tories in 1987.
He won it in 1983 though for the SDP
Yes he did - largely because the Tories had selected a former National Front member as their candidate.
He only lost it by 774 votes in 1987 even when the Tories did not have a former NF member as their candidate. Wirral West would also be a target, voted for Blair, Cameron in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015 and the Liberals beat Labour in the seat in 1983. They may have a shot in Wirral South too which has a Labour MP but where the SDP beat Labour in 1983
Deomographically I think the Wirral has shifted sharply leftwards since the 1980s.
It may have shifted in a more social democratic direction, certainly not towards Corbynite socialism.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
There were quite a few ways which you could get 'naturally' de-selected in the Navy too. Getting killed by the enemy, getting killed by the Admiralty for not killing the enemy, and meeting with terrible accidents at the fate of your crew. These factors worked less well on land.
So I've been using my weekend to crunch some numbers and do a bit of forecasting. Sad, I know.
Based on some of the data we have and the ONS June projections, I think the next quarter will see 0.2-0.4% growth. I expect September will have strong production figures and July and August will have better than expected services figures, especially in hospitality related businesses. From what I can tell the sugar rush of weak currency had begun to have effect for tourism and little effect on domestic spending (though sentiment is down) and manufacturers I've spoken to are adding shifts to increase capacity because of huge demand from overseas. Gate prices will be very, very interesting to watch next month as it will he the first full period with weak Sterling. The fall in oil prices are also very, very helpful for the UK at the moment, August deliveries are about 15% lower than July deliveries making up most of additional expense from weak Sterling.
Overall I expect doom will be staved off for another quarter at least. People will talk about a "Brexit slowdown" rather than a "Brexit recession". The PMI figures may not pick up very much in the July figures but the August figures might surprise people.
I think that's a good forecast, with the proviso that construction and the housing market are the biggest risks as we head towards the end of the year.
In Manufacturing export-led plants will do well. As far as investment is concerned, it has virtually ground to a halt.
Shocking, even with interest rates as they are. The government should borrow a few hundred billions and spend on a infrastructure fest. Even bring forward projects. Let councils, housing associations build. When will they ever get rates like now:
2y 0.1%, 5v 0.27%, 10y 0.68%, 30y 1.55%.
This is the time.
Also, hopefully, May will put a stop to this Chinese bonanza in Hinkley Point. Spend that money on Renewable incentives. No toxic clear-ups in the future !
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
There were quite a few ways which you could get 'naturally' de-selected in the Navy too. Getting killed by the enemy, getting killed by the Admiralty for not killing the enemy, and meeting with terrible accidents at the fate of your crew. These factors worked less well on land.
It certainly wasn't unheard of for unpopular army officers to get a bullet in the back, during the course of battle.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
There were quite a few ways which you could get 'naturally' de-selected in the Navy too. Getting killed by the enemy, getting killed by the Admiralty for not killing the enemy, and meeting with terrible accidents at the fate of your crew. These factors worked less well on land.
Royal Navy, 1804–15 killed in action: 6,663 shipwrecks, drownings, fire: 13,621 wounds, disease: 72,102 Total: 92,386
British Army, 1804–15 killed in action: 25,569 wounds, accidents, disease: 193,851 Total: 219,420
I don't know anything about the website, but at least it is trying to quantify things. You would have to adjust for population size of army and navy, but the claim that the army was markedly less risky than the navy is bold.
I have done some research on an aristocratic naval officer who found it virtually impossible to be promoted to captain despite having an uncle in the cabinet! He was eventually made captain of a shore-based training establishment. Interestingly, on his full retirement he was promoted to rear admiral and presumably got an enhanced pension.
I have done some research on an aristocratic naval officer who found it virtually impossible to be promoted to captain despite having an uncle in the cabinet! He was eventually made captain of a shore-based training establishment. Interestingly, on his full retirement he was promoted to vice admiral and presumably got an enhanced pension.
The Navy is still a bastion for jobs for the boys ! Hopefully, our nuke subs are not in their command !
Can anyone who is a Labour member explain to me why 160 or so moderate MPs cant just all resign the whip, explaining in a press release (that would be well received by a sympathetic media) that the party has been hijacked by entryist members, and is increasingly out of touch with the people that matter (i.e. the voters), until such time as the Leader resigns.
Or better yet, resign and whip, form a new party and become the opposition...
I'll be interested to see what a Labour member says, but they can't say the party has been hijacked by entryist members, because it seems most of the MPs are committed to the line that Corbyn's ideas, most of them, are just fine, it's his competence that is the problem. So the entryist people believing in Corbyn's ideas cannot also be a problem. And he won among longer term members as well.
Also, "old" members will also be voting for Corbyn, in the end. Many of them unenthusiastically, perhaps.
The fault lies with those idiots who gave Corbyn a lending hand last year. The performance of the shadow cabinet and the 176 has been shambolic. You don't do a coup over a period of time.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
Please we should not forget that those dispensing patronage, from the Lords of the Admiralty downwards, wanted to win. Forget the prize money and the other secondary stuff those fellows actually wanted to win the sea war. So they were not going to give preferment to people who were losers.
I am sure there were some people wrongly promoted but the system was remarkably successful. As indeed was Purchase in the army, for all Mr. B2 revisionist nonsense (Austria & Prussian armies being close at the time of Waterloo, forsooth).
On topic, what's poisonous is the combination of powerful party memberships and FPTP. If it was just the former then it wouldn't matter when an opposition party decided to spend a decade or so entertaining itself in a gentleman's manner, another party would grow to take its place.
There where mass party memberships in the not so recent past and the parties were very functional.
If people have forgotten how to deal with it, the answer is not a return to feudalism that David Herdson proposes.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends to be true in every society and every political system, throughout history.
The issues are about how accountable the elite is, how open to 'new entrants' based on merit, and what sanctions or safeguards there are against incompetence and corruption amongst the elite?
These questions have both moral and practical implications: go back a couple of hundred years and see the advantage the French army had, at least initially, by being the first that was relatively open and promoted on merit, compared to the British where the majority of officer commands were (mostly) narrowly held amongst the aristocracy and largely purchased.
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
There were quite a few ways which you could get 'naturally' de-selected in the Navy too. Getting killed by the enemy, getting killed by the Admiralty for not killing the enemy, and meeting with terrible accidents at the fate of your crew. These factors worked less well on land.
In the Napoleonic wars disease killed more sailors than any other factor. The number of officers murdered by their own crew was tiny, the number executed for not doing their duty was likewise very, very small. In fact add them both together and you'll struggle to get enough stories to fill a small paperback.
I remember in the sixties stories of officers in the US army being "fragged" by their own troops. Yet the number of confirmed cases of such murders? It seemed always a case of someone had heard about it from from someone else.
On topic, what's poisonous is the combination of powerful party memberships and FPTP. If it was just the former then it wouldn't matter when an opposition party decided to spend a decade or so entertaining itself in a gentleman's manner, another party would grow to take its place.
There where mass party memberships in the not so recent past and the parties were very functional.
If people have forgotten how to deal with it, the answer is not a return to feudalism that David Herdson proposes.
Did you even bother to read the article?
That may not have been your intention, David, but the clue is in "that élite has to be a meritocracy". Niall Ferguson, among others, would argue that, in a long enough term, human nature doesn't work like that.
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
No, like the phoenix, the Labour party will arise and take flight once more. – Circa 2025-30.
Why should it Mr. St. Clare? Is there some rule that says the Labour party must exist and must be a party with large representation in Parliament? Could it not just collapse into political irrelevance? After all the society that called the Labour Party into existence and saw it blossom has gone, why should the Party continue?
There are no hard and fast rules Mr Llama, but nostalgia and brand recognition will play its part imho, afterall you can still buy Camp Coffee.
Why would you buy Camp Coffee when you can dig it up in the backyard?
Betting Post F1: after exhausting every other possibility, I finally put a tiny sum on something. Must say, I'm not brimming with confidence and this is the sort of race I'd sit out if I didn't have an approach of offering at least one tip per race weekend.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
snip for space
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
There were quite a few ways which you could get 'naturally' de-selected in the Navy too. Getting killed by the enemy, getting killed by the Admiralty for not killing the enemy, and meeting with terrible accidents at the fate of your crew. These factors worked less well on land.
In the Napoleonic wars disease killed more sailors than any other factor. The number of officers murdered by their own crew was tiny, the number executed for not doing their duty was likewise very, very small. In fact add them both together and you'll struggle to get enough stories to fill a small paperback.
I remember in the sixties stories of officers in the US army being "fragged" by their own troops. Yet the number of confirmed cases of such murders? It seemed always a case of someone had heard about it from from someone else.
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
No, like the phoenix, the Labour party will arise and take flight once more. – Circa 2025-30.
Why should it Mr. St. Clare? Is there some rule that says the Labour party must exist and must be a party with large representation in Parliament? Could it not just collapse into political irrelevance? After all the society that called the Labour Party into existence and saw it blossom has gone, why should the Party continue?
There are no hard and fast rules Mr Llama, but nostalgia and brand recognition will play its part imho, afterall you can still buy Camp Coffee.
Why would you buy Camp Coffee when you can dig it up in the backyard?
Tish and pish, Mr. Charles, the influence of your American spouse is showing (not that the Septics have anything to boast about in that department, coffee in the USA is mostly weak, disgusting, superheated awful). We have always had a bottle of Camp Coffee in the cupboard, Herself uses it for flavouring some of her cakes.
Matt Avery A group of protesters have just shut the Byron I was eating in on Shaftesbury Ave. by throwing a load of cockroaches into the restaurant.
That's pretty innovative. Got to give them credit
Can you tell me where you're next having Sunday lunch out. IMHO these people (the ones who threw the cockroaches) are scumbags - but typical of the left these days.
The bigger question is whether new party would want to call themselves Labour.
That they are going to such extreme lengths to remain in Labour or snatch the name, shows that they have an emotional need to be in 'true' Labour such that they would have to have it in the name.
I don't think it is an emotional tie to the name: it's more visceral than that.
They see themselves as the plucky defenders of what is right, not sad hacks whose time has gone. Fighting for the name puts them on the side of right in the titanic struggle of good vs evil.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
Yes, but then that tends .
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
Please we should not forget that those dispensing patronage, from the Lords of the Admiralty downwards, wanted to win. Forget the prize money and the other secondary stuff those fellows actually wanted to win the sea war. So they were not going to give preferment to people who were losers.
I am sure there were some people wrongly promoted but the system was remarkably successful. As indeed was Purchase in the army, for all Mr. B2 revisionist nonsense (Austria & Prussian armies being close at the time of Waterloo, forsooth).
Also, while Post-Captain and above were promoted by senority, many were on half pay on land with no command. Commands tended to go to ones with patronage, but proteges needed to deliver or their patrons would lose influence.
When comparing Army vs Navy casualty rates, it should be noted that major sea engagements earlier after Trafalgar, while land battles continued another decade. The army was not really engaged until the Peninsular campaign.
The forces were probably of similar order of size. Ships of the Line had large crews, but food and sanitary conditions for Navy personnel were significantly better in many ways than civilians of the time.
NAM Roger covers this well in his book "Command of the Ocean" well worth reading.
This article is complete and utter b*ll*cks. If you extend the vote - in whatever election for whomsoever - then each vote of that electorate has an equal value. You can't complain when people vote for something with which you disagree. If Labour wishes (or doesn't wish) to commit General Election suicide, then it is up to them - the members - to decide whether this is a good idea or not. Those are the rules - if you don't like them, change them. Don't bleat about their 'unfairness' or the fact that people can't be bothered to 'engage' with them.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
snip for space
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
There were quite a few ways which you could get 'naturally' de-selected in the Navy too. Getting killed by the enemy, getting killed by the Admiralty for not killing the enemy, and meeting with terrible accidents at the fate of your crew. These factors worked less well on land.
In the Napoleonic wars disease killed more sailors than any other factor. The number of officers murdered by their own crew was tiny, the number executed for not doing their duty was likewise very, very small. In fact add them both together and you'll struggle to get enough stories to fill a small paperback.
I remember in the sixties stories of officers in the US army being "fragged" by their own troops. Yet the number of confirmed cases of such murders? It seemed always a case of someone had heard about it from from someone else.
But Vietnam was a special case. OTOH I know it definitely happened in Napoleonic times, because I read it in a book by Bernard Cornwell.
Officers in trench warfare in WWI were also executed by their soldiers, I believe. There were numerous mutinies up and down the line with both French and British armies.
Never heard of Raba Research before. Who are they?
Tim Albrecht. Former Director of Communications for Governor Branstead and before that worked on the Forbes and Romney campaigns. Seems to have a CV strong on communications and short on polling.
I really am not sure how a sensible, well educated person with some experience of the UK can come to the conclusion that there is not an elite in this country. There always has been, is, and always will be a small percentage of the population that hold the majority of the cash, the majority of the power and who are massively, and disproportionately, influential - and I would argue influence is worth more than actual power. Furthermore, this group is largely hereditary and families once in it seldom slip out of it, though some individuals will and do.
On the whole I am quite relaxed about this state of affairs, well there is no point in being anything else. To rail against it or deny it is like complaining about the sun rising in the East or to deny that the sun sets in the west.
snip for space
The worst system was in the East India Company army, where promotion was based purely on seniority.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
There were quite a few ways which you could get 'naturally' de-selected in the Navy too. Getting killed by the enemy, getting killed by the Admiralty for not killing the enemy, and meeting with terrible accidents at the fate of your crew. These factors worked less well on land.
But Vietnam was a special case. OTOH I know it definitely happened in Napoleonic times, because I read it in a book by Bernard Cornwell.
Officers in trench warfare in WWI were also executed by their soldiers, I believe. There were numerous mutinies up and down the line with both French and British armies.
I think mutinies of the British and Imperial forces in WW1 were really quite rare. By 1918 they were commonplace in other armies, particularly the French and Russians in 1917 and the Central Powers in 1918. Indeed the fact that our troops fought on while they surrendered in droves was a large part of how we won the war following the battle of Amiens.
Revflecting on it, I wonder if we are making a mistake by seeing things like Human Rights as applying to everyone or abolishing them and them applying to no-one.
Maybe it is time we reinvented the concept of the Outlaw.
Basically, the application of the Human Rights act, freedom from Discrimination or profiling etc. becomes a privilege that has to be earned rather than a right, and can also be withdrawn if behaviour is poor enough, essentially such people become civil Outlaws.
The obvious arguments are what is the threshold for granting and withdrawing.
The bigger question is whether new party would want to call themselves Labour.
That they are going to such extreme lengths to remain in Labour or snatch the name, shows that they have an emotional need to be in 'true' Labour such that they would have to have it in the name.
I don't think it is an emotional tie to the name: it's more visceral than that.
They see themselves as the plucky defenders of what is right, not sad hacks whose time has gone. Fighting for the name puts them on the side of right in the titanic struggle of good vs evil.
It's a brand, first and foremost, and it's both bad to lose existing and desirable branding, and bloody difficult coming up with anything new. You end up being the Consignia party. (The analogy is not exact because Consignia involved deliberately throwing away a brand as strong as Labour or Coca Cola, but there you are).
The two third party candidates for the US presidency in 2016 are Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green), who both ran in 2012. The Libertarians' convention has already happened; the Green one starts on Thursday 4 August. Already both candidates have attracted more online interest (on whatever metric Google Trends uses) than they did four years ago.
Call me a pedant, but surely there is one third party candidate and one fourth party candidate?
Mr. T, an ancestor of the (short-lived) Emperor Galba, whilst campaigning, I think in Gaul, ordered a unit that he deemed worthy of punishment, to go woodcutting on a hilltop infested by the enemy.
As it was suicidal, other units voluntarily went out to protect the victimised unit. Upon their return, they heaped the gathered wood around Galba's tent and set it on fire.
Matt Avery A group of protesters have just shut the Byron I was eating in on Shaftesbury Ave. by throwing a load of cockroaches into the restaurant.
That's pretty innovative. Got to give them credit
Can you tell me where you're next having Sunday lunch out. IMHO these people (the ones who threw the cockroaches) are scumbags - but typical of the left these days.
I don't approve of what they did, and they should be held liable for consequential damages, but it's a novel and effective way of achieving their objective
Despite the mid-term change at the top, there was very little appetite in any of our groups for an early general election. [...] And apart from anything else, it would hardly be sporting: “The Labour Party don’t know what they’re doing. It would be unfair to do one until they’ve sorted themselves out.”
Wow, is that a call to suspend elections indefinitely?
No, like the phoenix, the Labour party will arise and take flight once more. – Circa 2025-30.
Why should it Mr. St. Clare? Is there some rule that says the Labour party must exist and must be a party with large representation in Parliament? Could it not just collapse into political irrelevance? After all the society that called the Labour Party into existence and saw it blossom has gone, why should the Party continue?
There are no hard and fast rules Mr Llama, but nostalgia and brand recognition will play its part imho, afterall you can still buy Camp Coffee.
Why would you buy Camp Coffee when you can dig it up in the backyard?
Tish and pish, Mr. Charles, the influence of your American spouse is showing (not that the Septics have anything to boast about in that department, coffee in the USA is mostly weak, disgusting, superheated awful). We have always had a bottle of Camp Coffee in the cupboard, Herself uses it for flavouring some of her cakes.
Dunkin Donuts filter coffee is the best. You just have to double the quantity they recommend
Comments
And Sainz has a three place grid penalty for impeding Massa.
Fletcher: This is a church this is. Don't you have no sense of flaming reverence? Dear dear, you're a Palestine, that's what you are, a Palestine.
Barrowclough: A philistine I think you mean.
Fletcher: Well, depends whether you're jewish or not.
The second step is once negotiations have started but before they are concluded, but once we have a sense of how well they are going (how the EU is responding to the UK's position).
The final step will be the reaction to the actual deal once it is done.
In theory, the same was true in the Royal Navy, once you reached Post Captain, but in practice, by having Commodores, they could give talented captains an Admiral's command, without the rank.
Nepotism was rife in the Navy, but the system was somewhat self-correcting, as your influence would wane if you recommended fools to positions.
Sir, whether Prince or pauper when a man soils a wellington he puts his foot in it. Please note this is not a joke, I do not find my name remotely funny and people who do end up dead. I invite you a duel tonight at 1800 hours at which you will die.
Ok, enough of that, I have work to do - but I think I've proven I can just about quote all of the final 3 seasons.
Shocking, even with interest rates as they are. The government should borrow a few hundred billions and spend on a infrastructure fest. Even bring forward projects. Let councils, housing associations build. When will they ever get rates like now:
2y 0.1%, 5v 0.27%, 10y 0.68%, 30y 1.55%.
This is the time.
Also, hopefully, May will put a stop to this Chinese bonanza in Hinkley Point. Spend that money on Renewable incentives. No toxic clear-ups in the future !
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
http://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm
Royal Navy, 1804–15
killed in action: 6,663
shipwrecks, drownings, fire: 13,621
wounds, disease: 72,102
Total: 92,386
British Army, 1804–15
killed in action: 25,569
wounds, accidents, disease: 193,851
Total: 219,420
I don't know anything about the website, but at least it is trying to quantify things. You would have to adjust for population size of army and navy, but the claim that the army was markedly less risky than the navy is bold.
Plenty of ideas, but the odds are too short. A few interesting long shots, but I'm unsure if they're value.
After the unusual certainty of last week's No Safety Car bet, normal service is resumed
The fault lies with those idiots who gave Corbyn a lending hand last year. The performance of the shadow cabinet and the 176 has been shambolic. You don't do a coup over a period of time.
I am sure there were some people wrongly promoted but the system was remarkably successful. As indeed was Purchase in the army, for all Mr. B2 revisionist nonsense (Austria & Prussian armies being close at the time of Waterloo, forsooth).
Clinton 40 , Trump 35. Reuters / Ipsos
I remember in the sixties stories of officers in the US army being "fragged" by their own troops. Yet the number of confirmed cases of such murders? It seemed always a case of someone had heard about it from from someone else.
Trump, by a margin of two million viewers, according to Nielsen, the TV ratings firm.
Clinton's Thursday night acceptance speech at the DNC averaged 29.8 million viewers across ten broadcast and cable channels.
Trump's speech at the RNC one week earlier averaged 32.2 million viewers across the same channels.
When the Medes, who overthrew the Assyrians, became complacent and soft they were in turn supplants by the Cyrus-led Persians.
Betting PostF1: after exhausting every other possibility, I finally put a tiny sum on something. Must say, I'm not brimming with confidence and this is the sort of race I'd sit out if I didn't have an approach of offering at least one tip per race weekend.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/germany-pre-race-2016.html
But Vietnam was a special case. OTOH I know it definitely happened in Napoleonic times, because I read it in a book by Bernard Cornwell.
They see themselves as the plucky defenders of what is right, not sad hacks whose time has gone. Fighting for the name puts them on the side of right in the titanic struggle of good vs evil.
When comparing Army vs Navy casualty rates, it should be noted that major sea engagements earlier after Trafalgar, while land battles continued another decade. The army was not really engaged until the Peninsular campaign.
The forces were probably of similar order of size. Ships of the Line had large crews, but food and sanitary conditions for Navy personnel were significantly better in many ways than civilians of the time.
NAM Roger covers this well in his book "Command of the Ocean" well worth reading.
election for whomsoever - then each vote of that electorate has an equal value.
You can't complain when people vote for something with which you disagree. If
Labour wishes (or doesn't wish) to commit General Election suicide, then it is up
to them - the members - to decide whether this is a good idea or not. Those are
the rules - if you don't like them, change them. Don't bleat about their 'unfairness'
or the fact that people can't be bothered to 'engage' with them.
Never heard of Raba Research before. Who are they?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/islamist-terror-could-kill-off-the-liberal-values-of-the-liberal/
Revflecting on it, I wonder if we are making a mistake by seeing things like Human Rights as applying to everyone or abolishing them and them applying to no-one.
Maybe it is time we reinvented the concept of the Outlaw.
Basically, the application of the Human Rights act, freedom from Discrimination or profiling etc. becomes a privilege that has to be earned rather than a right, and can also be withdrawn if behaviour is poor enough, essentially such people become civil Outlaws.
The obvious arguments are what is the threshold for granting and withdrawing.
As it was suicidal, other units voluntarily went out to protect the victimised unit. Upon their return, they heaped the gathered wood around Galba's tent and set it on fire.