What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
The only satisfying thing is that Corbyn doesn't have any kind of majority or is likely to have, to introduce radical socialism (which NPEXMP wants).
Frankly I think that all the parties are awful. just awful, its got to the point I don't want to hear another word about Brexit or actually care too much about the next GE as long as Corbyn doesn't win nor can form any form of Coalition Govt.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
British Somali teenagers are being taken back to their parents’ homeland under the pretence of a holiday and then kept in detention centres before being forced into marriages.
Under the practice of dhaqan celis, loosely translated as “the rehabilitation community”, Somali children and teenagers are routinely taken to the country, where they are often sent to “rehabilitation” centres.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
Quite. That bits easy enough, but the fact that the gluons themselves have a colour charge and so interact with each other makes working out the size of the force much more challenging than for the much simpler quantum electrodynamics. That and the fact that there are three colour charges as opposed to the two for QED also doen’t help.
We've just done the baking soda and vinegar reaction with our four-year old son in the kitchen. He now wants to 'experiment' with all the chemicals in the cupboard: thank God for child locks!
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
Rightly or wrongly, I've always gone with 'mark'.
I agree, but the guy who came up with the idea didn’t.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Certainly - despite the froth, not much is happening at the moment.
Brexit turns out to be a slow poison pill, rather than a heart attack. Vince steps down, and Moran turns a surprise win against Swinson for LibDem leader. The next election turns into a re-run of 1992 with May pulling off a narrow win against all the hope and expectations of the Corbynettes. Labour self-destructs in an orgy of recriminations and defections. The slow poison of Brexit takes effect and, as Britain visibly falls behind the rest of Europe, the new Tory government under Javid sinks into unpopularity and suffers defections to the centre party. At the election succeeding Britain elects its first majority LibDem government in a landslide.
Gaming experts say sportsbooks might have closed as many as 50,000 betting accounts in recent years, and just as many punters have had their betting limits restricted to mere pittance.
Certainly - despite the froth, not much is happening at the moment.
Brexit turns out to be a slow poison pill, rather than a heart attack. Vince steps down, and Moran turns a surprise win against Swinson for LibDem leader. The next election turns into a re-run of 1992 with May pulling off a narrow win against all the hope and expectations of the Corbynettes. Labour self-destructs in an orgy of recriminations and defections. The slow poison of Brexit takes effect and, as Britain visibly falls behind the rest of Europe, the new Tory government under Javid sinks into unpopularity and suffers defections to the centre party. At the election succeeding Britain elects its first majority LibDem government in a landslide.
An interesting analysis.
You forgot the bit about pigs flying and Satan's first commute to work on ice skates.
Mr. Teacher, is that a philosophical question about whether you can have half a brick or just a smaller brick, as per the mathematical question of how long it takes to dig half a hole?
[I believe a full brick was used when I was at school].
Mr. Jessop, as a child my parents were annoyed with me for routinely getting through such locks.
How old will he be when you show him the sodium brick in water experiment?
If any of you have kids, there is a great science program called 'Science Max' on Youtube. He absolutely love it. Today I've done the aforementioned reaction and made a trebuchet out of pencils, lolly sticks and rubber bands.
I disagree. There might not be any consensus as to a successor but there is a consensus that she shouldn't be allowed to fight another election. Whether Brexit-related or not, her time will come. If it comes as late as summer 2021 - by which time she'll be almost 65 - she'll have done six years as PM, which is not a bad run. Nick says several times that the Tories are exhausted. I don't think that's true but what is true is that there's no buccaneering domestic reform policy; Brexit is smothering everything. And May personally is running on empty. A new leader - if the right person - can bring about a revival that May cannot. As for timing, her political antennae are sufficiently poor that she'll do something at the wrong time to trigger the challenge if she opts not to stand down.
"2. In the end, Labour will remain largely intact."
I agree, as per yesterday's piece.
"3. Something like UKIP will resurface."
Actually, I think UKIP will resurface. It's brand is not terminally tarnished because almost no-one is paying it attention. It's never particularly been tarnished by scandal because people don't see it as a party for government or its leaders as candidates to be PM. It is, and will be, what it always has been: a vehicle to withdraw the UK from involvement in the EU.
The question is more around Farage. He is the only successful leader that UKIP has ever had. In the absence of his return or of them finding someone similarly skilled (both unlikely, IMO), UKIP will remain little more than a generic protest vehicle and struggle in almost any circumstance to get above 7-8%. The wildcard here is Tory defections, though while entirely possible, the kind of potential defectors we might be talking about are not necessarily minor-party leadership material.
On 1, consensus that May isn't up to another GE isn't sufficient, if there is no consensus as to who might be able to do better. The Tories' problem is that they need to be in opposition in order to widen the choice of who replaces her, yet she needs to be replaced whilst still in government.
Certainly - despite the froth, not much is happening at the moment.
Brexit turns out to be a slow poison pill, rather than a heart attack. Vince steps down, and Moran turns a surprise win against Swinson for LibDem leader. The next election turns into a re-run of 1992 with May pulling off a narrow win against all the hope and expectations of the Corbynettes. Labour self-destructs in an orgy of recriminations and defections. The slow poison of Brexit takes effect and, as Britain visibly falls behind the rest of Europe, the new Tory government under Javid sinks into unpopularity and suffers defections to the centre party. At the election succeeding Britain elects its first majority LibDem government in a landslide.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Doesn't the example of the IPL run counter to what you're saying? The average person in Texas wouldn't know what it was.
I think Western culture is both much more universal and much more individual than this vision of linguistic ghettos implies.
Certainly - despite the froth, not much is happening at the moment.
Brexit turns out to be a slow poison pill, rather than a heart attack. Vince steps down, and Moran turns a surprise win against Swinson for LibDem leader. The next election turns into a re-run of 1992 with May pulling off a narrow win against all the hope and expectations of the Corbynettes. Labour self-destructs in an orgy of recriminations and defections. The slow poison of Brexit takes effect and, as Britain visibly falls behind the rest of Europe, the new Tory government under Javid sinks into unpopularity and suffers defections to the centre party. At the election succeeding Britain elects its first majority LibDem government in a landslide.
...following successful negotiations to rejoin the European community, a year later Tim Farron, the much respected elder statesman, is elected as the first President of the USoE to widespread popular acclamation.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
Good article Nick, primarily because I agree with you . I think it very probable that not much will happen for several years (a hostage to fortune, if ever there was one!). I do think there will be a recession in '19/20 or, if we're lucky '20/'21, which will likely seal the Tory's fate.
I'd agree with that. It's a tough ask to win unless that can be avoided, and we're due at some point.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
Mr. Teacher, is that a philosophical question about whether you can have half a brick or just a smaller brick, as per the mathematical question of how long it takes to dig half a hole?
[I believe a full brick was used when I was at school].
If that means a house brick sized lump of sodium then I have to ask how big was the container of water, and how far back you all stood. When I saw it about 100g was used and the container was the (open air) school swimming pool and that was spectacular enough.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
Since Joyce coined it as "Three quarks for Muster Mark", I'd go with "mark". But I agree that Murray Gell-Man (who first used the term for the particle) pronounces it differently
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
You need to check my local.
But the principle that the closer you get the less attractive they appear will certainly be familiar to any of our political class with the slightest insight into how they are perceived.
Certainly - despite the froth, not much is happening at the moment.
Brexit turns out to be a slow poison pill, rather than a heart attack. Vince steps down, and Moran turns a surprise win against Swinson for LibDem leader. The next election turns into a re-run of 1992 with May pulling off a narrow win against all the hope and expectations of the Corbynettes. Labour self-destructs in an orgy of recriminations and defections. The slow poison of Brexit takes effect and, as Britain visibly falls behind the rest of Europe, the new Tory government under Javid sinks into unpopularity and suffers defections to the centre party. At the election succeeding Britain elects its first majority LibDem government in a landslide.
...following successful negotiations to rejoin the European community, a year later Tim Farron, the much respected elder statesman, is elected as the first President of the USoE to widespread popular acclamation.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
Now you're getting ridiculous. Farron isn't that old.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
"For legal reasons the Scottish Government is extremely limited in what it is able to say about these matters at this time - and that includes its ability to correct what it considers to be inaccuracies in the public statements of others. That is frustrating but it is inescapable at this stage"
References to cult like behaviour dont have anything to do with WHO someone supports, it's how they manifest that support, how much it is invested in a single person, how hostile they are to unhelpful media, opponents, and even erstwhile allies, how much they engage in conspiracies, whether they forgive their dear leader for things they would condemn in others, if they glorify a mere politician, if they reject as smears things their own leader has said, if they believe support of a single man, or not, is required for morality and opponents are evil.
You do get it around the world on left and right. Not all Corbyn supporters are like that of course, but the most intense are. At some point a line is crossed from intense support to cult like support.
However, I am happy to say they are Trump like in their support rather than cultish if they like.
As for being bullied for their choice, I'll remember that one the next time someone gets labelled as scum, heartless or an uncle Tom for their choice in another direction.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
Since Joyce coined it as "Three quarks for Muster Mark", I'd go with "mark". But I agree that Murray Gell-Man (who first used the term for the particle) pronounces it differently
Mr. Teacher, can't remember how big the sodium block was. The container was a bucket full (at the start) with water, which shot between 2-3 storeys high into the air.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
That link (from 2014) has the phrase "The pound hit a new five-year low against the dollar to $1.462 today amid uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the UK general election."
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
How are we British saying it? I hope I've not been getting it wrong.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
Mr. Teacher, can't remember how big the sodium block was. The container was a bucket full (at the start) with water, which shot between 2-3 storeys high into the air.
Sounds about right.
Chemistry is either boring or dangerous (and occasionally both) which is why modern home chemistry kits are so anemic.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
How are we British saying it? I hope I've not been getting it wrong.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
On topic, inertia is very much the Conservatives' friend - as we saw in 2015. In early 2012 the government looked ready to collapse - and it actually looked better than it really was in 2015 merely by averting disaster. Cameron and Osborne's government was unloved, stored up problems for a later date and had some total incompetents in it, but got the credit for keeping things ticking over in tough times. If, and it's a big if, Theresa May manages to get through Brexit while keeping things roughly as they are, the same might happen. Remainers like myself will be less furious about Brexit if we reach a point where the thing doesn't look like it's a narrow, xenophobic nonsense of a project, but instead a technical one managed by adults. I think all but the outright racist wing of Brexiteers will also find some sympathy for the government in making the best of a bad job and getting us out when the winds were starting to blow back towards remain, and the biggest advocates for Brexit abandoned ship and left very little detail on how to sail through difficult waters.
On the Corbyn side, his movement is very much predicated on a bubble of enthusiasm for change. Time isn't on his side in that respect. The longer he's there without actually doing much, the more the enthusiasm will wane, and the more itchy allies who are currently solid in their support will get. I bet there are a few left-wingers in the Shadow Cabinet already privately cursing him over his now obvious anti-Semitism potentially wrecking their project and forcing them to defend things they really don't want to. There's also the fact that the forces that have led to Corbyn's success will begin to dissipate. He's most popular among those whose defining youthful political moments were Iraq, the crash and the Tory/Lib Dem response to it that largely protected the old over them. For a new generation it will be Brexit, which has arguably helped him so far in that it's tainted the Conservatives more in the eyes of liberal, younger voters - but will also taint him as an ineffectual opponent of it.
Governments have to lose elections - if they just do an average job and keep things going people tend to whinge immensely about them but then vote for them anyway. And revolutionaries who fail to make good on their promises tend to be guillotined by those who once chanted their name.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Doesn't the example of the IPL run counter to what you're saying? The average person in Texas wouldn't know what it was.
I think Western culture is both much more universal and much more individual than this vision of linguistic ghettos implies.
It’s a patchwork. Sure the IPL will be all but unheard of in Amarillo, but bullfighting won’t have many devotees in Copenhagen, yet I’m sure you agree on the Europeaness of Spain and Denmark.
However, the IPL will have been heard of amongst many sports fans from Antigua, to Adelaide, via Amesbury, but 99% will be oblivious of it from the Algarve to Lapland.
Truly? Seems reasonable people could leave it a day - I know there were pieces when he voted against Trumps Obamacare repeal bill, or whatever, to the effect of 'don't be fooled he's still a horrible man.
Ian paisley passing was the first time I can recall a number of obits being totally negative, nor even mixed, no matter the political figure.
Clarendon said some quite complimentary things of Cromwell after all, though he lamented that such an evil man, in his eyes, had such qualities.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
Would be interesting to see. Australia is picky about who it takes, of course, but I know a few people who went there in later middle age.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
It is notable that net emigration of Britons from the UK runs about 50 000, so when allowing for the fertility rate in the UK, we need roughly 100 000 immigrants per year to have a stable population.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
Would be interesting to see. Australia is picky about who it takes, of course, but I know a few people who went there in later middle age.
Yes they are. Sensible lot. They have a points system to make sure they get people who have a good chance of fitting in and functioning well in the long term...........
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
Would be interesting to see. Australia is picky about who it takes, of course, but I know a few people who went there in later middle age.
Most Anglosphere countries have a plethora of visa schemes. Money always helps ameliorate the curse of age . Canada's appears to be the most baroque, as there are province-specific schemes too.
Mr. Teacher, can't remember how big the sodium block was. The container was a bucket full (at the start) with water, which shot between 2-3 storeys high into the air.
Sounds about right.
Chemistry is either boring or dangerous (and occasionally both) which is why modern home chemistry kits are so anemic.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Truly? Seems reasonable people could leave it a day - I know there were pieces when he voted against Trumps Obamacare repeal bill, or whatever, to the effect of 'don't be fooled he's still a horrible man.
Ian paisley passing was the first time I can recall a number of obits being totally negative, nor even mixed, no matter the political figure.
Clarendon said some quite complimentary things of Cromwell after all, though he lamented that such an evil man, in his eyes, had such qualities.
So a security outfit got in touch with the MPs to offer their services and the Telegraph has laid off any journalist who can tell the difference between a press release and an advert.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Doesn't the example of the IPL run counter to what you're saying? The average person in Texas wouldn't know what it was.
I think Western culture is both much more universal and much more individual than this vision of linguistic ghettos implies.
It’s a patchwork. Sure the IPL will be all but unheard of in Amarillo, but bullfighting won’t have many devotees in Copenhagen, yet I’m sure you agree on the Europeaness of Spain and Denmark.
Why does the same logic not apply to cricket? It might not have many devotees in Austria but that doesn't diminish England's Europeanness.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
It is notable that net emigration of Britons from the UK runs about 50 000, so when allowing for the fertility rate in the UK, we need roughly 100 000 immigrants per year to have a stable population.
Ah! The 100k figure!
Actually we should be allowing whatever number we really need in areas we need them, be they doctors, fruit pickers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers, be they Italian, Polish, Filipino, Kenyan or whatever. Which is broadly what Australia does. We have instead chosen to have an open door to 440m people, 99% of which do not have English as their native language. And that’s been so uncontroversial hasn’t it?
Indeed. Shameful. In a few years hopefully we can look back at this having decided never, ever to listen to those who decided, when it came to it, the price for them to defend a racist was some vague plans to nationalise the railways.
Not if you are the target of a media witch hunt when you are not permitted to know the details, and when you asked what you was supposed to have done and to whom, and was told that this was confidential when you asked whether there was any physical evidence that you had assaulted these people, you were told that there was none. There were no photographs. Neither of the complainants had gone to a doctor. In fact there was no evidence at all that you had done anything wrong apart from their witness statements. When you asked whether there was more than one witness to each of the supposed assaults, and was told that there was only one.
Add to this the process is supposed to be completely confidential.
How are you then supposed to defend yourself in public?
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Doesn't the example of the IPL run counter to what you're saying? The average person in Texas wouldn't know what it was.
I think Western culture is both much more universal and much more individual than this vision of linguistic ghettos implies.
It’s a patchwork. Sure the IPL will be all but unheard of in Amarillo, but bullfighting won’t have many devotees in Copenhagen, yet I’m sure you agree on the Europeaness of Spain and Denmark.
Why does the same logic not apply to cricket? It might not have many devotees in Austria but that doesn't diminish England's Europeanness.
It doesn’t.
But at the same time I happen to think the links that bind us to the Anglosphere are stronger in the everyday than those that link us to the continent. It’s not absolute course, I prefer the Champions League (to continue on sport) than the NFL let alone baseball (rounders!).
But at heart I’m more AC/DC than The Scorpions, more Mad Men than les Revenants so to speak.
I disagree. There might not be any consensus as to a successor but there is a consensus that she shouldn't be allowed to fight another election. Whether Brexit-related or not, her time will come. If it comes as late as summer 2021 - by which time she'll be almost 65 - she'll have done six years as PM, which is not a bad run. Nick says several times that the Tories are exhausted. I don't think that's true but what is true is that there's no buccaneering domestic reform policy; Brexit is smothering everything. And May personally is running on empty. A new leader - if the right person - can bring about a revival that May cannot. As for timing, her political antennae are sufficiently poor that she'll do something at the wrong time to trigger the challenge if she opts not to stand down.
"2. In the end, Labour will remain largely intact."
I agree, as per yesterday's piece.
"3. Something like UKIP will resurface."
Actually, I think UKIP will resurface. It's brand is not terminally tarnished because almost no-one is paying it attention. It's never particularly been tarnished by scandal because people don't see it as a party for government or its leaders as candidates to be PM. It is, and will be, what it always has been: a vehicle to withdraw the UK from involvement in the EU.
The question is more around Farage. He is the only successful leader that UKIP has ever had. In the absence of his return or of them finding someone similarly skilled (both unlikely, IMO), UKIP will remain little more than a generic protest vehicle and struggle in almost any circumstance to get above 7-8%. The wildcard here is Tory defections, though while entirely possible, the kind of potential defectors we might be talking about are not necessarily minor-party leadership material.
On 1, consensus that May isn't up to another GE isn't sufficient, if there is no consensus as to who might be able to do better. The Tories' problem is that they need to be in opposition in order to widen the choice of who replaces her, yet she needs to be replaced whilst still in government.
If Javid continues to deliver as Home Sec, here comes the UK's 1st brown skinned PM. For that reality, and his back story, he'd because total nightmare for a lefty labour party to campaign against.
I disagree. There might not be any consensus as to a successor but there is a consensus that she shouldn't be allowed to fight another election. Whether Brexit-related or not, her time will come. If it comes as late as summer 2021 - by which time she'll be almost 65 - she'll have done six years as PM, which is not a bad run. Nick says several times that the Tories are exhausted. I don't think that's true but what is true is that there's no buccaneering domestic reform policy; Brexit is smothering everything. And May personally is running on empty. A new leader - if the right person - can bring about a revival that May cannot. As for timing, her political antennae are sufficiently poor that she'll do something at the wrong time to trigger the challenge if she opts not to stand down.
"2. In the end, Labour will remain largely intact."
I agree, as per yesterday's piece.
"3. Something like UKIP will resurface."
Actually, I think UKIP will resurface. It's brand is not terminally tarnished because almost no-one is paying it attention. It's never particularly been tarnished by scandal because people don't see it as a party for government or its leaders as candidates to be PM. It is, and will be, what it always has been: a vehicle to withdraw the UK from involvement in the EU.
The question is more around Farage. He is the only successful leader that UKIP has ever had. In the absence of his return or of them finding someone similarly skilled (both unlikely, IMO), UKIP will remain little more than a generic protest vehicle and struggle in almost any circumstance to get above 7-8%. The wildcard here is Tory defections, though while entirely possible, the kind of potential defectors we might be talking about are not necessarily minor-party leadership material.
On 1, consensus that May isn't up to another GE isn't sufficient, if there is no consensus as to who might be able to do better. The Tories' problem is that they need to be in opposition in order to widen the choice of who replaces her, yet she needs to be replaced whilst still in government.
If Javid continues to deliver as Home Sec, here comes the UK's 1st brown skinned PM. For that reality, and his back story, he'd because total nightmare for a lefty labour party to campaign against.
He's an ex-banker...thats what he will get bashed for.
Anyway, Formula One. Stroll to Racing Point supposedly by September. Kubica supposedly stepping into the spare Williams seat. Ocon? Surely VanDonkey or Shitrotkin could be ousted? Williams probably needs Russian cash so maybe not them. But how long wil McLaren put up with the Donkey?
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
It is notable that net emigration of Britons from the UK runs about 50 000, so when allowing for the fertility rate in the UK, we need roughly 100 000 immigrants per year to have a stable population.
Ah! The 100k figure!
Actually we should be allowing whatever number we really need in areas we need them, be they doctors, fruit pickers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers, be they Italian, Polish, Filipino, Kenyan or whatever. Which is broadly what Australia does. We have instead chosen to have an open door to 440m people, 99% of which do not have English as their native language. And that’s been so uncontroversial hasn’t it?
No, I was just pointing out the number needed for a stable population.
Per capita the rate of migration to Australia is about 3 times the UK. China, India and SE Asia are the most frequent source countries, much like the UK.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
It is notable that net emigration of Britons from the UK runs about 50 000, so when allowing for the fertility rate in the UK, we need roughly 100 000 immigrants per year to have a stable population.
Ah! The 100k figure!
Actually we should be allowing whatever number we really need in areas we need them, be they doctors, fruit pickers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers, be they Italian, Polish, Filipino, Kenyan or whatever. Which is broadly what Australia does. We have instead chosen to have an open door to 440m people, 99% of which do not have English as their native language. And that’s been so uncontroversial hasn’t it?
No, I was just pointing out the number needed for a stable population.
Per capita the rate of migration to Australia is about 3 times the UK. China, India and SE Asia are the most frequent source countries, much like the UK.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Doesn't the example of the IPL run counter to what you're saying? The average person in Texas wouldn't know what it was.
I think Western culture is both much more universal and much more individual than this vision of linguistic ghettos implies.
It’s a patchwork. Sure the IPL will be all but unheard of in Amarillo, but bullfighting won’t have many devotees in Copenhagen, yet I’m sure you agree on the Europeaness of Spain and Denmark.
Why does the same logic not apply to cricket? It might not have many devotees in Austria but that doesn't diminish England's Europeanness.
It doesn’t.
But at the same time I happen to think the links that bind us to the Anglosphere are stronger in the everyday than those that link us to the continent. It’s not absolute course, I prefer the Champions League (to continue on sport) than the NFL let alone baseball (rounders!).
But at heart I’m more AC/DC than The Scorpions, more Mad Men than les Revenants so to speak.
The position of being Europeans with strong linguistic, cultural and historical ties to the rest of the world isn't unique to us though.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
It is notable that net emigration of Britons from the UK runs about 50 000, so when allowing for the fertility rate in the UK, we need roughly 100 000 immigrants per year to have a stable population.
Ah! The 100k figure!
No, I was just pointing out the number needed for a stable population.
Per capita the rate of migration to Australia is about 3 times the UK. China, India and SE Asia are the most frequent source countries, much like the UK.
Indeed so. But the point is they are selecting who they want. They don’t have an open door with ASEAN do they?
Are we selecting the 179 000 non EU migrants that came to the UK last year? Much as in Australia most migrants come outside the points scheme, as spouses, family reunification, students etc.
Its not the EU migrants with failure to integrate.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Doesn't the example of the IPL run counter to what you're saying? The average person in Texas wouldn't know what it was.
I think Western culture is both much more universal and much more individual than this vision of linguistic ghettos implies.
It’s a patchwork. Sure the IPL will be all but unheard of in Amarillo, but bullfighting won’t have many devotees in Copenhagen, yet I’m sure you agree on the Europeaness of Spain and Denmark.
Why does the same logic not apply to cricket? It might not have many devotees in Austria but that doesn't diminish England's Europeanness.
It doesn’t.
But at the same time I happen to think the links that bind us to the Anglosphere are stronger in the everyday than those that link us to the continent. It’s not absolute course, I prefer the Champions League (to continue on sport) than the NFL let alone baseball (rounders!).
But at heart I’m more AC/DC than The Scorpions, more Mad Men than les Revenants so to speak.
The position of being Europeans with strong linguistic, cultural and historical ties to the rest of the world isn't unique to us though.
So?
If the Portuguese want to feel very communautaire, good luck to them. We may choose to feel differently.
Not if you are the target of a media witch hunt when you are not permitted to know the details, and when you asked what you was supposed to have done and to whom, and was told that this was confidential when you asked whether there was any physical evidence that you had assaulted these people, you were told that there was none. There were no photographs. Neither of the complainants had gone to a doctor. In fact there was no evidence at all that you had done anything wrong apart from their witness statements. When you asked whether there was more than one witness to each of the supposed assaults, and was told that there was only one.
Add to this the process is supposed to be completely confidential.
How are you then supposed to defend yourself in public?
Surely that is not the responsibility of the SNP ? AIUI the complaints were not made to them, and they are not investigating them currently. If that's the case, then I fail to see that the SNP can do without interfering in an investigation, an act that might bite them later.
The mitigating factors you mention are, again AIUI, the result of leaks, and are as liable to be as erroneous or not as the original accusations.
Not if you are the target of a media witch hunt when you are not permitted to know the details, and when you asked what you was supposed to have done and to whom, and was told that this was confidential when you asked whether there was any physical evidence that you had assaulted these people, you were told that there was none. There were no photographs. Neither of the complainants had gone to a doctor. In fact there was no evidence at all that you had done anything wrong apart from their witness statements. When you asked whether there was more than one witness to each of the supposed assaults, and was told that there was only one.
Add to this the process is supposed to be completely confidential.
How are you then supposed to defend yourself in public?
The first response seems reasonable if true:; "Yes, it's worrying, but 36 UKIP Councillors defecting to the Tories, when the Tories have 9,081 Councillors (0.004%) are hardly evidence of 'a far right takeover'."
Now, let us wait for a tweet saying how many Labour councillors are raging anti-Semites like their party leader ...
It's often been said that there is no majority in Parliament for any deal TMay may put forward - Lab will oppose and there are bound to be enough Con rebels to defeat it (notwithstanding a few Lab rebels).
So the question is this - can TMay design an "outcome" which doesn't actually need approval in Parliament if it's broadly just a continuation of the status quo, albeit formally outside the EU? (The legislation to Leave having already been passed).
My instinct is that the answer is "No" - but who knows?
So a security outfit got in touch with the MPs to offer their services and the Telegraph has laid off any journalist who can tell the difference between a press release and an advert.
Also I am pretty sure Labour MPs, particularly the women, have been stepping up efforts to get security since the far right started killing (or trying to) them. A labour MP actually died during the Brexit campaign, you can't say for sure but it seems incredibly likely she would still be with us were it not for the Brexit campaign. I realise this doesn't fit into angry right wing anti Corbyn propaganda but it is quite disrespectful.
The far right have a particular problem with Labour MPs, more so women it seems, probably not helped by the newspapers and the propaganda run against them by various right wing newspapers. This is probably why the far right support Labour line is extra insulting. As they are trying to kill and abusing Labour MPs, from Abbot and Corbyn to Berger and Cox right wingers go on about how the far right love them. They don't.
They hate immigration, they are generally Brexit fans. They don't like Labour for the reasons they try and kill them and abuse them constantly. They generally hate Muslims and you will occasionally see the odd idiot talking about how Corbyn is going to bring millions of Muslims into Britain, usually followed by forcing Sharia law on us all. Look at the way Sean 'expel the Muslims' T of this parish talks about Corbyn.
Look at how David Duke actually talks about Corbyn, I've put the tweet up before that he posted just before the UK general election where he makes out Corbyn is basically the anti Christ, or even worse from his far right point of view, a communist.
Actually look at Nick Griffin's twitter, the guy does seem to be a bit of a troll, he'll have a tweet talking about some guardian (or maybe observer) journalist being far left because of an article they wrote, basically using language you would get Corbyn opponents and not his supporters using before finishing the tweet with a #JC4PM. He's probably realised he can get press attention from it and most anti Corbyn types would rather mindlessly repeat the smears they read in the mainstream press rather than check out any evidence to try to come to a conclusion themselves.
So the question is this - can TMay design an "outcome" which doesn't actually need approval in Parliament if it's broadly just a continuation of the status quo, albeit formally outside the EU? (The legislation to Leave having already been passed).
A referendum on withdrawal agreement is the cleanest way to bypass a final parliamentary showdown.
What book would you recommend as a good introduction to the Wars of the Roses?
For the general reader, A J Pollard, British History in Perspective: The Wars of the Roses.
Some good A-level textbooks out there as well - Colin Pendrell and Jessica Lutkin have both written very readable introductions, although as they are A level textbooks they are not cheap.
Thanks!
Others that are worth a look after Pollard:
Dan Jones The Hollow Crown Trevor Royle The Wars Of The Roses: England's First Civil War is good on the military stuff, as are Hugh Bicheno's Blood Royal and Battle Royal.
Christine Carpenter and Michael Hicks both have very detailed books on them, but Hicks in particular can be heavy going. They're best left until later.
Alison Weir's Lancaster and York is very readable but only goes up to 1471.
I’ve ordered the Pollard. Will get back to you once I’ve read it although with term approaching that may have to wait until the next time I’m ill (which will be in early October).
Happy to return the favour if there are particular bits of Physics you want to know about: particle physics a speciality as long as you don’t want to know about the Higgs boson.
Which didn't have the decency to be known about when you were at school?
Or even at university. To be honest I’m a bit rusty now on some of the finer points of Quantum Chromodynamics: my maths was never really up to it.
I looked that up. It said that quantum chromodynamics is:
"a quantum field theory in which the strong interaction is described in terms of an interaction between quarks mediated by gluons, both quarks and gluons being assigned a quantum number called ‘colour’."
So that is now perfectly clear.
The odd thing about the strong force is that it becomes stronger as distance between quarks increases. This is the reason that you don't come across solitary quarks down the pub.
The biggest argument in particle physics (if you are British at least) is how to pronounce ‘quark’. Does it rhyme with mark or fork?
Since Joyce coined it as "Three quarks for Muster Mark", I'd go with "mark". But I agree that Murray Gell-Man (who first used the term for the particle) pronounces it differently
But he is American, and they can’t even pronounce aluminium....
But at the same time I happen to think the links that bind us to the Anglosphere are stronger in the everyday than those that link us to the continent. It’s not absolute course, I prefer the Champions League (to continue on sport) than the NFL let alone baseball (rounders!).
But at heart I’m more AC/DC than The Scorpions, more Mad Men than les Revenants so to speak.
It's true up to a point, and as you say the media prefer to broadcast someone who they don't need to translate. But as you're proving it by example, wouldn't you say that more people know who Merkel and Juncker and Barnier are than Mike Pence or Julia Gillard? Culturally, it's certainly true that we consume far more American movies and TV than from anywhere else. But that's specifically America, the home of fashionable pop culture for much of Europe too - I can't remember the last time I saw a movie or TV drama from Australia or New Zealand, and just one Indian movie.
Vaguely relevantly, I had a discussion on Friday with someone at the New Zealand High Commission. He said he thought that Australia was becoming more distant and closer to the USA, while New Zealand was become closer to Europe.
I am sorry, but this post is so dull it could have been written by Hammond. Lots will happen. There will, this late Autumn, be a bust-up in Parliament if May tries to get the Chequers agreement through. It will not be supported by enough of the Tory right to get through the house. May will fall. There will be a new leader. It will not be Boris because he will not get past his colleagues. It will be Liddington, a Remainer. He will, with Hammond, reverse Brexit. There will be an election later. The Tories, bolstered by the boundary review, will be the only party capable of forming a government, given Corbyn and anti-semitism, and getting nowhere in Scotland. There. That's better than Nick Palmer's post, isn't it! Can I send in my invoice please?
It's often been said that there is no majority in Parliament for any deal TMay may put forward - Lab will oppose and there are bound to be enough Con rebels to defeat it (notwithstanding a few Lab rebels).
So the question is this - can TMay design an "outcome" which doesn't actually need approval in Parliament if it's broadly just a continuation of the status quo, albeit formally outside the EU? (The legislation to Leave having already been passed).
My instinct is that the answer is "No" - but who knows?
No deal is as far as I can see the only way to avoid parliamentary approval.
But there is a risk that the government loses a confidence motion if it does it the wrong way.
I think the point is moot, however.
If the EU bend on NI, then chequers will work. And pass Parliament.
I am sorry, but this post is so dull it could have been written by Hammond. Lots will happen. There will, this late Autumn, be a bust-up in Parliament if May tries to get the Chequers agreement through. It will not be supported by enough of the Tory right to get through the house. May will fall. There will be a new leader. It will not be Boris because he will not get past his colleagues. It will be Liddington, a Remainer. He will, with Hammond, reverse Brexit. There will be an election later. The Tories, bolstered by the boundary review, will be the only party capable of forming a government, given Corbyn and anti-semitism, and getting nowhere in Scotland. There. That's better than Nick Palmer's post, isn't it! Can I send in my invoice please?
Mr. Teacher, is that a philosophical question about whether you can have half a brick or just a smaller brick, as per the mathematical question of how long it takes to dig half a hole?
[I believe a full brick was used when I was at school].
If that means a house brick sized lump of sodium then I have to ask how big was the container of water, and how far back you all stood. When I saw it about 100g was used and the container was the (open air) school swimming pool and that was spectacular enough.
Many years ago on the chemistry labs floor of a college I attended, a class decided to experiment with the sodium helpfully kept in oil above the benches in readily accessible glass jars, and drop it down the plug hole of the individual sinks, replace the plug and hold it down. The plumbing across the whole floor of a dozen labs was all interconnected, and many students and teachers were surprised when the water from the ubends of their sinks hit the ceiling... Needless to say, sodium, potassium and certain others became available only on request..
So the question is this - can TMay design an "outcome" which doesn't actually need approval in Parliament if it's broadly just a continuation of the status quo, albeit formally outside the EU? (The legislation to Leave having already been passed).
A referendum on withdrawal agreement is the cleanest way to bypass a final parliamentary showdown.
A referendum would need parliamentary approval beforehand, so it wouldn't bypass a showdown.
If a prominent French or German politician (other than their President or Chancellor) died, e.g. Schauble or Schultz there wouldn't be much attention here.
If Ken Clarke died I think there'd be more coverage (albeit not a major story) in the French and German press than in the US. Likewise if Jacques Delors died I think you'd have more coverage here than in the US.
It's about the pre-eminence of the US, not about our connection with the Anglosphere.
Does not Justin Trudeau get more copy here than the PM of Poland ( whom I have to confess I do not know the identity of)? Just as a further example.
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
Of the top 5 destinations for UK emigrants, 3 are in the Anglosphere.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
Quite. I bet the age difference is interesting too between emigrants to Australia and say Spain. I’d guess the former are a lot younger than the latter on average.
Given that Australia has an age cutoff for working migrants (45?), that's certain...
Comments
Frankly I think that all the parties are awful. just awful, its got to the point I don't want to hear another word about Brexit or actually care too much about the next GE as long as Corbyn doesn't win nor can form any form of Coalition Govt.
..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Baumgardner
Under the practice of dhaqan celis, loosely translated as “the rehabilitation community”, Somali children and teenagers are routinely taken to the country, where they are often sent to “rehabilitation” centres.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/26/british-somali-teenagers-taken-on-holiday-only-to-be-forced-into-marriage
It’s not points scoring this. It’s just inevitable that if X can be put in a TV news clip without subtitles it’s going to be easier for TV news to use the clip, and X is going to stick in the conscious of the nation more than Y who is not an English speaker.
I’m sure the same applies in other countries. It just so happens that the cultural Anglosphere in all its forms (as I said, like the Indian Premier League as an odd example) is a juggernaut, ( itself a word of Indian origin!), in a way that the Polish/Finnish/ or even German equivalents are not for historical reasons.
And we are part of if and have easy access to it, as well as having more European influences of course.
How old will he be when you show him the sodium brick in water experiment?
Brexit turns out to be a slow poison pill, rather than a heart attack. Vince steps down, and Moran turns a surprise win against Swinson for LibDem leader. The next election turns into a re-run of 1992 with May pulling off a narrow win against all the hope and expectations of the Corbynettes. Labour self-destructs in an orgy of recriminations and defections. The slow poison of Brexit takes effect and, as Britain visibly falls behind the rest of Europe, the new Tory government under Javid sinks into unpopularity and suffers defections to the centre party. At the election succeeding Britain elects its first majority LibDem government in a landslide.
You forgot the bit about pigs flying and Satan's first commute to work on ice skates.
[I believe a full brick was used when I was at school].
I await him learning to combine the two ...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbprhISv-0ReKPPyhf7-Dtw
Kali Ma.
Kali MA.
KALI MAAAAAAAAA.
I think Western culture is both much more universal and much more individual than this vision of linguistic ghettos implies.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
Australia is first, the USA second and New Zealand fifth.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/holidays/article-3033680/The-destinations-Britons-emigrating-revealed-Spain-number-three.html
When your lad gets a little older, there are miniature wooden siege weapon kits you can buy.
But the principle that the closer you get the less attractive they appear will certainly be familiar to any of our political class with the slightest insight into how they are perceived.
You do get it around the world on left and right. Not all Corbyn supporters are like that of course, but the most intense are. At some point a line is crossed from intense support to cult like support.
However, I am happy to say they are Trump like in their support rather than cultish if they like.
As for being bullied for their choice, I'll remember that one the next time someone gets labelled as scum, heartless or an uncle Tom for their choice in another direction.
Damn.,.
Chemistry is either boring or dangerous (and occasionally both) which is why modern home chemistry kits are so anemic.
On the Corbyn side, his movement is very much predicated on a bubble of enthusiasm for change. Time isn't on his side in that respect. The longer he's there without actually doing much, the more the enthusiasm will wane, and the more itchy allies who are currently solid in their support will get. I bet there are a few left-wingers in the Shadow Cabinet already privately cursing him over his now obvious anti-Semitism potentially wrecking their project and forcing them to defend things they really don't want to. There's also the fact that the forces that have led to Corbyn's success will begin to dissipate. He's most popular among those whose defining youthful political moments were Iraq, the crash and the Tory/Lib Dem response to it that largely protected the old over them. For a new generation it will be Brexit, which has arguably helped him so far in that it's tainted the Conservatives more in the eyes of liberal, younger voters - but will also taint him as an ineffectual opponent of it.
Governments have to lose elections - if they just do an average job and keep things going people tend to whinge immensely about them but then vote for them anyway. And revolutionaries who fail to make good on their promises tend to be guillotined by those who once chanted their name.
However, the IPL will have been heard of amongst many sports fans from Antigua, to Adelaide, via Amesbury, but 99% will be oblivious of it from the Algarve to Lapland.
Ian paisley passing was the first time I can recall a number of obits being totally negative, nor even mixed, no matter the political figure.
Clarendon said some quite complimentary things of Cromwell after all, though he lamented that such an evil man, in his eyes, had such qualities.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/26/jewish-mps-talks-security-advisers-need-bodyguards-labour-partys/
Bravo you lot who preferred to see nothing
Actually we should be allowing whatever number we really need in areas we need them, be they doctors, fruit pickers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers, be they Italian, Polish, Filipino, Kenyan or whatever. Which is broadly what Australia does. We have instead chosen to have an open door to 440m people, 99% of which do not have English as their native language. And that’s been so uncontroversial hasn’t it?
Add to this the process is supposed to be completely confidential.
How are you then supposed to defend yourself in public?
But at the same time I happen to think the links that bind us to the Anglosphere are stronger in the everyday than those that link us to the continent. It’s not absolute course, I prefer the Champions League (to continue on sport) than the NFL let alone baseball (rounders!).
But at heart I’m more AC/DC than The Scorpions, more Mad Men than les Revenants so to speak.
Per capita the rate of migration to Australia is about 3 times the UK. China, India and SE Asia are the most frequent source countries, much like the UK.
https://blog.id.com.au/2017/population/demographic-trends/australias-changing-ethnicity-a-preview-of-the-2016-census/
Australia is increasingly Asian. NZ too.
Its not the EU migrants with failure to integrate.
If the Portuguese want to feel very communautaire, good luck to them. We may choose to feel differently.
https://twitter.com/RockWalkLondon/status/1033586096683278337?s=20
The mitigating factors you mention are, again AIUI, the result of leaks, and are as liable to be as erroneous or not as the original accusations.
What would you have the SNP party do?
"Yes, it's worrying, but 36 UKIP Councillors defecting to the Tories, when the Tories have 9,081 Councillors (0.004%) are hardly evidence of 'a far right takeover'."
Now, let us wait for a tweet saying how many Labour councillors are raging anti-Semites like their party leader ...
So the question is this - can TMay design an "outcome" which doesn't actually need approval in Parliament if it's broadly just a continuation of the status quo, albeit formally outside the EU? (The legislation to Leave having already been passed).
My instinct is that the answer is "No" - but who knows?
The far right have a particular problem with Labour MPs, more so women it seems, probably not helped by the newspapers and the propaganda run against them by various right wing newspapers. This is probably why the far right support Labour line is extra insulting. As they are trying to kill and abusing Labour MPs, from Abbot and Corbyn to Berger and Cox right wingers go on about how the far right love them. They don't.
They hate immigration, they are generally Brexit fans. They don't like Labour for the reasons they try and kill them and abuse them constantly. They generally hate Muslims and you will occasionally see the odd idiot talking about how Corbyn is going to bring millions of Muslims into Britain, usually followed by forcing Sharia law on us all. Look at the way Sean 'expel the Muslims' T of this parish talks about Corbyn.
Look at how David Duke actually talks about Corbyn, I've put the tweet up before that he posted just before the UK general election where he makes out Corbyn is basically the anti Christ, or even worse from his far right point of view, a communist.
Actually look at Nick Griffin's twitter, the guy does seem to be a bit of a troll, he'll have a tweet talking about some guardian (or maybe observer) journalist being far left because of an article they wrote, basically using language you would get Corbyn opponents and not his supporters using before finishing the tweet with a #JC4PM. He's probably realised he can get press attention from it and most anti Corbyn types would rather mindlessly repeat the smears they read in the mainstream press rather than check out any evidence to try to come to a conclusion themselves.
Vaguely relevantly, I had a discussion on Friday with someone at the New Zealand High Commission. He said he thought that Australia was becoming more distant and closer to the USA, while New Zealand was become closer to Europe.
"A Variety of stalls, including... Anti-Semitism"
https://www.wegottickets.com/event/446999
Lots will happen. There will, this late Autumn, be a bust-up in Parliament if May tries to get the Chequers agreement through. It will not be supported by enough of the Tory right to get through the house. May will fall. There will be a new leader. It will not be Boris because he will not get past his colleagues. It will be Liddington, a Remainer. He will, with Hammond, reverse Brexit. There will be an election later. The Tories, bolstered by the boundary review, will be the only party capable of forming a government, given Corbyn and anti-semitism, and getting nowhere in Scotland.
There. That's better than Nick Palmer's post, isn't it! Can I send in my invoice please?
But there is a risk that the government loses a confidence motion if it does it the wrong way.
I think the point is moot, however.
If the EU bend on NI, then chequers will work. And pass Parliament.
https://www.quora.com/Is-English-the-best-language-for-puns-and-plays-on-words
And Korean has to be in the running for truly terrible puns:
https://www.reddit.com/r/korea/comments/7icp2o/your_worst_korean_puns아재개그s/
Lolz.