He has not got a new idea to save his life. Not a clue.
Oh, come on. Remember "predistribution"?
Wasn't the energy price freeze an example of predistribution - a progressive measure designed to benefit the poor without taxation and spending? Admittedly it would save the rich money too, but it's close enough
He used examples of racial tension at the time to illustrate how bad it already was in places like Wolverhampton, illustrations that needed to be drawn to luvvies who thought mass immigration was a great idea as it didn't affect them.
Have you seen the Frost interview? Its fantastic viewing
I hesitate to dip my toe into these particular waters but I thought that journalists had tried to find the people Powell mentioned in his speech (the old lady being followed by young children shouting abuse at her, for instance) and did not. There was a suspicion that he had made up or exaggerated his examples and had used deliberately inflammatory and offensive language in doing so.
He also said that someone of West Indian origin, even if born and brought up in this country, could never become an Englishman. Well, that seems to me to be racist - as if the colour of your skin automatically determines what you can be, regardless of all other considerations.
He may have had a brilliant mind but brilliant minds often lack common sense and judgment and I think Powell lacked those, as well as imagination.
I reckon that's an intriguing result, and focus group polling along similar lines is no doubt the reason Ed Miliband is banging on about migrants and money in the IoSunday today.
I'm not quite sure what "loophole" that is trying to close.
* some agency staff are paid less than employees, some more, depending on the industry
* in any case you can't pay less than the minimum wage
* if you are recruiting only from Romania, say, that is prima facie indirect racial discrimination and the Government should not be "working with businesses" it should be reporting them to the appropriate prosecuting authority.
So it seems like a load of hot air from ed Milli.
If there is a surplus of qualified British labour and a firm is deliberately recruiting from Eastern Europe because such staff are prepared to work well below the going local rate …….??
As part of a policy of driving down wages?
Which appears to be happening in at least one sector.
PM's new fixer in racist rant at Muslims: Foul-mouthed abuse by campaign chief re… #MailOnline http://bit.ly/UO4fhX pic.twitter.com/X4ZqXVSt
There's not much meat on that, is there?
According to a source, Mr Crosby said Mr Johnson should concentrate on traditional Tory voters instead of ‘f****** Muslims’
He could have easily said "f****** Kippers" or "f****** Liberal Democrats" or "f****** property speculators", it's not really a foulmouthed rant. It's not racist at all, he's just expressing an opinion in a bit of a vehement way.
And are we supposed to believe that Daily Mail journalists never say "f******"?
He could have easily said "f****** Kippers" or "f****** Liberal Democrats" or "f****** property speculators", it's not really a foulmouthed rant. It's not racist at all, he's just expressing an opinion in a bit of a vehement way.
And are we supposed to believe that Daily Mail journalists never say "f******"?
Particularly as Muslims are not a race but an ideological group, based around common beliefs. It would be like saying David Cameron should concentrate on Tory voters rather than "f****** socialists".
I reckon that's an intriguing result, and focus group polling along similar lines is no doubt the reason Ed Miliband is banging on about migrants and money in the IoSunday today.
I'm not quite sure what "loophole" that is trying to close.
* some agency staff are paid less than employees, some more, depending on the industry
* in any case you can't pay less than the minimum wage
* if you are recruiting only from Romania, say, that is prima facie indirect racial discrimination and the Government should not be "working with businesses" it should be reporting them to the appropriate prosecuting authority.
So it seems like a load of hot air from ed Milli.
If there is a surplus of qualified British labour and a firm is deliberately recruiting from Eastern Europe because such staff are prepared to work well below the going local rate …….??
As part of a policy of driving down wages?
Which appears to be happening in at least one sector.
Well, they at least ought to advertise the jobs locally, to give locals the chance to work at the lower rate. One solution might be to stop the recent immigrants claiming in-work benefits, such as housing benefit and tax credits.
He has not got a new idea to save his life. Not a clue.
Oh, come on. Remember "predistribution"?
Wasn't the energy price freeze an example of predistribution - a progressive measure designed to benefit the poor without taxation and spending? Admittedly it would save the rich money too, but it's close enough
It was mainly an economically destructive measure that is sure to accentuate Britain's coming energy crisis, which will hurt the poor the most. Unless of course Miliband makes up for the lost investment funding for new capacity via public expenditure, which will then indeed be a matter of tax and spending...
He used examples of racial tension at the time to illustrate how bad it already was in places like Wolverhampton, illustrations that needed to be drawn to luvvies who thought mass immigration was a great idea as it didn't affect them.
Have you seen the Frost interview? Its fantastic viewing
I hesitate to dip my toe into these particular waters but I thought that journalists had tried to find the people Powell mentioned in his speech (the old lady being followed by young children shouting abuse at her, for instance) and did not. There was a suspicion that he had made up or exaggerated his examples and had used deliberately inflammatory and offensive language in doing so.
He also said that someone of West Indian origin, even if born and brought up in this country, could never become an Englishman. Well, that seems to me to be racist - as if the colour of your skin automatically determines what you can be, regardless of all other considerations.
He may have had a brilliant mind but brilliant minds often lack common sense and judgment and I think Powell lacked those, as well as imagination.
Re the West Indian never becoming an Englishman, I don't think her meant the West Indian couldn't become an Englishman because of his skin colour.... I think he would have said the same about a white German/Belgian/American.. indeed I am sure he would, and have heard him say so... Nationality was a much stronger concept then compared to now
PM's new fixer in racist rant at Muslims: Foul-mouthed abuse by campaign chief re… #MailOnline http://bit.ly/UO4fhX pic.twitter.com/X4ZqXVSt
There's not much meat on that, is there?
According to a source, Mr Crosby said Mr Johnson should concentrate on traditional Tory voters instead of ‘f****** Muslims’
He could have easily said "f****** Kippers" or "f****** Liberal Democrats" or "f****** property speculators", it's not really a foulmouthed rant.
He could have but he didn't. So tough luck. Good to see it upsets the Cameroons so much though. As amusing as their hilarious stupidity in thinking tory kipper waverers are likely to run screaming from Farage because he starts banging on about Enoch any more than banging on endlessly about Muslims would scare them off. Talk about being out of touch with their own base.
I look forward to Cammie's excoriating refutation of Enoch in response to this because that certainly wouldn't upset some of his MPs even more than usual.
And are we supposed to believe that Daily Mail journalists never say "f******"?
What a ridiculous thing to say. Truly desperate. I could outline some VERY amusing things Mail journo's and indeed the blessed Dacre haven't just said but done, but of course I won't for obvious reasons on here.
And are we supposed to believe that Daily Mail journalists never say "f******"?
What a ridiculous thing to say. Truly desperate.
Not at all, I like to challenge hypocrisy wherever I see it. I am not sure I agree that Lynton Crosby is unfit to be election organiser because he once said f******. Anyway, what are you doing following the Daily Mail's position so closely?
Maybe what he meant was that Boris had been "f****** Muslims" which is of course a much more interesting story.
And are we supposed to believe that Daily Mail journalists never say "f******"?
What a ridiculous thing to say. Truly desperate.
Not at all, I like to challenge hypocrisy wherever I see it. I am not sure I agree that Lynton Crosby is unfit to be election organiser because he once said f******. Anyway, what are you doing following the Daily Mail's position so closely?
Maybe what he meant was that Boris had been "f****** Muslims" which is of course a much more interesting story.
If you want to get started on which tories have been f****** who then feel free. Some of us will be more discrete though.
He could have easily said "f****** Kippers" or "f****** Liberal Democrats" or "f****** property speculators", it's not really a foulmouthed rant. It's not racist at all, he's just expressing an opinion in a bit of a vehement way.
And are we supposed to believe that Daily Mail journalists never say "f******"?
Particularly as Muslims are not a race but an ideological group, based around common beliefs. It would be like saying David Cameron should concentrate on Tory voters rather than "f****** socialists".
It's generally thought undesirable to refer to all people of any religious belief in obscene terms, particular in the office of someone who in some respects represents everyone in the country.
Mis-step from Farage on the Enoch Powell stuff. It puts him and UKIP too close to the BNP ideologically. It will also further disenchant right of centre non-white people who may consider voting UKIP in 2015.
Powell was a brilliant but tragic figure. He could have been a great leader, a great PM perhaps, but he swooned at the altar of populism. The Rivers of Blood speech was clearly racist, and meant to be racist, and designed to inflame. He deserved much of the career-destroying infamy he reaped - because he positively sought it out.
"Rivers of Blood" was a very stupid move by a very clever man. I'm still not sure why he did it.
He probably did it to get at Edward Heath.
But I don't believe he was motivated by racism. He made a judgement on human nature, namely that injecting legislation into an atmosphere already filled with anxiety over immigration would cause an explosion of feelings, and the best way to avoid that was to limit the number of immigrants.
He used examples of racial tension at the time to illustrate how bad it already was in places like Wolverhampton, illustrations that needed to be drawn to luvvies who thought mass immigration was a great idea as it didn't affect them.
Have you seen the Frost interview? Its fantastic viewing
As an intelligent, and intellectually honest man, Powell was probably less racist than most. Just seduced by the potential of populism?
He probably read the "average racial IQ" data as well, and drew the politically inopportune if scientifically arguable conclusion. Tsk!
Whatever the answer he f*cked his own career, and perhaps that was a good thing for Britain, in the long term.
Regarding the IQ, he specifically answers that question here... Frost is determined to trap him....
Please watch from 43:50 if you cant be bothered with the whole thing, although it is well worth watching in its entirety
If you want to get started on which tories have been f****** who then feel free. Some of us will be more discrete though.
Ha, you're discrete, that makes you a Tory. It's socialists who think people are continuous.
You're just babbling now.
Just for you and the other deluded Cameroons let me point out the obvious with regards to Farage and Crosby. Crosby can never out-Farage Farage while he works for Cameron and Crosby looks ridiculous and hypocritical trying to work up some false 'outrage' over Farage's immigration positions given his own background in spinning. Did you see a calamitous drop in kipper polling after Farage was banging on about Muslims? Nor will you about Enoch.
What the Cameroons desperately need is for Farage to completely implode in a Robert Kilroy-Silk like manner due to the kippers repeating that kind of hilarious infighting. Something which hardly looks likely right now when even Bloom's very funny stupidity failed to make the kippers crash and burn. The kippers are polling higher than they did at the start of 2013 and this is their low point between now and the EU elections. As you can clearly see for yourself.
Are the kippers going to start falling again after the EU elections? Yep. But nowhere near enough for Cammie to start cheering. A repeat of the 2010 kipper 3.1% in 2015 looks like utterly wishful thinking from Cammie and Osbrowne.
The only thing Cammie has going for him is that when kipper polling gets high enough it starts taking an increasing chunk out of little Ed and labour's polling too. Not all of those who flirt with the kippers go back though most will. It's why, as I predicted only a few days ago, little Ed has started posturing on kipper core issues along with Cammie and it's likely to prove just as pointless for both of them.
Not a fan of Powell personally as the language he used made it too easy to deflect from the main point he was making which is the consequences of immigration depends on numbers divided by time.
(And in voting terms those consequences will still exist even if the media and political class make sure the majority of the population don't know they exist.).
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true. The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states. Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible.
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true. The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states. Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible.
He could have easily said "f****** Kippers" or "f****** Liberal Democrats" or "f****** property speculators", it's not really a foulmouthed rant. It's not racist at all, he's just expressing an opinion in a bit of a vehement way.
And are we supposed to believe that Daily Mail journalists never say "f******"?
Particularly as Muslims are not a race but an ideological group, based around common beliefs. It would be like saying David Cameron should concentrate on Tory voters rather than "f****** socialists".
It's generally thought undesirable to refer to all people of any religious belief in obscene terms, particular in the office of someone who in some respects represents everyone in the country.
Oh, I agree. It was an obnoxious and unpleasant thing to say. But it would be an obnoxious and unpleasant thing to say about socialists too. I just don't see why a religious belief should be prized above any other belief system. It's certainly not racist.
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true. The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states. Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible.
The kaiser was english, they always make trouble.
English? How do you figure that? He seems at best, one quarter English, if you go by his grandparents. Although it always seems to me that European royalty were an ethnic group of their own...
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true. The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states. Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible.
The kaiser was english, they always make trouble.
English? How do you figure that? He seems at best, one quarter English, if you go by his grandparents. Although it always seems to me that European royalty were an ethnic group of their own...
well it makes as much sense as your blame the boche theory.
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true. The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states. Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible.
"The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century."
That could refute the point or could be a special case cos blood.
"Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible."
I'm only saying half of that though. In theory i think it's right but what I'm saying is in practise in those situations the odds of either side coming to a reasonable compromise over the new balance of power until after they've fought it out is pretty much nil.
"The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states."
Sure but i think states will tend to become autocratic and aggressive when they are much more powerful than the current balance of power (until it's been fought out).
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true. The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states. Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible.
The kaiser was english, they always make trouble.
English? How do you figure that? He seems at best, one quarter English, if you go by his grandparents. Although it always seems to me that European royalty were an ethnic group of their own...
well it makes as much sense as your blame the boche theory.
I'm not blaming the German. I'm blaming the German autocratic government. I accept this is distinction nationalists fail to recognise.
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true. The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states. Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible.
The kaiser was english, they always make trouble.
English? How do you figure that? He seems at best, one quarter English, if you go by his grandparents. Although it always seems to me that European royalty were an ethnic group of their own...
well it makes as much sense as your blame the boche theory.
I'm not blaming the German. I'm blaming the German autocratic government. I accept this is distinction nationalists fail to recognise.
chortle.
So that would be worse than the fully democratic government of Tsarist Russia or revanchist France which would take a fancy to crypto fascism every so often ?
Mkaes you wonder why Imperial Germany had been at peace for 43 years.
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true. The British Empire allowed the United States to as a major power in the late 19th and early 20th century. The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states. Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible.
The kaiser was english, they always make trouble.
English? How do you figure that? He seems at best, one quarter English, if you go by his grandparents. Although it always seems to me that European royalty were an ethnic group of their own...
well it makes as much sense as your blame the boche theory.
I'm not blaming the German. I'm blaming the German autocratic government. I accept this is distinction nationalists fail to recognise.
chortle.
So that would be worse than the fully democratic government of Tsarist Russia or revanchist France which would take a fancy to crypto fascism every so often ?
Mkaes you wonder why Imperial Germany had been at peace for 43 years.
Not worse than the autocratic government of Russia, although an alliance with them was needed to defeat German expansionism, as an alliance with the USSR was needed for similar reasons a generation later. As for France, yours is an insult to the Third Republic, which was predominantly a democratic state routed in liberal values.
If you really need to wonder what took 43 years before another German war, you might want to go back and re-read the difficulty of integrating a doubling of Prussian territory, which is what happened after the last round of German expansionism 43 years before.
All pledges and promises (Cast Iron or not) for 2015 will boil down to trust. Not something Cammie seems to have in abundance with kipper tory waverers.
This new series of Sherlock is fast becoming self indulgent crap.
Don't start that again or we will have Sean back with his theory of Downton IQ tests for new Bulgarian immigrants.
Besides you are wrong. It's brilliant :-)
Yes, Alanbrooke is wrong.
It isn't fast becoming self-indulgent crap: it started as self-indulgent crap, but in this episode improved to occasionally funny self-indulgent crap.
;-)
Three plot points pinched from Agatha Christie. But even she couldn't save it.
I like the original books, but I'm not exactly a rivet-counting fan - I loved the two Ritchie films, and the ITV canonical version with Jeremy Brett.
But this TV version is missing something - or perhaps has something more - than the books that makes it really irritating.
I must admit that I thought the solution to the main crime (when that was eventually revealed) was going to be a dagger made of ice, that melted in the shower. A classic of murder-mysteries. But not as good as the woman who clubbed her husband to death with a shoulder of mutton, then cooks the weapon and serves it to the police.
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
I'm not convinced this is true.
The kaiser was english, they always make trouble.
English? How do you figure that? He seems at best, one quarter English, if you go by his grandparents. Although it always seems to me that European royalty were an ethnic group of their own...
well it makes as much sense as your blame the boche theory.
I'm not blaming the German. I'm blaming the German autocratic government. I accept this is distinction nationalists fail to recognise.
chortle.
So that would be worse than the fully democratic government of Tsarist Russia or revanchist France which would take a fancy to crypto fascism every so often ?
Mkaes you wonder why Imperial Germany had been at peace for 43 years.
Not worse than the autocratic government of Russia, although an alliance with them was needed to defeat German expansionism, as an alliance with the USSR was needed for similar reasons a generation later. As for France, yours is an insult to the Third Republic, which was predominantly a democratic state routed in liberal values.
If you really need to wonder what took 43 years before another German war, you might want to go back and re-read the difficulty of integrating a doubling of Prussian territory, which is what happened after the last round of German expansionism 43 years before.
More deluded Hun bashing. Unsurprisingly since Germany had been Europe's preferred battleground for the 300 years prior to unification and had just about everyone rape, pillage and butcher their way through the country they tended to get a bit picky about it happeining again.
As for the "honour" of the Third Republic I'm still laughing. It started with a massacre of its own citizens in the Commune and ended with the creation of Vichy.
Powell's Rivers of Blood speech always had me puzzled. He was a highly regarded, intelligent classicist and he must have been well aware of the tactical nuances involved of the speech. After all, the Roman Legions were made up of many races although I suspect EP may have had more sympathy to the Greeks.
My thoughts are speculative only, but, were there not race riots about the same time in LA and Berkley other parts of the US. Perhaps his wake up call worked in the UK, much to his own detriment.
The unfortunate thing is that no one is allowed to discuss race or ethnic problems in fear of being called a closet racist or worse, being a member of the BNP (or even worse, a PBtory ;^) .
The real problems are not racial but cultural. As I believe Oscar Wilde once said, the USA and the UK are two countries separated by a common language. So is my unhappy experience of one of my employers firing the UK based IT team to be replaced by highly educated, respected and cheap Indian techies. Trying, as a low level minion to explain a reasonably simple program problem took 6 weeks, at least 10 techies over the phone and still wasn't resolved when I left 6 months later.
Having lived in a Inuit community in the North of Canada, having friends of many colours, I really don't give a proverbial about what they look like, believe or whatever. As in an episode of MASH, Spearchucker Jones asked his roommate Hawkeye why he left the room when some of his friends visited, Hawkeye replied, "Do you like all of my friends?". End of that particular conversation.
The major problem is that more elderly people are not prepared to accept others of a different culture. The problem is not a problem to the younger generations as they are prepared to accept others more readily. Having watched a crocodile of closely guarded young children of all colours walking hand in hand, being "herded" along a pavement, I, am hopeful of having seen the future and it's rainbow.
This new series of Sherlock is fast becoming self indulgent crap.
Don't start that again or we will have Sean back with his theory of Downton IQ tests for new Bulgarian immigrants.
Besides you are wrong. It's brilliant :-)
Yes, Alanbrooke is wrong.
It isn't fast becoming self-indulgent crap: it started as self-indulgent crap, but in this episode improved to occasionally funny self-indulgent crap.
;-)
Three plot points pinched from Agatha Christie. But even she couldn't save it.
I like the original books, but I'm not exactly a rivet-counting fan - I loved the two Ritchie films, and the ITV canonical version with Jeremy Brett.
But this TV version is missing something - or perhaps has something more - than the books that makes it really irritating.
I must admit that I thought the solution to the main crime (when that was eventually revealed) was going to be a dagger made of ice, that melted in the shower. A classic of murder-mysteries. But not as good as the woman who clubbed her husband to death with a shoulder of mutton, then cooks the weapon and serves it to the police.
The rivet counting fans of the Sherlock Holmes Society and the Baker Street Irregulars appear to be almost uniformly fans of the BBC series - at least if their message boards are anything to go by.
Nearly 10 years ago, two NASA rovers landed on Mars for a 90-day mission. After five years, one - Spirit - became immobilised.
Ten years into the 90-day mission, it's twin, Opportunity, is still doing useful work. Although you wouldn't want to use it for your daily commute - in that ten years, it's only driven 23 miles.
This new series of Sherlock is fast becoming self indulgent crap.
Don't start that again or we will have Sean back with his theory of Downton IQ tests for new Bulgarian immigrants.
Besides you are wrong. It's brilliant :-)
Yes, Alanbrooke is wrong.
It isn't fast becoming self-indulgent crap: it started as self-indulgent crap, but in this episode improved to occasionally funny self-indulgent crap.
;-)
Three plot points pinched from Agatha Christie. But even she couldn't save it.
I like the original books, but I'm not exactly a rivet-counting fan - I loved the two Ritchie films, and the ITV canonical version with Jeremy Brett.
But this TV version is missing something - or perhaps has something more - than the books that makes it really irritating.
I must admit that I thought the solution to the main crime (when that was eventually revealed) was going to be a dagger made of ice, that melted in the shower. A classic of murder-mysteries. But not as good as the woman who clubbed her husband to death with a shoulder of mutton, then cooks the weapon and serves it to the police.
This new series of Sherlock is fast becoming self indulgent crap.
Don't start that again or we will have Sean back with his theory of Downton IQ tests for new Bulgarian immigrants.
Besides you are wrong. It's brilliant :-)
Yes, Alanbrooke is wrong.
It isn't fast becoming self-indulgent crap: it started as self-indulgent crap, but in this episode improved to occasionally funny self-indulgent crap.
;-)
Three plot points pinched from Agatha Christie. But even she couldn't save it.
I like the original books, but I'm not exactly a rivet-counting fan - I loved the two Ritchie films, and the ITV canonical version with Jeremy Brett.
But this TV version is missing something - or perhaps has something more - than the books that makes it really irritating.
I must admit that I thought the solution to the main crime (when that was eventually revealed) was going to be a dagger made of ice, that melted in the shower. A classic of murder-mysteries. But not as good as the woman who clubbed her husband to death with a shoulder of mutton, then cooks the weapon and serves it to the police.
The rivet counting fans of the Sherlock Holmes Society and the Baker Street Irregulars appear to be almost uniformly fans of the BBC series - at least if their message boards are anything to go by.
Yes, I've seen that, and that's intriguing. All I know is that - for me, and seemingly Mrs J as well - it's a terrible disappointment.
It's a bit like Doctor Who, which generally languishes up its own backside, with all-too-rare moments of brilliance.
Interesting couple of pieces by Farage in the Independent. The first is pertinent to the discussions on here over the last couple of days and I think Farage is wrong in his assessment. Certainly I think he is very wrong in the idea that it was Britain's military acumen that won WW1. It has long been recognised that the Germans lost the war at home and then consequently on the Western Front rather than the other way round.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
More deluded Hun bashing. Unsurprisingly since Germany had been Europe's preferred battleground for the 300 years prior to unification and had just about everyone rape, pillage and butcher their way through the country they tended to get a bit picky about it happeining again.
As for the "honour" of the Third Republic I'm still laughing. It started with a massacre of its own citizens in the Commune and ended with the creation of Vichy.
It seems a pattern on this board that the posters most incapable of argument try to replace debate with saying how "funny" they find the other side. As it has proved here: despite my clear statement that I have nothing against Germans as a people or any race-based critique, you continue to impugn my arguments as race-based. As I suspected when you first started "chortling", it doesn't appear you are worth debating on this matter, so I will stop here.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
Interesting couple of pieces by Farage in the Independent. The first is pertinent to the discussions on here over the last couple of days and I think Farage is wrong in his assessment. Certainly I think he is very wrong in the idea that it was Britain's military acumen that won WW1. It has long been recognised that the Germans lost the war at home and then consequently on the Western Front rather than the other way round.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Wasn't the German collapse on the Home Front largely a consequence of the naval blockade enforced by the Royal Navy? Therefore a result of British military acumen?
Powell's Rivers of Blood speech always had me puzzled. He was a highly regarded, intelligent classicist and he must have been well aware of the tactical nuances involved of the speech. After all, the Roman Legions were made up of many races although I suspect EP may have had more sympathy to the Greeks.
My thoughts are speculative only, but, were there not race riots about the same time in LA and Berkley other parts of the US. Perhaps his wake up call worked in the UK, much to his own detriment.
The unfortunate thing is that no one is allowed to discuss race or ethnic problems in fear of being called a closet racist or worse, being a member of the BNP (or even worse, a PBtory ;^) .
The real problems are not racial but cultural. As I believe Oscar Wilde once said, the USA and the UK are two countries separated by a common language. So is my unhappy experience of one of my employers firing the UK based IT team to be replaced by highly educated, respected and cheap Indian techies. Trying, as a low level minion to explain a reasonably simple program problem took 6 weeks, at least 10 techies over the phone and still wasn't resolved when I left 6 months later.
Having lived in a Inuit community in the North of Canada, having friends of many colours, I really don't give a proverbial about what they look like, believe or whatever. As in an episode of MASH, Spearchucker Jones asked his roommate Hawkeye why he left the room when some of his friends visited, Hawkeye replied, "Do you like all of my friends?". End of that particular conversation.
The major problem is that more elderly people are not prepared to accept others of a different culture. The problem is not a problem to the younger generations as they are prepared to accept others more readily. Having watched a crocodile of closely guarded young children of all colours walking hand in hand, being "herded" along a pavement, I, am hopeful of having seen the future and it's rainbow.
"The problem is not a problem to the younger generations as they are prepared to accept others more readily."
When you know how far the BBC version of reality is away from the truth then half the comments on here are totally surreal.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I think the Cameron quote is interesting:
"On Sunday, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr the next election was in 16 months’ time. Does that mean that the Tories won’t be fighting the European elections this May, or that Mr Cameron has forgotten about them? "
It's been reported elsewhere that the Conservatives have given up on the EU elections, this supports that view.
More deluded Hun bashing. Unsurprisingly since Germany had been Europe's preferred battleground for the 300 years prior to unification and had just about everyone rape, pillage and butcher their way through the country they tended to get a bit picky about it happeining again.
As for the "honour" of the Third Republic I'm still laughing. It started with a massacre of its own citizens in the Commune and ended with the creation of Vichy.
Careful. It seems a pattern on this board that the posters most incapable of argument flounce off in the huff. Particular those posters infamous for flouncing off in the huff from PB months ago and pathetically blaming it on tim.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I think the Cameron quote is interesting:
"On Sunday, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr the next election was in 16 months’ time. Does that mean that the Tories won’t be fighting the European elections this May, or that Mr Cameron has forgotten about them? "
It's been reported elsewhere that the Conservatives have given up on the EU elections, this supports that view.
Nah, the fop will keep posturing hoping that gullible tories will fall for it.
It seems odd to me that frontline politicians are getting stuck into who got what wrong in 1914 - yes, I know it's the centenary so they're riding on the coattails of general anniversary coverage, but the number of people around who have any personal knowledge is ZERO. It's an interesting subject for professional historians and for us wargamers, but why do Gove or Farage care? It's like TSE arguing about Caesar.
And what does the average 30-year-old who is only just about abreast of what happened in WW2 make of it?
Interesting couple of pieces by Farage in the Independent. The first is pertinent to the discussions on here over the last couple of days and I think Farage is wrong in his assessment. Certainly I think he is very wrong in the idea that it was Britain's military acumen that won WW1. It has long been recognised that the Germans lost the war at home and then consequently on the Western Front rather than the other way round.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Wasn't the German collapse on the Home Front largely a consequence of the naval blockade enforced by the Royal Navy? Therefore a result of British military acumen?
Oh indeed. That was very much the reason. Probably the most important battle of WW1 was fought in 1916 but not on the Western Front. It was Jutland, not the Somme (although both could hardly be claimed to be victories) or any later land battle that was the eventual cause of the German defeat.
My point was that Farage is utterly wrong to claim that "from 9 August 1914 to 11 November 1918 he [Haig] led what is arguably the most successful feat of arms in the history of the British Army."
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I agree. But there are lots of posters on here who keep insisting he should have chosen where he is going to stand by now as if his waiting for after the Euros is somehow a bad thing.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I think the Cameron quote is interesting:
"On Sunday, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr the next election was in 16 months’ time. Does that mean that the Tories won’t be fighting the European elections this May, or that Mr Cameron has forgotten about them? "
It's been reported elsewhere that the Conservatives have given up on the EU elections, this supports that view.
I wonder if that indicates that in many places the Tories just haven't got a ground game anymore? Or alternatively given the dire implications of the Ashcroft polling that they are going to put all their resources into defending their Parliamentary position?
After all realistically how many seats are going to change hands in the Euros? Perhaps 15 or 20 in an exceptional year (only 9 changed hands last time and 12 in 2004) at most of which perhaps a third would be Tory. That's the thing there are no big prizes for winning the Euros. That's why winning carries all the bragging rights. If its a case of holding a handful of Euros seats or saving 20 or 30 constituency seats it's really a no brainer.
Either way it would be helpful to UKIP (and possibly if UKIP beat Labour in the popular vote beneficial to the Tories in belittling Labour)
It seems odd to me that frontline politicians are getting stuck into who got what wrong in 1914 - yes, I know it's the centenary so they're riding on the coattails of general anniversary coverage, but the number of people around who have any personal knowledge is ZERO. It's an interesting subject for professional historians and for us wargamers, but why do Gove or Farage care? It's like TSE arguing about Caesar.
And what does the average 30-year-old who is only just about abreast of what happened in WW2 make of it?
It is a very esoteric argument and I agree that probably 90%+ of the population would not have a clue why it is being discussed or who is right/wrong/informed/ill informed.
Doesn't stop it being a fascinating subject for those of us who have an interest though :-)
With your interest in military history I am awaiting your contribution to the debate.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I think the Cameron quote is interesting:
"On Sunday, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr the next election was in 16 months’ time. Does that mean that the Tories won’t be fighting the European elections this May, or that Mr Cameron has forgotten about them? "
It's been reported elsewhere that the Conservatives have given up on the EU elections, this supports that view.
I wonder if that indicates that in many places the Tories just haven't got a ground game anymore? Or alternatively given the dire implications of the Ashcroft polling that they are going to put all their resources into defending their Parliamentary position?
After all realistically how many seats are going to change hands in the Euros? Perhaps 15 or 20 in an exceptional year (only 9 changed hands last time and 12 in 2004) at most of which perhaps a third would be Tory. That's the thing there are no big prizes for winning the Euros. That's why winning carries all the bragging rights. If its a case of holding a handful of Euros seats or saving 20 or 30 constituency seats it's really a no brainer.
A party that does badly in the Euro elections must surely expect to also do badly in the ~5,000 (?) council seats being contested on the same day.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I think the Cameron quote is interesting:
"On Sunday, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr the next election was in 16 months’ time. Does that mean that the Tories won’t be fighting the European elections this May, or that Mr Cameron has forgotten about them? "
It's been reported elsewhere that the Conservatives have given up on the EU elections, this supports that view.
I wonder if that indicates that in many places the Tories just haven't got a ground game anymore? Or alternatively given the dire implications of the Ashcroft polling that they are going to put all their resources into defending their Parliamentary position?
After all realistically how many seats are going to change hands in the Euros? Perhaps 15 or 20 in an exceptional year (only 9 changed hands last time and 12 in 2004) at most of which perhaps a third would be Tory. That's the thing there are no big prizes for winning the Euros. That's why winning carries all the bragging rights. If its a case of holding a handful of Euros seats or saving 20 or 30 constituency seats it's really a no brainer.
Either way it would be helpful to UKIP (and possibly if UKIP beat Labour in the popular vote beneficial to the Tories in belittling Labour)
Whilst I think you are right on the perceived prizes (which is incredible given how much control over our lives MEPs have, probably in excess of any individual MP), the danger of the Tories adopting that position is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they don't fight hard for the Euros then they could find UKIP winning almost by default which would further shift the narrative and greatly increase the problems for Cameron within his own party.
I really can't see that the Tories have any alternative but to fight tooth and nail in order to beat UKIP.
Nick Palmer - Farage wants out of Europe and Gove has admitted he would vote to leave too. I suspect Gove believes that by teaching kids that WWI was a 'just' war it will boost our nation's flagging patriotism and move us back towards embracing an independent nation state.
It seems inexplicable to people like you and me, but for some loving your country is all about what said nation did a long time ago.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I agree. But there are lots of posters on here who keep insisting he should have chosen where he is going to stand by now as if his waiting for after the Euros is somehow a bad thing.
Really? They can't have been very bright. Farage obviously wants to cause as many tory MPs as possible maximum fear and uncertainty by keeping his options open and doing polling in multiple constituencies. This will inevitably push them and much of the tory party into posturing on kipper core issues, which is precisely what he wants.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I agree. But there are lots of posters on here who keep insisting he should have chosen where he is going to stand by now as if his waiting for after the Euros is somehow a bad thing.
Who says he hasn't (I take that Folkestone comment with a pinch of salt). Farage may well know exactly where he wants to stand or have a list of targets but he doesn't have to tell anyone else. If I were him I'd leave it until all the other parties have pretty much settled whose standing down and who their candidates are and only then announce where he's standing.
Given the current publicity around UKIP and his prominence and UKIP's prominence in the Euros and given I'm pretty sure he will stand in one of UKIP's stronger constituencies he doesn't need to start campaigning in the seat early. He can afford to wait until the rest of the candidates start lining up knowing he likely has a far higher profile than any of those he will be going up against.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I think the Cameron quote is interesting:
"On Sunday, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr the next election was in 16 months’ time. Does that mean that the Tories won’t be fighting the European elections this May, or that Mr Cameron has forgotten about them? "
It's been reported elsewhere that the Conservatives have given up on the EU elections, this supports that view.
I wonder if that indicates that in many places the Tories just haven't got a ground game anymore? Or alternatively given the dire implications of the Ashcroft polling that they are going to put all their resources into defending their Parliamentary position?
After all realistically how many seats are going to change hands in the Euros? Perhaps 15 or 20 in an exceptional year (only 9 changed hands last time and 12 in 2004) at most of which perhaps a third would be Tory. That's the thing there are no big prizes for winning the Euros. That's why winning carries all the bragging rights. If its a case of holding a handful of Euros seats or saving 20 or 30 constituency seats it's really a no brainer.
Either way it would be helpful to UKIP (and possibly if UKIP beat Labour in the popular vote beneficial to the Tories in belittling Labour)
Whilst I think you are right on the perceived prizes (which is incredible given how much control over our lives MEPs have, probably in excess of any individual MP), the danger of the Tories adopting that position is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they don't fight hard for the Euros then they could find UKIP winning almost by default which would further shift the narrative and greatly increase the problems for Cameron within his own party.
I really can't see that the Tories have any alternative but to fight tooth and nail in order to beat UKIP.
But the parliamentary Conservative Party is pro-EU. They can't pose convincingly as eurosceptics in an election that showcases UKIP, A party with a clear anti-EU position.
But the parliamentary Conservative Party is pro-EU. They can't pose convincingly as eurosceptics in an election that showcases UKIP, A party with a clear anti-EU position.
The leadership under Cameron clearly is and while the PCP still is that's changing. It almost certainly won't be some years down the road since the direction of travel for euroscepticism in the tory party has one direction now and it sure ain't for staying IN.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Well I don't think that's particularly surprising. With all the voting data that the Euros will provide Farage would be a mug not to take advantage of it.
I think the Cameron quote is interesting:
"On Sunday, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr the next election was in 16 months’ time. Does that mean that the Tories won’t be fighting the European elections this May, or that Mr Cameron has forgotten about them? "
It's been reported elsewhere that the Conservatives have given up on the EU elections, this supports that view.
Whilst I think you are right on the perceived prizes (which is incredible given how much control over our lives MEPs have, probably in excess of any individual MP), the danger of the Tories adopting that position is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they don't fight hard for the Euros then they could find UKIP winning almost by default which would further shift the narrative and greatly increase the problems for Cameron within his own party.
I really can't see that the Tories have any alternative but to fight tooth and nail in order to beat UKIP.
I agree but I think for the Tories its a case of the best worse case scenario. Which is worst coming third behind UKIP (1st) and Labour (2nd) or coming third behind Labour (1st) and UKIP (2nd).
If UKIP win I suspect its better for the Tories because true or not it can be plausibly dismissed as an indictment of our current relationship with Europe (which Labour supports) and a plague on all the Westminster Houses vote (lessons to learn blah de blah de blah ~ you know the routine).
If Labour win then that narrative doesn't work, they've defeated UKIP on Europe from third, and they've defeated bpth Government parties (without offering a referendum) and Labour can claim they are on their way to Downing Street. This is the thing UKIP's success will not always disadvantage the Tories
There is a definite body of thought that the victory of the allies was as a direct result of British and Imperial military prowress in the western front. The victories in 1918 were a direct result of the bloody lessons of 1916 and 1917. Gary Sheffield outlines the case here:
And this book, based on german military archives show that even on the Somme in 1916 (Where my grandfather was an infantry private in the Manchester regiment), shows that the Germans found even Kitcheners new army tough opponents, with high morale:
Arguably though the Anglo Franco Serbian offensive in Salonika was the event that led to the collapse of German fighting will, as it put Bulgaria and Austria Hungary out of the war and left Germany without allies or resources. Arguably the Serbs ended the war that they had started, as they spearheaded this offensive.
Interesting couple of pieces by Farage in the Independent. The first is pertinent to the discussions on here over the last couple of days and I think Farage is wrong in his assessment. Certainly I think he is very wrong in the idea that it was Britain's military acumen that won WW1. It has long been recognised that the Germans lost the war at home and then consequently on the Western Front rather than the other way round.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
Wasn't the German collapse on the Home Front largely a consequence of the naval blockade enforced by the Royal Navy? Therefore a result of British military acumen?
Whilst I think you are right on the perceived prizes (which is incredible given how much control over our lives MEPs have, probably in excess of any individual MP), the danger of the Tories adopting that position is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they don't fight hard for the Euros then they could find UKIP winning almost by default which would further shift the narrative and greatly increase the problems for Cameron within his own party.
I really can't see that the Tories have any alternative but to fight tooth and nail in order to beat UKIP.
Not so much so these days. After all since Cameron created the ECR British parties are all now peripheral opposition parties in the EP as we have no representative in the dominant EPP. Now that in itself is not a reason to have representation within it but it demonstrates how little relevance in the UK the EU has.
Its astonishing in a way to contemplate that not one British voter will vote for the current dominant grouping in the EP in this year's elections.
'More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.'
Who can blame him, he can't afford another Buckingham shambles..
'More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.'
Who can blame him, he can't afford another Buckingham shambles..
'More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.'
Who can blame him, he can't afford another Buckingham shambles..
Yes it was such a shambles. Bercow was defending a majority of 18,000 on 57% of the vote from 2005 and the pro EU Westminster Parties had 18,000 votes between them . Meanwhile UKIP had a massive 3% vote share.
Now does anyone seriously think with the major parties not standing that a nominally right-wing Eurosceptic will win votes from two left wing pro-European parties in large numbers or is it possible that a Pro-EU Tory posturing (hiding) as the Pro-EU "democracy" [sic] candidate and opposing the right wing Eurosceptic might pick-up tactical votes from the left?. Meanwhile Tory loyalists are going to vote for their MP (who reputedly was well regarded locally) whether he is Speaker or not,
So under the circumstances what happened? 10,000 or so it would seem of the 18,000 Pro-EU non Tory votes went to the Pro-EU "democracy" candidate, various independent picked up the odd hundreds to thousands of votes. Meanwhile Bercow's support dropped by over 5,000 as did his majority losing 10 points of vote share and as expected lo and behold Farage had the absolutely dreadful result of increasing his party's vote by 7,000 and his party's vote share from 3% to 17.4% with a 12% swing from the Speaker to UKIP (the 27% plus swing needed for victory was just too much).
Of course in the eyes of Westminster anything but a victory for Farage must be an absolute disaster for UKIP. After all the Westminster Parties overturn 18,000 majorities everyday.
Whichever way you slice it Farage was never going to beat Bercow however unpopular he is in certain Westminster circles. Nor was Farage going to make great inroads into the non Tory pro-EU vote in Buckingham. As such for a small party the performance is perfectly respectable. If Farage made an error it was standing in the first place given it was inevitable that the establishment parties would distort expectations and the outcome of the result.
So all in all, a mistake perhaps, thanks to the media a circus probably, but a shambles given the outcome. Hardly.
'More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.'
Who can blame him, he can't afford another Buckingham shambles..
I don't khow why you think Buckingham was a shambles.
Look at it from Faranges pont of view, he has to keep standing somewhere which he doesn't expect to win simply to get the profile of his party up until they start to gain traction. Buckingham was pretty ideal in that lab/libdems were not standing.
Now that UKIP have traction he has already (I assume) started to look at where he can stand and win.
The Charles Moore book on Thatcher is also 99p if you have a Nook device which were selling like hotcakes when they were offering their e-readers for £29.
Comments
He also said that someone of West Indian origin, even if born and brought up in this country, could never become an Englishman. Well, that seems to me to be racist - as if the colour of your skin automatically determines what you can be, regardless of all other considerations.
He may have had a brilliant mind but brilliant minds often lack common sense and judgment and I think Powell lacked those, as well as imagination.
As part of a policy of driving down wages?
Which appears to be happening in at least one sector.
And are we supposed to believe that Daily Mail journalists never say "f******"?
The old lady was supposedly revealed here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-433497/Widow-Enoch-Powells-Rivers-Blood-speech-really-did-exist.html
He could have but he didn't. So tough luck. Good to see it upsets the Cameroons so much though. As amusing as their hilarious stupidity in thinking tory kipper waverers are likely to run screaming from Farage because he starts banging on about Enoch any more than banging on endlessly about Muslims would scare them off. Talk about being out of touch with their own base.
I look forward to Cammie's excoriating refutation of Enoch in response to this because that certainly wouldn't upset some of his MPs even more than usual.
LOL What a ridiculous thing to say. Truly desperate. I could outline some VERY amusing things Mail journo's and indeed the blessed Dacre haven't just said but done, but of course I won't for obvious reasons on here.
Besides you are wrong. It's brilliant :-)
The PB Romneys are always wrong. The PB Romneys never learn.
Maybe what he meant was that Boris had been "f****** Muslims" which is of course a much more interesting story.
LOL
'Sherlock' has disappeared up its own arse.
Please watch from 43:50 if you cant be bothered with the whole thing, although it is well worth watching in its entirety
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPze0dRgW8
Just for you and the other deluded Cameroons let me point out the obvious with regards to Farage and Crosby. Crosby can never out-Farage Farage while he works for Cameron and Crosby looks ridiculous and hypocritical trying to work up some false 'outrage' over Farage's immigration positions given his own background in spinning. Did you see a calamitous drop in kipper polling after Farage was banging on about Muslims? Nor will you about Enoch.
What the Cameroons desperately need is for Farage to completely implode in a Robert Kilroy-Silk like manner due to the kippers repeating that kind of hilarious infighting. Something which hardly looks likely right now when even Bloom's very funny stupidity failed to make the kippers crash and burn. The kippers are polling higher than they did at the start of 2013 and this is their low point between now and the EU elections. As you can clearly see for yourself.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Are the kippers going to start falling again after the EU elections? Yep. But nowhere near enough for Cammie to start cheering. A repeat of the 2010 kipper 3.1% in 2015 looks like utterly wishful thinking from Cammie and Osbrowne.
The only thing Cammie has going for him is that when kipper polling gets high enough it starts taking an increasing chunk out of little Ed and labour's polling too. Not all of those who flirt with the kippers go back though most will. It's why, as I predicted only a few days ago, little Ed has started posturing on kipper core issues along with Cammie and it's likely to prove just as pointless for both of them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10552336/Germany-started-the-Great-War-but-the-Left-cant-bear-to-say-so.html
The Tories clearly regard Hunt as some sort of weak link and are out to get him.
(And in voting terms those consequences will still exist even if the media and political class make sure the majority of the population don't know they exist.).
A bunch of countries in a region will have a balance of power. If one of them becomes much more powerful than they used to be then that balance will be shaken up - usually with a war.
So German reunification caused WWI imo because it made Germany too powerful for the pre-existing balance of power. I don't think anyone started it. Just one of those things.
Similar with Japan later.
Time for a triple fop on welfare. *chortle*
That could refute the point or could be a special case cos blood.
"Your diagnosis was commonly made in the interwar years, and was what the idea of appeasement was based on: that if only Germany could be accomodated by giving them their share of the spoils that peace would be possible."
I'm only saying half of that though. In theory i think it's right but what I'm saying is in practise in those situations the odds of either side coming to a reasonable compromise over the new balance of power until after they've fought it out is pretty much nil.
"The problem with Germany and Japan was that they were aggressive, autocratic states."
Sure but i think states will tend to become autocratic and aggressive when they are much more powerful than the current balance of power (until it's been fought out).
It isn't fast becoming self-indulgent crap: it started as self-indulgent crap, but in this episode improved to occasionally funny self-indulgent crap.
;-)
So that would be worse than the fully democratic government of Tsarist Russia or revanchist France which would take a fancy to crypto fascism every so often ?
Mkaes you wonder why Imperial Germany had been at peace for 43 years.
OAPs reliant on the state pension are a group UKIP does better than the Conservaties with.
"LORD ASHCROFT POLL
RETIRED VOTER ON STATE PENSION
#UKIP 32.93%
#LABOUR 32.32%
#CONSERVATIVES 29%
#LIBDEMS 5.75%"
twitter.com/UKELECTIONS2015/statuses/419820398335635456
If you really need to wonder what took 43 years before another German war, you might want to go back and re-read the difficulty of integrating a doubling of Prussian territory, which is what happened after the last round of German expansionism 43 years before.
"LORD ASHCROFT POLL
RETIRED VOTER ON STATE PENSION
#UKIP 32.93%
#LABOUR 32.32%
#CONSERVATIVES 29%
#LIBDEMS 5.75%"
twitter.com/UKELECTIONS2015/statuses/419820398335635456
All pledges and promises (Cast Iron or not) for 2015 will boil down to trust. Not something Cammie seems to have in abundance with kipper tory waverers.
But this TV version is missing something - or perhaps has something more - than the books that makes it really irritating.
I must admit that I thought the solution to the main crime (when that was eventually revealed) was going to be a dagger made of ice, that melted in the shower. A classic of murder-mysteries. But not as good as the woman who clubbed her husband to death with a shoulder of mutton, then cooks the weapon and serves it to the police.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_to_the_Slaughter
As for the "honour" of the Third Republic I'm still laughing. It started with a massacre of its own citizens in the Commune and ended with the creation of Vichy.
My thoughts are speculative only, but, were there not race riots about the same time in LA and Berkley other parts of the US. Perhaps his wake up call worked in the UK, much to his own detriment.
The unfortunate thing is that no one is allowed to discuss race or ethnic problems in fear of being called a closet racist or worse, being a member of the BNP (or even worse, a PBtory ;^) .
The real problems are not racial but cultural. As I believe Oscar Wilde once said, the USA and the UK are two countries separated by a common language. So is my unhappy experience of one of my employers firing the UK based IT team to be replaced by highly educated, respected and cheap Indian techies. Trying, as a low level minion to explain a reasonably simple program problem took 6 weeks, at least 10 techies over the phone and still wasn't resolved when I left 6 months later.
Having lived in a Inuit community in the North of Canada, having friends of many colours, I really don't give a proverbial about what they look like, believe or whatever. As in an episode of MASH, Spearchucker Jones asked his roommate Hawkeye why he left the room when some of his friends visited, Hawkeye replied, "Do you like all of my friends?". End of that particular conversation.
The major problem is that more elderly people are not prepared to accept others of a different culture. The problem is not a problem to the younger generations as they are prepared to accept others more readily. Having watched a crocodile of closely guarded young children of all colours walking hand in hand, being "herded" along a pavement, I, am hopeful of having seen the future and it's rainbow.
One could almost think the US would have Saddam on their side [ as he always was ] to do the proxy on Al-Qaeda.
Except he is dead !
Nearly 10 years ago, two NASA rovers landed on Mars for a 90-day mission. After five years, one - Spirit - became immobilised.
Ten years into the 90-day mission, it's twin, Opportunity, is still doing useful work. Although you wouldn't want to use it for your daily commute - in that ten years, it's only driven 23 miles.
Engineering and science at its best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_(rover)
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/01/its-been-a-full-decade-since-the-spirit-rover-landed-on-mars/
It's a bit like Doctor Who, which generally languishes up its own backside, with all-too-rare moments of brilliance.
More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/british-incompetence-in-world-war-one-has-been-overestimated-its-politicians-not-the-military-who-deserve-censure-9039985.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/zimbabwe-leader-robert-mugabe-has-collapsed-report-20140105-hv7ka.html
When you know how far the BBC version of reality is away from the truth then half the comments on here are totally surreal.
"On Sunday, the Prime Minister told Andrew Marr the next election was in 16 months’ time. Does that mean that the Tories won’t be fighting the European elections this May, or that Mr Cameron has forgotten about them? "
It's been reported elsewhere that the Conservatives have given up on the EU elections, this supports that view.
*chortle indeed*
And what does the average 30-year-old who is only just about abreast of what happened in WW2 make of it?
My point was that Farage is utterly wrong to claim that "from 9 August 1914 to 11 November 1918 he [Haig] led what is arguably the most successful feat of arms in the history of the British Army."
After all realistically how many seats are going to change hands in the Euros? Perhaps 15 or 20 in an exceptional year (only 9 changed hands last time and 12 in 2004) at most of which perhaps a third would be Tory. That's the thing there are no big prizes for winning the Euros. That's why winning carries all the bragging rights. If its a case of holding a handful of Euros seats or saving 20 or 30 constituency seats it's really a no brainer.
Either way it would be helpful to UKIP (and possibly if UKIP beat Labour in the popular vote beneficial to the Tories in belittling Labour)
Doesn't stop it being a fascinating subject for those of us who have an interest though :-)
With your interest in military history I am awaiting your contribution to the debate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10552555/Labour-and-Tory-ultras-must-learn-discipline-to-fight-Nats.html
I really can't see that the Tories have any alternative but to fight tooth and nail in order to beat UKIP.
It seems inexplicable to people like you and me, but for some loving your country is all about what said nation did a long time ago.
Given the current publicity around UKIP and his prominence and UKIP's prominence in the Euros and given I'm pretty sure he will stand in one of UKIP's stronger constituencies he doesn't need to start campaigning in the seat early. He can afford to wait until the rest of the candidates start lining up knowing he likely has a far higher profile than any of those he will be going up against.
If UKIP win I suspect its better for the Tories because true or not it can be plausibly dismissed as an indictment of our current relationship with Europe (which Labour supports) and a plague on all the Westminster Houses vote (lessons to learn blah de blah de blah ~ you know the routine).
If Labour win then that narrative doesn't work, they've defeated UKIP on Europe from third, and they've defeated bpth Government parties (without offering a referendum) and Labour can claim they are on their way to Downing Street. This is the thing UKIP's success will not always disadvantage the Tories
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Victory-First-World-Realities/dp/0747264600/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
And this book, based on german military archives show that even on the Somme in 1916 (Where my grandfather was an infantry private in the Manchester regiment), shows that the Germans found even Kitcheners new army tough opponents, with high morale:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-German-Eyes-British-Phoenix/dp/0753822024/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388966087&sr=1-1&keywords=the+somme+through+german+eyes
Arguably though the Anglo Franco Serbian offensive in Salonika was the event that led to the collapse of German fighting will, as it put Bulgaria and Austria Hungary out of the war and left Germany without allies or resources. Arguably the Serbs ended the war that they had started, as they spearheaded this offensive.
http://whereismacedonia.org/about-macedonia/history-of-macedonia/175-ww1-the-end-of-the-macedonian-thessaloniki-salonika-front
WW1 was a great feat of arms as well as a great tragedy.
The
Its astonishing in a way to contemplate that not one British voter will vote for the current dominant grouping in the EP in this year's elections.
'More importantly for PB Farage makes clear in his second short piece that he will not decide where he intends to stand at the GE until after the Euro elections in May.'
Who can blame him, he can't afford another Buckingham shambles..
I see William Hill has 2/1 on him winning a seat, and 6/4 on UKIP winning any seats at all. Sounds about right to me.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/05/pastafarian-wins-election-to-town-board-and-takes-oath-with-a-colander-on-his-head/
The comments are good, though some a little strained...
Now does anyone seriously think with the major parties not standing that a nominally right-wing Eurosceptic will win votes from two left wing pro-European parties in large numbers or is it possible that a Pro-EU Tory posturing (hiding) as the Pro-EU "democracy" [sic] candidate and opposing the right wing Eurosceptic might pick-up tactical votes from the left?. Meanwhile Tory loyalists are going to vote for their MP (who reputedly was well regarded locally) whether he is Speaker or not,
So under the circumstances what happened? 10,000 or so it would seem of the 18,000 Pro-EU non Tory votes went to the Pro-EU "democracy" candidate, various independent picked up the odd hundreds to thousands of votes. Meanwhile Bercow's support dropped by over 5,000 as did his majority losing 10 points of vote share and as expected lo and behold Farage had the absolutely dreadful result of increasing his party's vote by 7,000 and his party's vote share from 3% to 17.4% with a 12% swing from the Speaker to UKIP (the 27% plus swing needed for victory was just too much).
Of course in the eyes of Westminster anything but a victory for Farage must be an absolute disaster for UKIP. After all the Westminster Parties overturn 18,000 majorities everyday.
Whichever way you slice it Farage was never going to beat Bercow however unpopular he is in certain Westminster circles. Nor was Farage going to make great inroads into the non Tory pro-EU vote in Buckingham. As such for a small party the performance is perfectly respectable. If Farage made an error it was standing in the first place given it was inevitable that the establishment parties would distort expectations and the outcome of the result.
So all in all, a mistake perhaps, thanks to the media a circus probably, but a shambles given the outcome. Hardly.
Also, David Kynaston's latest in his postwar Britain series Modernity Britain: Opening the Box, 1957-1963 is only 99p as well on Kindle.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00BMOQ1GU/ref=s9_pbks_bw_d16_g351_i4?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-2&pf_rd_r=1PEJRC44XXDVXAP2189W&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=396378647&pf_rd_i=362335031
Look at it from Faranges pont of view, he has to keep standing somewhere which he doesn't expect to win simply to get the profile of his party up until they start to gain traction. Buckingham was pretty ideal in that lab/libdems were not standing.
Now that UKIP have traction he has already (I assume) started to look at where he can stand and win.
http://www.nook.com/gb/ebooks/margaret-thatcher-the-authorized-biography-volume-one-not-for-turning-by-charles-moore/9781846146497