"Hundreds of students missed out on a jab as UCL clinic 'ran out of supplies' (Daily Telegraph)."
As DavidL and I amongst others have pointed out, we have become shit on the vaccine rollout. The past month has been piss poor given the need to jab fast.
We should be jabbing 1 million a day. We're barely averaging 150,000 1st jabs. It's not good enough.
Claptrap. We are ahead of any other major nation on the planet and catching up now with Israel.
Second hand are being prioritised, rightly or wrongly, so quoting first doses is irrelevant. The reality is that the aim is to have everyone vulnerable with two jabs by 21/6 and it seems that has been/will be achieved.
So no excuse not to lift remaining restrictions by 21/6.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Sure, deserters are always welcome.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
Not only that but Georgia had returned to royal control and South Carolina wasn't far off either.
The American Revolution was defeatable in principle but probably not given the range of foreign allies weighing in against Britain.
I think that only Savannah was under British control, like in most insurgencies the rebels controlled the countryside, the state the cities. In those days most people were rural of course.
The G7 Communique is - of course - a complete joke, through which a coach and horses can be dragged.
20% profit tax on profits above a 10% margin.
Google, Apple and Microsoft will pay more, as they are high margin businesses.
While Amazon (which has a massive low margin consumer retail business) will not.
The consequence of this is that demand for high sale, low margin businesses is going to go through the roof to enable firms to get their profit margins down to around 10%.
AmerisourceBergen McKesson and the other drug distributors (operating margins 1.5%-2.0%, with tens of billions of dollars of sales) look ripe for purchasing.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
The Suez Canal was irrelevant in the War surely? At least while the Axis controlled the rest of Mediterranean.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
"Hundreds of students missed out on a jab as UCL clinic 'ran out of supplies' (Daily Telegraph)."
As DavidL and I amongst others have pointed out, we have become shit on the vaccine rollout. The past month has been piss poor given the need to jab fast.
We should be jabbing 1 million a day. We're barely averaging 150,000 1st jabs. It's not good enough.
Can you provide evidence of this massive stockpile of vaccines that are languishing unused?
You really can be an arse sometimes. Yet again you respond to a genuine issue with a side-show response, laced with facetiousness.
Three months ago we should have been piling on everything conceivable to ensure supplies ramp up. Foresight is part of leadership. Boris has neither.
Everything, everything, conceivable should have been done to ensure we jab a million a day.
Vaccinating 150,000 first jabs a day is quite simply not good enough.
This is piss poor oversight.
No. This simple fact is that we are in a supply constrained world. I’d love it if biological manufacturing was easy* but it’s fucking hard to do consistently, at scale and with high quality. You usually have years to optimise the process. For obvious reasons they haven’t this time. Three months is no time.
The issue has been the delays to Novavax (I’m sceptical of that company given the litany of disasters over the last 20 years) but @MaxPB knows the specifics there better than I do.
I know you hate Boris (and by the way there is going to be a big step towards opening on June 21st, although I suspect that WFH guidance and masks on public transport will remain) but try to not let your hatred overcome an analysis of the facts
Sure 1m a day would be great. But we don’t have the vaccines.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Sure, deserters are always welcome.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
Not only that but Georgia had returned to royal control and South Carolina wasn't far off either.
The American Revolution was defeatable in principle but probably not given the range of foreign allies weighing in against Britain.
I think we'd have won in 1776 if we'd advanced aggressively against George Washington and if we'd have blockaded the American ports properly to prevent arms and reinforcements from Europe getting in. But unfortunately we didn't have great strategists or generals in that war, unlike in the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.
I think the UK winning the American Revolutionary War is a really interesting counter-factual. I find it hard to believe that the independence movement wouldn't have continued and the US eventually split off - but it may surely have been a couple of decades (or even more) later and perhaps led to a very different world.
I presume Canada illustrates that independence wasn't inevitable? (Maybe there were very different circumstances)
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
The Suez Canal was irrelevant in the War surely? At least while the Axis controlled the rest of Mediterranean.
It might not be long until Younge finds himself cancelled, if he carries on writing articles like this.
He is right though, for the most part statues are dubious works of public art. The broader problem that we should be concerned about is the woke takeover of the historical profession; the overt rewriting of history to suit a fashionable political narrative. It was admirable that the historical profession held out for a long time but the dominoes are now falling at speed. Dominic Sandbrook has written recently about this.
If you’re referencing the Sandbrook review of a history book written but a noted Twitter moron then it was an absolutely eviscerating. People may not like Sandbrook’s views but they would struggle to construct a compelling argument that his books are either badly written or badly argued (in need of someone to tell him that sometimes less is more, perhaps).
I’m always fascinated by how people without relevant skills and knowledge feel able to write either history or children’s books. The latter in particular draws the “right name will sell any old shit”. I’m sure you can name a few.
Yep - fake history is a big problem. Although I do admire Tom Holland, who writes excellent books and hasn't ever had a significant academic position.
You don’t have to be an academic to be a good historian, as Holland, or Max Hastings demonstrate. But you do have to know the subject you’re writing about, and put in the research.
I’m pleased to say that wokeness is almost totally absent from my own course in military history.
Good luck holding the fort. I remember reading about a woke incursion in to diplomatic studies, rather than looking at the events being studied they just went for the whole genre and concluded that it was discredited and needed to be cancelled; perhaps they will will follow a similar approach with military history when they get around to it.
One thing that causes me endless private amusement is the idea of a woke army, trying to fight an actual war, like against the Russians or the Chinese.
Most of the wokeism yours truly has encountered in military history, has been from the right NOT the left.
Interested to hear more. However, I don't actually think of wokeism as something being associated with the left.
Treatment of Gen. Montgomery by UK as opposed to US writers is a prime example. For many of Brits, any criticism of the Blessed Monty is sacrilege. While for many American writers, the guy was a total waste of space.
Have a LOT of military history monographs published by Osprey. General standard is excellent, but there are a number of instances where British authors show significant bias against non-British foes of HM's forces, esp. if they were a) American or b) Irish.
Not in every case, or even the majority. But enough to be noticeable.
And you run into the same type of thing with some American authors. For example, the Osprey on the fight of the Nez Perce versus the US Army is (almost) comical in its denigration of the Nez Perce in general and Chief Joseph in particular. For example, dwelling in great length that Chief Joseph was NOT a military leader (which he was not) and thus NOT a great war leader.
Imagine IF they'd used the same line to pooh-pooh the "war leadership" of Franklin Roosevelt or Winston Churchill? (At least Chief Joseph did NOT drive HIS brass hats half-mad with his less-than-helpful interventions into military operations!)
A big issue with military history is that so many primary published sources are written by soldiers eager to vindicate themselves and rubbish their colleagues.
Isn't that life?
The worst were probably the German generals after WW2, who asserted they’d have won the war but for Hitler, or bad weather, or mice eating the cables of tanks etc.
The really interesting question is what would have happened had the Nazis never launched Barbarossa and just been content with domination of western, central and south-eastern Europe.
They’d have run out of oil?
I saw Andrew Roberts talk on just this issue, and his view is that if Hitler had thrown everything at North Africa, he would have gotten all the oil he wanted (don't forget that Egypt produced a decent amount of oil at the time), and could also have strangled the British Empire by controlling the Suez Canal.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
The idea that it is somehow critical that the Tories hold their 82 majority as opposed to slipping back to 80 is a bit of a stretch. The reality is that unlike a minority government or even a 1992 government gradually losing power this government is totally dominant in the Commons and indeed in the polls as we saw yesterday. In these circumstances Rishi is somewhat overstating things but its the sort of thing that everyone does in elections. I believe its called politics, a weird past time really.
Good morning everyone. Let's hope we have some play at Lords today, and at Chelmsford, although I fear Essex' chance of retaining the Championship has been washed away.
On topic, in yesterday's Guardian, Katy Balls was suggesting that 'the Tory rebellion on aid shows Johnson’s support is a mile wide and an inch deep,' and maybe Rishi's letter is a demonstration of a realisation of that. If longstanding MP's in the Home Counties start to fear their careers might be under threat support for Johnson might weaken. After all, he's not there because he's liked or admired, or, indeed, I suspect, trusted; he's there because he's seen as a winner and if that goes he's in trouble.
More wishful thinking by Boris's opponents. I get the feeling that he is going to be "lucky" in C&A once again. Comfortably so.
A 'reasonably comfortable' win in C&A wouldn't be 'lucky'; it'd be no more than expected. If the Tory doesn't win 'reasonably comfortably' alarm bells will ring.
And, as was pointed out elsewhere ....lived here since 2013 definitely wouldn't make one a 'local' in this neck of the woods.
But it is the essential LibDem gamebook - anyone who hasn't had seven generations born and died in the constituency will get tarred with the " incomer" brushed. If you do meet that hurdle, you will be fought with the "entitled oppressor" label. Who made their money from slavery. Probably.
The LibDems are fast becoming the go to party of Home Counties snobs and NIMBYs. Margot Leadbetter would now be a LibDem. As would Hyacinth Bucket.
That’s nothing! Hermann Goering would now be a Tory. As would Dr Crippen.
And Vlad the Impaler would have voted Brexit, though admittedly for sovereignty reasons rather than immigration per se.
I think you have that wrong. It's Labour who have the antisemitic problem, not the Tories.. so Hitler would have been Labour.
Historically there hs been far more antisemitism in the Tory party.
Listen chummy.. we are talking now not 1800s its your party that is antisemitic.
I belong to no party, but am well aware as to which of the major parties contained significant apolgists for Hitler in the 1930s - and were keen to strike a deal with him. It was the same party which was still riddled with racists in the 1960s and 70s - and many of whose members openly sympathised with Apartheid in South Africa and Ian Smith's repulsive regime in Rhodesia. As late as 1997 the Tories had an MP who had called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged - a message which many Tories were happy to openly display on their T Shirts.
Maggie was responsible for getting rid of Ian Smith and installing Robert Mugabe, you should be praising her
This interview with Smith is fascinating I think. A lot of the Firing Line series on YouTube are worth watching if you like political interviews about politics rather than the politicians.
Ian Smith was electorally defeated in April 1979, before Thatcher was PM, leading to the shortlived country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The reality was that the Rhodesian regime had been been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerrillas before then.
It hadn't been militarily defeated by the ZANU guerillas it's just that it's strategic and economic position had become hopeless. It wasn't credible to resist them from a totally isolated position any longer given the geopolitical context.
Exactly. That is how a guerilla war ends, by making the continuation of the war impossible by the government.
Very much like the Peninsular campaign.
The war was winnable for the French, IMHO, and they came very close to winning it at the start of 1812, when they drove the Spanish out of Valencia and the Levante. But, they did not have the numbers to win it - and invade Russia at the same time. Had they focused just on Spain and Portugal, and committed perhaps another 50,000 soldiers (they had 350,000 at the beginning of 1812) they would have won - albeit at dreadful cost. Instead, they began withdrawing soldiers to fight in Russia, and the tide turned against them.
Marshal Suchet, who took Valencia, was easily the most talented of the French commanders, the only one who came out of Spain with his reputation enhanced, and probably not conincidentally, a man of utter ruthlessness and inhumanity. Guerilla campaigns are almost never sufficient to win, on their own. Almost always, the insurgents require the support of some external power.
Can you think of any examples where the insurgents have won on their own?
Haiti in 1804
That’s a good example, although many rebel leaders were ex-regular soldiers in the French army.
Sure, deserters are always welcome.
The Irish war of independence 1919-21 would be another example
For a more recent one, Tito in Yugoslavia 1941-45. Some assistance from the Allies, but not a lot.
The secret of a successful guerilla campaign is to stay in the field. As long as you continue the fight, victory is possible, and often the war attracts external support.
Cornwallis won pretty much every battle in his Southern Campaign until his defeat at Yorktown, but was forced to retreat there to await evacuation.
Not only that but Georgia had returned to royal control and South Carolina wasn't far off either.
The American Revolution was defeatable in principle but probably not given the range of foreign allies weighing in against Britain.
I think we'd have won in 1776 if we'd advanced aggressively against George Washington and if we'd have blockaded the American ports properly to prevent arms and reinforcements from Europe getting in. But unfortunately we didn't have great strategists or generals in that war, unlike in the Seven Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.
I think the UK winning the American Revolutionary War is a really interesting counter-factual. I find it hard to believe that the independence movement wouldn't have continued and the US eventually split off - but it may surely have been a couple of decades (or even more) later and perhaps led to a very different world.
I presume Canada illustrates that independence wasn't inevitable? (Maybe there were very different circumstances)
At time of American Revolution "Canada" really meant Quebec. Which American Revolutionaries saw as a potential ally against the British, hence they invaded it.
However, turned out that the bulk of Quebeckers - in particular the Catholic Church - supported the Brits against the Americans, who they called "Bostonais". Because they feared the (to them) radical Protestantism of New England AND its economic rivalry. Whereas by 1770s the Brits were seen as protecting both the religion AND interests of Quebec.
Comments
Second hand are being prioritised, rightly or wrongly, so quoting first doses is irrelevant. The reality is that the aim is to have everyone vulnerable with two jabs by 21/6 and it seems that has been/will be achieved.
So no excuse not to lift remaining restrictions by 21/6.
https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1401217843878825996?s=19
I like it 😁
I’m swiping on iPhone, so random likes and off topics get spread around liberally!
The issue has been the delays to Novavax (I’m sceptical of that company given the litany of disasters over the last 20 years) but @MaxPB knows the specifics there better than I do.
I know you hate Boris (and by the way there is going to be a big step towards opening on June 21st, although I suspect that WFH guidance and masks on public transport will remain) but try to not let your hatred overcome an analysis of the facts
Sure 1m a day would be great. But we don’t have the vaccines.
* actually I wouldn’t, but whatever
https://twitter.com/stephenbuggy/status/1401048021731774467/photo/1
This is a wind up right, no one could be that stupid?
Would it be possible to move the "Off Topic" button, say next to "Flag"? BTW, what is THAT supposed to mean?
However, turned out that the bulk of Quebeckers - in particular the Catholic Church - supported the Brits against the Americans, who they called "Bostonais". Because they feared the (to them) radical Protestantism of New England AND its economic rivalry. Whereas by 1770s the Brits were seen as protecting both the religion AND interests of Quebec.