FlyTheNest

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, if Scottish Labour becomes "self governing" I would expect the Welsh party to follow in short order - which leaves, if only by default.......

letsskiptotheleft wrote:I woke up this morning to a WTF string of expletives, in the week that 12 billion worth of cuts are being soft soaped to the social security budget, the bulk affecting the working and fucking skint it was heartening to hear, via sychophantic BBC journos that Buck House is in need of 150 million quids worth of upgrades and new decor... Maybe Osborne & Co can give them cost price..

The establishment haven't just won, they are now rubbing people's noses in it.. Still keep feeding us religion, sex and TV and it's alright, not much changes eh?!

It contains over 7,000 paintings, 40,000 watercolours and drawings, and about 150,000 old master prints, as well as historical photographs, tapestries, furniture, ceramics, books, and other works of art

Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con): Did the hon. Gentleman not hear the Secretary of State say that the definition of coasting would be based on pupil performance data?

Tristram Hunt: Does the hon. Lady mean the progress 8 data, the EBacc data, or the data relating to free school meals? Again, it is very unclear what the Conservatives are going for.

A headteacher has been sacked amid scandalous claims pupils' answers were CHANGED after their test had finished.

Maths results for 11-year-olds were struck out at a high-flying Birmingham academy following a probe into the 2014 test.

The annulment at St Patrick's CE Primary Academy is understood to have meant none of the 30 Year 6 pupils were given their received maths grades before starting secondary school.

St Patrick's confirmed that former head Stephanie O'Grady had been sacked because of the incident.

PorFavor wrote:

Swarthlander wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, if Scottish Labour becomes "self governing" I would expect the Welsh party to follow in short order - which leaves, if only by default.......

Then Labour will end up fighting itself (no change there then).
A fragmented Labour Party has no future, self-governing factions of the same organisation will be wide open to MSM charges of incohesion. And I am sure there will be some in all of the factions to supply the ammunition.

If there is a 'Scottish Labour Party' and a 'Welsh Labour Party' I want a 'Northern Labour Party' because the buggers down south are no good for us up here.

The left can not organise together, what hope for three or more 'Labour Parties'....

...cont. p94

I hope you don't think (and you probably don't) that everyone "down South" is rich - or even comfortable. Plenty of underprivileged southerners. Very many of them living in London. The place I live in is often referred to as a northern town on the south coast. You probably don't mean to but you come across as rather dismissive of our problems. Divide and rule is alive, flourishing, and working a treat. Sorry to use you as a punch-bag!

Zoe Gascoyne
‏@Zoe_Gascoyne
Joint Statement of Merseyside Solicitors and Barristers

Read: http://tl.gd/n_1smqhk4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The catalogue of delay, missed targets and overspending at Network Rail is set to force ministers to admit that the vaunted biggest investment in the railway since Victorian times will not deliver the projects promised in a £38.5bn five-year plan.

The electrification of the Midland mainline linking London to Sheffield, described as “critical to maintaining a reliable railway”, is likely to be axed from the schedule as ministers attempt to get to grips with Network Rail’s soaring costs.

HindleA wrote:Oh dear.

Hobiejoe wrote:Is there some kind of lefty penance I can do to atone for watching Andrew Roberts doing his Napoleon thing on iplayer?

Other than a muttering grumpiness every time he tries to bend history to his agenda. Which I've tried.

Didn't work, but then again, the TV still does. So there is that.

“This is not a new history of the Second World War in any meaningful sense of the word; it is not even an adequate history of the Second World War. It is certainly not a reliable one. It does both author and publisher a disservice, as well as the reading public... [A] deeply inadequate book”

In the August 21 & 28, 2009 number of the Times Literary Supplement, the historian Richard J. Evans has a devastating review of Roberts’ latest book, The Storm of War: A New History of Second World War. As Evans notes, the new book and some of Roberts’ other recent works can be categorized as a “hastily written potboilers, widely criticized by reviewers for their inadequacies and inaccuracies.”



More specifically, Evans notes that Roberts relied heavily on book reviews, rather than actual scholarly studies; that the books Roberts did use were often general reference tomes, such as the Collins Encylopedia of Military History, rather than monographs; that these books in any case tend to be dated; that all of the sources Roberts relied on are in English (thus ignoring the massive and important historical literatures of Germany, France, Italy, and Russia, among other countries); that Roberts is overwhelmingly focused on the British role in the war, and downplays both the Eastern front and the Pacific War. Furthermore, the general tone of the book is juvenile (“Roberts approaches his topic in a kind of Boy’s Own spirit, filling his pages with acts of derring-do by heroic, almost invariably British troops, who win medals for exemplary bravery and are mourned by grieving relatives if they are killed in action.”). And of course, Evans has no trouble finding numerous inaccuracies, both large and small, in The Storm of War.



In sum, Evans concludes that “this is not a new history of the Second World War in any meaningful sense of the word; it is not even an adequate history of the Second World War. It is certainly not a reliable one. It does both author and publisher a disservice, as well as the reading public.”

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Can't find the Evans review itself, but insight into it here.

https://sanseverything.wordpress.com/20 ... quotation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the August 21 & 28, 2009 number of the Times Literary Supplement, the historian Richard J. Evans has a devastating review of Roberts’ latest book, The Storm of War: A New History of Second World War. As Evans notes, the new book and some of Roberts’ other recent works can be categorized as a “hastily written potboilers, widely criticized by reviewers for their inadequacies and inaccuracies.”



More specifically, Evans notes that Roberts relied heavily on book reviews, rather than actual scholarly studies; that the books Roberts did use were often general reference tomes, such as the Collins Encylopedia of Military History, rather than monographs; that these books in any case tend to be dated; that all of the sources Roberts relied on are in English (thus ignoring the massive and important historical literatures of Germany, France, Italy, and Russia, among other countries); that Roberts is overwhelmingly focused on the British role in the war, and downplays both the Eastern front and the Pacific War. Furthermore, the general tone of the book is juvenile (“Roberts approaches his topic in a kind of Boy’s Own spirit, filling his pages with acts of derring-do by heroic, almost invariably British troops, who win medals for exemplary bravery and are mourned by grieving relatives if they are killed in action.”). And of course, Evans has no trouble finding numerous inaccuracies, both large and small, in The Storm of War.



In sum, Evans concludes that “this is not a new history of the Second World War in any meaningful sense of the word; it is not even an adequate history of the Second World War. It is certainly not a reliable one. It does both author and publisher a disservice, as well as the reading public.”