Regardless of party poll figures, I'd still say Miliband comes out of all this looking good unless he starts advocating limiting the press and that suggestion can be tied to his personal dislike of this type of action. He's sticking up for a man who cannot defend itself, he doesn't look weak (although pretending he is weak seems to have been abandoned as a strategy in the past month or so in any case), and most people don't really know anything about or have that much dislike of marxism (older people might, you say, but then they are not as likely to change their votes, and even if they do other factors would have more of an impact than the non-news that Ed M's dad was a no good marxist). Hostile press stories are part of the game, but the perception of Ed M as a person has the potential to have been improved by this mess, and certainly not diminished, so at best nothing bad for the Tories will come from this, and at worse Ed M does accrue some benefit, even if the daily poll figures, which we are constantly reminded are worthless (when people don't like them), do not immediately support that.
The Mail sending a reporter on to QT will be seen by some as brave. The fact he brought his own spade and continued digging will be seen as quite stupid.
'However, who thought it would be a good idea to resurrect Alistair Campbell - like some latter-day Frankenstein's Monster - to harass representatives of the free press on Ed Miliband's behalf?'
Summed up in Peter Oborne's tribute to comical Ali.
'“This protestation that he treated politicians with respect is so completely contemptuous of the truth that I feel a kind of moral obligation to correct it. No political journalist in my lifetime has treated politicians with such utter, total and complete contempt as Alastair Campbell did during his career for the Daily Mirror and Today newspaper (and later as a government adviser inside Downing Street). His personal conduct was far, far worse and more demeaning than any Daily Mail journalist.”
Are QT audiences weighted according to national voting patterns or the local area where the show is being held? Birmingham (excl. Sutton Coldfield) hasn't elected a Tory MP for 23 years...
Comrade Mehdi gets a massive cheer from QT audience!
Comrade Sunil.
Comrade Josef Vissarionovich received a 43 minute standing ovation after he addressed the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in October 1952.
The response dwarfed that received by Comrade Mehdi from the QT audience.
Indeed the ovation given to Comrade Stalin was second only to that given to Comrade Ralph after he gave an illustrated lecture to his LSE students on the role he played in the WWII Normandy landings.
Really though, it comes down to electoral maths, and currently the Conservatives can't win, not while Clegg is in charge of the yellows. If Vince takes over I think there will be a lot of swingback from the red team to the yellows and it will result in a decent performance for the Tories, at least maintaining their status as largest party in the house.
The flipside of that is that Clegg isn't exactly an electoral asset to say the least. The tories need to win in the tory lib dem battlegrounds. So there's an argument that having a toxic Clegg as an opponent in those will help them much more where it counts rather than in seats where it doesn't matter as much that are more inclined to labour and have more labour voters.
QT definately past it's sell-by date. It looks old and worn out, especially with a chairman who likes to take the limelight and can't chair the proceedings fairly anyway.
Comrade Mehdi gets a massive cheer from QT audience!
Comrade Sunil.
Comrade Josef Vissarionovich received a 43 minute standing ovation after he addressed the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in October 1952.
The response dwarfed that received by Comrade Mehdi from the QT audience.
Indeed the ovation given to Comrade Stalin was second only to that given to Comrade Ralph after he gave an illustrated lecture to his LSE students on his role in the WWII Normandy landings.
Nazi from the West Sept 1st, USSR 17th of Sept from East. When the two armies met there were some prisoner exchanges with Gestapo handing over anti-Communists, and the NKVD handing over anti-Nazis.
Really though, it comes down to electoral maths, and currently the Conservatives can't win, not while Clegg is in charge of the yellows. If Vince takes over I think there will be a lot of swingback from the red team to the yellows and it will result in a decent performance for the Tories, at least maintaining their status as largest party in the house.
The flipside of that is that Clegg isn't exactly an electoral asset to say the least. The tories need to win in the tory lib dem battlegrounds. So there's an argument that having a toxic Clegg as an opponent in those will help them much more where it counts rather than in seats where it doesn't matter as much that are more inclined to labour and have more labour voters.
I think having Vince as an asset helps more in the Con/Lab and Lab/Con marginals than Clegg as a liability in the Lib/Con and Con/Lib marginals. Mostly because there are more of the former than the latter type. Not just that but a lot of the rump LD supporters right now will be on the right of their party and may feel more at home with a Cameron led Tory party than a Vince led Lib Dems since he is definitely a left leaning Lib Dem. Vince helps the LDs against Labour though and will keep them in the running in much of the north where they and Clegg are absolutely toxic.
It's amazing how the behaviour of QT audiences has declined over the last few decades.
I was watching an old show from 1984 the other day and the audience didn't shout out or laugh at anyone despite the fact that Norman Tebbit was on the panel and the miner's strike was going on at the time.
Is that really a decline in behaviour by the audience or a shift in what is now deemed acceptable in that particular setting, which people are adapting to now they are allowed?
For the Leaders' debates in 2010 the audiences were not allowed to so much as clap, IIRC, and were able to stick to that rule, so it wouldn't be hard to get the same to happen on other shows. For QT, which is in part public theatre, clearly the producers must have ceased chastising people for interventions or emphasizing they must not respond in such a way, tacitly approving of it for whatever reason (adds to the ambience perhaps?), and so people in the audience have come to see it as ok, because the people running the programme clearly agree or they'd have stopped it a long time ago.
The behaviour of the audience hasn't really declined, which probably unintentionally implies the audience has gotten worse; the format of the programme has just had a retool in recognition of shifting attitudes of acceptability in the culture. That might be good or bad of course.
The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact arranged for both Germany and the USSR to invade Poland in September 1939. The Russians invaded on 17th September 1939, and in fact occupied more Polish territory than the Germans. On 23rd September the two victorious generals met, and held a joint parade of their troops at Brest (then in Poland). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armia_Czerwona,Wehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact arranged for both Germany and the USSR to invade Poland in September 1939. The Russians invaded on 17th September 1939, and in fact occupied more Polish territory than the Germans. On 23rd September the two victorious generals met, and held a joint parade of their troops at Brest (then in Poland). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armia_Czerwona,Wehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg
So we can say the Soviets were 100% responsible for deaths in the USSR between at least 1939 and 1941.
The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact arranged for both Germany and the USSR to invade Poland in September 1939. The Russians invaded on 17th September 1939, and in fact occupied more Polish territory than the Germans. On 23rd September the two victorious generals met, and held a joint parade of their troops at Brest (then in Poland). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armia_Czerwona,Wehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg
Would that be the "Polish" territory mostly inhabited by Belarusians and Ukrainians conquered by Poland in 1920?
It's amazing how the behaviour of QT audiences has declined over the last few decades.
I was watching an old show from 1984 the other day and the audience didn't shout out or laugh at anyone despite the fact that Norman Tebbit was on the panel and the miner's strike was going on at the time.
Is that really a decline in behaviour by the audience or a shift in what is now deemed acceptable in that particular setting, which people are adapting to now they are allowed?
For the Leaders' debates in 2010 the audiences were not allowed to so much as clap, IIRC, and were able to stick to that rule, so it wouldn't be hard to get the same to happen on other shows. For QT, which is in part public theatre, clearly the producers must have ceased chastising people for interventions or emphasizing they must not respond in such a way, tacitly approving of it for whatever reason (adds to the ambience perhaps?), and so people in the audience have come to see it as ok, because the people running the programme clearly agree or they'd have stopped it a long time ago.
The behaviour of the audience hasn't really declined, which probably unintentionally implies the audience has gotten worse; the format of the programme has just had a retool in recognition of shifting attitudes of acceptability in the culture. That might be good or bad of course.
Yes, a lot of people will think it's a good thing for the QT audience to be less deferential these days, although I'm a bit sceptical about it myself.
The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact arranged for both Germany and the USSR to invade Poland in September 1939. The Russians invaded on 17th September 1939, and in fact occupied more Polish territory than the Germans. On 23rd September the two victorious generals met, and held a joint parade of their troops at Brest (then in Poland). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armia_Czerwona,Wehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg
So we can say the Soviets were 100% responsible for deaths in the USSR between at least 1939 and 1941.
How about deaths in France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece and last but not least the UK during the Blitz?
I think having Vince as an asset helps more in the Con/Lab and Lab/Con marginals than Clegg as a liability in the Lib/Con and Con/Lib marginals. Mostly because there are more of the former than the latter type.
Not so sure about that. Vince would get a great many tactical voters back onside for the lib dems but getting former lib dems to switch completely from labour to lib dem in Lab/Con Con/Lab seats? He'd get some, you're right about that but not that many I don't think.
Not just that but a lot of the rump LD supporters right now will be on the right of their party and may feel more at home with a Cameron led Tory party than a Vince led Lib Dems since he is definitely a left leaning Lib Dem. Vince helps the LDs against Labour though and will keep them in the running in much of the north where they and Clegg are absolutely toxic.
That seems fair enough but again the conservatives really do need to take a big chunk of the Con/Lib dem battleground marginals and there are plenty of those. Even changing leader to Vince isn't likely to propel them to a greater number of wins than 2010 in labour seats but it would minimise the destruction some. They might not get hammered as much but they won't be making many if any gains even under Vince.
The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact arranged for both Germany and the USSR to invade Poland in September 1939. The Russians invaded on 17th September 1939, and in fact occupied more Polish territory than the Germans. On 23rd September the two victorious generals met, and held a joint parade of their troops at Brest (then in Poland). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armia_Czerwona,Wehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg
Would that be the "Polish" territory mostly inhabited by Belarusians and Ukrainians conquered by Poland in 1920?
Wasn't that bit conquered by that piano player, er Pilsudski IIRC?
There were plenty of Poles there. Enough for mass deportations to the East, and also for thousands to be murdered and buried in the Katyn forest. That is before we get to the Baltic republics and Bessarabia.
Most of the Bits of Polish extraction who were here before 2004 were these deportees, who came out of the USSR via Iran to form the Polish army and Airforce fighting in British Uniforms. Quite a lot settled around Leicestershire, indeed the Catholic Church in Melton Mowbray has held services in Polish since the war.
The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact arranged for both Germany and the USSR to invade Poland in September 1939. The Russians invaded on 17th September 1939, and in fact occupied more Polish territory than the Germans. On 23rd September the two victorious generals met, and held a joint parade of their troops at Brest (then in Poland). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armia_Czerwona,Wehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg
Would that be the "Polish" territory mostly inhabited by Belarusians and Ukrainians conquered by Poland in 1920?
Comrade Mehdi gets a massive cheer from QT audience!
Comrade Sunil.
Comrade Josef Vissarionovich received a 43 minute standing ovation after he addressed the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in October 1952.
The response dwarfed that received by Comrade Mehdi from the QT audience.
Indeed the ovation given to Comrade Stalin was second only to that given to Comrade Ralph after he gave an illustrated lecture to his LSE students on the role he played in the WWII Normandy landings.
Whatever Miliband R did he did on a warship. Voluntarily being on a warship in ww2 was an act of great bravery whether you were commanding the thing or responsible for cleaning the other ranks latrines. We had this nonsense about the d of Edinburgh's war record from the Kinnock faction last year, and it is equally nonsense now.
Marxism killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century, but Marxists deserve the benefit of the doubt because "they mean well".
I've never been able to understand that particular argument.
Comrade Andy!
The Fascists killed only 70 million (mostly by way of starting WW2 of course) but in only 12 years (out of a supposedly 1000 Year Reich!):
70 million/12 = 5.8 million deaths a year
Communists, OK, 100 million (we'll accept your figure) but over a much longer period, 74 years (1917 Revolution to 1991 end of Cold War).
100 million/74 = 1.4 million deaths a year
Surely it's the absolute numbers that matter most.
I don't think you can assign 100% of WWII deaths to the fascists, because the Russian Communists used the war as an excuse to kill a lot of people.
They started it! They invaded Poland!
Didn't both Germany and Russia invade Poland at the same time?
No! the Germans invaded on Sept 1st 1939; the Russians on the 17th September. Historical ignorance is rife on PB.
That would depend on the topic. I hope your knowledge of the second Punic War is up to scratch, as mine certainly isn't. Does the fact that WW2 is more recent, and thus of less academic interest to me personally, mean I am historically ignorant because I can't recall the exact date of the Normandy Landings without checking, or am I ignorant because I always forget who the Fifth member of the Five Members was (I always think of Montagu, but he was a Peer, not one of the Five) even if I remember who the Speaker was at that event?
Historical ignorance is indeed rife, mine own included sadly, but it's tough to know which bits everyone should be expected to know and what is a bonus if you know it. Is confusion over the soviets and nazi invasions of Poland being separated by 16 days as big a faux pas as not knowing the significance of Gladstone and Disraeli?
I suspect only Michael Gove can settle such a question.
It's amazing how the behaviour of QT audiences has declined over the last few decades.
I was watching an old show from 1984 the other day and the audience didn't shout out or laugh at anyone despite the fact that Norman Tebbit was on the panel and the miner's strike was going on at the time.
Is that really a decline in behaviour by the audience or a shift in what is now deemed acceptable in that particular setting, which people are adapting to now they are allowed?
For the Leaders' debates in 2010 the audiences were not allowed to so much as clap, IIRC, and were able to stick to that rule, so it wouldn't be hard to get the same to happen on other shows. For QT, which is in part public theatre, clearly the producers must have ceased chastising people for interventions or emphasizing they must not respond in such a way, tacitly approving of it for whatever reason (adds to the ambience perhaps?), and so people in the audience have come to see it as ok, because the people running the programme clearly agree or they'd have stopped it a long time ago.
The behaviour of the audience hasn't really declined, which probably unintentionally implies the audience has gotten worse; the format of the programme has just had a retool in recognition of shifting attitudes of acceptability in the culture. That might be good or bad of course.
Yes, a lot of people will think it's a good thing for the QT audience to be less deferential these days, although I'm a bit sceptical about it myself.
It does rather put to bed the m yth that people don't really like the jeering and such at PMQs; when permitted, the public do the same, and not I suspect in imitation, but because it is what is expected. A minority may find both situations appalling, but the majority either don't care, enjoy the fight, or secretly enjoy being able to be disapproving of it.
I wouldn't mind a little more decorum myself, but then as a political junkie (comparitively), I think I get worn out by the usual political games more than ordinary people (whereas your true political animals never tire of it at all).
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
Traditionally, economies grow very strongly as they first escape from recession. This recovery has - until now - been lamentably lacking in such buoyancy.
IF we do so see 3-4% annual GDP growth that will feel genuinely good and will totally shift the narrative. Big if, though.
Quiz Night
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Would that be the "Polish" territory mostly inhabited by Belarusians and Ukrainians conquered by Poland in 1920?
Possibly, I don't have the two maps in front of me...
Anyway, it shows how unwise it is to go to war of behalf of a far off country [with historically shifting borders anyhow], of which we know nothing, even more so when the ultimate victor would be a third party (Stalin)...
I have no doubt that Ralph Millibands war service was laudable from 1943-6. It does not, however, prove his patriotism for Britain though, but rather his desire to fight the Nazis. Lots of people who fought the Nazis were British Patriots, others were motivated by a loathing of fascism. We do not know which was Ralph Milibands motivation.
He did seem to become very disillusioned by Stalinism in the early 1950's though, and was never a member of the Communist party. He was a good writer, and much more readable than most left wing intellectuals. A lot of his writings are found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/
Comrade Mehdi gets a massive cheer from QT audience!
Comrade Sunil.
Comrade Josef Vissarionovich received a 43 minute standing ovation after he addressed the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in October 1952.
The response dwarfed that received by Comrade Mehdi from the QT audience.
Indeed the ovation given to Comrade Stalin was second only to that given to Comrade Ralph after he gave an illustrated lecture to his LSE students on the role he played in the WWII Normandy landings.
Whatever Miliband R did he did on a warship. Voluntarily being on a warship in ww2 was an act of great bravery whether you were commanding the thing or responsible for cleaning the other ranks latrines. We had this nonsense about the d of Edinburgh's war record from the Kinnock faction last year, and it is equally nonsense now.
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
Traditionally, economies grow very strongly as they first escape from recession. This recovery has - until now - been lamentably lacking in such buoyancy.
IF we do so see 3-4% annual GDP growth that will feel genuinely good and will totally shift the narrative. Big if, though.
Quiz Night
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Under which PM did this occur, when and why?
Harold Wilson, 1974, someone put the decimal in the wrong place (you did only say it was 'recorded', not achieved )
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
Traditionally, economies grow very strongly as they first escape from recession. This recovery has - until now - been lamentably lacking in such buoyancy.
IF we do so see 3-4% annual GDP growth that will feel genuinely good and will totally shift the narrative. Big if, though.
Quiz Night
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Sean T - just to show that whilst noone is saying 4% growth, the scale of this bounce from the 'balance sheet recession' which Invesco kept telling me would always pan out with a very slow recovery (despite whatever Balls or Ozzie did) seems to be coming to an end earlier than they and certainly Balls thought it would: .......
"Bank of England officials, however, are likely to take the view that the PMIs may well be exaggerating the rate of growth. Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member Ben Broadbent said in a recent speech that the PMIs had been pointing to a 5% annualised rate of growth and "this may be an over-estimate."
Broadbent says "if only from a statistical perspective, it would be reasonable to expect a degree of moderation from here."
There were plenty of Poles there. Enough for mass deportations to the East, and also for thousands to be murdered and buried in the Katyn forest. That is before we get to the Baltic republics and Bessarabia.
Most of the Bits of Polish extraction who were here before 2004 were these deportees, who came out of the USSR via Iran to form the Polish army and Airforce fighting in British Uniforms. Quite a lot settled around Leicestershire, indeed the Catholic Church in Melton Mowbray has held services in Polish since the war.
Yes there were Poles there, in 1939, linguistic composition of what would become the Soviet occupation area was Ukrainian 37.1%, Polish 36.5%, Belarusian 15.1%, Yiddish 8.3%, Other 3%.
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
Traditionally, economies grow very strongly as they first escape from recession. This recovery has - until now - been lamentably lacking in such buoyancy.
IF we do so see 3-4% annual GDP growth that will feel genuinely good and will totally shift the narrative. Big if, though.
Quiz Night
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Under which PM did this occur, when and why?
Turd Heath
1973Q1
Barber Boom Although I've often wondered if joining the EEC at that point had a statistical effect
Would that be the "Polish" territory mostly inhabited by Belarusians and Ukrainians conquered by Poland in 1920?
Possibly, I don't have the two maps in front of me...
Anyway, it shows how unwise it is to go to war of behalf of a far off country [with historically shifting borders anyhow], of which we know nothing, even more so when the ultimate victor would be a third party (Stalin)...
Marxism killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century, but Marxists deserve the benefit of the doubt because "they mean well".
I've never been able to understand that particular argument.
Comrade Andy!
The Fascists killed only 70 million (mostly by way of starting WW2 of course) but in only 12 years (out of a supposedly 1000 Year Reich!):
70 million/12 = 5.8 million deaths a year
Communists, OK, 100 million (we'll accept your figure) but over a much longer period, 74 years (1917 Revolution to 1991 end of Cold War).
100 million/74 = 1.4 million deaths a year
Surely it's the absolute numbers that matter most.
I don't think you can assign 100% of WWII deaths to the fascists, because the Russian Communists used the war as an excuse to kill a lot of people.
They started it! They invaded Poland!
Didn't both Germany and Russia invade Poland at the same time?
No! the Germans invaded on Sept 1st 1939; the Russians on the 17th September. Historical ignorance is rife on PB.
That would depend on the topic. I hope your knowledge of the second Punic War is up to scratch, as mine certainly isn't. Does the fact that WW2 is more recent, and thus of less academic interest to me personally, mean I am historically ignorant because I can't recall the exact date of the Normandy Landings without checking, or am I ignorant because I always forget who the Fifth member of the Five Members was (I always think of Montagu, but he was a Peer, not one of the Five) even if I remember who the Speaker was at that event?
Historical ignorance is indeed rife, mine own included sadly, but it's tough to know which bits everyone should be expected to know and what is a bonus if you know it. Is confusion over the soviets and nazi invasions of Poland being separated by 16 days as big a faux pas as not knowing the significance of Gladstone and Disraeli?
I suspect only Michael Gove can settle such a question.
My comment was not directed to you personally. If it seemed so, I apologise.
Marxism killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century, but Marxists deserve the benefit of the doubt because "they mean well".
I've never been able to understand that particular argument.
Comrade Andy!
The Fascists killed only 70 million (mostly by way of starting WW2 of course) but in only 12 years (out of a supposedly 1000 Year Reich!):
70 million/12 = 5.8 million deaths a year
Communists, OK, 100 million (we'll accept your figure) but over a much longer period, 74 years (1917 Revolution to 1991 end of Cold War).
100 million/74 = 1.4 million deaths a year
Surely it's the absolute numbers that matter most.
I don't think you can assign 100% of WWII deaths to the fascists, because the Russian Communists used the war as an excuse to kill a lot of people.
They started it! They invaded Poland!
Didn't both Germany and Russia invade Poland at the same time?
No! the Germans invaded on Sept 1st 1939; the Russians on the 17th September. Historical ignorance is rife on PB.
I suspect only Michael Gove can settle such a question.
My comment was not directed to you personally. If it seemed so, I apologise.
I didn't mean to sound snippy, Mike - I was merely using the point you made as a jumping off point to ponder more widely about general historical ignorance (which is something that concerns me a lot) and how difficult it is to know what is most important to commit to memory (particular in these days of wikipedia for tricky little details), with a less than subtle nod at some of the classics obsessed historians who frequent this site, and Michael Gove's tendency to (sometimes effectively, sometimes not) give the impression he knows exactly the system of and content of what children should be learning.
I did not mean to appear to criticise you, and I apologise if I gave that impression.
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
Traditionally, economies grow very strongly as they first escape from recession. This recovery has - until now - been lamentably lacking in such buoyancy.
IF we do so see 3-4% annual GDP growth that will feel genuinely good and will totally shift the narrative. Big if, though.
Quiz Night
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Under which PM did this occur, when and why?
Turd Heath
1973Q1
Barber Boom Although I've often wondered if joining the EEC at that point had a statistical effect
Correct. I think the Barber boom explanation is less plausible than EC accession.
The reason is that the quarters preceding and following the 5.3% were distinctly unimpressive: (except Q2 1972).
QT audiences have AFAIK always been nominated by local parties, proportionately, and then topped up with people who simply apply to attend. So they should be somewhere between balanced and reflective of the area. But like AndyJS i think that cheering and booing just get in the way of the format, and Any Questions on R4 is vastly superior (I speak as someone who got chewed up by Dimbleby's forensic questioning when I once phoned in with an opinion - I didn't enjoy it but he did a good job).
The YG poll is the post-Cam speech one which SeanT was telling us last week would probably produce crossover. It shows the usual 38% Labour, with Tories picking up UKIP froth from the publicity. Labour's 40-41% figure had a bit of conference froth in it too. As I've been saying for weeks, we'll end up pretty much as we were, with the Tory conundrum of how to erode that 38% no further forward. But a poll that weights certainty to vote might be interesting - Labour has emerged from the season in better heart than the Tories, who sound defensive and tired.
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
Traditionally, economies grow very strongly as they first escape from recession. This recovery has - until now - been lamentably lacking in such buoyancy.
IF we do so see 3-4% annual GDP growth that will feel genuinely good and will totally shift the narrative. Big if, though.
Quiz Night
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Under which PM did this occur, when and why?
Turd Heath
1973Q1
Barber Boom Although I've often wondered if joining the EEC at that point had a statistical effect
Correct. I think the Barber boom explanation is less plausible than EC accession.
The reason is that the quarters preceding and following the 5.3% were distinctly unimpressive: (except Q2 1972).
The other mystery on the UK GDP figures is 1979Q2 and Q3 which are an enormous increase followed by a huge drop.
Although there are possible explanations - the recovery from the winter of discontent and then the effect of the VAT increase these don't seem enough from what we know of the effects of similar events in more recent years.
BBC Bristol - Robin Markwell @robinmarkwell Breaking; the Labour PPC for Kingswood Josie Channer has resigned. Cllr Channer owed her own council over £2k in fines. More tmrw on @bbcrb
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
Traditionally, economies grow very strongly as they first escape from recession. This recovery has - until now - been lamentably lacking in such buoyancy.
IF we do so see 3-4% annual GDP growth that will feel genuinely good and will totally shift the narrative. Big if, though.
Quiz Night
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Under which PM did this occur, when and why?
Turd Heath
1973Q1
Barber Boom Although I've often wondered if joining the EEC at that point had a statistical effect
Correct. I think the Barber boom explanation is less plausible than EC accession.
The reason is that the quarters preceding and following the 5.3% were distinctly unimpressive: (except Q2 1972).
I heard a report about today's Markit service PMI figures that they indicate GDP growth of over 4% at that level of positivity... clearly not on the cards but compared to the last few years we are looking at some pretty stonking figures it seems:
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
Traditionally, economies grow very strongly as they first escape from recession. This recovery has - until now - been lamentably lacking in such buoyancy.
IF we do so see 3-4% annual GDP growth that will feel genuinely good and will totally shift the narrative. Big if, though.
Quiz Night
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Under which PM did this occur, when and why?
Turd Heath
1973Q1
Barber Boom Although I've often wondered if joining the EEC at that point had a statistical effect
Correct. I think the Barber boom explanation is less plausible than EC accession.
The reason is that the quarters preceding and following the 5.3% were distinctly unimpressive: (except Q2 1972).
The largest contraction in the GDP growth rate in a single quarter since 1955 is -2.5%.
This rate occurred twice, once under a Labour government and once under a Tory government.
When and who was PM?
Brown is right but not 1998.
Home not right.
Dr Sox
My figures only go back to 1955. I am sure the 1930s saw some very substantial quarterly falls but I don't have access to them (at least on a quarterly basis).
On the issue of the Mail vs Miliband, I am very much in agreement with the various views expressed by Cyclefree, Seant, Plato, TessyC and Antrifrank on today's threads.
Its really worth catching the last segment of This Week, the issue of Prince William and his relationship with the press due to the continued interest of the media in his late mother came up. I would actually broaden this point to include his brother Harry and his father, but week in and week out there is much written about Diana which tries to delve into and reflect on the character of both Princes and their father on a regularly basis.
Who is the more statesmanlike at dealing with this constant media onslaught as opposed to one 'polemic' article' with a dodgy contentious headline written about Ralph Miliband? Where does Ed Miliband, John Prescott, Alastair Campbell or even Owen Jones stand on the issue, or have they ignored the Royal Family as fair game and are thinking more out of the political box in trying to silence a very powerful critic in the media? Ed Miliband waited until the Tory Conference was in full flow before going nuclear on his attack with the mail, he has ignored the PPC, and even in his letter to the Daily Mail owners he got the main thrust of his latest political soundbite neatly tucked into the letter made public.
One last question to the PB community, having scanned the earlier threads I discovered that my female Conservative hating stalker was keen to use my name in vein to try to undermine me and a couple of other posters who didn't agree with him on this issue. This would be the same poster who took great delight in deliberately troll baiting me over a long period by describing me as a 'shroud waver' because I disagreed with the last Labour Government's Foreign policy and management of the MOD while my brother was actively serving as a soldier in the UK military. Its the same old story with the Labour party and their supporters, do as we say not as we do ourselves when it comes to taking the morale high ground on any issue.
I don't waant to spoil the fun by revealing the negative quarters answer.
So instead I'll ask you a question:
What is the longest number and second longest number of months of continuous trade deficits and when did they occur ?
OK
Before I look it up, I'll guess.
The last trade surplus is likely to have occurred during peak North Sea Oil and Gas extraction when we were net exporters so between 1998 and 2005.
So I'll go 2004 (a year of relatively weak growth) to current date.
ar
Reading off a graph, it looks like January 1998 to present is the longest run.
And July 87 to Dec 93 the second.
The second being caused presumably by the big dip in oil output and prices.
And 1998 is very early to go into a net deficit given the strength of oil and gas output at the time. Yet another example of Brown squandering his opportunities!
On the issue of the Mail vs Miliband, I am very much in agreement with the various views expressed by Cyclefree, Seant, Plato, TessyC and Antrifrank on today's threads.
Its really worth catching the last segment of This Week, the issue of Prince William and his relationship with the press due to the continued interest of the media in his late mother came up. I would actually broaden this point to include his brother Harry and his father, but week in and week out there is much written about Diana which tries to delve into and reflect on the character of both Princes and their father on a regularly basis.
Who is the more statesmanlike at dealing with this constant media onslaught as opposed to one 'polemic' article' with a dodgy contentious headline written about Ralph Miliband? Where does Ed Miliband, John Prescott, Alastair Campbell or even Owen Jones stand on the issue, or have they ignored the Royal Family as fair game and are thinking more out of the political box in trying to silence a very powerful critic in the media? Ed Miliband waited until the Tory Conference was in full flow before going nuclear on his attack with the mail, he has ignored the PPC, and even in his letter to the Daily Mail owners he got the main thrust of his latest political soundbite neatly tucked into the letter made public.
One last question to the PB community, having scanned the earlier threads I discovered that my female Conservative hating stalker was keen to use my name in vein to try to undermine me and a couple of other posters who didn't agree with him on this issue. This would be the same poster who took great delight in deliberately troll baiting me over a long period by describing me as a 'shroud waver' because I disagreed with the last Labour Government's Foreign policy and management of the MOD while my brother was actively serving as a soldier in the UK military. Its the same old story with the Labour party and their supporters, do as we say not as we do ourselves when it comes to taking the morale high ground on any issue.
QT definately past it's sell-by date. It looks old and worn out, especially with a chairman who likes to take the limelight and can't chair the proceedings fairly anyway.
Dimbleby should have retired with honours after the 2010 general election. Now in his mid seventies he is now losing the deft touch and humour he once had chairing QT and too often ends up just being downright crotchety or unnecessarily pompous as we saw tonight. For 2014 the show should be revamped and a new chair installed or it simply won't survive.
The largest contraction in the GDP growth rate in a single quarter since 1955 is -2.5%.
This rate occurred twice, once under a Labour government and once under a Tory government.
When and who was PM?
Brown is right but not 1998.
Home not right.
Dr Sox
My figures only go back to 1955. I am sure the 1930s saw some very substantial quarterly falls but I don't have access to them (at least on a quarterly basis).
Aylesbury swing since 2011 from Con and Lab to UKIP and Lib Dem
Aylesbury Vale District Council, Oakfield
October 3, 2013
LD Allison Harrison 406 (34.8; +7.4) UKIP 325 (27.8; +16.0) Con 173 (14.8; -10.0) Lab 145 (12.4; -6.9) Ind 118 (10.1; -6.5) Majority 81 Turnout 28.7% LD hold Percentage change is since May 2011.
Aylesbury Town Council, Oakfield
October 3, 2013
LD Mark Willis 391 (33.5) UKIP 304 (26.0) Con 172 (14.7) Lab 155 (13.3) Ind 146 (12.5) Majority 87 Turnout 28.8% LD hold
Comments
'However, who thought it would be a good idea to resurrect Alistair Campbell - like some latter-day Frankenstein's Monster - to harass representatives of the free press on Ed Miliband's behalf?'
Summed up in Peter Oborne's tribute to comical Ali.
'“This protestation that he treated politicians with respect is so completely contemptuous of the truth that I feel a kind of moral obligation to correct it. No political journalist in my lifetime has treated politicians with such utter, total and complete contempt as Alastair Campbell did during his career for the Daily Mirror and Today newspaper (and later as a government adviser inside Downing Street). His personal conduct was far, far worse and more demeaning than any Daily Mail journalist.”
Comrade Josef Vissarionovich received a 43 minute standing ovation after he addressed the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in October 1952.
The response dwarfed that received by Comrade Mehdi from the QT audience.
Indeed the ovation given to Comrade Stalin was second only to that given to Comrade Ralph after he gave an illustrated lecture to his LSE students on the role he played in the WWII Normandy landings.
Didn't both Germany and Russia invade Poland at the same time?
The flipside of that is that Clegg isn't exactly an electoral asset to say the least. The tories need to win in the tory lib dem battlegrounds. So there's an argument that having a toxic Clegg as an opponent in those will help them much more where it counts rather than in seats where it doesn't matter as much that are more inclined to labour and have more labour voters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-6CesO8YPs
Nazi from the West Sept 1st, USSR 17th of Sept from East. When the two armies met there were some prisoner exchanges with Gestapo handing over anti-Communists, and the NKVD handing over anti-Nazis.
For the Leaders' debates in 2010 the audiences were not allowed to so much as clap, IIRC, and were able to stick to that rule, so it wouldn't be hard to get the same to happen on other shows. For QT, which is in part public theatre, clearly the producers must have ceased chastising people for interventions or emphasizing they must not respond in such a way, tacitly approving of it for whatever reason (adds to the ambience perhaps?), and so people in the audience have come to see it as ok, because the people running the programme clearly agree or they'd have stopped it a long time ago.
The behaviour of the audience hasn't really declined, which probably unintentionally implies the audience has gotten worse; the format of the programme has just had a retool in recognition of shifting attitudes of acceptability in the culture. That might be good or bad of course.
On 23rd September the two victorious generals met, and held a joint parade of their troops at Brest (then in Poland).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armia_Czerwona,Wehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg
1. When is the Q3 first GDP estimate?
2. How much longer can Ed Balls (who is now well known for his flat line salute) still be in his position?
Yes the cost of living - real wages growing less than inflation - is important BUT Balls wasn't hanging his 'hat' on that issue, it was the too far too fast rubbish was killing growth and that well known gesture..... could backfire on him now. What a shame.
Sunday Times YouGov week on week chart from OGH should be interesting to see this sunday - comparing post Labour Conf to post Tory Conf... if tonight's YouGov holds up.....
That seems fair enough but again the conservatives really do need to take a big chunk of the Con/Lib dem battleground marginals and there are plenty of those. Even changing leader to Vince isn't likely to propel them to a greater number of wins than 2010 in labour seats but it would minimise the destruction some. They might not get hammered as much but they won't be making many if any gains even under Vince.
Stalin's total ranges between 20 and 60 million:
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789
Conservatives hold St Edmundsbury majority 96 full result to come
Most of the Bits of Polish extraction who were here before 2004 were these deportees, who came out of the USSR via Iran to form the Polish army and Airforce fighting in British Uniforms. Quite a lot settled around Leicestershire, indeed the Catholic Church in Melton Mowbray has held services in Polish since the war.
Historical ignorance is indeed rife, mine own included sadly, but it's tough to know which bits everyone should be expected to know and what is a bonus if you know it. Is confusion over the soviets and nazi invasions of Poland being separated by 16 days as big a faux pas as not knowing the significance of Gladstone and Disraeli?
I suspect only Michael Gove can settle such a question.
Are you willing to bet the YouGov average will be as high for the week commencing from tonight's poll?
Or is it just hot air?
I wouldn't mind a little more decorum myself, but then as a political junkie (comparitively), I think I get worn out by the usual political games more than ordinary people (whereas your true political animals never tire of it at all).
The highest Quarterly GDP growth rate recorded since 1955 is 5.3%.
Under which PM did this occur, when and why?
Anyway, it shows how unwise it is to go to war of behalf of a far off country [with historically shifting borders anyhow], of which we know nothing, even more so when the ultimate victor would be a third party (Stalin)...
He did seem to become very disillusioned by Stalinism in the early 1950's though, and was never a member of the Communist party. He was a good writer, and much more readable than most left wing intellectuals. A lot of his writings are found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/
.......
"Bank of England officials, however, are likely to take the view that the PMIs may well be exaggerating the rate of growth. Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee member Ben Broadbent said in a recent speech that the PMIs had been pointing to a 5% annualised rate of growth and "this may be an over-estimate."
Broadbent says "if only from a statistical perspective, it would be reasonable to expect a degree of moderation from here."
Ethnicity map from 1937 here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland1937linguistic.jpg
1973Q1
Barber Boom
Although I've often wondered if joining the EEC at that point had a statistical effect
And with that, and a happy by-election night to all, I head off to bed.
I'd say 2% but personally think he's too important to Labour in 2015 and should be retained as Shadow Chancellor for many many years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poland1937linguistic.jpg
Map of Poland before the Polish-Soviet War here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PBW_March_1919.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Equatorial_Guinea#Independence
Paraguay halved its population in a few years in the disatrous war of the Triple Alliance, with the male population by some measures down by 85%
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/442711/War-of-the-Triple-Alliance
Toby Young@toadmeister3m
If you're serious about starting a free school in your constituency, @tom_watson, I'd be happy to help
I did not mean to appear to criticise you, and I apologise if I gave that impression.
The reason is that the quarters preceding and following the 5.3% were distinctly unimpressive: (except Q2 1972).
The largest contraction in the GDP growth rate in a single quarter since 1955 is -2.5%.
This rate occurred twice, once under a Labour government and once under a Tory government.
When and who was PM?
The YG poll is the post-Cam speech one which SeanT was telling us last week would probably produce crossover. It shows the usual 38% Labour, with Tories picking up UKIP froth from the publicity. Labour's 40-41% figure had a bit of conference froth in it too. As I've been saying for weeks, we'll end up pretty much as we were, with the Tory conundrum of how to erode that 38% no further forward. But a poll that weights certainty to vote might be interesting - Labour has emerged from the season in better heart than the Tories, who sound defensive and tired.
Labour surely 1998 Brown
Although there are possible explanations - the recovery from the winter of discontent and then the effect of the VAT increase these don't seem enough from what we know of the effects of similar events in more recent years.
Breaking; the Labour PPC for Kingswood Josie Channer has resigned. Cllr Channer owed her own council over £2k in fines. More tmrw on @bbcrb
No other details.
"Labour has emerged from the season in better heart than the Tories, who sound defensive and tired. "
Home not right.
Perhaps the sharp recession was 1932 Stanley Baldwin?
Very close but no.
Here are the 1974 figures:
I don't waant to spoil the fun by revealing the negative quarters answer.
So instead I'll ask you a question:
What is the longest number and second longest number of months of continuous trade deficits and when did they occur ?
My figures only go back to 1955. I am sure the 1930s saw some very substantial quarterly falls but I don't have access to them (at least on a quarterly basis).
Here, in its full glory, is the Brown recession: Still need to get the second -2.5% fall under a Tory PM.
Its really worth catching the last segment of This Week, the issue of Prince William and his relationship with the press due to the continued interest of the media in his late mother came up. I would actually broaden this point to include his brother Harry and his father, but week in and week out there is much written about Diana which tries to delve into and reflect on the character of both Princes and their father on a regularly basis.
Who is the more statesmanlike at dealing with this constant media onslaught as opposed to one 'polemic' article' with a dodgy contentious headline written about Ralph Miliband? Where does Ed Miliband, John Prescott, Alastair Campbell or even Owen Jones stand on the issue, or have they ignored the Royal Family as fair game and are thinking more out of the political box in trying to silence a very powerful critic in the media? Ed Miliband waited until the Tory Conference was in full flow before going nuclear on his attack with the mail, he has ignored the PPC, and even in his letter to the Daily Mail owners he got the main thrust of his latest political soundbite neatly tucked into the letter made public.
One last question to the PB community, having scanned the earlier threads I discovered that my female Conservative hating stalker was keen to use my name in vein to try to undermine me and a couple of other posters who didn't agree with him on this issue. This would be the same poster who took great delight in deliberately troll baiting me over a long period by describing me as a 'shroud waver' because I disagreed with the last Labour Government's Foreign policy and management of the MOD while my brother was actively serving as a soldier in the UK military. Its the same old story with the Labour party and their supporters, do as we say not as we do ourselves when it comes to taking the morale high ground on any issue.
Before I look it up, I'll guess.
The last trade surplus is likely to have occurred during peak North Sea Oil and Gas extraction when we were net exporters so between 1998 and 2005.
So I'll go 2004 (a year of relatively weak growth) to current date.
Reading off a graph, it looks like January 1998 to present is the longest run.
And July 87 to Dec 93 the second.
The second being caused presumably by the big dip in oil output and prices.
And 1998 is very early to go into a net deficit given the strength of oil and gas output at the time. Yet another example of Brown squandering his opportunities!
'Get some sleep, no one cares. Next !'
If you don't care then just scroll by without the idiotic comment.
Aylesbury Vale District Council, Oakfield
October 3, 2013
LD Allison Harrison 406 (34.8; +7.4)
UKIP 325 (27.8; +16.0)
Con 173 (14.8; -10.0)
Lab 145 (12.4; -6.9)
Ind 118 (10.1; -6.5)
Majority 81
Turnout 28.7%
LD hold
Percentage change is since May 2011.
Aylesbury Town Council, Oakfield
October 3, 2013
LD Mark Willis 391 (33.5)
UKIP 304 (26.0)
Con 172 (14.7)
Lab 155 (13.3)
Ind 146 (12.5)
Majority 87
Turnout 28.8%
LD hold