"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
The world changed in the last 40 years, not because of the actions of the British government, but because of technology.
In 1977, the number of British authors who had international sales could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Completely ignoring the rest of an excellent post, and embracing pre-breakfast pedantry, we could play games with that :-). Suspect there were more than 5 UK authors on the NYT Top 100 list at any point in 1977.
JRR Tolkien was no 1 for about 3 months for a start.
Here are the 6 more UK authors selling internationally, in 1977.
CS Lewis Agatha Christie William Shakespeare Malcolm Muggeridge Conan Doyle Edgar Wallace
I am tempted to add Alistair Cooke and Jackie Collins, but they both crossed to the dark side decades earlier, and Jeffrey Archer might not quite have made it by 1977.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
The world changed in the last 40 years, not because of the actions of the British government, but because of technology.
In 1977, the number of British authors who had international sales could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Completely ignoring the rest of an excellent post, and embracing pre-breakfast pedantry, we could play games with that :-). Suspect there were more than 5 UK authors on the NYT Top 100 list at any point in 1977.
JRR Tolkien was no 1 for about 3 months for a start.
Here are the 6 more UK authors selling internationally, in 1977.
CS Lewis Agatha Christie William Shakespeare Malcolm Muggeridge Conan Doyle Edgar Wallace
I am tempted to add Alistair Cooke and Jackie Collins, but they both crossed to the dark side decades earlier, and Jeffrey Archer might not quite have made it by 1977.
I have no idea how, or indeed why, May keeps going with all this bollocks. Everybody in the country (apart from Big G and Arthur Askey) fucking hates her, the not conspicuously loyal cabinet is ram packed with incompetent charlatans and she soon going to have to gag down the diarrhea filled muffin that is Brexit.
I'm spending longer each day wondering why I'm still in the Tory party.
I'm irritated by the party's incompetence and political correctness, but see them as better than the alternative.
For since whenever, I (and many other Tories) have been banging on that Labour will be/is bad for the economy, and yet the Tory party are about to instigate the greatest act of economic terrorism I can recall via hard/WTO Brexit.
It is shaking my core values.
Soon I expect cats to chase dogs on this Bizarro world I'm on.
Stay. For evil to triumph it is only necessary that good men spend all day on Political Betting.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
The world changed in the last 40 years, not because of the actions of the British government, but because of technology.
In 1977, the number of British authors who had international sales could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Completely ignoring the rest of an excellent post, and embracing pre-breakfast pedantry, we could play games with that :-). Suspect there were more than 5 UK authors on the NYT Top 100 list at any point in 1977.
JRR Tolkien was no 1 for about 3 months for a start.
Here are the 6 more UK authors selling internationally, in 1977.
CS Lewis Agatha Christie William Shakespeare Malcolm Muggeridge Conan Doyle Edgar Wallace
I am tempted to add Alistair Cooke and Jackie Collins, but they both crossed to the dark side decades earlier, and Jeffrey Archer might not quite have made it by 1977.
Arthur C Clarke ? A J Cronin? Alastair McLean?
Charlers Dickens? Evelyn Waugh?
John Wyndham H G Wells E M Forster Ian Fleming Edit: George Orwell P G Wodehouse C S Forester
Can we all agree that Mr Smithson Jr has slightly unusual hands - more unusual than those of the Fringes people in The Chrysalids, indeed!
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
The world changed in the last 40 years, not because of the actions of the British government, but because of technology.
In 1977, the number of British authors who had international sales could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Completely ignoring the rest of an excellent post, and embracing pre-breakfast pedantry, we could play games with that :-). Suspect there were more than 5 UK authors on the NYT Top 100 list at any point in 1977.
JRR Tolkien was no 1 for about 3 months for a start.
Here are the 6 more UK authors selling internationally, in 1977.
CS Lewis Agatha Christie William Shakespeare Malcolm Muggeridge Conan Doyle Edgar Wallace
I am tempted to add Alistair Cooke and Jackie Collins, but they both crossed to the dark side decades earlier, and Jeffrey Archer might not quite have made it by 1977.
Arthur C Clarke ? A J Cronin? Alastair McLean?
Charlers Dickens? Evelyn Waugh?
John Wyndham H G Wells E M Forster Ian Fleming Edit: George Orwell P G Wodehouse C S Forester
Can we all agree that Mr Smithson Jr has slightly unusual hands - more unusual than those of the Fringes people in The Chrysalids, indeed!
I'm spending longer each day wondering why I'm still in the Tory party.
I'm irritated by the party's incompetence and political correctness, but see them as better than the alternative.
For since whenever, I (and many other Tories) have been banging on that Labour will be/is bad for the economy, and yet the Tory party are about to instigate the greatest act of economic terrorism I can recall via hard/WTO Brexit.
It is shaking my core values.
Soon I expect cats to chase dogs on this Bizarro world I'm on.
I'm spending longer each day wondering why I'm still in the Tory party.
Quite a lot of people are thinking that. It is a healthy trend.
TSE’s melancholy at the Conservative Party is reminding me of Stuart Pearson’s closing speech:
“I've spent ten years detoxifying this party. It's been a bit like renovating an old, old house, yeah? You can take out a sexist beam here, a callous window there, replace the odd homophobic roof tile. But after a while you realise that this renovation is doomed. Because the foundations are built on what I can only describe as a solid bed of c***s.”
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
The world changed in the last 40 years, not because of the actions of the British government, but because of technology.
In 1977, the number of British authors who had international sales could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Completely ignoring the rest of an excellent post, and embracing pre-breakfast pedantry, we could play games with that :-). Suspect there were more than 5 UK authors on the NYT Top 100 list at any point in 1977.
JRR Tolkien was no 1 for about 3 months for a start.
Here are the 6 more UK authors selling internationally, in 1977.
CS Lewis Agatha Christie William Shakespeare Malcolm Muggeridge Conan Doyle Edgar Wallace
I am tempted to add Alistair Cooke and Jackie Collins, but they both crossed to the dark side decades earlier, and Jeffrey Archer might not quite have made it by 1977.
Arthur C Clarke ? A J Cronin? Alastair McLean?
Charlers Dickens? Evelyn Waugh?
Jack Higgins break through novel the Eagle has landed was published in 1975 and has sold more than 50m copies.
With respect to the leadership, had someone really really wanted it we would have seen movement by now. The May "government" is collapsing around us: having to abstain on votes as it can't win them then seemingly shocked that a binding motion advised as binding before passed was actually binding; an unknown number of MPs having carried out behaviour that is unacceptable to anyone other than an MP with one sacking done and others unable to be done because scared; and a plan for Brexit that is absolutely better than Labour's alternative despite the city and business and industry collectively telling the Tories to shove it.
They're leaving May in place because they are hoping that when the whole thing collapses they can step off as they hit the ground, brush the dust off, then be seen as the hero who rebuilds the country and the party for a glorious victory in 2022. That they are willing to let the country be smashed in order to realise their ambition is the worst of the worst. Say what you like about Corbyn, he would be delighted to become PM today if it meant avoiding the crash - where are the patriots in the Tory benches? And no, not the false patriots who think our best future is to stop free trade. The ones who aren't delusional and understand very well how Britain works and would quite like it to keep going.
Next leader? From that cluster of cowards? They'd all be as bad as each other. Give it to Fox for all the difference it would make.
Jack Higgins break through novel the Eagle has landed was published in 1975 and has sold more than 50m copies.
Frederick Forsyth, of course.
Ellis Peters was writing at that stage - her first Cadfael was published in 1977 - but it might be stretching it to say she had achieved worldwide fame. That came a bit later.
He’s really put his foot in it this time. Even if he’s telling the truth (for once).
BoJo and Priti should fall on their swords. Any competent PM would sack them both, but the MayBot is a Zombie.
There needs to be a re-alignment to a more non-aligned foreign policy post Brexit, with countries like Russia and Iran not treated as pariah states, and a cooling in relationships with unsavoury regimes/groups in the Middle-East, particularly those run by Sunni fanatics. A Corbyn-led government would be much better at achieving this.
He’s really put his foot in it this time. Even if he’s telling the truth (for once).
BoJo and Priti should fall on their swords. Any competent PM would sack them both, but the MayBot is a Zombie.
There needs to be a re-alignment to a more non-aligned foreign policy post Brexit, with countries like Russia and Iran not treated as pariah states, and a cooling in relationships with unsavoury regimes/groups in the Middle-East, particularly those run by Sunni fanatics. A Corbyn-led government would be much better at achieving this.
That's a very interesting point, not that much explored - that aspiring to an economic position akin to Norway or Switzerland also implies a different political positioning on the world stage.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
A cooling in relationships with unsavoury regimes/groups in the Middle-East, particularly those run by Sunni fanatics. A Corbyn-led government would be much better at achieving this.
Hamas and Hezbollah are not unsavoury groups? And Hamas are not Sunni fanatics?
Lewis Hamilton out to 12.5 for SPOTY (and Chris Froome to an equally ridiculous 15). Surely everyone knows that for several decades British touring sportsmen have based themselves abroad?
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
Boris always did want to make a splash at the top of government
Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe might, he family fear, get an extra sentence as a result of the careless statement. nIf she does, resignation would be the only honourable act for Boris. And sacking him the only honoutable act for May.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
The ice has already melted but they are carried along by momentum (which, if you think about it, is really just mobile inertia).
I’m definitely expecting a post-Budget reshuffle now, once the fallout from the sex abuse scandal is fully known. Boris is a living, buffooning example of the Peter Principle in practice and did Priti really not understand that meeting foreign ministers while on holiday and without telling anyone was a no-no?
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
The ice has already melted but they are carried along by momentum (which, if you think about it, is really just mobile inertia).
I’m definitely expecting a post-Budget reshuffle now, once the fallout from the sex abuse scandal is fully known. Boris is a living, buffooning example of the Peter Principle in practice and did Priti really not understand that meeting foreign ministers while on holiday and without telling anyone was a no-no?
The idea of Priti being ticked off by May, and being, apparently, contrite, reminds me of Oscar Wilde ...... you’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh!
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modrrn world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yes, we hear hyperbole like 'catastrophe' on here every single day.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, it's fine and people are happily getting on with their lives.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
The ice has already melted but they are carried along by momentum (which, if you think about it, is really just mobile inertia).
I’m definitely expecting a post-Budget reshuffle now, once the fallout from the sex abuse scandal is fully known. Boris is a living, buffooning example of the Peter Principle in practice and did Priti really not understand that meeting foreign ministers while on holiday and without telling anyone was a no-no?
Everyone is so busy looking for new suspects that Boris's well documented appalling behaviour towards women has so far not been in the spotlight.
Jack Higgins break through novel the Eagle has landed was published in 1975 and has sold more than 50m copies.
Frederick Forsyth, of course.
Ellis Peters was writing at that stage - her first Cadfael was published in 1977 - but it might be stretching it to say she had achieved worldwide fame. That came a bit later.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yes, we hear hyperbole like 'catastrophe' on here every single day.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, it's fine and people are happily getting on with their lives.
Yes, unlikely and unexpected events never happen in politics, particularly in recent years. We can all sleep soundly, I am sure.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
No they didn't. The Bolsheviks for all their majority on the Petrograd Soviet were a small group of professional and mostly wealthy revolutionaries. The coup they launched was remarkable chiefly for how few people were actually involved. For nearly a month afterwards everyone just laughed at the Bolsheviks when they tried to give orders, much as they had at Kerensky and before him Miliukov. Right up until the moment they dissolved the constituent assembly by force in fact.
Even then there were reasons for the Red Terror - it wasn't just that Lenin was, in McCauley's words, 'as bloodthirsty as a vampire.'
I'm spending longer each day wondering why I'm still in the Tory party.
I'm irritated by the party's incompetence and political correctness, but see them as better than the alternative.
For since whenever, I (and many other Tories) have been banging on that Labour will be/is bad for the economy, and yet the Tory party are about to instigate the greatest act of economic terrorism I can recall via hard/WTO Brexit.
It is shaking my core values.
Soon I expect cats to chase dogs on this Bizarro world I'm on.
Because there are two strands of conservatism - the political and the economic.
At present they are in conflict while for the last 40 years they haven't been.
I have confidence in the ability of our country folk to reinvent themselves, but it is a change which involves risk.
But they voted to take that risk because they saw the long term future as being brighter outside the EU.
If you are not willing to compromise on the economic risk to achieve the political objectives perhaps you are not a complete match for the conservatives? If that's the case then you need to figure out where you sit on the spectrum of activist - member - supporter - voter - nothing. It doesn't have to be the same place throughout your life (I started as a member, moved to supporter and now oscillate between supporter and voter)
"Boris's well documented appalling behaviour towards women."
I don't approve of his morals but it takes two to tango. As far as I know, it's all been consensual, but I bow to your greater knowledge of his sexual assignations.
He says his father died in hospital of multiple infections acquired while in that hospital, and goes on to describe this as 'the worst, the most tragic luck. '. Really? Bad luck?
Yes, unless you have found a way of preventing infection absolutely. If so, can you remember us all with your Nobel prize winnings.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
The ice has already melted but they are carried along by momentum (which, if you think about it, is really just mobile inertia).
I’m definitely expecting a post-Budget reshuffle now, once the fallout from the sex abuse scandal is fully known. Boris is a living, buffooning example of the Peter Principle in practice and did Priti really not understand that meeting foreign ministers while on holiday and without telling anyone was a no-no?
Everyone is so busy looking for new suspects that Boris's well documented appalling behaviour towards women has so far not been in the spotlight.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yes, we hear hyperbole like 'catastrophe' on here every single day.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, it's fine and people are happily getting on with their lives.
Yes, unlikely and unexpected events never happen in politics, particularly in recent years. We can all sleep soundly, I am sure.
Indeed we can sleep soundly , sure that in the main news on Edge that Olivia Newton John's ex boyfriend might have been found.., that some soap /actors might have put money offshore
Ah, so Tim Benson now looks at cartoons online. Great. And Beverley_C, a friend of Tim's? You both seem to have a special feeling for tarantulas. Who would have guessed.
Who the hell is Tim Benson? Myself, I just surf the web
Presumably the head of the Political Cartoons Association
Judging by Marf's venom (are tarantulas venomous?) he does think that cartoons that are not published in newspapers count as "real" cartoons
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Definitely a need to promote some new blood and bring some of the next generation into senior positions. The cabinet is looking very old and stale.
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
Ah, so Tim Benson now looks at cartoons online. Great. And Beverley_C, a friend of Tim's? You both seem to have a special feeling for tarantulas. Who would have guessed.
Who the hell is Tim Benson? Myself, I just surf the web
Presumably the head of the Political Cartoons Association
Judging by Marf's venom (are tarantulas venomous?) he does think that cartoons that are not published in newspapers count as "real" cartoons
In an academic sense I’m keen to see what happens if there is a no deal.
It seems crazy and unthinkable that planes won’t take off without an aviation treaty for instance. Can we not just all agree to ignore the lawyers for a little while?
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Morning, Mr.D. We might have to differ on our definitions of legitimate.
On other matters, Brazil looks as though it will be rather cold for the GP - which suggests a nailed on Mercedes win (barring engine problems). Are you tempted by the Hamilton odds ?
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
Boris always did want to make a splash at the top of government
Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe might, he family fear, get an extra sentence as a result of the careless statement. nIf she does, resignation would be the only honourable act for Boris. And sacking him the only honoutable act for May.
I disagree. An evil, oppressive regime taking advantage of a mistake is not a resigning matter. If they wanted to give her a longer sentence they would have found a reason. That's just the way it rolls.
The lack of predictable longevity in a politicians career is one reason why we end up with wastrels and chancers in power
"Boris's well documented appalling behaviour towards women."
I don't approve of his morals but it takes two to tango. As far as I know, it's all been consensual, but I bow to your greater knowledge of his sexual assignations.
Awaits the Blackadder style reveal that he was that woman with interest....
In an academic sense I’m keen to see what happens if there is a no deal.
It seems crazy and unthinkable that planes won’t take off without an aviation treaty for instance. Can we not just all agree to ignore the lawyers for a little while?
I'm hardly going to agree with that suggestion, am I?
In an academic sense I’m keen to see what happens if there is a no deal.
It seems crazy and unthinkable that planes won’t take off without an aviation treaty for instance. Can we not just all agree to ignore the lawyers for a little while?
In his subsequent Twitter exchanges he makes the point that the way of his scenario is that the UK Gvt commits to pay the €60 million before December, unlocking at least a path to deals on the other issues. This is credible - it was always likely that we would have to make a significant payment. But the political handling and fallout from this should be interesting...
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
How many millions of murders, how many shattered lives are you celebrating today?
They don't catch prey with webs. It might be building a cocoon for young - or preparing to moult. Taranatulas still have the ability to produce silk.
But just think - if tarantulas made webs and sat in the middle of them like other spiders - how big/strong would it have to be?! (Arachnophobes might not want to dwell on that image...)
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
No they didn't. The Bolsheviks for all their majority on the Petrograd Soviet were a small group of professional and mostly wealthy revolutionaries. The coup they launched was remarkable chiefly for how few people were actually involved. For nearly a month afterwards everyone just laughed at the Bolsheviks when they tried to give orders, much as they had at Kerensky and before him Miliukov. Right up until the moment they dissolved the constituent assembly by force in fact.
Even then there were reasons for the Red Terror - it wasn't just that Lenin was, in McCauley's words, 'as bloodthirsty as a vampire.'
It is standard revolutionary procedure for a group of intellectuals and activists to use the anger of the ordinary folk for their purposes. That is what the Bolsheviks did, but also what the Aaron Banks and Nigel Farages of this world did.
The anger and war weariness of the poor people of Petrograd did not bring an end of suffering. Indeed it was only the beginning. That is the Brexit parallel.
See you later, places to go, Winter Palaces to storm, people to see...
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yes, we hear hyperbole like 'catastrophe' on here every single day.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, it's fine and people are happily getting on with their lives.
People are certainly getting on with their lives. Recent voting patterns may suggest that they are not doing so all that happily.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
Boris always did want to make a splash at the top of government
Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe might, he family fear, get an extra sentence as a result of the careless statement. nIf she does, resignation would be the only honourable act for Boris. And sacking him the only honoutable act for May.
I disagree. An evil, oppressive regime taking advantage of a mistake is not a resigning matter. If they wanted to give her a longer sentence they would have found a reason. That's just the way it rolls.
The lack of predictable longevity in a politicians career is one reason why we end up with wastrels and chancers in power
Struggling to see how the possible demise of Boris's career doesn't reduce the quota of wastrels and chancers?
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
How many millions of murders, how many shattered lives are you celebrating today?
I think it was Alexe Sale on the BBC yesterday saying that you can’t make an omelet without murdering 40m.
In an academic sense I’m keen to see what happens if there is a no deal.
It seems crazy and unthinkable that planes won’t take off without an aviation treaty for instance. Can we not just all agree to ignore the lawyers for a little while?
I'm hardly going to agree with that suggestion, am I?
Oh I have no doubt there will be plenty of legal work looking for a precedent/justification/compensation deal for us all getting on with things while the politicians sort stuff out.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
12/ EU officials don't think UK Gov working in national interest; worse, believe May & Davis don't understand process, or what no-deal means 25/ As Barnier's made clear, there's no bespoke transition. That means we have to stay in EEA, and to make that seamless, apply to join EFTA
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
How many millions of murders, how many shattered lives are you celebrating today?
I think it was Alexe Sale on the BBC yesterday saying that you can’t make an omelet without murdering 40m.
I wouldn’t mind, but it wasn’t even a good omelet!
In an academic sense I’m keen to see what happens if there is a no deal.
It seems crazy and unthinkable that planes won’t take off without an aviation treaty for instance. Can we not just all agree to ignore the lawyers for a little while?
There will be a deal. But it is looking increasingly like it will be a last minute mess, cobbled together on the back of an envelope. Even now David Davis has not worked out that for anything to actually happen it has to be given the green light by the European parliament. Obviously, he will finally come to understand that, just as he now realises that leaving the EU is a lot more complicated than he was saying a year ago, but it will take a bit more time; so making the final deal even more sub-optimal. The Minister for Winging It is reaping the rewards of never having bothered to learn about the thing he railed against.
12/ EU officials don't think UK Gov working in national interest; worse, believe May & Davis don't understand process, or what no-deal means 25/ As Barnier's made clear, there's no bespoke transition. That means we have to stay in EEA, and to make that seamless, apply to join EFTA
To be clear, that thread says as much to me about the EU's failings as Britain's. Its own bureaucracy and policy positions are not immutable laws of physics. If it chooses to stick to them, that is a conscious choice, whatever rationale it might put forward for doing so.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
How many millions of murders, how many shattered lives are you celebrating today?
I think it was Alexe Sale on the BBC yesterday saying that you can’t make an omelet without murdering 40m.
I wouldn’t mind, but it wasn’t even a good omelet!
Indeed. Really the second half of the saying should be that it is quite possible to break a lot of eggs and still have nothing edible to show for it.
Morning all. Just catching up, look like Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are both skating on very thin ice as Cabinet members.
Boris always did want to make a splash at the top of government
Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe might, he family fear, get an extra sentence as a result of the careless statement. nIf she does, resignation would be the only honourable act for Boris. And sacking him the only honoutable act for May.
I disagree. An evil, oppressive regime taking advantage of a mistake is not a resigning matter. If they wanted to give her a longer sentence they would have found a reason. That's just the way it rolls.
The lack of predictable longevity in a politicians career is one reason why we end up with wastrels and chancers in power
'Engage brain before putting mouth into gear' is useful advice.Inability to do that is a serious flaw in a politician.
If only the government had something as organised as a spider's web at its centre.
Er....tarantulas do not spin webs....
I bow to your superior arachnid information.
Coincidentally, I'd just had notification that some records of spiders from my garden have been added to the national Spider Recording Scheme. Seems we have some good ones lurking away in our outbuidlings.
Oh, and perhaps of more importance for the Westmnster analogy - lots of things prey on Tarantulas....
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
How many millions of murders, how many shattered lives are you celebrating today?
I think it was Alexe Sale on the BBC yesterday saying that you can’t make an omelet without murdering 40m.
I wouldn’t mind, but it wasn’t even a good omelet!
Right up there with the most evil and inhuman regimes in history. The Killing Fields were more intense but the scale in Russia was vast. The fact that there are still people proud to call themselves Communists is a genuine source of bewilderment to me. We haven’t seen such delusion since 48% of this country was fooled into voting to remain in the EU.
12/ EU officials don't think UK Gov working in national interest; worse, believe May & Davis don't understand process, or what no-deal means 25/ As Barnier's made clear, there's no bespoke transition. That means we have to stay in EEA, and to make that seamless, apply to join EFTA
To be clear, that thread says as much to me about the EU's failings as Britain's. Its own bureaucracy and policy positions are not immutable laws of physics. If it chooses to stick to them, that is a conscious choice, whatever rationale it might put forward for doing so.
In a sane world Boris Johnson would have resigned for his serious error of judgement and Priti Patel would have been sacked for running an independent foreign policy. Theresa May should ponder what purpose she serves if discipline has broken down so completely.
Even as an interested observer it became clear that Brexit and Trump were linked. The two page spread in The Sunday Times, which I've just got around to reading, makes it clear that Russia was involved in both, not just Trump's election.
In a sane world Boris Johnson would have resigned for his serious error of judgement and Priti Patel would have been sacked for running an independent foreign policy. Theresa May should ponder what purpose she serves if discipline has broken down so completely.
In many ways, it couldn't have come at a worse time, with the possibility of yet more reshuffling if the media still have lurid stories about Tory MPs/Ministers to unfurl. Although perhaps someone who was until recently Chief Whip has a decent handle on who is likely to be falling under the bus in short order.
But it does look like another, big reshuffle is required before the end of the year, to try and draw a line under 2017 and have some stable Government team doing the hard yards on Brexit going in 2018.
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
It clearly illustrates how, whilst many Tories are clearly aligned with the political and at least partly with the social objectives that drove the Brexit vote, they are catastrophically adrift from the economic motivations of these voters. This story isn't going to end well.
Yep. After right wing populism we are likely to get left wing populism. The revolution will eat itself.
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
How many millions of murders, how many shattered lives are you celebrating today?
I think it was Alexe Sale on the BBC yesterday saying that you can’t make an omelet without murdering 40m.
I wouldn’t mind, but it wasn’t even a good omelet!
Right up there with the most evil and inhuman regimes in history. The Killing Fields were more intense but the scale in Russia was vast. The fact that there are still people proud to call themselves Communists is a genuine source of bewilderment to me. We haven’t seen such delusion since 48% of this country was fooled into voting to remain in the EU.
(Sneaks off to work).
They know where you work, Comrade.
Soon, we all will. Slopping out duty in the Gulag....
Even as an interested observer it became clear that Brexit and Trump were linked. The two page spread in The Sunday Times, which I've just got around to reading, makes it clear that Russia was involved in both, not just Trump's election.
This was obvious at the time. It was the catalyst for the coining of the site phrase "vapid bilge".
Brexiters were entirely comfortable with the support of Vladimir Putin. Most, it had to be said, on the "enemy's enemy is my friend" approach. But some were actively keen on authoritarian Russian support.
In a sane world Boris Johnson would have resigned for his serious error of judgement and Priti Patel would have been sacked for running an independent foreign policy. Theresa May should ponder what purpose she serves if discipline has broken down so completely.
What do you think Priti was discussing? I wondered if it’s a bit like when the Democratic or Tepublican nominee visits allied countries to build relationships that will be needed if they become President.
How far up shit creek ( a creek of mostly his own shit) must Boris be if he needs Liam Fix to come up with an exculpation this morning? I'd hope that might give Johnson pause for thought, but a hope destined to be dashed I fear.
I'm spending longer each day wondering why I'm still in the Tory party.
I'm irritated by the party's incompetence and political correctness, but see them as better than the alternative.
For since whenever, I (and many other Tories) have been banging on that Labour will be/is bad for the economy, and yet the Tory party are about to instigate the greatest act of economic terrorism I can recall via hard/WTO Brexit.
It is shaking my core values.
Soon I expect cats to chase dogs on this Bizarro world I'm on.
Because there are two strands of conservatism - the political and the economic.
At present they are in conflict while for the last 40 years they haven't been.
I have confidence in the ability of our country folk to reinvent themselves, but it is a change which involves risk.
But they voted to take that risk because they saw the long term future as being brighter outside the EU.
If you are not willing to compromise on the economic risk to achieve the political objectives perhaps you are not a complete match for the conservatives? If that's the case then you need to figure out where you sit on the spectrum of activist - member - supporter - voter - nothing. It doesn't have to be the same place throughout your life (I started as a member, moved to supporter and now oscillate between supporter and voter)
That's a very interesting post and goes some way to explaining to those of us not of the persuasion why otherwise normal people choose to embrace the faith. It could just as easily have been written in 1817 as 2017. Somewhere between activist and member It's a cult no less bewildering than the Masons. It explains why the likes of John Redwood IDS and J R-M are revered. God help us if we have to suffer a reinvention for the sake of THEIR 'political objectives'
"During most of the previous thirty-odd years, Britain and most of the rich West had been run on a deceitful prospectus. Labour and Tories had argued, and even for the most part believed, that they were governing for the whole nation. But that was tosh. They were governing for themselves and for those who work in the City and the service sector in London and the South-East. They were governing for property owners. They were governing for a highly skilled, internationally mobile elite of corporate executives, bankers and entrepreneurs. This is not revolutionary rhetoric, it is observable fact, which cannot be ignored by left or right."
The world changed in the last 40 years, not because of the actions of the British government, but because of technology.
In 1977, the number of British authors who had international sales could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. The City was organised solely around British companies and British savers.
The world globalised, thanks to technology and cheap travel. This was a boon to those with skills and foreign languages, and sucked for those who had neither.
But - to repeat - this was not die to the government running the country for these people, but because the world changed.
Let me take my favourite example. In the US, Fort Dearborn used to employ 130,000 people. It now employs 3,000 - and produces more vehicles. It sucks to be a skiller manual worker in the Great Lakes. But the problems are fundamentally the same as those when the spinning jenny came along; it made a whole class of people redundant.
Our government cannot mandate skilled working class manual jobs. Now, sure, it could do more to encourage them (look at Germany as a good example), but the truth is that more material products can be produced by fewer people. And we, as a nation, are dependent on our ability to produce things the world wants to pay for our raw materials.
That's true.
But what's going to happen as globalisation and new technology make whole classes of skilled middle class people redundant in the West ?
For one thing many of those who have benefitted over the past generation will demand the government now protects them from change.
While others will end up competing for the low skilled service jobs with the economic migrants they were so previously supportive of.
Mr. Sandpit, doubt Mercedes will have any team orders, to be honest.
Maybe not official team orders, but Lewis knows the score and if he can help his team mate out he probably will. Bottas is only 15 points behind Vettel in the race for second.
12/ EU officials don't think UK Gov working in national interest; worse, believe May & Davis don't understand process, or what no-deal means 25/ As Barnier's made clear, there's no bespoke transition. That means we have to stay in EEA, and to make that seamless, apply to join EFTA
As mentioned yesterday, the more I think about it the more I believe that the only possible way forward for us and the EU is to extend A50 for two more years (Lis' pt. 32).
If there was a betting opportunity I would lump on that option.
But what about the Euroloons JRM, JR, WC, etc? Good question - but she either faces them down or the country takes one almighty shellacking.
Comments
A J Cronin?
Alastair McLean?
Evelyn Waugh?
H G Wells
E M Forster
Ian Fleming
Edit: George Orwell
P G Wodehouse
C S Forester
Can we all agree that Mr Smithson Jr has slightly unusual hands - more unusual than those of the Fringes people in The Chrysalids, indeed!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-06/second-saudi-prince-confirmed-killed-during-crackdown
Saw this just now, re Weinstein. Unbelievable:
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/927682127155560448
“I've spent ten years detoxifying this party. It's been a bit like renovating an old, old house, yeah? You can take out a sexist beam here, a callous window there, replace the odd homophobic roof tile. But after a while you realise that this renovation is doomed. Because the foundations are built on what I can only describe as a solid bed of c***s.”
They're leaving May in place because they are hoping that when the whole thing collapses they can step off as they hit the ground, brush the dust off, then be seen as the hero who rebuilds the country and the party for a glorious victory in 2022. That they are willing to let the country be smashed in order to realise their ambition is the worst of the worst. Say what you like about Corbyn, he would be delighted to become PM today if it meant avoiding the crash - where are the patriots in the Tory benches? And no, not the false patriots who think our best future is to stop free trade. The ones who aren't delusional and understand very well how Britain works and would quite like it to keep going.
Next leader? From that cluster of cowards? They'd all be as bad as each other. Give it to Fox for all the difference it would make.
Ellis Peters was writing at that stage - her first Cadfael was published in 1977 - but it might be stretching it to say she had achieved worldwide fame. That came a bit later.
There needs to be a re-alignment to a more non-aligned foreign policy post Brexit, with countries like Russia and Iran not treated as pariah states, and a cooling in relationships with unsavoury regimes/groups in the Middle-East, particularly those run by Sunni fanatics. A Corbyn-led government would be much better at achieving this.
Well, it's a point of view I suppose...
On that note, today is the 100th anniversary of one of the most momentous events in modern world history, when the ordinary people took action against a suprr rich elite that ignored their concerns.
All power to the Soviets!
Of course, being offered it is one thing, accepting it, as Charles Clarke and to a lesser extent Alistair Darling proved, is another thing entirely.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, it's fine and people are happily getting on with their lives.
Williamson might get the gig because everybody else is either involved in scandal or just buggering everything up so badly.
Not a pretty state of affairs.
The BBC's still trying to make a song and dance about rich people using legitimate means to pay less tax. I still don't care at all.
Even then there were reasons for the Red Terror - it wasn't just that Lenin was, in McCauley's words, 'as bloodthirsty as a vampire.'
At present they are in conflict while for the last 40 years they haven't been.
I have confidence in the ability of our country folk to reinvent themselves, but it is a change which involves risk.
But they voted to take that risk because they saw the long term future as being brighter outside the EU.
If you are not willing to compromise on the economic risk to achieve the political objectives perhaps you are not a complete match for the conservatives? If that's the case then you need to figure out where you sit on the spectrum of activist - member - supporter - voter - nothing. It doesn't have to be the same place throughout your life (I started as a member, moved to supporter and now oscillate between supporter and voter)
"Boris's well documented appalling behaviour towards women."
I don't approve of his morals but it takes two to tango. As far as I know, it's all been consensual, but I bow to your greater knowledge of his sexual assignations.
Have a good morning.
French coming to terms with UK cultivating perigord truffles
http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2017/11/06/01008-20171106ARTFIG00216-des-truffes-cultivees-en-grande-bretagne.php
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/what-happened-when-my-partner-became-prime-minister-clarke-gayford-jacinda-ardern
Judging by Marf's venom (are tarantulas venomous?) he does think that cartoons that are not published in newspapers count as "real" cartoons
The way we get the rich to pay more tax is to make it attractive to do so, not by levying punitive rates. No-one who spends 10 months of the year travelling around the world is going to base themselves somewhere with a 47% income tax rate. The way to get large companies selling services (Google) to pay taxes is with international agreement. Just as well we’ll be getting back our seat on the WTO in 2019.
https://twitter.com/jonlis1/status/927551446186450944
Corbyn (well, McDonnell primarily) would welcome a crash for different reasons with different ends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilm7fafT1d8
In an academic sense I’m keen to see what happens if there is a no deal.
It seems crazy and unthinkable that planes won’t take off without an aviation treaty for instance. Can we not just all agree to ignore the lawyers for a little while?
We might have to differ on our definitions of legitimate.
On other matters, Brazil looks as though it will be rather cold for the GP - which suggests a nailed on Mercedes win (barring engine problems).
Are you tempted by the Hamilton odds ?
The lack of predictable longevity in a politicians career is one reason why we end up with wastrels and chancers in power
But just think - if tarantulas made webs and sat in the middle of them like other spiders - how big/strong would it have to be?! (Arachnophobes might not want to dwell on that image...)
The anger and war weariness of the poor people of Petrograd did not bring an end of suffering. Indeed it was only the beginning. That is the Brexit parallel.
See you later, places to go, Winter Palaces to storm, people to see...
That he won't resign and can't be sacked is one reason why we end up with wastrels and chancers in power
25/ As Barnier's made clear, there's no bespoke transition. That means we have to stay in EEA, and to make that seamless, apply to join EFTA
Checked yesterday but there was only the winner market. If it were wet, that'd open up interesting Verstappen/Hulkenberg possibilities.
Oh, and perhaps of more importance for the Westmnster analogy - lots of things prey on Tarantulas....
(Sneaks off to work).
Hamilton 2.3
Verstappen 4.9
Vettel 5.3
Ricciardo 12
Bottas 13.5
Raikkonen 26
All others 100.
Maybe Bottas is the value there, Lewis will let him by if possible, as the Finn is chasing Vettel for 2nd in the drivers’ championship.
That is her sole purpose. If that looks like failing she will be gone by lunchtime
But it does look like another, big reshuffle is required before the end of the year, to try and draw a line under 2017 and have some stable Government team doing the hard yards on Brexit going in 2018.
Soon, we all will. Slopping out duty in the Gulag....
On spiders: scientists found that giving them drugs made their webs more chaotic, except one [forget which, alas] which actually improved them.
Brexiters were entirely comfortable with the support of Vladimir Putin. Most, it had to be said, on the "enemy's enemy is my friend" approach. But some were actively keen on authoritarian Russian support.
I wondered if it’s a bit like when the Democratic or Tepublican nominee visits allied countries to build relationships that will be needed if they become President.
But what's going to happen as globalisation and new technology make whole classes of skilled middle class people redundant in the West ?
For one thing many of those who have benefitted over the past generation will demand the government now protects them from change.
While others will end up competing for the low skilled service jobs with the economic migrants they were so previously supportive of.
If there was a betting opportunity I would lump on that option.
But what about the Euroloons JRM, JR, WC, etc? Good question - but she either faces them down or the country takes one almighty shellacking.