Congratulations to those who got this contest right. I didn't play, because I didn't have a good feel for how the good people of Alabama would behave in this extraordinary circus of an election.
Over on the right hand rail, Puigdemont's lot are slowly coming up behind the leaders.
The key thing is the vote percentage - if the parties backing UDI get over 50% between them then the potential for ongoing trouble is very big. If they don't. it still means confusion, but there is no mandate for UDI. Just about every poll has shown a slight drop in percentage support for the UDI parties. The other interesting thing is that recent polls have shown that Ciutadans might well emerge as the largest single party - thanks largely to a fall in the PP vote. It could be that we will see further leakage from PP to Cs as a result.
Roy Moore isn't only a racist, he's a homophobe and allegedly has, ahem, very dubious views about women. Basically, he ticks every bigot's box. So if you are a black male who hates women and homosexuals above all else, Roy was your man.
One woman on TV last night said she voted for him because the Lord believes in redemption.
I may well be wrong on this because it was news to me, but I gather from a comment made by Barnier the other day that only a single 1 year extension is allowed under Article 50.
You could probably file that alongside the issue of Article 50 revocation: untested in court, but it'll be made to happen if the political will is there on all sides.
Anyway, doesn't really matter while Corbyn is leader. There's surely no way a deal gets voted down in the current HoC, knowing that'd it lead to a potentially disastrous game of chicken with the EU.
Roy Moore's brother on the election result... "It might not happen on this earth right now, but Doug Jones will pay for what he’s saying. And them Democrat people that’s out there and those Republicans in Washington. They’re going to have to answer to God.”
7% of black men still voted for Moore. What did they see in the guy??
3% of black women did, which is even less explicable.
Those percentages are in the same range as UKIP voters who supported Remain. In politics people have all sorts of weird reasons for their choices. For example over the years I have met a handful of people who made their choice solely because I shared a first name or some other personal detail with one of their relatives.
Yes I once met a "normally Conservative" voter who supported me because I was taller than the other candidate. I looked at her in bemusement but didn't argue.
Does that mean that Labour usually nominate short candidates in Broxtowe and if so, will you be reviewing your practice in the light of that?
They take the short money so why not?
It is a well known effect in voting that the candidate first on list gets a slight uptick just on that basis alone.
A much more significant effect in multi-seat elections than for a single member constituency. People who take the trouble to go along to vote know who they are going to cast at least one vote for; it's when they have 'spare' votes that they look to the top of the ballot paper. Most commonly this happens when a minor party such as the Greens only puts up one person in a multi-member ward.
Roy Moore isn't only a racist, he's a homophobe and allegedly has, ahem, very dubious views about women. Basically, he ticks every bigot's box. So if you are a black male who hates women and homosexuals above all else, Roy was your man.
One woman on TV last night said she voted for him because the Lord believes in redemption.
Isn't repentance a necessary part of that procedure... ?
Roy Moore isn't only a racist, he's a homophobe and allegedly has, ahem, very dubious views about women. Basically, he ticks every bigot's box. So if you are a black male who hates women and homosexuals above all else, Roy was your man.
Did the GOP not have a half sane candidate to put forwards?
Roy Moore isn't only a racist, he's a homophobe and allegedly has, ahem, very dubious views about women. Basically, he ticks every bigot's box. So if you are a black male who hates women and homosexuals above all else, Roy was your man.
One woman on TV last night said she voted for him because the Lord believes in redemption.
Roy Moore isn't only a racist, he's a homophobe and allegedly has, ahem, very dubious views about women. Basically, he ticks every bigot's box. So if you are a black male who hates women and homosexuals above all else, Roy was your man.
One woman on TV last night said she voted for him because the Lord believes in redemption.
Isn't repentance a necessary part of that procedure... ?
And the EU would tell us to FO, take it or leave it.
It's a meaningless at best, disasterous at worst vote.
Maybe - Brussels was certainly keen from early on that the UK doesn't take the piss with extensions (or a legally questionable Article 50 retraction) as a negotiating tool.
Or: perhaps they might view it as potential to string out the process. Say a 1 year extension, which then makes further extensions more palatable in future, which then opens the political possibility of the UK overturning the whole thing in a (distant) future referendum.
I may well be wrong on this because it was news to me, but I gather from a comment made by Barnier the other day that only a single 1 year extension is allowed under Article 50.
No, there's no limit in the Article. The text of A50(3) is:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Whether the Council would be willing to consider and grant an extension longer than one year is a different, political question (and not one for Barnier, for that matter).
Roy Moore isn't only a racist, he's a homophobe and allegedly has, ahem, very dubious views about women. Basically, he ticks every bigot's box. So if you are a black male who hates women and homosexuals above all else, Roy was your man.
Did the GOP not have a half sane candidate to put forwards?
Having one available, and choosing them are two entirely different things.
For now the Republicans are the party of Trump and Bannon. It will probably take a number of defeats along these lines to change that.
Over on the right hand rail, Puigdemont's lot are slowly coming up behind the leaders.
The key thing is the vote percentage - if the parties backing UDI get over 50% between them then the potential for ongoing trouble is very big. If they don't. it still means confusion, but there is no mandate for UDI. Just about every poll has shown a slight drop in percentage support for the UDI parties. The other interesting thing is that recent polls have shown that Ciutadans might well emerge as the largest single party - thanks largely to a fall in the PP vote. It could be that we will see further leakage from PP to Cs as a result.
Any sign of how things might be unconfused?
Nope - looking at the polls it is hard to see how confusion will not reign for a while yet. If the UDI parties win a majority of the votes and seats, then Spain has a real crisis on its hands. If they win most seats, but not most votes (the result most polls indicate), then there are more years of stand-off ahead, but not much will actually happen. The one possible way through is for the PP vote to collapse totally and for Cs and PSC to get over 50 seats between them. That might see the PSC leader Miquel Iceta - who is the most popular politician in Catalonia these days - voted into the position of president as a result of abstentions from the smaller parties in the new Parliament, and leading a coalition in which Cs is the biggest party. That is unlikely, though, as PSC and Cs have very different views on finance, economics etc; and if it did happen the coalition would be a minority and therefore totally unstable.
King Cole, I recall a comment along those lines. Investment in excellent new machinery was rendered worthless because suddenly there were large numbers of men willing to wash cars for far less than had been the case.
It would have been rather annoying to have dropped six figures on an automatic car wash just before a massive influx of cheaper human car washers. Probably a few annoyed banks that lent the money too.
@realDonaldTrump: The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!
yet a workforce that's shrinking....How can that be happening? Well one possible answer you may already have guessed. It has a lot to do with the slowdown in immigration. And it rhymes with "exit".
@JonnyJimmy - That's not exactly Roy Keane on Alf-Inge Håland.
No. But it's clearly deliberate, and he doesn't get close to the ball.
It put VVD out for over 6 months, and made him miss the league cup final v ManU. Without the injury there may have been an irresistible offer from a big club for him.
I can't imagine he'll allow Vardy a comfortable evening.
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
@jonallendc: In Midland City, Alabama, Steve Bannon goes after @JoeNBC, saying he got into better schools than Joe could have—Georgetown and Harvard. This might be the wrong place for that attack: Joe went to the University of Alabama.
@jonallendc: In Midland City, Alabama, Steve Bannon goes after @JoeNBC, saying he got into better schools than Joe could have—Georgetown and Harvard. This might be the wrong place for that attack: Joe went to the University of Alabama.
To be fair, University of Alabama isn't exactly a very highly ranked institution. Unless you are going there to try to make the NFL.
Seen a trailer for Darkest Hour. I'm really not much of a cinema-goer (before the recent Star Wars films I think the last one I'd seen was Return of the King), but it looks rather good.
All the doom and gloom from the media over the cost of living needs a context.
Inflation at 3.1% - Wage at 2.5%
So someone on £20,000 is facing an increase of £120 or £10 per month.
Hardly food bank stuff.
What am I missing
It's in the context of a long squeeze on wages.....and, forgive me for generalising, people like us enjoyed good real wage growth right through their working lives. To hit a wall on wage growth for ten years or more is a new thing
Seen a trailer for Darkest Hour. I'm really not much of a cinema-goer (before the recent Star Wars films I think the last one I'd seen was Return of the King), but it looks rather good.
What amuses me is the way it now seems obligatory for successful actors to play Churchill one they get to a certain age. Winston has become the new Lear.
Reckons Red Bull and McLaren could be in the title fight next year. That said, every F1 driver likes sandbagging his own team whilst proclaiming how excellent the opposition will be.
Roy Moore isn't only a racist, he's a homophobe and allegedly has, ahem, very dubious views about women. Basically, he ticks every bigot's box. So if you are a black male who hates women and homosexuals above all else, Roy was your man.
One woman on TV last night said she voted for him because the Lord believes in redemption.
Seen a trailer for Darkest Hour. I'm really not much of a cinema-goer (before the recent Star Wars films I think the last one I'd seen was Return of the King), but it looks rather good.
What amuses me is the way it now seems obligatory for successful actors to play Churchill one they get to a certain age. Winston has become the new Lear.
All the doom and gloom from the media over the cost of living needs a context.
Inflation at 3.1% - Wage at 2.5%
So someone on £20,000 is facing an increase of £120 or £10 per month.
Hardly food bank stuff.
What am I missing
It's in the context of a long squeeze on wages.....and, forgive me for generalising, people like us enjoyed good real wage growth right through their working lives. To hit a wall on wage growth for ten years or more is a new thing
I agree but to some, especially those on the National Living wage, have seen higher wage growth than inflation over the last couple of years
Regarding Roy Moore, I expect every Republican candidate from now on to suddenly have unproven accusations appear from years ago shortly after nomination. Of course none of them will be proven and will be abandoned soon after the election (remember similar against Trump which came to nothing after he won).
It's such an effective election winner that I expect the Democrats to pull it every time. What amazes me is that anyone actually falls for it.
....every F1 driver likes sandbagging his own team whilst proclaiming how excellent the opposition will be.
They are hardly going to say "you could put a seventeen year old in this car and win all season - it is so much better than the shit we have to drive against.... So, how many millions are you going to pay me each race next year?"!
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
How did it look like we had abandoned them? Hitler was very keen for us to do just that and pretty much offered the status quo post Dunkirk if I recall correctly ie you leave us alone and we will do likewise. Wouldn't have been viable long term for us, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable for us short term to take it. That would've abandoned Europe. We didn't do that.
Western Normandy, post D Day, was blown to smithereens, sure. And clearly other individual parts were too as matters progressed (Arnhem for one) and probably chunks of the ports such as Brest, Dunkirk, etc that held out till May 45, but given Caen to the German border (ie 95% of France and Belgium and a bit of the southern Netherlands) was basically liberated on the bounce in about four weeks from mid Aug to mid Sep 44 the destruction was surely overall (stress overall) very light compared with what might have been. Denmark and Norway were very lightly hit indeed. Once the Allies passed the German border I doubt they were very worried about damage. as a priority per se.
None of that helps if it was your house or loved ones in the way of harm, but I struggle to believe the average W European was thinking in 1946 "I wish the Brits and Americans had left us to our fate, the damage was too much"
Re Darkest Hour -- the other thing people forget is most Conservatives hated Churchill at the time.
Indeed. His own constituency party put forward a motion of no confidence in him as its member of parliament - at the time he was campaigning against national party policy of appeasement, shortly before the war - something that for the Conservative Party is very rare indeed. Even more remarkably, the no confidence vote was defeated by just a single vote amongst his local members, after a fair bit of arm twisting by the party chairman who still has a hall named after him in Woodford.
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
It never for a minute looked as if we had abandoned them to their fate. We were right there beside the French and Belgians from the start, not forgetting that we went to war in the first place to fulfil a promise to the Poles.
That is not to say we should really be using it as any sort of excuse or reason in the current political negotiations. It is now history. But you do have an extremely warped view of the war that bears little relationship to reality. .
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
It never for a minute looked as if we had abandoned them to their fate. We were right there beside the French and Belgians from the start, not forgetting that we went to war in the first place to fulfil a promise to the Poles.
That is not to say we should really be using it as any sort of excuse or reason in the current political negotiations. It is now history. But you do have an extremely warped view of the war that bears little relationship to reality. .
Absolutely. We hosted the exiled governments from many occupied countries, funded radio broadcasts in their languages, funded, armed and supported their resistance movements, etc, from the very beginning. And put up with a lot of grief from De Gaulle and his people for sake of maintaining good relations with our defeated allies.
What the OP is probably referring to is some concern prior to and after Dunkirk that we had - sensibly (but contrary to some earlier promises, I believe) - been quick to pull everything out of France when it's cause looked lost.
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
How did it look like we had abandoned them? Hitler was very keen for us to do just that and pretty much offered the status quo post Dunkirk if I recall correctly ie you leave us alone and we will do likewise. Wouldn't have been viable long term for us, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable for us short term to take it. That would've abandoned Europe. We didn't do that.
Look at it from the point of view of the countries that were overrun. Czechoslovakia of course was handed over before the start. We declared war in support of Poland but did not actually fight for or defend that country. That was the so-called phony war. Belgium was given up without much of a fight, and then we withdrew from France. We invaded Norway but were soon beaten. Ironically, it was the Norway campaign that led directly to Chamberlain's resignation and Churchill becoming prime minister, yet it was Churchill who was the architect of that military fiasco.
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
How did it look like we had abandoned them? Hitler was very keen for us to do just that and pretty much offered the status quo post Dunkirk if I recall correctly ie you leave us alone and we will do likewise. Wouldn't have been viable long term for us, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable for us short term to take it. That would've abandoned Europe. We didn't do that.
Western Normandy, post D Day, was blown to smithereens, sure. And clearly other individual parts were too as matters progressed (Arnhem for one) and probably chunks of the ports such as Brest, Dunkirk, etc that held out till May 45, but given Caen to the German border (ie 95% of France and Belgium and a bit of the southern Netherlands) was basically liberated on the bounce in about four weeks from mid Aug to mid Sep 44 the destruction was surely overall (stress overall) very light compared with what might have been. Denmark and Norway were very lightly hit indeed. Once the Allies passed the German border I doubt they were very worried about damage. as a priority per se.
None of that helps if it was your house or loved ones in the way of harm, but I struggle to believe the average W European was thinking in 1946 "I wish the Brits and Americans had left us to our fate, the damage was too much"
We absolutely pasted all the transport hubs across Western Europe for months before and after D-Day. We bombed over 1500 urban areas, and killed nearly 70,000 civilians in France alone.
Re Darkest Hour -- the other thing people forget is most Conservatives hated Churchill at the time.
Indeed. His own constituency party put forward a motion of no confidence in him as its member of parliament - at the time he was campaigning against national party policy of appeasement, shortly before the war - something that for the Conservative Party is very rare indeed. Even more remarkably, the no confidence vote was defeated by just a single vote amongst his local members, after a fair bit of arm twisting by the party chairman who still has a hall named after him in Woodford.
Crikey that's a butterfly's wing beat moment. One vote swapping sides in an obscure meeting in Essex (?) on a single night 1934 or whenever it was, and the world might look very different.
There again I think it was Eden worked out at dinner with Hitler in 1935 that they had been opposite each other at some point in WW1 in the trenches, and apparently when he recounted this in the 50's to some French (or Belgian?) diplomats the horrified reaction was "and you missed him!"
....every F1 driver likes sandbagging his own team whilst proclaiming how excellent the opposition will be.
They are hardly going to say "you could put a seventeen year old in this car and win all season - it is so much better than the shit we have to drive against.... So, how many millions are you going to pay me each race next year?"!
Hamilton’s rumoured to be on around $40m a year at Mercedes, I’m sure he’ll agree that only he can deliver them another pair of titles next year.
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
How did it look like we had abandoned them? Hitler was very keen for us to do just that and pretty much offered the status quo post Dunkirk if I recall correctly ie you leave us alone and we will do likewise. Wouldn't have been viable long term for us, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable for us short term to take it. That would've abandoned Europe. We didn't do that.
Look at it from the point of view of the countries that were overrun. Czechoslovakia of course was handed over before the start. We declared war in support of Poland but did not actually fight for or defend that country. That was the so-called phony war. Belgium was given up without much of a fight, and then we withdrew from France. We invaded Norway but were soon beaten. Ironically, it was the Norway campaign that led directly to Chamberlain's resignation and Churchill becoming prime minister, yet it was Churchill who was the architect of that military fiasco.
Yes I can see all that, but that wasn't the intent that was the fortunes of war (or the distinct lack of them).
Re Darkest Hour -- the other thing people forget is most Conservatives hated Churchill at the time.
Indeed. His own constituency party put forward a motion of no confidence in him as its member of parliament - at the time he was campaigning against national party policy of appeasement, shortly before the war - something that for the Conservative Party is very rare indeed. Even more remarkably, the no confidence vote was defeated by just a single vote amongst his local members, after a fair bit of arm twisting by the party chairman who still has a hall named after him in Woodford.
Crikey that's a butterfly's wing beat moment. One vote swapping sides in an obscure meeting in Essex (?) on a single night 1934 or whenever it was, and the world might look very different.
There again I think it was Eden worked out at dinner with Hitler in 1935 that they had been opposite each other at some point in WW1 in the trenches, and apparently when he recounted this in the 50's to some French (or Belgian?) diplomats the horrified reaction was "and you missed him!"
I don't know Tory party rules well enough to know whether the vote would have any practical consequences, or was just symbolic. Nevertheless it would have been a remarkable blow to his credibility/reputation that might have reduced the chance of his subsequently becoming a PM - an appointment that at the time was already as unlikely.
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
How did it look like we had abandoned them? Hitler was very keen for us to do just that and pretty much offered the status quo post Dunkirk if I recall correctly ie you leave us alone and we will do likewise. Wouldn't have been viable long term for us, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable for us short term to take it. That would've abandoned Europe. We didn't do that.
Western Normandy, post D Day, was blown to smithereens, sure. And clearly other individual parts were too as matters progressed (Arnhem for one) and probably chunks of the ports such as Brest, Dunkirk, etc that held out till May 45, but given Caen to the German border (ie 95% of France and Belgium and a bit of the southern Netherlands) was basically liberated on the bounce in about four weeks from mid Aug to mid Sep 44 the destruction was surely overall (stress overall) very light compared with what might have been. Denmark and Norway were very lightly hit indeed. Once the Allies passed the German border I doubt they were very worried about damage. as a priority per se.
None of that helps if it was your house or loved ones in the way of harm, but I struggle to believe the average W European was thinking in 1946 "I wish the Brits and Americans had left us to our fate, the damage was too much"
We absolutely pasted all the transport hubs across Western Europe for months before and after D-Day. We bombed over 1500 urban areas, and killed nearly 70,000 civilians in France alone.
Sure, and terrible of course. But if I had the choice of 70,000 of us now losing our lives in bombing as the price for removing a regime as uniquely evil as it was and removing the fear it must've engendered- I'd take it.
Re Darkest Hour -- the other thing people forget is most Conservatives hated Churchill at the time.
Indeed. His own constituency party put forward a motion of no confidence in him as its member of parliament - at the time he was campaigning against national party policy of appeasement, shortly before the war - something that for the Conservative Party is very rare indeed. Even more remarkably, the no confidence vote was defeated by just a single vote amongst his local members, after a fair bit of arm twisting by the party chairman who still has a hall named after him in Woodford.
Crikey that's a butterfly's wing beat moment. One vote swapping sides in an obscure meeting in Essex (?) on a single night 1934 or whenever it was, and the world might look very different.
There again I think it was Eden worked out at dinner with Hitler in 1935 that they had been opposite each other at some point in WW1 in the trenches, and apparently when he recounted this in the 50's to some French (or Belgian?) diplomats the horrified reaction was "and you missed him!"
I don't know Tory party rules well enough to know whether the vote would have any practical consequences, or was just symbolic. Nevertheless it would have been a remarkable blow to his credibility/reputation that might have reduced the chance of his subsequently becoming a PM - an appointment that at the time was already as unlikely.
Among the one-time favourites (at least in his own mind) to reach Number 10 was "Soapy" Sam Hoare, who presumably is some sort of ancestor to one of pb's finest, who might have more insight into murky goings on in the late 30s into 1940.
Saw the trailer for the new Churchill film "Darkest Hour". Makes you realise how ungrateful the EU is for everything the UK did in WW2.
At the start of the war, it looked as if we abandoned Europe to its fate.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
How did it look like we had abandoned them? Hitler was very keen for us to do just that and pretty much offered the status quo post Dunkirk if I recall correctly ie you leave us alone and we will do likewise. Wouldn't have been viable long term for us, but it wouldn't have been unreasonable for us short term to take it. That would've abandoned Europe. We didn't do that.
Western Normandy, post D Day, was blown to smithereens, sure. And clearly other individual parts were too as matters progressed (Arnhem for one) and probably chunks of the ports such as Brest, Dunkirk, etc that held out till May 45, but given Caen to the German border (ie 95% of France and Belgium and a bit of the southern Netherlands) was basically liberated on the bounce in about four weeks from mid Aug to mid Sep 44 the destruction was surely overall (stress overall) very light compared with what might have been. Denmark and Norway were very lightly hit indeed. Once the Allies passed the German border I doubt they were very worried about damage. as a priority per se.
None of that helps if it was your house or loved ones in the way of harm, but I struggle to believe the average W European was thinking in 1946 "I wish the Brits and Americans had left us to our fate, the damage was too much"
We absolutely pasted all the transport hubs across Western Europe for months before and after D-Day. We bombed over 1500 urban areas, and killed nearly 70,000 civilians in France alone.
Sure, and terrible of course. But if I had the choice of 70,000 of us now losing our lives in bombing as the price for removing a regime as uniquely evil as it was and removing the fear it must've engendered- I'd take it.
Sure, in the abstract, but I suspect that being on the receiving end would probably have hardened a lot of opinion. "A plague on all of you."
Re Darkest Hour -- the other thing people forget is most Conservatives hated Churchill at the time.
Indeed. His own constituency party put forward a motion of no confidence in him as its member of parliament - at the time he was campaigning against national party policy of appeasement, shortly before the war - something that for the Conservative Party is very rare indeed. Even more remarkably, the no confidence vote was defeated by just a single vote amongst his local members, after a fair bit of arm twisting by the party chairman who still has a hall named after him in Woodford.
Crikey that's a butterfly's wing beat moment. One vote swapping sides in an obscure meeting in Essex (?) on a single night 1934 or whenever it was, and the world might look very different.
I believe it was much later than that - post Munich agreement - ie late 1938 or early 1939.
"Rent controls... result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to be able to have accommodation and a roof over their own head"
The prime minister actually said that.
She views shelter an aspiration rather than a right or a need.
"Rent controls... result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to be able to have accommodation and a roof over their own head"
The prime minister actually said that.
She views shelter an aspiration rather than a right or a need.
She also said "It is the Conservatives that are delivering the homes that people need".
"Rent controls... result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to be able to have accommodation and a roof over their own head"
The prime minister actually said that.
She views shelter an aspiration rather than a right or a need.
Pong you are trying every hard but it is obvious what May both meant and indeed said was that it reduces the number of people with a roof over their heads.
"Rent controls... result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to be able to have accommodation and a roof over their own head"
The prime minister actually said that.
She views shelter an aspiration rather than a right or a need.
Rather more important than your absurd interpretation of her phraseology is that she's right.
"Rent controls... result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to be able to have accommodation and a roof over their own head"
The prime minister actually said that.
She views shelter an aspiration rather than a right or a need.
She also said "It is the Conservatives that are delivering the homes that people need".
@PippaCrerar: Tory Remainer @Anna_Soubry says "nobody wants to be disloyal" to Govt as she calls on PM to accept Dominic Grieve amendment on #BrexitDeal vote "in spirit of unity" #PMQs
Re Darkest Hour -- the other thing people forget is most Conservatives hated Churchill at the time.
Indeed. His own constituency party put forward a motion of no confidence in him as its member of parliament - at the time he was campaigning against national party policy of appeasement, shortly before the war - something that for the Conservative Party is very rare indeed. Even more remarkably, the no confidence vote was defeated by just a single vote amongst his local members, after a fair bit of arm twisting by the party chairman who still has a hall named after him in Woodford.
Crikey that's a butterfly's wing beat moment. One vote swapping sides in an obscure meeting in Essex (?) on a single night 1934 or whenever it was, and the world might look very different.
There again I think it was Eden worked out at dinner with Hitler in 1935 that they had been opposite each other at some point in WW1 in the trenches, and apparently when he recounted this in the 50's to some French (or Belgian?) diplomats the horrified reaction was "and you missed him!"
We're talking 1938, after Munich, not 1934! I did a bit of checking. Several of his branches (presumably what we would now call wards) did actually carry hostile motions against Churchill. According to the Jenkins biography, he won the main vote 100 to 44, so it is probable that my recollection of the single vote refers to one of the branches.
Historians believe Churchill's intention was to form an alternative local party and go to a by-election, if defeated (his chances were by no means guaranteed, Tory appeasers won most of the by-elections fought that year against the Churchill-ites, even where Liberal and Labour stood aside, as in Kinross & W Perth). He had already made overtures seeking Liberal support in such an event. However Tory government whips would have controlled when it would have been called.
"Rent controls... result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to be able to have accommodation and a roof over their own head"
The prime minister actually said that.
She views shelter an aspiration rather than a right or a need.
Odd you haven't picked up on Labour's Shadow Housing Minister 'that fewer people owning their own home isn't such a bad thing'
Given your interest in the housing market, you've not picked up on Labour's plans to reduces the availability of mortgages.
Also can you direct me to your comments criticising the house price increases that we saw under the last Labour government?
"Rent controls... result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to be able to have accommodation and a roof over their own head"
The prime minister actually said that.
She views shelter an aspiration rather than a right or a need.
Odd you haven't picked up on Labour's Shadow Housing Minister 'that fewer people owning their own home isn't such a bad thing'
Given your interest in the housing market, you've not picked up on Labour's plans to reduces the availability of mortgages.
Also can you direct me to your comments criticising the house price increases that we saw under the last Labour government?
Owning a home and having a roof over your head aren't the same thing
Comments
The reason for reverting to WTO terms would be the failure of the EU 27 to compromise on trade terms (many like France are after all protectionist).
So why would the government fall?
The last time he played against the thick thug Vardy, this happened;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xED1143RMcI
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Whether the Council would be willing to consider and grant an extension longer than one year is a different, political question (and not one for Barnier, for that matter).
For now the Republicans are the party of Trump and Bannon. It will probably take a number of defeats along these lines to change that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/42314309
@realDonaldTrump: The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!
https://twitter.com/danwlin/status/940786965972123656
Rising pay begins to catch up with inflation as unemployment remains at 42-year low
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/13/lagging-wage-growth-set-close-gap-climbing-inflation-ease-strain/
While over at the BBC...
UK wage growth continues to lag inflation
yet a workforce that's shrinking....How can that be happening? Well one possible answer you may already have guessed. It has a lot to do with the slowdown in immigration. And it rhymes with "exit".
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42337659
https://twitter.com/judithflanders/status/940853682421354496
It put VVD out for over 6 months, and made him miss the league cup final v ManU. Without the injury there may have been an irresistible offer from a big club for him.
I can't imagine he'll allow Vardy a comfortable evening.
After D-Day, and this is what a lot of people forget, liberating Europe involved killing or blowing up a lot of what we were liberating, and which had lived in relative peace for several years apart from the odd incident where the local resistance groups took a night off from fighting each other, and killed some Nazis, which left villagers to face reprisals.
Inflation at 3.1% - Wage at 2.5%
So someone on £20,000 is facing an increase of £120 or £10 per month.
Hardly food bank stuff.
What am I missing
I made a tidy, similar sum without any dramas. I just thought there was value on neck and neck polling and woke up to hear the news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/42338216
Reckons Red Bull and McLaren could be in the title fight next year. That said, every F1 driver likes sandbagging his own team whilst proclaiming how excellent the opposition will be.
It's such an effective election winner that I expect the Democrats to pull it every time. What amazes me is that anyone actually falls for it.
https://twitter.com/mrnickharvey/status/940712181699620864
https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/940578744959344640
As a consequence, that meant that he sat on the government's side with only a few short breaks right through from 1900-1945.
I hope he is sitting on his hands.
Western Normandy, post D Day, was blown to smithereens, sure. And clearly other individual parts were too as matters progressed (Arnhem for one) and probably chunks of the ports such as Brest, Dunkirk, etc that held out till May 45, but given Caen to the German border (ie 95% of France and Belgium and a bit of the southern Netherlands) was basically liberated on the bounce in about four weeks from mid Aug to mid Sep 44 the destruction was surely overall (stress overall) very light compared with what might have been. Denmark and Norway were very lightly hit indeed. Once the Allies passed the German border I doubt they were very worried about damage. as a priority per se.
None of that helps if it was your house or loved ones in the way of harm, but I struggle to believe the average W European was thinking in 1946 "I wish the Brits and Americans had left us to our fate, the damage was too much"
That is not to say we should really be using it as any sort of excuse or reason in the current political negotiations. It is now history. But you do have an extremely warped view of the war that bears little relationship to reality. .
What the OP is probably referring to is some concern prior to and after Dunkirk that we had - sensibly (but contrary to some earlier promises, I believe) - been quick to pull everything out of France when it's cause looked lost.
There again I think it was Eden worked out at dinner with Hitler in 1935 that they had been opposite each other at some point in WW1 in the trenches, and apparently when he recounted this in the 50's to some French (or Belgian?) diplomats the horrified reaction was "and you missed him!"
Edit: Soapy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42339698
This really is the tour that doesn't tour....
"Rent controls... result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to be able to have accommodation and a roof over their own head"
The prime minister actually said that.
She views shelter an aspiration rather than a right or a need.
Historians believe Churchill's intention was to form an alternative local party and go to a by-election, if defeated (his chances were by no means guaranteed, Tory appeasers won most of the by-elections fought that year against the Churchill-ites, even where Liberal and Labour stood aside, as in Kinross & W Perth). He had already made overtures seeking Liberal support in such an event. However Tory government whips would have controlled when it would have been called.
Given your interest in the housing market, you've not picked up on Labour's plans to reduces the availability of mortgages.
Also can you direct me to your comments criticising the house price increases that we saw under the last Labour government?
or is it more important to elect a capable, competent person (who also happens to be female)?
Anyway, a great CHRISTMAS movie......