I have come across some strange comments in today’s FT regarding dismay of some Labour moderates at Corbyn’s appointment of Seumas Milne . A quote held against the latter from 2004 is ‘killings of ”occupation troops” in Iraq pale next to the toll inflicted by the (US/UK) occupiers’. Surely what he said was self-evident. Is it seriously suggested that people living in a country that has been the victim of an unprovoked attack have no right to resist their attackers? Would these people have said the same thing about the French Resistance attacking German troops in World War 2? Hypocritical idiots!
I'm not entirely convinced of the moral equivalence between the USA and UK on the one hand, and Nazi Germany on the other.
Both were aggressors - and the victims of aggression were entitled to resist. There is a strong legal case for arguing that the French Resistance was less justified on two grounds. Firstly France and Britain had declared war on Germany - and secondly the French Government had agreed an Armistice in June 1940. In contrast, Iraq had not declared war on the UK/US and no Armistice agreement had been signed.
Another excellent David H article - he could make a decent living writing for a professional magazine for money and we're lucky to have him.
The only thing I'd add is that even sophisticated observers see people as non-Presidential until they get within a shout of winning, when suddenly they look plausible. David cites Kennedy, I'd also point to Reagan, who in his own terms was hugely successful but the pundits always struggled to take seriously even after he'd won. So although I don't rate Carson either (he's a bright surgeon who has mistakenly strayed into politics), I think it's a mistake to rule him out. People get used to unusual characters.
Is too late for a fresh challenger? Probably. The organisation and potential funding has to be largely in place by now. It's just about viable to have donors who say they'll only donate big time if you win New Hampshire, but if you don't have an embryonic national network now, you've missed the bus. But all the Republicans except Trump are just one bad debating mistake away from meltdown, so plumping heavily for anyone looks risky - the strategy of laying the favourite du jour but betting on a GOP victory may be the best for the time being.
Cheers for the compliment. I am considering a career change at the moment so your judgement is particularly valued right now. Do you have any tips on how I'd go about writing professionally?
First get a good agent, David.
Nick was talking about writing for magazines - is that the same process?
And how does one go about getting a good agent?
Help!
I just noticed this.
I think there is plenty of info out there on literary agents. The trick is to get a good one that will take an interest in you, David.
Perhaps SeanT can help you there as he seems to have found a good agent.
"Well tax credits aren't fair because I can't get them because I don't work......." So said a man from Rotherham on 'Any Answers'
I can't believe I've just wasted ten minutes listening to the rubbish that passes for a current affairs 'phone-in'. If anyone wants evidence that the governments squeeze on the BBC is having an effect look no further than the researchers on 'Any Questions'.
Or its just you waking up to the notion that the BBC can be quite shit in quality at times.
Break up the BBC and privatise the whole thing. Let it compete or sink.
EDIT: Only in the lefts mind could "the BBC is crap here, lets give it more money" make logical sense.
I have come across some strange comments in today’s FT regarding dismay of some Labour moderates at Corbyn’s appointment of Seumas Milne . A quote held against the latter from 2004 is ‘killings of ”occupation troops” in Iraq pale next to the toll inflicted by the (US/UK) occupiers’. Surely what he said was self-evident. Is it seriously suggested that people living in a country that has been the victim of an unprovoked attack have no right to resist their attackers? Would these people have said the same thing about the French Resistance attacking German troops in World War 2? Hypocritical idiots!
I'm not entirely convinced of the moral equivalence between the USA and UK on the one hand, and Nazi Germany on the other.
Both were aggressors - and the victims of aggression were entitled to resist. There is a strong legal case for arguing that the French Resistance was less justified on two grounds. Firstly France and Britain had declared war on Germany - and secondly the French Government had agreed an Armistice in June 1940. In contrast, Iraq had not declared war on the UK/US and no Armistice agreement had been signed.
Yeah the Labour party should push this line hard. That'll win them the next election.
I have come across some strange comments in today’s FT regarding dismay of some Labour moderates at Corbyn’s appointment of Seumas Milne . A quote held against the latter from 2004 is ‘killings of ”occupation troops” in Iraq pale next to the toll inflicted by the (US/UK) occupiers’. Surely what he said was self-evident. Is it seriously suggested that people living in a country that has been the victim of an unprovoked attack have no right to resist their attackers? Would these people have said the same thing about the French Resistance attacking German troops in World War 2? Hypocritical idiots!
I'm not entirely convinced of the moral equivalence between the USA and UK on the one hand, and Nazi Germany on the other.
Both were aggressors - and the victims of aggression were entitled to resist. There is a strong legal case for arguing that the French Resistance was less justified on two grounds. Firstly France and Britain had declared war on Germany - and secondly the French Government had agreed an Armistice in June 1940. In contrast, Iraq had not declared war on the UK/US and no Armistice agreement had been signed.
Yeah the Labour party should push this line hard. That'll win them the next election.
I think the idea of putting Blair on trial would win votes!
I have come across some strange comments in today’s FT regarding dismay of some Labour moderates at Corbyn’s appointment of Seumas Milne . A quote held against the latter from 2004 is ‘killings of ”occupation troops” in Iraq pale next to the toll inflicted by the (US/UK) occupiers’. Surely what he said was self-evident. Is it seriously suggested that people living in a country that has been the victim of an unprovoked attack have no right to resist their attackers? Would these people have said the same thing about the French Resistance attacking German troops in World War 2? Hypocritical idiots!
I'm not entirely convinced of the moral equivalence between the USA and UK on the one hand, and Nazi Germany on the other.
Both were aggressors - and the victims of aggression were entitled to resist. There is a strong legal case for arguing that the French Resistance was less justified on two grounds. Firstly France and Britain had declared war on Germany - and secondly the French Government had agreed an Armistice in June 1940. In contrast, Iraq had not declared war on the UK/US and no Armistice agreement had been signed.
Yeah the Labour party should push this line hard. That'll win them the next election.
I think the idea of putting Blair on trial would win votes!
The 2011 Budget was when Osborne proclaimed the 'March of the Makers'.
From the ONS:
Manufacturing output:
2011q2 101.8 2015q2 101.5
Retail Sales:
2011q2 100.0 2015q2 112.0
Government Debt:
2011q2 £1,135bn 2015q2 £1,513bn
Current Account deficit:
2011q2 £0.586bn 2015q2 £16.767bn
Surely those hundreds of billions of borrowed money could have been used more sensibly than in funding another consumer bubble of imported tat.
No because as is standard operating procedure for you, you're just point blank ignoring the fact there was a deficit to tackle and acting as if the hundreds of "billions of borrowed money" could have been avoided by eliminating the deficit in one day. Nobody credible has or could propose that.
The Current Account Deficit meanwhile is symptomatic of our success in an era of other nations struggling. If we are growing healthily, while our trading partners are floundering (as has been the case) then it is somewhat inevitable that we will import more and export relatively less. In 2011 the Eurozone crisis was supposed to have been resolved by now while the Chinese slowdown was not predicted.
Finally the notion that economic growth is underpinned by just imports is economically impossible. Economically: Y = C + I + G + (X-M)
Y is GDP, M is imports. For every £1 increase in imports GDP goes down by £1 by definition. So our sustained growth from 2012 onwards has happened despite, not because, of the change in the current account deficit.
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
MD It depends..there might be an agent in there that deals with mags..I have a current copy but I have not scoured that area..mainly because I have no need to...but David might be able to lean something from it.. maybe in the magazine section..see who the commissioners are..
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
The final segment of that prog has a replica of Livens made by the Royal Engineers - it burns the eyebrows off the presenters at 150ft away - quite terrifying. It shoots burning gasoline 300ft.
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
MD..In the current edition there 144 pages devoted to Newspapers and Magazines...could be something in there.. worth the price of about 15 quid from amazon..equivalent to about 3 pints of beer in London...
I have come across some strange comments in today’s FT regarding dismay of some Labour moderates at Corbyn’s appointment of Seumas Milne . A quote held against the latter from 2004 is ‘killings of ”occupation troops” in Iraq pale next to the toll inflicted by the (US/UK) occupiers’. Surely what he said was self-evident. Is it seriously suggested that people living in a country that has been the victim of an unprovoked attack have no right to resist their attackers? Would these people have said the same thing about the French Resistance attacking German troops in World War 2? Hypocritical idiots!
I'm not entirely convinced of the moral equivalence between the USA and UK on the one hand, and Nazi Germany on the other.
Both were aggressors - and the victims of aggression were entitled to resist. There is a strong legal case for arguing that the French Resistance was less justified on two grounds. Firstly France and Britain had declared war on Germany - and secondly the French Government had agreed an Armistice in June 1940. In contrast, Iraq had not declared war on the UK/US and no Armistice agreement had been signed.
Yeah the Labour party should push this line hard. That'll win them the next election.
I think the idea of putting Blair on trial would win votes!
Can’t believe no one has mentioned that on this day in 1360 - The Treaty of Brétigny was ratified at Calais, marking the end of the first phase of the Hundred Years' War.
No, that's not quite right, because ideologically Trump is all over the shop but probably to the left of the GOP most of the time. It is more easily classed as a reaction to the PPE/SpAd (or American equivalent) focus-group obsessed, triangulating Establishment. Corbyn, Sturgeon, Farage, Trump and Carson: it's not about ideology but about at least seeming to care about something.
Many voted for Corbyn not because he was the most left wing candidate but because out of the four, he was the one who seemed human. Contrast him with Gordon Brown taking three days to work out which sort of biscuit to claim as his favourite, or Tony Blair's favourite meal changing with latitude, or David Cameron's favourite team playing in claret and blue but is it West Ham or Aston Villa?
But Trump is not a tea-partier. Half the time he's not even a Republican. This is probably why the pundits dismiss his chances: they figure out sooner or later the GOP grass roots will notice he's not really one of them. The evidence from this side of the Atlantic is that they are missing the point.
I can agree with what you say about Trump, DJ. You are right that Trump is not a tea partier, however he is - in my opinion - closer to the GOP grass roots in outlook, and leaves the GOP bigwigs in his wake in his belief in a modern capitalism.
So if Trump is not your common-or-garden republican, what is he? He is Trumpian astride an Elephant. Long may he trumpet his ideas and/or policies!
Can’t believe no one has mentioned that on this day in 1360 - The Treaty of Brétigny was ratified at Calais, marking the end of the first phase of the Hundred Years' War.
Nuremburg Trials, Germany invades Poland, September 1939, followed a couple of weeks later by USSR's invasion of Poland. No writs issued to try Stalin for planning for an aggressive war.
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
I may well be wrongf, but while Saddam was horrible, I don’t think any evidence of that happening was ever found.
Nuremburg Trials, Germany invades Poland, September 1939, followed a couple of weeks later by USSR's invasion of Poland. No writs issued to try Stalin for planning for an aggressive war.
The 2011 Budget was when Osborne proclaimed the 'March of the Makers'.
From the ONS:
Manufacturing output:
2011q2 101.8 2015q2 101.5
Retail Sales:
2011q2 100.0 2015q2 112.0
Government Debt:
2011q2 £1,135bn 2015q2 £1,513bn
Current Account deficit:
2011q2 £0.586bn 2015q2 £16.767bn
Surely those hundreds of billions of borrowed money could have been used more sensibly than in funding another consumer bubble of imported tat.
No because as is standard operating procedure for you, you're just point blank ignoring the fact there was a deficit to tackle and acting as if the hundreds of "billions of borrowed money" could have been avoided by eliminating the deficit in one day. Nobody credible has or could propose that.
The Current Account Deficit meanwhile is symptomatic of our success in an era of other nations struggling. If we are growing healthily, while our trading partners are floundering (as has been the case) then it is somewhat inevitable that we will import more and export relatively less. In 2011 the Eurozone crisis was supposed to have been resolved by now while the Chinese slowdown was not predicted.
Finally the notion that economic growth is underpinned by just imports is economically impossible. Economically: Y = C + I + G + (X-M)
Y is GDP, M is imports. For every £1 increase in imports GDP goes down by £1 by definition. So our sustained growth from 2012 onwards has happened despite, not because, of the change in the current account deficit.
Bleat, bleat, bleat.
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
But he didn't, he preferred to pump up another housing / consumption bubble in order to buy votes.
And the Current Account deficit isn't a sympton of the UK's 'success', its a consequence of the UK continually living well beyond its means funded by borrowed money. Always encouraged by governments which wish to keep the electorate voting for them.
As to government borrowing its Osborne who set his borrowing targets and Osborne who has missed them.
The only question is how much more will Osborne borrow than he originally said he would.
Will it be three hundred billion ? Will it be four hundred billion ? Will it be half a trillion ?
Whatever the number it will be Osborne's choice and Osborne's failure but everyone else's higher future tax payments.
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
I am referring to the specific indictment of 'Planning for War ' - not the other four relating to the Holocaust etc. Re-Nuremburg the principal decision makers in relation to the Holocaust were already dead - Hitler- Himmler - Heydrich. Few of those on trial had little ,if any , connection. Anyway Blair made out that 'regime change' was not the reason for invading Iraq - until WMD failed to turn up when he changed his tune. I am very surprised that so many here seriously believe that the Iraq War is anything other than extremely unpopular, and that any attempt to punish those responsible would not meet with widespread approval.
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
But he didn't, he preferred to pump up another housing / consumption bubble in order to buy votes.
And the Current Account deficit isn't a sympton of the UK's 'success', its a consequence of the UK continually living well beyond its means funded by borrowed money. Always encouraged by governments which wish to keep the electorate voting for them.
As to government borrowing its Osborne who set his borrowing targets and Osborne who has missed them.
The only question is how much more will Osborne borrow than he originally said he would.
Will it be three hundred billion ? Will it be four hundred billion ? Will it be half a trillion ?
Whatever the number it will be Osborne's choice and Osborne's failure but everyone else's higher future tax payments.
It should also be remembered that back in 2007 and 2008 some of us were already saying that the UK was living well beyond its means, funded by borrowed money and with a dangerously unbalanced economy.
Cameron and Osborne however were not saying that - they were planning on how they would spend 'the proceeds of growth'. Cheered on by the bleaters.
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
I am referring to the specific indictment of 'Planning for War ' - not the other four relating to the Holocaust etc. Re-Nuremburg the principal decision makers in relation to the Holocaust were already dead - Hitler- Himmler - Heydrich. Few of those on trial had little ,if any , connection. Anyway Blair made out that 'regime change' was not the reason for invading Iraq - until WMD failed to turn up when he changed his tune. I am very surprised that so many here seriously believe that the Iraq War is anything other than extremely unpopular, and that any attempt to punish those responsible would not meet with widespread approval.
The question is not whether the war was morally wrong. The question certainly should not be whether it would be popular: we've had the noncefinder general denounce innocent citizens, and nobody raised a hand to stop him for far too long, cos it was popular. The question is simply a) was a crime committed, and b) is there sufficient evidence to conclude that this individual committed it? Like it or lump it the Iraq War was legal in UK law, so no crime, so no criminality.
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
I may well be wrongf, but while Saddam was horrible, I don’t think any evidence of that happening was ever found.
Some doubt it happened but Ann Clwyd provided witnesses to it happening and witnesses to it happening spoke at the trial of Hussein.
What is undeniable is that Hussein was horrible. To suggest removing him is worse than the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes as Justin has done is just sickening.
Matthew Hopkins (c. 1620 – 12 August 1647) was an English witch-hunter whose career flourished during the time of the English Civil War. He claimed to hold the office of Witchfinder General, although that title was never bestowed by Parliament. His witch-hunts mainly took place in East Anglia.[1]
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
I am referring to the specific indictment of 'Planning for War ' - not the other four relating to the Holocaust etc. Re-Nuremburg the principal decision makers in relation to the Holocaust were already dead - Hitler- Himmler - Heydrich. Few of those on trial had little ,if any , connection. Anyway Blair made out that 'regime change' was not the reason for invading Iraq - until WMD failed to turn up when he changed his tune. I am very surprised that so many here seriously believe that the Iraq War is anything other than extremely unpopular, and that any attempt to punish those responsible would not meet with widespread approval.
The question is not whether the war was morally wrong. The question certainly should not be whether it would be popular: we've had the noncefinder general denounce innocent citizens, and nobody raised a hand to stop him for far too long, cos it was popular. The question is simply a) was a crime committed, and b) is there sufficient evidence to conclude that this individual committed it? Like it or lump it the Iraq War was legal in UK law, so no crime, so no criminality.
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
I am referring to the specific indictment of 'Planning for War ' - not the other four relating to the Holocaust etc. Re-Nuremburg the principal decision makers in relation to the Holocaust were already dead - Hitler- Himmler - Heydrich. Few of those on trial had little ,if any , connection. Anyway Blair made out that 'regime change' was not the reason for invading Iraq - until WMD failed to turn up when he changed his tune. I am very surprised that so many here seriously believe that the Iraq War is anything other than extremely unpopular, and that any attempt to punish those responsible would not meet with widespread approval.
The question is not whether the war was morally wrong. The question certainly should not be whether it would be popular: we've had the noncefinder general denounce innocent citizens, and nobody raised a hand to stop him for far too long, cos it was popular. The question is simply a) was a crime committed, and b) is there sufficient evidence to conclude that this individual committed it? Like it or lump it the Iraq War was legal in UK law, so no crime, so no criminality.
Was it legal in International Law? Doubtless the German attacks on Poland and USSR were legal under German law at the time. The vast majority of International Jurists appear to take the view that the 2003 attack was unlawful..
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
I may well be wrongf, but while Saddam was horrible, I don’t think any evidence of that happening was ever found.
Some doubt it happened but Ann Clwyd provided witnesses to it happening and witnesses to it happening spoke at the trial of Hussein.
What is undeniable is that Hussein was horrible. To suggest removing him is worse than the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes as Justin has done is just sickening.
I have not actually said any such thing! Why not try and read my comments rather than mentally expanding them to align with your own thought processes?
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
I have not actually said any such thing! Why not try and read my comments rather than mentally expanding them to align with your own thought processes?
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You're delusional or a troll if you think Blair/Bush are more guilty than Nazis.
S'OK, i'd already remembered. From the film, not the historical personage, I hasten to add. I was not alive in the 17th century. That would obviously be silly talk (backs away nervously, mutters "damm, that was close...too close" sotto voce)
I have come across some strange comments in today’s FT regarding dismay of some Labour moderates at Corbyn’s appointment of Seumas Milne . A quote held against the latter from 2004 is ‘killings of ”occupation troops” in Iraq pale next to the toll inflicted by the (US/UK) occupiers’. Surely what he said was self-evident. Is it seriously suggested that people living in a country that has been the victim of an unprovoked attack have no right to resist their attackers? Would these people have said the same thing about the French Resistance attacking German troops in World War 2? Hypocritical idiots!
I'm not entirely convinced of the moral equivalence between the USA and UK on the one hand, and Nazi Germany on the other.
Both were aggressors - and the victims of aggression were entitled to resist. There is a strong legal case for arguing that the French Resistance was less justified on two grounds. Firstly France and Britain had declared war on Germany - and secondly the French Government had agreed an Armistice in June 1940. In contrast, Iraq had not declared war on the UK/US and no Armistice agreement had been signed.
The "victims" you refer to were and are those who claim the right to murder, rape, torture, and rob their countrymen.
I have not actually said any such thing! Why not try and read my comments rather than mentally expanding them to align with your own thought processes?
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You're delusional or a troll if you think Blair/Bush are more guilty than Nazis.
Again in terms of Planning for War - in the sense of intending to wage war - who among the main Nuremburg defendants was more guilty than Blair/Bush in 2003? I refer to Ribbentrop as a possibility - but even he did not have executive authority. Goering was involved with the Anschluss in March 1938 but strongly opposed to war in 1939.
The question is not whether the war was morally wrong. The question certainly should not be whether it would be popular: we've had the noncefinder general denounce innocent citizens, and nobody raised a hand to stop him for far too long, cos it was popular. The question is simply a) was a crime committed, and b) is there sufficient evidence to conclude that this individual committed it? Like it or lump it the Iraq War was legal in UK law, so no crime, so no criminality.
Was it legal in International Law? Doubtless the German attacks on Poland and USSR were legal under German law at the time. The vast majority of International Jurists appear to take the view that the 2003 attack was unlawful..
Was it legal in international law? Possibly (there are those that argue it does), possibly not (ditto). My (admittedly minority) view is that international law doesn't trump UK law, or if it does it does so only under circumstances that don't apply here. So I can't engage with the argument.
As for your contention regarding a "vast majority of International Jurists", it does rather beg the question of "how many international jurists are there?", "what are their names?", and "which ones voted "lawful" and which ones "unlawful"?".
S'OK, i'd already remembered. From the film, not the historical personage, I hasten to add. I was not alive in the 17th century. That would obviously be silly talk (backs away nervously, mutters "damm, that was close...too close" sotto voce)
I have come across some strange comments in today’s FT regarding dismay of some Labour moderates at Corbyn’s appointment of Seumas Milne . A quote held against the latter from 2004 is ‘killings of ”occupation troops” in Iraq pale next to the toll inflicted by the (US/UK) occupiers’. Surely what he said was self-evident. Is it seriously suggested that people living in a country that has been the victim of an unprovoked attack have no right to resist their attackers? Would these people have said the same thing about the French Resistance attacking German troops in World War 2? Hypocritical idiots!
I'm not entirely convinced of the moral equivalence between the USA and UK on the one hand, and Nazi Germany on the other.
Both were aggressors - and the victims of aggression were entitled to resist. There is a strong legal case for arguing that the French Resistance was less justified on two grounds. Firstly France and Britain had declared war on Germany - and secondly the French Government had agreed an Armistice in June 1940. In contrast, Iraq had not declared war on the UK/US and no Armistice agreement had been signed.
The "victims" you refer to were and are those who claim the right to murder, rape, torture, and rob their countrymen.
Not so - I am also referring to ordinary Iraqis - military and civilian.
The question is not whether the war was morally wrong. The question certainly should not be whether it would be popular: we've had the noncefinder general denounce innocent citizens, and nobody raised a hand to stop him for far too long, cos it was popular. The question is simply a) was a crime committed, and b) is there sufficient evidence to conclude that this individual committed it? Like it or lump it the Iraq War was legal in UK law, so no crime, so no criminality.
Was it legal in International Law? Doubtless the German attacks on Poland and USSR were legal under German law at the time. The vast majority of International Jurists appear to take the view that the 2003 attack was unlawful..
Was it legal in international law? Possibly (there are those that argue it does), possibly not (ditto). My (admittedly minority) view is that international law doesn't trump UK law, or if it does it does so only under circumstances that don't apply here. So I can't engage with the argument.
As for your contention regarding a "vast majority of International Jurists", it does rather beg the question of "how many international jurists are there?", "what are their names?", and "which ones voted "lawful" and which ones "unlawful"?".
But that is an argument available to all aggressors pretty well.
Apart from the Blair haters, who already lurve Corbyn, I can't see [m]any going for this. I absolutely do not think we've had any PM or CabMin anywhere near a war crime.
Many International jurists would disagree I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
You seriously think that those convicted of the Holocaust and other war crimes are less guilty than Blair/Bush for removing a dictator that put his own citizens through meat grinders while alive as a form of execution? Feet first to maximise suffering.
I may well be wrongf, but while Saddam was horrible, I don’t think any evidence of that happening was ever found.
Some doubt it happened but Ann Clwyd provided witnesses to it happening and witnesses to it happening spoke at the trial of Hussein.
What is undeniable is that Hussein was horrible. To suggest removing him is worse than the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes as Justin has done is just sickening.
I’m obliged. If Ann Clwyd found witnesses that’s good enough for me. And I totally agree with your second sentence. He was up there with Hitler and Himmler.
Why GWB etc. didn’t finish the job in the first Gulf War I never understood. Response to aggression ete etc. There might just have been a chance of an opposition in Iraq which could have taken over then, too.
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
Rebalance the economy? You mean like this? Public sector March 2009 6.319 milion 21.7% of workforce Private sector march 2009 22.759 million 78.3% of workfoce
Public sector june 2015 5.360 milion 17.2% of workforce Private sector june 2015 25.680 million 82.8% of workfoce
S'OK, i'd already remembered. From the film, not the historical personage, I hasten to add. I was not alive in the 17th century. That would obviously be silly talk (backs away nervously, mutters "damm, that was close...too close" sotto voce)
EDIT: put BLOCKQUOTE tag in correct place
I love learning about the origins of sayings (can anyone recommend a book). Lucy Worsley in her murder doc recently taught me that 'sweet FA' does not mean what I always assumed it was abbreviated from but from a Victorian murder of a young girl called Fanny Adams whose body was cut up in little pieces and hence 'sweet FA' to mean very little. Makes me feel rather guilty about using the expression now!
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
S'OK, i'd already remembered. From the film, not the historical personage, I hasten to add. I was not alive in the 17th century. That would obviously be silly talk (backs away nervously, mutters "damm, that was close...too close" sotto voce)
EDIT: put BLOCKQUOTE tag in correct place
I love learning about the origins of sayings (can anyone recommend a book). Lucy Worsley in her murder doc recently taught me that 'sweet FA' does not mean what I always assumed it was abbreviated from but from a Victorian murder of a young girl called Fanny Adams whose body was cut up in little pieces and hence 'sweet FA' to mean very little. Makes me feel rather guilty about using the expression now!
S'OK, i'd already remembered. From the film, not the historical personage, I hasten to add. I was not alive in the 17th century. That would obviously be silly talk (backs away nervously, mutters "damm, that was close...too close" sotto voce)
EDIT: put BLOCKQUOTE tag in correct place
"salad days", "full circle", "laughing stock", "gild the lily", "good riddance"...all date from Shakespeare plays. We worship two-thousand-year-old gods and school our children in terms defined by harvest times that Chaucer would have recognised. To comfort ourselves agains the dark we pretend that our monarchy is a thousand years old, that laws are absolutes, that bad people get caught, doctors always make ill people better, and that something called "fair" exists. We are not as modern as we like to think, and are always ridden by a shaved ape gibbering maniaically...
(sorry, waxing a bit pretentious there. Must get back to work)
The question is not whether the war was morally wrong. The question certainly should not be whether it would be popular: we've had the noncefinder general denounce innocent citizens, and nobody raised a hand to stop him for far too long, cos it was popular. The question is simply a) was a crime committed, and b) is there sufficient evidence to conclude that this individual committed it? Like it or lump it the Iraq War was legal in UK law, so no crime, so no criminality.
Was it legal in International Law? Doubtless the German attacks on Poland and USSR were legal under German law at the time. The vast majority of International Jurists appear to take the view that the 2003 attack was unlawful..
Was it legal in international law? Possibly (there are those that argue it does), possibly not (ditto). My (admittedly minority) view is that international law doesn't trump UK law, or if it does it does so only under circumstances that don't apply here. So I can't engage with the argument.
As for your contention regarding a "vast majority of International Jurists", it does rather beg the question of "how many international jurists are there?", "what are their names?", and "which ones voted "lawful" and which ones "unlawful"?".
But that is an argument available to all aggressors pretty well.
Just finished reading The Buried Giant by Kazuo Ishiguro. As usual for him, it's difficult to get through the first 50% of the book, but definitely worth it in the end.
Can’t believe no one has mentioned that on this day in 1360 - The Treaty of Brétigny was ratified at Calais, marking the end of the first phase of the Hundred Years' War.
How quickly some forget
Especially the French, who have had for 600 years or so a nasty habit of forgetting the bits of treaties that they don't like.
Some years ago I was entertaining my French opposite number and as ever the conversation to around to the EU. He expressed amazement that the UK were such reluctant partners and I explained it was because we remembered the war. He said, "But the war finished in 1945, surely it is done now" I had to explain the the war I was referring to was the hundred years war.
S'OK, i'd already remembered. From the film, not the historical personage, I hasten to add. I was not alive in the 17th century. That would obviously be silly talk (backs away nervously, mutters "damm, that was close...too close" sotto voce)
EDIT: put BLOCKQUOTE tag in correct place
I love learning about the origins of sayings (can anyone recommend a book). Lucy Worsley in her murder doc recently taught me that 'sweet FA' does not mean what I always assumed it was abbreviated from but from a Victorian murder of a young girl called Fanny Adams whose body was cut up in little pieces and hence 'sweet FA' to mean very little. Makes me feel rather guilty about using the expression now!
yes must admit to loving anything Lucy presents . She has a good sense of fun and not afraid to 'ham' it or look a bit ridiculous. She obviously loves to dress up!
S'OK, i'd already remembered. From the film, not the historical personage, I hasten to add. I was not alive in the 17th century. That would obviously be silly talk (backs away nervously, mutters "damm, that was close...too close" sotto voce)
EDIT: put BLOCKQUOTE tag in correct place
I love learning about the origins of sayings (can anyone recommend a book). Lucy Worsley in her murder doc recently taught me that 'sweet FA' does not mean what I always assumed it was abbreviated from but from a Victorian murder of a young girl called Fanny Adams whose body was cut up in little pieces and hence 'sweet FA' to mean very little. Makes me feel rather guilty about using the expression now!
yes must admit to loving anything Lucy presents . She has a good sense of fun and not afraid to 'ham' it or look a bit ridiculous. She obviously loves to dress up!
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
Rebalance the economy? You mean like this? Public sector March 2009 6.319 milion 21.7% of workforce Private sector march 2009 22.759 million 78.3% of workfoce
Public sector june 2015 5.360 milion 17.2% of workforce Private sector june 2015 25.680 million 82.8% of workfoce
Fair go, Mr Me. However, if we take into account the people who are still doing the same jobs and those jobs are still paid for by the state but through a private sector company then perhaps the figures look far less rosy.
A real example: A nurse is employed to prescribe narcotics to addicts in prisons he/she is a public sector employee. That job is outsourced to a private company, a company whose entire income is from outsourcing deals by the way. The nurse is still there doing the same job which is still paid for by the state but now he/she is a private sector employee. A reason to celebrate the rebalancing of the economy? I don't think so, do you?
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
Rebalance the economy? You mean like this? Public sector March 2009 6.319 milion 21.7% of workforce Private sector march 2009 22.759 million 78.3% of workfoce
Public sector june 2015 5.360 milion 17.2% of workforce Private sector june 2015 25.680 million 82.8% of workfoce
Fair go, Mr Me. However, if we take into account the people who are still doing the same jobs and those jobs are still paid for by the state but through a private sector company then perhaps the figures look far less rosy.
A real example: A nurse is employed to prescribe narcotics to addicts in prisons he/she is a public sector employee. That job is outsourced to a private company, a company whose entire income is from outsourcing deals by the way. The nurse is still there doing the same job which is still paid for by the state but now he/she is a private sector employee. A reason to celebrate the rebalancing of the economy? I don't think so, do you?
Indeed.
Not to mention the likes of higher education colleges and Royal Mail being reclassified from private sector to public sector.
In any case the issue isn't public versus private sector but wealth creating versus wealth consuming.
Pumping a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy as has happened during the last decade exacerbates the imbalances unless specific policies are made to change the fundamental balance of the economy.
Without them we see the problems we now have - government borrowing over forecast, the current account deficit at record levels, house prices and consumer spending steadily rising and a 'March of the Makers' where manufacturing output is lower than it was four years ago.
Just finished reading The Buried Giant by Kazuo Ishiguro. As usual for him, it's difficult to get through the first 50% of the book, but definitely worth it in the end.
The only book of his I've read is The Remains of the Day.
Can’t believe no one has mentioned that on this day in 1360 - The Treaty of Brétigny was ratified at Calais, marking the end of the first phase of the Hundred Years' War.
How quickly some forget
Especially the French, who have had for 600 years or so a nasty habit of forgetting the bits of treaties that they don't like.
Some years ago I was entertaining my French opposite number and as ever the conversation to around to the EU. He expressed amazement that the UK were such reluctant partners and I explained it was because we remembered the war. He said, "But the war finished in 1945, surely it is done now" I had to explain the the war I was referring to was the hundred years war.
Losing that war was one of the best things that ever happened to England.
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
Rebalance the economy? You mean like this? Public sector March 2009 6.319 milion 21.7% of workforce Private sector march 2009 22.759 million 78.3% of workfoce
Public sector june 2015 5.360 milion 17.2% of workforce Private sector june 2015 25.680 million 82.8% of workfoce
Fair go, Mr Me. However, if we take into account the people who are still doing the same jobs and those jobs are still paid for by the state but through a private sector company then perhaps the figures look far less rosy.
A real example: A nurse is employed to prescribe narcotics to addicts in prisons he/she is a public sector employee. That job is outsourced to a private company, a company whose entire income is from outsourcing deals by the way. The nurse is still there doing the same job which is still paid for by the state but now he/she is a private sector employee. A reason to celebrate the rebalancing of the economy? I don't think so, do you?
Indeed.
Not to mention the likes of higher education colleges and Royal Mail being reclassified from private sector to public sector.
In any case the issue isn't public versus private sector but wealth creating versus wealth consuming.
Pumping a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy as has happened during the last decade exacerbates the imbalances unless specific policies are made to change the fundamental balance of the economy.
Without them we see the problems we now have - government borrowing over forecast, the current account deficit at record levels, house prices and consumer spending steadily rising and a 'March of the Makers' where manufacturing output is lower than it was four years ago.
Quite right, Mr. Richard, and as long as people fixate on changes in GDP the long the trick can be played. And I sometimes think that the powers that be really are trying to be stage magicians - direct attention to one thing whilst doing something else and GDP is what we are all supposed to be looking at.
Wealth creation not economic activity is the key to reserve our children's future, yet we have people bickering about 0.1% differences in measures of GDP.
Can’t believe no one has mentioned that on this day in 1360 - The Treaty of Brétigny was ratified at Calais, marking the end of the first phase of the Hundred Years' War.
How quickly some forget
Especially the French, who have had for 600 years or so a nasty habit of forgetting the bits of treaties that they don't like.
Some years ago I was entertaining my French opposite number and as ever the conversation to around to the EU. He expressed amazement that the UK were such reluctant partners and I explained it was because we remembered the war. He said, "But the war finished in 1945, surely it is done now" I had to explain the the war I was referring to was the hundred years war.
Losing that war was one of the best things that ever happened to England.
Yes, well, I think I can see where you are coming from, but one could argue that the War actually finished in 1420 with a massive England win. What happened after was the Frogs as usual ignoring bits of a treaty they didn't like and running an uprising against the lawful rulers. It just so happened that it was our turn to have a stupid boy as king and a bunch of inbred idiots as the council of regency and so the Frogs got away with it.
If Henry V had lived a little longer Europe would have looked very different today.
Not to mention the likes of higher education colleges and Royal Mail being reclassified from private sector to public sector.
In any case the issue isn't public versus private sector but wealth creating versus wealth consuming.
Pumping a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy as has happened during the last decade exacerbates the imbalances unless specific policies are made to change the fundamental balance of the economy.
Without them we see the problems we now have - government borrowing over forecast, the current account deficit at record levels, house prices and consumer spending steadily rising and a 'March of the Makers' where manufacturing output is lower than it was four years ago.
Quite right, Mr. Richard, and as long as people fixate on changes in GDP the long the trick can be played. And I sometimes think that the powers that be really are trying to be stage magicians - direct attention to one thing whilst doing something else and GDP is what we are all supposed to be looking at.
Wealth creation not economic activity is the key to reserve our children's future, yet we have people bickering about 0.1% differences in measures of GDP.
Can you remember when this obsession with GDP arose ?
I suspect it was while Brown was CotE.
Thinking back to my days of youthful hazy memory the economic stats of importance which were mentioned on the news were unemployment, inflation, trade balance and industrial output - real world things. But I can't remember GDP ever being talked about.
But since 2000 it has become all about GDP. Meanwhile we're talking about debt in the trillions and inequality has soared.
Comments
I think there is plenty of info out there on literary agents. The trick is to get a good one that will take an interest in you, David.
Perhaps SeanT can help you there as he seems to have found a good agent.
Break up the BBC and privatise the whole thing. Let it compete or sink.
EDIT: Only in the lefts mind could "the BBC is crap here, lets give it more money" make logical sense.
The Current Account Deficit meanwhile is symptomatic of our success in an era of other nations struggling. If we are growing healthily, while our trading partners are floundering (as has been the case) then it is somewhat inevitable that we will import more and export relatively less. In 2011 the Eurozone crisis was supposed to have been resolved by now while the Chinese slowdown was not predicted.
Finally the notion that economic growth is underpinned by just imports is economically impossible. Economically: Y = C + I + G + (X-M)
Y is GDP, M is imports. For every £1 increase in imports GDP goes down by £1 by definition. So our sustained growth from 2012 onwards has happened despite, not because, of the change in the current account deficit.
I'm not sure how applicable that is for magazine contributions, or if it's only for books (both fiction and non-fiction).
For anyone interested in WMD from WW1, there's an excellent Time Team on Livens Flamethrower - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team-specials/on-demand/49039-002
It was banned post WW1.
Miss Plato, n00bs. There was a flamethrower used by the Boeotians at the Battle of Delium in 424 BC:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/siege-engines.html
I have read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials 1945/46, and on the Indictment relating to Planning for War it is difficult to believe that any of those convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop - were as guilty as Blair/Bush in 2002/2003.
How quickly some forget
So if Trump is not your common-or-garden republican, what is he? He is Trumpian astride an Elephant. Long may he trumpet his ideas and/or policies!
It's still hardly got a fraction of screentime.
It wasn't me who proclaimed the 'March of the Makers', it was Osborne.
The same Osborne who has now presided over THREE manufacturing recessions but who has pumped borrowed money into raising consumer spending and house prices.
If Osborne had chosen he could have cut have cut taxes on business and especially energy, increased capital investment and rebalanced the economy.
But he didn't, he preferred to pump up another housing / consumption bubble in order to buy votes.
And the Current Account deficit isn't a sympton of the UK's 'success', its a consequence of the UK continually living well beyond its means funded by borrowed money. Always encouraged by governments which wish to keep the electorate voting for them.
As to government borrowing its Osborne who set his borrowing targets and Osborne who has missed them.
The only question is how much more will Osborne borrow than he originally said he would.
Will it be three hundred billion ?
Will it be four hundred billion ?
Will it be half a trillion ?
Whatever the number it will be Osborne's choice and Osborne's failure but everyone else's higher future tax payments.
All actions by a progressive regime to defend its frontiers against The Nazi aggressors.
Cameron and Osborne however were not saying that - they were planning on how they would spend 'the proceeds of growth'. Cheered on by the bleaters.
What is undeniable is that Hussein was horrible. To suggest removing him is worse than the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes as Justin has done is just sickening.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/russias-plan-drop-nuclear-bomb-6694903
Though the whataboutary nonsense comes later in the Indy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/russia-planned-to-drop-nuclear-bombs-on-london-in-the-cold-war-letter-says-a6707306.html
Somehow context includes Putin and Assaad using barrel bombs in Syria.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/us-pre-qualifying.html
2010/11 Corporation Tax Rate: 28%
2015/16 Corporation Tax Rate: 20%
And its being cut further.
EDIT: put BLOCKQUOTE tag in correct place
As for your contention regarding a "vast majority of International Jurists", it does rather beg the question of "how many international jurists are there?", "what are their names?", and "which ones voted "lawful" and which ones "unlawful"?".
if you want all these things, then try out the Liberal Democrats
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34616826
Why GWB etc. didn’t finish the job in the first Gulf War I never understood. Response to aggression ete etc. There might just have been a chance of an opposition in Iraq which could have taken over then, too.
Public sector March 2009 6.319 milion 21.7% of workforce
Private sector march 2009 22.759 million 78.3% of workfoce
Public sector june 2015 5.360 milion 17.2% of workforce
Private sector june 2015 25.680 million 82.8% of workfoce
Osborne cut the corporation tax on the retailers of imported consumer tat.
Hallelujah! Rejoice! We're saved!
As usual you totally ignore the energy costs UK manufacturing faces.
Perhaps Osborne should done something there if he wanted a 'March of the Makers'.
Lucy Worsley is a great presenter - naughty school prefect manner.
(sorry, waxing a bit pretentious there. Must get back to work)
Some years ago I was entertaining my French opposite number and as ever the conversation to around to the EU. He expressed amazement that the UK were such reluctant partners and I explained it was because we remembered the war. He said, "But the war finished in 1945, surely it is done now" I had to explain the the war I was referring to was the hundred years war.
Looks like their holding it in an industrial lock up.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/657878827314581504
And now I’m off to the pub!
A real example: A nurse is employed to prescribe narcotics to addicts in prisons he/she is a public sector employee. That job is outsourced to a private company, a company whose entire income is from outsourcing deals by the way. The nurse is still there doing the same job which is still paid for by the state but now he/she is a private sector employee. A reason to celebrate the rebalancing of the economy? I don't think so, do you?
Ed Ten standing by.
Ed Seven standing by.
Ed Three standing by.
Ed Six standing by.
Ed Nine standing by.
Ed Two standing by.
Ed Eleven standing by.
Ed Five standing by.
Not to mention the likes of higher education colleges and Royal Mail being reclassified from private sector to public sector.
In any case the issue isn't public versus private sector but wealth creating versus wealth consuming.
Pumping a trillion pounds of borrowed money into the economy as has happened during the last decade exacerbates the imbalances unless specific policies are made to change the fundamental balance of the economy.
Without them we see the problems we now have - government borrowing over forecast, the current account deficit at record levels, house prices and consumer spending steadily rising and a 'March of the Makers' where manufacturing output is lower than it was four years ago.
Quite good but also quite bland.
Wealth creation not economic activity is the key to reserve our children's future, yet we have people bickering about 0.1% differences in measures of GDP.
If Henry V had lived a little longer Europe would have looked very different today.
new thread
I suspect it was while Brown was CotE.
Thinking back to my days of youthful hazy memory the economic stats of importance which were mentioned on the news were unemployment, inflation, trade balance and industrial output - real world things. But I can't remember GDP ever being talked about.
But since 2000 it has become all about GDP. Meanwhile we're talking about debt in the trillions and inequality has soared.
As you say stage magicians and their tricks.