Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
'Redgrave implies I ought to be up before dawn and wearing sackcloth to really appreciate it.'
Looking at the coverage, I am wondering if there is a mental health issue there. Titanic olympian, used to the cut and thrust of competition, at a bit of a loose end these days...
Lots of the astronauts who went to the moon ended up quite badly affected. I guess it's all downhill from that moment & nothing can truly replace it.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
'Redgrave implies I ought to be up before dawn and wearing sackcloth to really appreciate it.'
Looking at the coverage, I am wondering if there is a mental health issue there. Titanic olympian, used to the cut and thrust of competition, at a bit of a loose end these days...
Lots of the astronauts who went to the moon ended up quite badly affected. I guess it's all downhill from that moment & nothing can truly replace it.
Sports psycho man on Sky the other day said young childhood trauma was a significant factor for many top athletes - they exerted extreme control over their futures =immense motivation to remain ahead.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
It's weasel words. Who would want to eat exclusively home-grown foods? Life without bananas is no life at all .
PS Bonus article on Brexit implications for developing countries.
''Lots of the astronauts who went to the moon ended up quite badly affected. I guess it's all downhill from that moment & nothing can truly replace it.''
I seem to remember that he really, really struggled academically too, poor chap. Must be difficult to evolve a second career.
I don't think we disagree. I was talking about my own opinions on Brexit, which I admit is an indulgence on PB. In general I would say Leave tapped into real grievances about globalisation, however dishonestly, while Remain were very condescending towards people who felt there was a problem, even if they were probably correct
I think a lot of the more extreme reaction stems from the fact that that the government used EU membership to force an entire (small l liberal) agenda on the UK that they would never have got through parliament normally but were able to wave it through with statutory orders on the grounds that EU membership makes it compulsory.
I think it is the fear that this will be unravelled that drives the emotional response
One of the most far reaching I recall was the ECHR or ECJ (can't remember which) setting aside the £11,000 maximium industrial payment in harassment and discrimination, soon afterwards tribunals started awarding lottery sums to people who were victims of politically incorrect actions.
That caused absolute panic among companies who started writing diversity and equality policies and rules in all directions and gave a massive boost to the whole PC diversity and equality agenda.
This might well be unravelled with say a £25,000 maximum payout on such cases in tribunals at which point companies will ditch their equality policies - or serious observation of them. - Not having to do police their employees speech and actions so much and being able to just hire who they feel like without reams of paperwork demonstrating they have been objective will save particularly small companies a fortune.
I suspect this is what is keeping remainers awake at night.
I see. Office girls who get their bottoms patted and who see promotions going to less-qualified men should just, in the Brexiteer parlance, "suck it up". Because evil PC.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
That's of current diet, we could adjust our diet to be a lot more boring and vegetarian and get to food self sufficiency relatively easily if necessary.
I think team GB will be lucky to get anybody to the final this time around .
We've got a qualifier to semis. CJ something.
Running 10.12 isn't going to anywhere close for the final & is our fastest guy.
Is he? Oh well. Still, Alan Wells and Linford Christie once won gold
He has gone faster in previous years, but form of all team GB men sprinters isn't good this year. It didn't look like he eased that 10.12...that looked like his limit.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
That's of current diet, we could adjust our diet to be a lot more boring and vegetarian and get to food self sufficiency relatively easily if necessary.
Not to mention all the food that is wasted currently and the numbers of overweight and obese people.
Allotments in parks and gardens and pigs or chickens kept in back yards would also boost production easily.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
That's of current diet, we could adjust our diet to be a lot more boring and vegetarian and get to food self sufficiency relatively easily if necessary.
The UK hasn't been self sufficient in food for about 200 years.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
That's of current diet, we could adjust our diet to be a lot more boring and vegetarian and get to food self sufficiency relatively easily if necessary.
The UK hasn't been self sufficient in food for about 200 years.
Shh. We're having the inaugural UK prepper annual conference.
Mr. Meeks, if you think ceding sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable foreigners whose concern is primarily not British is a good idea, merely to avoid short-term economic turbulence, then you're a silly sausage.
The success of nations is contingent upon long-term strategic strength, not the trials and tribulations of short-term shifts. Arminius caused no serious harm to Rome despite destroying multiple legions.
Rome also had the advantage of being a very large state with relatively small enemies. Scale counts for a lot - if you don't realise that then I think it is you who are a silly sausage.
As Thucydides put it "Large states do as they will - small states endure what they must". Had Armenius had the manpower that Attila had it would have been a very different story.
If sovereignty is so important to you I can't argue, but if you are saying we are better off on our own with no direct influence on the much bigger power block next door, well you need to read even more history than you seem to already.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
That's of current diet, we could adjust our diet to be a lot more boring and vegetarian and get to food self sufficiency relatively easily if necessary.
The UK hasn't been self sufficient in food for about 200 years.
Though it would be interesting to see what would happen if we multiplied modern intensive farming by all the available land.....
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
But we're barely trying at the moment.
Sorry, I'm not disputing that's it's possible to do it: given sufficient privation, it could be done. What I was disputing was Paul_Bedfordshire's statement that the UK&RoI combined already are doing it: an assertion so prima facie implausible that I wanted to check it. Could we do it? Yes. Are we doing it? No (given John_M's 76% for UK's figure). Would we want to do it? Not really.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
It's weasel words. Who would want to eat exclusively home-grown foods? Life without bananas is no life at all .
PS Bonus article on Brexit implications for developing countries.
Presumably if we were besieged, as during WW2 we could forgo bananas. Nevertheless the upcoming WTO reorg will likely see British farm production drastically reduced.
Mr. Recidivist, the Romans had small enemies because they'd cut the big ones down to size. Carthage was a larger city than Rome and had a larger geographical dominion before the First Punic War.
Edited extra bit: inviting in the EU to our politics would be like the Aetolian League inviting in the Romans to help out against the Achaeans. Easy to invite a foreign power in. Hard to persuade them to leave.
I don't think we disagree. I was talking about my own opinions on Brexit, which I admit is an indulgence on PB. In general I would say Leave tapped into real grievances about globalisation, however dishonestly, while Remain were very condescending towards people who felt there was a problem, even if they were probably correct
I think a lot of the more extreme reaction stems from the fact that that the government used EU membership to force an entire (small l liberal) agenda on the UK that they would never have got through parliament normally but were able to wave it through with statutory orders on the grounds that EU membership makes it compulsory.
I think it is the fear that this will be unravelled that drives the emotional response
One of the most far reaching I recall was the ECHR or ECJ (can't remember which) setting aside the £11,000 maximium industrial payment in harassment and discrimination, soon afterwards tribunals started awarding lottery sums to people who were victims of politically incorrect actions.
That caused absolute panic among companies who started writing diversity and equality policies and rules in all directions and gave a massive boost to the whole PC diversity and equality agenda.
This might well be unravelled with say a £25,000 maximum payout on such cases in tribunals at which point companies will ditch their equality policies - or serious observation of them. - Not having to do police their employees speech and actions so much and being able to just hire who they feel like without reams of paperwork demonstrating they have been objective will save particularly small companies a fortune.
I suspect this is what is keeping remainers awake at night.
Although it is entirely possible the Prime Minister might believe that discrimination against, oh, say, women is not necessarily in the national interest, even if it does allow a self-selected clique of expensively-educated male cronies to run the show.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
That's of current diet, we could adjust our diet to be a lot more boring and vegetarian and get to food self sufficiency relatively easily if necessary.
The UK hasn't been self sufficient in food for about 200 years.
Indeed, but we could be if it was necessary.
With the proviso that there would be a radical change in diet.
Re food sufficiency. Worth remembering that even if we could be theoretically self sufficient (by cutting out calorie intake and having a very boring diet), we'd still need to import large quantities of the fertilisers (particularly potash) to achieve that goal.
Re food sufficiency. Worth remembering that even if we could be theoretically self sufficient (by cutting out calorie intake and having a very boring diet), we'd still need to import large quantities of the fertilisers (particularly potash) to achieve that goal.
If you're proposing to deprive me of my daily gallon or so of tea, then you are welcome to grind my bones for fertiliser. Dulce et decorum est etc.
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
Re food sufficiency. Worth remembering that even if we could be theoretically self sufficient (by cutting out calorie intake and having a very boring diet), we'd still need to import large quantities of the fertilisers (particularly potash) to achieve that goal.
Is there not a new potash mine opening in Yorkshire?
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
I've enjoyed all his books: Secret War ear particularly good.
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
Both 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' are well worth reading. The former spends more time than most on the plight of the Hiwis. The latter is unflinching on the horrors unleashed on the German civilian population.
Fact check: is this even slightly true? I know that the UK is nowhere near food sufficiency and hasn't been for decades (centuries?). It never occurred to me to add RoI to things, simply because it's a different country. But even given that, I doubt this. Ireland hasn't got the climate to grow large quantities of wheat or corn, and as for fruit production (grape, bananas, oranges, peaches. etc) it's pretty much a non-starter in terms of bulk production. I'm willing to believe it produces beef, lamb, anything that can be produced by herding grazing animals that don't mind rain. But again, I can't see it producing nearly enough to feed the ~65million population of the UK as well as itself.
(PS Paul_Bedfordshire, I need to point out that I'm not picking on you with this post: it's just that the claim is so contra-intuitive it triggered my factcheck gene)
76% in home-grown foods according DEFRA in March 2016.
I did not know that: one learns something new every day. But even having said that, 76% is still far short of 100%. The remaining 24% comes to ~16million people: does RoI produce enough food to feed that 16million as well as her own 5million?
That's of current diet, we could adjust our diet to be a lot more boring and vegetarian and get to food self sufficiency relatively easily if necessary.
The UK hasn't been self sufficient in food for about 200 years.
Shh. We're having the inaugural UK prepper annual conference.
Re food sufficiency. Worth remembering that even if we could be theoretically self sufficient (by cutting out calorie intake and having a very boring diet), we'd still need to import large quantities of the fertilisers (particularly potash) to achieve that goal.
Is there not a new potash mine opening in Yorkshire?
I don't think we disagree. I was talking about my own opinions on Brexit, which I admit is an indulgence on PB. In general I would say Leave tapped into real grievances about globalisation, however dishonestly, while Remain were very condescending towards people who felt there was a problem, even if they were probably correct
I think a lot of the more extreme reaction stems from the fact that that the government used EU membership to force an entire (small l liberal) agenda on the UK that they would never have got through parliament normally but were able to wave it through with statutory orders on the grounds that EU membership makes it compulsory.
I think it is the fear that this will be unravelled that drives the emotional response
One of the most far reaching I recall was the ECHR or ECJ (can't remember which) setting aside the £11,000 maximium industrial payment in harassment and discrimination, soon afterwards tribunals started awarding lottery sums to people who were victims of politically incorrect actions.
That caused absolute panic among companies who started writing diversity and equality policies and rules in all directions and gave a massive boost to the whole PC diversity and equality agenda.
This might well be unravelled with say a £25,000 maximum payout on such cases in tribunals at which point companies will ditch their equality policies - or serious observation of them. - Not having to do police their employees speech and actions so much and being able to just hire who they feel like without reams of paperwork demonstrating they have been objective will save particularly small companies a fortune.
I suspect this is what is keeping remainers awake at night.
I see. Office girls who get their bottoms patted and who see promotions going to less-qualified men should just, in the Brexiteer parlance, "suck it up". Because evil PC.
I don't think we disagree. I was talking about my own opinions on Brexit, which I admit is an indulgence on PB. In general I would say Leave tapped into real grievances about globalisation, however dishonestly, while Remain were very condescending towards people who felt there was a problem, even if they were probably correct
I think a lot of the more extreme reaction stems from the fact that that the government used EU membership to force an entire (small l liberal) agenda on the UK that they would never have got through parliament normally but were able to wave it through with statutory orders on the grounds that EU membership makes it compulsory.
I think it is the fear that this will be unravelled that drives the emotional response
One of the most far reaching I recall was the ECHR or ECJ (can't remember which) setting aside the £11,000 maximium industrial payment in harassment and discrimination, soon afterwards tribunals started awarding lottery sums to people who were victims of politically incorrect actions.
That caused absolute panic among companies who started writing diversity and equality policies and rules in all directions and gave a massive boost to the whole PC diversity and equality agenda.
This might well be unravelled with say a £25,000 maximum payout on such cases in tribunals at which point companies will ditch their equality policies - or serious observation of them. - Not having to do police their employees speech and actions so much and being able to just hire who they feel like without reams of paperwork demonstrating they have been objective will save particularly small companies a fortune.
I suspect this is what is keeping remainers awake at night.
It was Jacques Delors who persuaded the Labour Party that by joining the EU the party could obtain social legislation that could not easily be obtained through the British parliament.
The people who are keeping awake at night are the lawyers who make so much money out of Euro laws and regulations.
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
Pretty good, in my view, although I found his book on the Ardennes Offensive hard going.
Re food sufficiency. Worth remembering that even if we could be theoretically self sufficient (by cutting out calorie intake and having a very boring diet), we'd still need to import large quantities of the fertilisers (particularly potash) to achieve that goal.
Is there not a new potash mine opening in Yorkshire?
Couldn't we just turn the golf courses into allotments?
Mr. Urquhart, is Thiem as good as Ennis-Hill at the javelin/800m, though?
I am no expert but I believe 800m is where EH has a big advantage on paper, but they compete so infrequently it is often hard to know the current real state of play.
Re self-sufficiency. In the last resort, we could always fall back on our traditional ethnic folkway of letting the surplus population starve. I appreciate that this is taking a fairly robust policy position and would require considerable focus group testing.
Mr. Recidivist, the Romans had small enemies because they'd cut the big ones down to size. Carthage was a larger city than Rome and had a larger geographical dominion before the First Punic War.
Edited extra bit: inviting in the EU to our politics would be like the Aetolian League inviting in the Romans to help out against the Achaeans. Easy to invite a foreign power in. Hard to persuade them to leave.
Well if we want to rehash ancient history.
Rome simply dominated because of:
It's geographical place in Italy, that ensured dominance over the peninsular.
The geographical place of Italy in the centre of the mediterranean sea, that ensured dominance over it.
Having a military that was battle hardened and developed new tactics by lots of wars with city states in Italy and Greece.
Once it dominated Italy, by sheer size it could enlarge it's battle hardened military to a point that it could overwhelm and conquer it's chief rivals in Greece and Carthage.
Once Carthage and Macedon where out of the picture, Rome took control of every territory that was 200 miles from the nearest coast in temperate climates, by it's naval dominance and rapid army movements, even if it had modest numbers at each territory.
Cultural overlap between Rome and Greece made assimilation of conquered territories easier.
And finally success breeded success.
Of course it's decline started when it could no longer expand, the roman armies could not fight in the cold climate of central europe, having spread it's army over a wide territory and long border to police it with hostile locals.
The same things that caused it's rise caused it's rapid collapse, which is something you see in history all the time.
I don't think we disagree. I was talking about my own opinions on Brexit, which I admit is an indulgence on PB. In general I would say Leave tapped into real grievances about globalisation, however dishonestly, while Remain were very condescending towards people who felt there was a problem, even if they were probably correct
I think a lot of the more extreme reaction stems from the fact that that the government used EU membership to force an entire (small l liberal) agenda on the UK that they would never have got through parliament normally but were able to wave it through with statutory orders on the grounds that EU membership makes it compulsory.
I think it is the fear that this will be unravelled that drives the emotional response
One of the most far reaching I recall was the ECHR or ECJ (can't remember which) setting aside the £11,000 maximium industrial payment in harassment and discrimination, soon afterwards tribunals started awarding lottery sums to people who were victims of politically incorrect actions.
That caused absolute panic among companies who started writing diversity and equality policies and rules in all directions and gave a massive boost to the whole PC diversity and equality agenda.
This might well be unravelled with say a £25,000 maximum payout on such cases in tribunals at which point companies will ditch their equality policies - or serious observation of them. - Not having to do police their employees speech and actions so much and being able to just hire who they feel like without reams of paperwork demonstrating they have been objective will save particularly small companies a fortune.
I suspect this is what is keeping remainers awake at night.
I see. Office girls who get their bottoms patted and who see promotions going to less-qualified men should just, in the Brexiteer parlance, "suck it up". Because evil PC.
If they "suck it up" then promotion is much more likely.
Mr. Speedy, simply? Tell that to the Samnites and Tarentines. Or Gauls, for that matter.
Carthage held sway over the sea until Rome beat them.
Rome only developed tactics after Hannibal slapped them about [and the tactical strength degraded thereafter]. The Roman tactic was to march at the enemy and stab them until they stopped denying the supremacy of Rome.
Macedon was a small kingdom by the time Rome encountered it militarily. This was fortunate, as had either Alexander lived or Antigonus won at Ipsus the Romans may have encountered an empire spreading from modern day Albania to the eastern border of Pakistan.
Mr. Recidivist, the Romans had small enemies because they'd cut the big ones down to size. Carthage was a larger city than Rome and had a larger geographical dominion before the First Punic War.
Edited extra bit: inviting in the EU to our politics would be like the Aetolian League inviting in the Romans to help out against the Achaeans. Easy to invite a foreign power in. Hard to persuade them to leave.
*snip*
The same things that caused it's rise caused it's rapid collapse, which is something you see in history all the time.
Peter Heather's 'The Fall of the Roman Empire" is a very good appreciation of a very complex subject. Recommended.
It's geographical place in Italy, that ensured dominance over the peninsular.
The geographical place of Italy in the centre of the mediterranean sea, that ensured dominance over it.
Having a military that was battle hardened and developed new tactics by lots of wars with city states in Italy and Greece.
Once it dominated Italy, by sheer size it could enlarge it's battle hardened military to a point that it could overwhelm and conquer it's chief rivals in Greece and Carthage.
I don't think Rome came to dominate Italy and then Europe because of its geographical position.
There were tons of city states at the time, and now and again they would go to war with their neighbours, with the victor running off with the animals and woman of the loser, and burning down a few buildings if they felt particularly aggrieved.
Rome's rise to greatness came about because:
- the first few nearby cities it beat in battle, it annexed and said "you are now part of Rome". By sharing its rights and opportunities in this way it achieved critical mass that enabled it to fight at the next level
- thereafter, when it vanquished a city the only obligation it imposed on them was to contribute an army in support of Rome, whenever requested. For the time, this was letting them off lightly. But it also enabled Rome to put together a huge army whenever required. It also left each city state knowing that if they refused Rome's effective overlordship, Rome could raise a ton of troops from all the other cities, hence the growing empire held together.
- finally, the move of genius was to offer Roman citizenship, firstly to key people, and eventually to lots of people, in conquered cities and provinces. For the time this was a revolutionary concept - that you could be a Roman citizen even if you were a foreigner who had never been anywhere near Rome - even if most of the privileges were theoretical (since you had actually to travel to Rome to exercise most of them). But it meant that conquered Gauls, Britons and whatever came to feel they had a stake and were part of the Roman system, in a way never achieved before or since.
Rome had been created originally as a city largely of immigrants - which shaped its attitudes to what it meant to be a Roman citizen differently from most other cities.
These changes underpinned the transition from city states to empires. In time other empires adopted some at least of Rome's innovations, but Rome led the way and became the predominant empire in Europe for what - by modern standards - was truly an epic length of time.
That is a great big chunk of PB, has been for years, for some definition of ancient. Long may it continue.
I'm just happy to see Mr Dancer back on his agreed territory, per the lines of demarcation agreed at the last PB union congress, rather than trampling into the High Medieval and Renaissance eras in a blatant disregard for established working practices.
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
Both 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' are well worth reading. The former spends more time than most on the plight of the Hiwis. The latter is unflinching on the horrors unleashed on the German civilian population.
I agree with that Mr. M, but I think "Stalingrad" gives the flavour of the War in the East far more so than does "Berlin". The former does, despite the title, take the war from 1941 under its wing, the latter is very much the revenge. I would like to have seen Beevoir do a book on the destruction of army group centre - to my mind at least as big an event as the Normandy campaign which was happening at much the same time and one which is largely ignored in the West (which is possibly why he has not written about it.
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
Both 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' are well worth reading. The former spends more time than most on the plight of the Hiwis. The latter is unflinching on the horrors unleashed on the German civilian population.
I think both are very good. His big picture book on the whole of WW2 is also a good read - though like the war itself if just stops when the fighting stops. I still feel that it could do with an extra chapter. What I like about his books is that they just tell the stories well. They don't go in for surprising new incites or overturning established wisdom.
It's geographical place in Italy, that ensured dominance over the peninsular.
The geographical place of Italy in the centre of the mediterranean sea, that ensured dominance over it.
Having a military that was battle hardened and developed new tactics by lots of wars with city states in Italy and Greece.
Once it dominated Italy, by sheer size it could enlarge it's battle hardened military to a point that it could overwhelm and conquer it's chief rivals in Greece and Carthage.
I don't think Rome came to dominate Italy and then Europe because of its geographical position.
There were tons of city states at the time, and now and again they would go to war with their neighbours, with the victor running off with the animals and woman of the loser, and burning down a few buildings if they felt particularly aggrieved.
Rome's rise to greatness came about because:
- the first few nearby cities it beat in battle, it annexed and said "you are now part of Rome". By sharing its rights and opportunities in this way it achieved critical mass that enabled it to fight at the next level
- thereafter, when it vanquished a city the only obligation it imposed on them was to contribute an army in support of Rome, whenever requested. For the time, this was letting them off lightly. But it also enabled Rome to put together a huge army whenever required. It also left each city state knowing that if they refused Rome's effective overlordship, Rome could raise a ton of troops from all the other cities, hence the growing empire held together.
- finally, the move of genius was to offer Roman citizenship, firstly to key people, and eventually to lots of people, in conquered cities and provinces. For the time this was a revolutionary concept - that you could be a Roman citizen even if you were a foreigner who had never been anywhere near Rome - even if most of the privileges were theoretical (since you had actually to travel to Rome to exercise most of them). But it meant that conquered Gauls, Britons and whatever came to feel they had a stake and were part of the Roman system, in a way never achieved before or since.
Rome had been created originally as a city largely of immigrants - which shaped its attitudes to what it meant to be a Roman citizen differently from most other cities.
These changes underpinned the transition from city states to empires. In time other empires adopted some at least of Rome's innovations, but Rome led the way and became the predominant empire in Europe for what - by modern standards - was truly an epic length of time.
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
Both 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' are well worth reading. The former spends more time than most on the plight of the Hiwis. The latter is unflinching on the horrors unleashed on the German civilian population.
I agree with that Mr. M, but I think "Stalingrad" gives the flavour of the War in the East far more so than does "Berlin". The former does, despite the title, take the war from 1941 under its wing, the latter is very much the revenge. I would like to have seen Beevoir do a book on the destruction of army group centre - to my mind at least as big an event as the Normandy campaign which was happening at much the same time and one which is largely ignored in the West (which is possibly why he has not written about it.
Paul Adair's 'Hitler's Greatest Defeat' is an excellent and concise treatment of Bagration. Might be hard to track down these days. For obvious reasons we tend to concentrate on Normandy. I've been fascinated by the Eastern Front since I pinched my Dad's library copy of Clark's Barbarossa. Sad enough to own every book David Glantz has ever written on the subject.
Mr. Urquhart, is Thiem as good as Ennis-Hill at the javelin/800m, though?
The Beeb reckoned that Thiem has quite an edge in the javelin, Ennis-Hill quite an edge in the 800m. It is very finely balanced. May come down to how well Ennis-Hill has improved with her new coach at the javelin, Mick Hill.
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
Both 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' are well worth reading. The former spends more time than most on the plight of the Hiwis. The latter is unflinching on the horrors unleashed on the German civilian population.
I think both are very good. His big picture book on the whole of WW2 is also a good read - though like the war itself if just stops when the fighting stops. I still feel that it could do with an extra chapter. What I like about his books is that they just tell the stories well. They don't go in for surprising new incites or overturning established wisdom.
I think the best book for understanding the 'why' rather than the 'what' of WW2 is 'why the allies won' by Richard Overy
Anyhoo, gotta go. But before I go, I just read Max Hastings's "Secret War" and am now a big fan: have lined up his "Catastrophe" for my next train book. Whilst browsing I happened upon Anthony Beevoir's "Stalingrad", and he looks good. Does anybody on PB have an opinion pro or con Mr Beevoir? He has a good rep but opinions always welcome.
Both 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' are well worth reading. The former spends more time than most on the plight of the Hiwis. The latter is unflinching on the horrors unleashed on the German civilian population.
I agree with that Mr. M, but I think "Stalingrad" gives the flavour of the War in the East far more so than does "Berlin". The former does, despite the title, take the war from 1941 under its wing, the latter is very much the revenge. I would like to have seen Beevoir do a book on the destruction of army group centre - to my mind at least as big an event as the Normandy campaign which was happening at much the same time and one which is largely ignored in the West (which is possibly why he has not written about it.
Avast, Mr Llama!
Bagration (for wot is the name for the Soviet operation to destroy Army Group Centre) cost the Germans more men, and material than wot the Normandy Campaign did, and probably an even bigger defeat than Stalingrad.
I think Redgrave & inverdale will be glad the punting is over!
I admire Redgraves achievements, but he's always been a total miserable git. I have no interest in seeing him present anything. Inverdale makes me smile and enjoy something. Redgrave implies I ought to be up before dawn and wearing sackcloth to really appreciate it.
I think Redgrave & inverdale will be glad the punting is over!
I admire Redgraves achievements, but he's always been a total miserable git. I have no interest in seeing him present anything. Inverdale makes me smile and enjoy something. Redgrave implies I ought to be up before dawn and wearing sackcloth to really appreciate it.
Maybe it's a sign of aging, but I find sports coverage is getting worse and worse over the years. There's so much attention now on "what the players are feeling" and nauseating post-race/match interviews that crowds out all the serious analysis.
Comments
I was rather taken aback by his bluntness.
PS Bonus article on Brexit implications for developing countries.
http://www.ictsd.org/opinion/brexit-opportunity-or-peril-for-trade-with-small-and-poor-developing-economies
I seem to remember that he really, really struggled academically too, poor chap. Must be difficult to evolve a second career.
We need a Venn diagram of all three groups to discover the ultimate Tyson hate figure.
I'll start with Ian Botham as a possibility.
Allotments in parks and gardens and pigs or chickens kept in back yards would also boost production easily.
As Thucydides put it "Large states do as they will - small states endure what they must". Had Armenius had the manpower that Attila had it would have been a very different story.
If sovereignty is so important to you I can't argue, but if you are saying we are better off on our own with no direct influence on the much bigger power block next door, well you need to read even more history than you seem to already.
Edited extra bit: inviting in the EU to our politics would be like the Aetolian League inviting in the Romans to help out against the Achaeans. Easy to invite a foreign power in. Hard to persuade them to leave.
They must have changed their training methods, or stopped taking "special" pills.
With the proviso that there would be a radical change in diet.
The people who are keeping awake at night are the lawyers who make so much money out of Euro laws and regulations.
Rome simply dominated because of:
It's geographical place in Italy, that ensured dominance over the peninsular.
The geographical place of Italy in the centre of the mediterranean sea, that ensured dominance over it.
Having a military that was battle hardened and developed new tactics by lots of wars with city states in Italy and Greece.
Once it dominated Italy, by sheer size it could enlarge it's battle hardened military to a point that it could overwhelm and conquer it's chief rivals in Greece and Carthage.
Once Carthage and Macedon where out of the picture, Rome took control of every territory that was 200 miles from the nearest coast in temperate climates, by it's naval dominance and rapid army movements, even if it had modest numbers at each territory.
Cultural overlap between Rome and Greece made assimilation of conquered territories easier.
And finally success breeded success.
Of course it's decline started when it could no longer expand, the roman armies could not fight in the cold climate of central europe, having spread it's army over a wide territory and long border to police it with hostile locals.
The same things that caused it's rise caused it's rapid collapse, which is something you see in history all the time.
Carthage held sway over the sea until Rome beat them.
Rome only developed tactics after Hannibal slapped them about [and the tactical strength degraded thereafter]. The Roman tactic was to march at the enemy and stab them until they stopped denying the supremacy of Rome.
Macedon was a small kingdom by the time Rome encountered it militarily. This was fortunate, as had either Alexander lived or Antigonus won at Ipsus the Romans may have encountered an empire spreading from modern day Albania to the eastern border of Pakistan.
There were tons of city states at the time, and now and again they would go to war with their neighbours, with the victor running off with the animals and woman of the loser, and burning down a few buildings if they felt particularly aggrieved.
Rome's rise to greatness came about because:
- the first few nearby cities it beat in battle, it annexed and said "you are now part of Rome". By sharing its rights and opportunities in this way it achieved critical mass that enabled it to fight at the next level
- thereafter, when it vanquished a city the only obligation it imposed on them was to contribute an army in support of Rome, whenever requested. For the time, this was letting them off lightly. But it also enabled Rome to put together a huge army whenever required. It also left each city state knowing that if they refused Rome's effective overlordship, Rome could raise a ton of troops from all the other cities, hence the growing empire held together.
- finally, the move of genius was to offer Roman citizenship, firstly to key people, and eventually to lots of people, in conquered cities and provinces. For the time this was a revolutionary concept - that you could be a Roman citizen even if you were a foreigner who had never been anywhere near Rome - even if most of the privileges were theoretical (since you had actually to travel to Rome to exercise most of them). But it meant that conquered Gauls, Britons and whatever came to feel they had a stake and were part of the Roman system, in a way never achieved before or since.
Rome had been created originally as a city largely of immigrants - which shaped its attitudes to what it meant to be a Roman citizen differently from most other cities.
These changes underpinned the transition from city states to empires. In time other empires adopted some at least of Rome's innovations, but Rome led the way and became the predominant empire in Europe for what - by modern standards - was truly an epic length of time.
Silver guaranteed.
"Well if we want to rehash ancient history. ..."
That is a great big chunk of PB, has been for years, for some definition of ancient. Long may it continue.
He's going to celebrate tonight by throwing some dwarves around....
EDIT: And Cersei has told The Mountain to start with Tyrion....
Bagration (for wot is the name for the Soviet operation to destroy Army Group Centre) cost the Germans more men, and material than wot the Normandy Campaign did, and probably an even bigger defeat than Stalingrad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord
Bit like politics coverage, now I think about it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/12/trump_supporters_haven_t_been_affected_by_trade_or_immigration_at_all_study.html