Somewhere at the bottom of this thread there was an interesting discussion about Tory chances in the EU elections.
I disagree that success at the EU elections would say much about Tory chances next year. It's a low turnout election. A little more can be deduced from a poor Tory performance because their voters historically have tended to turn out more for low turnout elections. But given that many voters who would consider themselves loyal Tories will take the opportunity to express their irrational dislike of the EU by voting for UKIP, only a little more.
The significance of the EU elections will be in the parties' reaction to the results, not the results themselves.
Another impact is the balance in the EU parliament, as more L MEPs will significantly increase the Socialists' bloc. Whilst more UKIP and more C will only increase minor blocs who have less influence. Even LD MEPs have more influence currently as part of ALDE than C MEPs.
My word there is an awful lot of abuse on here for so early on a Saturday morning. I am surprised OGH puts up with it. It can't do the reputation of his site much good and it will definitely be off-putting for a potential new poster looking for a place to talk about politics which doesn't involve getting called a fool, liar, coward or worse because one has said something that someone else disagrees with.
Could we ease up on the abuse, please?
Agree with all of that. I've been reading all day but with no interest or enthusiasm to bail into such a tetchy discussion.
I'm quite interested in the referendum in Venice, for example, but I'm discussing it on another forum today. Over here it'd merge rapidly with the exchange of insults about Scotland (or Catalonia, which nobody else on here understands)
Mr. G, I can't recall the last British leader to pursue annexation of foreign territory as a policy.
Churchill was certainly ideologically committed to holding on to territories that previous British governments had annexed. Thankfully the electorate booted him out before he could indulge in what would have been a disastrous post imperialist sulk.
Mr. Divvie, I think you need to look again at the actions and decisions of the Atlee government. India aside, they were not dismantle the Empire men, quite the reverse as released Cabinet papers make quite clear. In fact one could argue that their decision to hang on to Libya, never pre-war colony, to provide a long term base for an expanded RAF presence the Med showed quite the opposite intention.
Oh, I'm sure they adopted the 'protecting UK strategic interests' mindset (e.g. UK nuclear deterrent) as enthusiastically as every other Westminster government, but unlike Churchill, they were not ideological imperialists.
There's a lot more than 'search for an aircraft' going on here.......The Chinese government, having encouraged nationalism are now facing a public who demand they 'do something about it'.........
Because Salmond is a regional leader, not the PM of the UK. Cameron is not his peer, no matter how much Salmond might like to think he is. Why give your opponent recognition when you don't have to?
But I'd agree with you that none of this generation of politicians are that good.
Once again the typical rich Tory upper class silver spoon southerner opinion that ensures the vote will be YES. Think they are born better than other people and those damn peasants in the regions should not be so uppity. Shorn of any foreigners to look down on they have only Scotland and Wales left to lord it over. One can only say what a FANNY you are.
How do you draw that conclusion?
Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland. His *constitutional* peers are the leaders in Wales and Northern Ireland. You could make a case that, in the absence of a FM of England, the Mayor of London could be considered a peer as well, but that is more debatable.
His constitutional counterpart within the Westminster government is Alistair Carmichael.
As leader of the SNP, his peers are the leader of SCON, SLAB and the other Scottish party that fell down the back of the sofa.
Cameron doesn't figure anywhere on that list.
Only in the minds of southerners. Scottish labour does not exist , they only have the Labour party run from London. Others likely the same but I would not waste the time checking it. As I said you are out of touch with real life.
They may have no independent power or authority, but they exist.
Somewhere at the bottom of this thread there was an interesting discussion about Tory chances in the EU elections.
I disagree that success at the EU elections would say much about Tory chances next year. It's a low turnout election. A little more can be deduced from a poor Tory performance because their voters historically have tended to turn out more for low turnout elections. But given that many voters who would consider themselves loyal Tories will take the opportunity to express their irrational dislike of the EU by voting for UKIP, only a little more.
The significance of the EU elections will be in the parties' reaction to the results, not the results themselves.
Another impact is the balance in the EU parliament, as more L MEPs will significantly increase the Socialists' bloc. Whilst more UKIP and more C will only increase minor blocs who have less influence. Even LD MEPs have more influence currently as part of ALDE than C MEPs.
Maybe but not necessarily. It depends on whether (1) their voice within their group counts for much - which within the EPP it didn't, and (2) whether the smaller groups contribute to providing swing votes, which as neither the Socialists nor EPP will command a majority, they may.
Chinese announce they have satellite image of object 22m * 30m in the search area for MH370... Handed to Malaysian minister on a piece of paper in the middle of his press conference...
That would have to be the fuselage with part of a wing attached, if it was plane debris. Also a pretty large hunk of metal to still be floating after all this time, surely?
May be they had it on land and then dropped it off by submarine...
*takes off tin foil hat*
Perhaps it's all an elaborate PR stunt to launch the prequel to "Lost"?
Dr. Spyn, on the face it, can't really blame the Venetians. I seem to recall murmurings here in the past that northern and southern Italy might not have all that much desire to remain together.
Mr. M, one does hope not. I watched Lost for about 2-3 seasons but the endless teasing with no payoffs just bored me, in the end.
Edited extra bit: cheers or the link, Mr. M. Sounds like Rome doesn't want Venice to go, though.
Mr. Antifrank, I'd be greatly surprised if the Conservatives topped the poll. I thought UKIP highly likely to win, but now it seems harder to call between them and Labour.
I'd agree. One other consequence to consider if the Tories do poll even modestly strongly, into second, is that either UKIP or Labour would finish third. For UKIP, that would be a backwards step, unless accompanied by an increase in vote share / MEPs (possible, though unlikely); for Labour, it would be an unmitigated disaster. That said, I still expect Con thirds, if a little closer than I did a few months ago.
The stronger someone's political support, the touchier they become by perceived bias. I'm amused by the Andrew Marr squabble; all media is biased to some extent, but the BBC at least tries a little to be impartial (and sometimes succeeds).
I remember the BBC in the 1960s when it represented the current thinking of the time. Now it represents what it believes is the perceived thinking of today. In 1968, I was annoyed by the BBC, but as that great philosopher, Bob Dylan said ... "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."
The local press around here often have paid-for, four-page pull-outs on how great the Labour party is. I'm not sure why Labour bother, the local press is sympathetic anyway, and if this constituency were to go Blue, only Bootle would remain. But it's the coverage that most people consider fair.
Stalin probably thought he had about the right balance, as did Hitler.
Just accept that the BBC rather likes equality, the EU, global warming, green issues, immigration and Better Together, and assumes that all right-thinking licence payers do too.
Mr. Antifrank, that's not necessarily a problem. There's a little chunk of Russia which lies beyond the Baltic states but still remains part of Russia, despite not being contiguous (and there's the more famous example of Alaska, of course).
Mr. Antifrank, that's not necessarily a problem. There's a little chunk of Russia which lies beyond the Baltic states but still remains part of Russia, despite not being contiguous (and there's the more famous example of Alaska, of course).
There are plenty of exclaves around the world (fairly soon someone will post that map of the Belgian/Dutch border and the map of the India/Bangladesh border). But it does beg the question whether those cities would prefer to be with redenta Italia or Veneto.
Mr. Antifrank, I'd be greatly surprised if the Conservatives topped the poll. I thought UKIP highly likely to win, but now it seems harder to call between them and Labour.
I'd agree. One other consequence to consider if the Tories do poll even modestly strongly, into second, is that either UKIP or Labour would finish third. For UKIP, that would be a backwards step, unless accompanied by an increase in vote share / MEPs (possible, though unlikely); for Labour, it would be an unmitigated disaster. That said, I still expect Con thirds, if a little closer than I did a few months ago.
I still think the most likely result is Labour - UKIP -Tories.
Dr. Spyn, on the face it, can't really blame the Venetians. I seem to recall murmurings here in the past that northern and southern Italy might not have all that much desire to remain together.
Mr. M, one does hope not. I watched Lost for about 2-3 seasons but the endless teasing with no payoffs just bored me, in the end.
Edited extra bit: cheers or the link, Mr. M. Sounds like Rome doesn't want Venice to go, though.
I'm just off out to lunch now so I will leave you with the questions:
* Would Venice automatically be part of the EU? * Could Venice join a sterling zone without asking the UK? * Would Venice be entitled to 1/20th of Italian embassies abroad? * Is Venice entitled to all regiments with the word "Venice" in them? * Does this solve the West San Marco Question?
See you all later... with your answers prepared I hope!
Mr. G, I can't recall the last British leader to pursue annexation of foreign territory as a policy.
Churchill was certainly ideologically committed to holding on to territories that previous British governments had annexed. Thankfully the electorate booted him out before he could indulge in what would have been a disastrous post imperialist sulk.
Mr. Divvie, I think you need to look again at the actions and decisions of the Atlee government. India aside, they were not dismantle the Empire men, quite the reverse as released Cabinet papers make quite clear. In fact one could argue that their decision to hang on to Libya, never pre-war colony, to provide a long term base for an expanded RAF presence the Med showed quite the opposite intention.
Oh, I'm sure they adopted the 'protecting UK strategic interests' mindset (e.g. UK nuclear deterrent) as enthusiastically as every other Westminster government, but unlike Churchill, they were not ideological imperialists.
I am struggling with that one, Mr. Divvie. Are you saying that hanging on to colonies was OK as long as one was not an ideological imperialist? So Atlee and Co keeping, even expanding, the Empire was acceptable because they were only doing so to protect our strategic interests, but Churchill & Co following exactly the same policy would have been a post imperialist sulk and therefore a bad thing?
As an aside one thing that comes across very clearly for reading the old Cabinet papers was how much less power Atlee had compared to today's Prime Ministers. He was far more first amongst equals than we are used to now and was forced to accept policies with which he disagreed. In my view that was one of the reasons why his administration was such a fecking disaster as far as rebuilding the UK was concerned - there was no unified strategy but at least three cliques (empire and defence, re-building industry and the New Jerusalemites) each with their own demands on a very limited pool of resources. It really is a fascinating period for study.
An independent Veneto would cut off Udine and Trieste from the rest of Italy.
Bit like Crimea and Russia, then!
Would an independent Venice be part of the EU? I think we should be told!
And has The Doge spent 20,000 Ducats to keep secret non-existent EU legal advice?
I thought it was pound of flesh time!
Eck will have it cooked in a rich curry sauce, served in his favourite Indian restaurant ( all on expenses, of course).
come out of your coffin more often , he is a svelte figure nowadays , has not flipped multiple houses , had no duck houses, wisteria etc etc. You are a dunderheided tube
Mr. G, his diet does seem to be working. Not sure I'd go so far as 'svelte' though. He's a long way off a morris dancer's level of fitness.
Edited extra bit: actually, that's a poor use of language. Fitness and fatness can go together. Gladiators were often on the rotund side. Fat bleeds a lot and offered (literally) a little extra protective padding.
Oh dear not the answers Carlotta was hoping for but of course we know her position re the polling company so probably not real.............................
When asked, "If the UK parties do make pledges regarding further devolution in the event of a No vote, do you trust them to deliver on those pledges?"
42% said they did not trust Labour to honour their more powers promises, 28% trusted the party. Nearly one third (30%) did not know. 61% said they did not trust the Conservatives, against only 16% who trusted David Cameron's party to honour its pledge. Less than a quarter (23%) said they did not know. 57% said they did not trust the Lib Dems to deliver more powers against 16% who did. Just over one quarter (27%) said they did not know.
When asked if they believed the extra powers being offered by the three main Unionist parties would match their own expectations, there was a similar pattern with more people saying they did not believe the new powers would match what they believed the Scottish Parliament should have.
Only 13% thought the Conservatives would offer enough new powers, 48% said they would not offer enough and 39% did not know. 23% thought Labour would offer enough new powers, 34% said they would not and 43% did not know. 13% said they believed the Lib Dems would offer enough new powers, 42% said they would not and 44% did not know.
The survey results will prove a sobering reminder to pro-Union strategists as they struggle with just how much to offer Scots in an attempt at luring them away from the increasingly appealing opportunities being offered by a Yes vote. However there is sure to be concern at the level of distrust felt by many voters who appear simply not to trust London based parties to deliver on their promises.
Someone else flagged this article on food banks yesterday.
'The Labour narrative relies mainly on emotion – but to the extent that evidence comes into the equation it takes a jolt with the latest edition of the OECD social indicators. In 2007 and 2012 they commissioned Gallup World to provide survey which included this question:
Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?
In 2007 there were 9.8 per cent in the UK who said there had been. In 2012 that figure had fallen to 8.1 per cent. In many other countries the figure rose – the OECD average saw an increase from 11.2 per cent to 13.2 per cent.'
I am struggling with that one, Mr. Divvie. Are you saying that hanging on to colonies was OK as long as one was not an ideological imperialist? So Atlee and Co keeping, even expanding, the Empire was acceptable because they were only doing so to protect our strategic interests, but Churchill & Co following exactly the same policy would have been a post imperialist sulk and therefore a bad thing?
As an aside one thing that comes across very clearly for reading the old Cabinet papers was how much less power Atlee had compared to today's Prime Ministers. He was far more first amongst equals than we are used to now and was forced to accept policies with which he disagreed. In my view that was one of the reasons why his administration was such a fecking disaster as far as rebuilding the UK was concerned - there was no unified strategy but at least three cliques (empire and defence, re-building industry and the New Jerusalemites) each with their own demands on a very limited pool of resources. It really is a fascinating period for study.
No, I'm not saying that. 1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization, Churchill wanted to preserve what remained of the Empire come hell or high water. You can say that in some instances Atlee's government was dishonest/pragmatic over UK interests (and if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances), but it was still essentially de-colonisation. If Churchill had managed his first democratic PM-ship in '45 rather than '51, I can only imagine our imperial sunset would have been far more bloody.
An independent Veneto would cut off Udine and Trieste from the rest of Italy.
Bit like Crimea and Russia, then!
Would an independent Venice be part of the EU? I think we should be told!
And has The Doge spent 20,000 Ducats to keep secret non-existent EU legal advice?
I thought it was pound of flesh time!
Eck will have it cooked in a rich curry sauce, served in his favourite Indian restaurant ( all on expenses, of course).
come out of your coffin more often , he is a svelte figure nowadays , has not flipped multiple houses , had no duck houses, wisteria etc etc. You are a dunderheided tube
Salmond loves his expenses. And spending money to keep things secret.
An independent Veneto would cut off Udine and Trieste from the rest of Italy.
Bit like Crimea and Russia, then!
Would an independent Venice be part of the EU? I think we should be told!
And has The Doge spent 20,000 Ducats to keep secret non-existent EU legal advice?
I thought it was pound of flesh time!
Eck will have it cooked in a rich curry sauce, served in his favourite Indian restaurant ( all on expenses, of course).
come out of your coffin more often , he is a svelte figure nowadays , has not flipped multiple houses , had no duck houses, wisteria etc etc. You are a dunderheided tube
Salmond loves his expenses. And spending money to keep things secret.
Re Attlee and postwar imperialism (or not as the case may be) - what struck me on reading about the period is how committed both Labour and Tory gmts in the 40s and early 50s were to maintain and even expand their armed forces in both quantity and quality. Not just fission bombs (which Attlee totally supported, secretly initially IIRC) but also fusion (H) bombs, and their delivery systems - in multiple. Peacetime conscription. And a minesweeper (of all things) programme which was IIRC one of the biggest ever naval spending programmes in UK history. But a lot of that was of course to do with the new Cold War. And decolonization was bound up with that surely.
An independent Veneto would cut off Udine and Trieste from the rest of Italy.
Bit like Crimea and Russia, then!
Would an independent Venice be part of the EU? I think we should be told!
And has The Doge spent 20,000 Ducats to keep secret non-existent EU legal advice?
I thought it was pound of flesh time!
Eck will have it cooked in a rich curry sauce, served in his favourite Indian restaurant ( all on expenses, of course).
come out of your coffin more often , he is a svelte figure nowadays , has not flipped multiple houses , had no duck houses, wisteria etc etc. You are a dunderheided tube
Salmond loves his expenses. And spending money to keep things secret.
My word there is an awful lot of abuse on here for so early on a Saturday morning. I am surprised OGH puts up with it. It can't do the reputation of his site much good and it will definitely be off-putting for a potential new poster looking for a place to talk about politics which doesn't involve getting called a fool, liar, coward or worse because one has said something that someone else disagrees with.
Could we ease up on the abuse, please?
Agree with all of that. I've been reading all day but with no interest or enthusiasm to bail into such a tetchy discussion.
I'm quite interested in the referendum in Venice, for example, but I'm discussing it on another forum today. Over here it'd merge rapidly with the exchange of insults about Scotland (or Catalonia, which nobody else on here understands)
A thread on that, if you have the time and inclination, would be fantastic
Oh dear not the answers Carlotta was hoping for but of course we know her position re the polling company so probably not real.............................
I was (and still am) waiting for the tables.....and for NewsNetGloucester to publish the fourth of the last four questions asked......
As for the latest data released they demonstrate 'people are sceptical of politician's promises' - I wonder how the SNP would fare if asked 'Would all that the SNP promises happen in an independent Scotland?'
Not just fission bombs (which Attlee totally supported, secretly initially IIRC) but also fusion (H) bombs
It was all about 'regaining the Americans' trust' after we'd leaked a lot of the A-Bomb stuff to Stalin......in our desperation we exploded the biggest fission bomb ever....at 720kt - 36 times the size of Hiroshima/Nagasaki......eventually the Americans were persuaded and let us have their designs.....
Oh dear not the answers Carlotta was hoping for but of course we know her position re the polling company so probably not real.............................
I was (and still am) waiting for the tables.....and for NewsNetGloucester to publish the fourth of the last four questions asked......
As for the latest data released they demonstrate 'people are sceptical of politician's promises' - I wonder how the SNP would fare if asked 'Would all that the SNP promises happen in an independent Scotland?'
It is the irony post of the year for malcomg to criticise someone for questioning panelbase's missing queations from their data tables . He has called foul on every other pollster when their referenda results are not to his liking .
Is MacolmG still about? I have a true story for him.
I have just been up to the shops and in the butchers I was in the queue behind an elderly lady who wanted to buy some fillet steak. Clive, the butcher, showed her some very nice looking steak indeed. "Where is it from?" asked the old girl. "Its Aberdeen Angus meat and actually from from Aberdeenshire", says Clive. "Oh, no!" she said, "I only buy British meat".
P.S. There was a happy ending, she bought some fillet steak from a West Sussex organic farm, more expensive but even nicer and so much better for the local economy.
Oh dear not the answers Carlotta was hoping for but of course we know her position re the polling company so probably not real.............................
I was (and still am) waiting for the tables.....and for NewsNetGloucester to publish the fourth of the last four questions asked......
As for the latest data released they demonstrate 'people are sceptical of politician's promises' - I wonder how the SNP would fare if asked 'Would all that the SNP promises happen in an independent Scotland?'
It is the irony post of the year for malcomg to criticise someone for questioning SNPbases' missing queations from their data tables . He has called foul on every other pollster when their referenda results are not to his liking .
Mark, two threads ago the PB Moderator removed your "SNPbase" slander. We'll see how long it is allowed to stay up today.
What were panelbase's missing questions and why are they missing ?
'It is rumoured that in the event of a No vote, Westminster will impose a Herod tax on all Scottish newborns. How likely are you to vote Yes?'
"1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization,"
Really? They might have favoured it, the Atlee government just did not do it and actively pursued policies inimical to the aims and principles you say they had.
" if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances"
I wonder if you and I would have done so. Looking back I can see that the Empire was not a good thing for the UK a massive expense and a cause of much mis-allocation of resources. It was created mostly by accident rather than deliberate policy and we should have dumped it long, long before we did. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
If you haven't seen this yet,watch the video = lol
Ed Miliband: Prime Minister in Waiting
Instead of spending money they do not have on expensive focus groups and polling, the Labour Party should just watch Channel Four’s GoggleBox. The show has people from all walks of society watching TV at home and it captures their reactions. Miliband and his pie-in-the-sky Jobs Guarantee Scheme popped up on the news, and the response will not make for comfortable viewing if you’re a Labour strategist or supporter
Channel Four’s GoggleBox. The show has people from all walks of society watching TV at home and it captures their reactions. Miliband and his pie-in-the-sky Jobs Guarantee Scheme popped up on the news, and the response will not make for comfortable viewing if you’re a Labour strategist or supporter
"1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization,"
Really? They might have favoured it, the Atlee government just did not do it and actively pursued policies inimical to the aims and principles you say they had.
" if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances"
I wonder if you and I would have done so. Looking back I can see that the Empire was not a good thing for the UK a massive expense and a cause of much mis-allocation of resources. It was created mostly by accident rather than deliberate policy and we should have dumped it long, long before we did. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
Hmm, there is the thought that the UK would have lost the war without the Empire and Commonwealth - when Britain stood "alone", as is often claimed, against the Germans etc.
But the key distinction is (presumably) much of this (e.g. Canada, Newfoundland, Aus, NZ, and in their rather special ways the RSA and even the USA) were not imperial possessions but at least in part the British diaspora.
And much of the war (perhaps almost all) in SE Asia was to do with defending imperial possessions or more accurately keeping them in UK hands and out of Japanese hands. Interesting thought: was the continued occupation of India and Malaya and securing the associated oil, rubber, manpower, etc., worth the cost of fighting a second front?
I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
I know my relatives in rural Scotland saw the Empire as wonderful source of opportunity - emigrating to Canada and New Zealand, running a tea plantation in Ceylon.....they came back richer, fitter and healthier than those they left behind, who envied them their good fortune.
"1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization,"
Really? They might have favoured it, the Atlee government just did not do it and actively pursued policies inimical to the aims and principles you say they had.
" if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances"
I wonder if you and I would have done so. Looking back I can see that the Empire was not a good thing for the UK a massive expense and a cause of much mis-allocation of resources. It was created mostly by accident rather than deliberate policy and we should have dumped it long, long before we did. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
was the continued occupation of India and Malaya and securing the associated oil, rubber, manpower, etc., worth the cost of fighting a second front?
Malaya was swiftly over-run - it was Burma where the fight was fought....if you haven't read it J.G. Farrell's 'The Singapore Grip' is a great fictional account.....
PanelBase have the Nuremberg defence, its 'NewsNetGloucester' that's controlling release of data.....
Serious question - in general, how often is it that qs and as are not released because the results are not statistically valid (obviously they try to get them right ab initio but it can't always work out).
"1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization,"
Really? They might have favoured it, the Atlee government just did not do it and actively pursued policies inimical to the aims and principles you say they had.
" if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances"
I wonder if you and I would have done so. Looking back I can see that the Empire was not a good thing for the UK a massive expense and a cause of much mis-allocation of resources. It was created mostly by accident rather than deliberate policy and we should have dumped it long, long before we did. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
was the continued occupation of India and Malaya and securing the associated oil, rubber, manpower, etc., worth the cost of fighting a second front?
Malaya was swiftly over-run - it was Burma where the fight was fought....if you haven't read it J.G. Farrell's 'The Singapore Grip' is a great fictional account.....
Of course, yes, you are right. And India too (on the fringes, some of the time). Forgotten Fourteenth Army and all that.
"1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization,"
Really? They might have favoured it, the Atlee government just did not do it and actively pursued policies inimical to the aims and principles you say they had.
" if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances"
I wonder if you and I would have done so. Looking back I can see that the Empire was not a good thing for the UK a massive expense and a cause of much mis-allocation of resources. It was created mostly by accident rather than deliberate policy and we should have dumped it long, long before we did. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
Hmm, there is the thought that the UK would have lost the war without the Empire and Commonwealth - when Britain stood "alone", as is often claimed, against the Germans etc.
But the key distinction is (presumably) much of this (e.g. Canada, Newfoundland, Aus, NZ, and in their rather special ways the RSA and even the USA) were not imperial possessions but at least in part the British diaspora.
And much of the war (perhaps almost all) in SE Asia was to do with defending imperial possessions or more accurately keeping them in UK hands and out of Japanese hands. Interesting thought: was the continued occupation of India and Malaya and securing the associated oil, rubber, manpower, etc., worth the cost of fighting a second front?
I think it a mistake to confuse the Empire with the dominions, who by WWII had been self-governing for a long time but with whom we were (and still are) tied to by kinship and who joined the war of their own volition. That is not to take away from the contribution empire countries made (the largest volunteer army in history was the Indian Army of 1939-45).
That said suppose we had divested ourselves of empire before 1939 we would have had a lot more manpower to use in our own defence and the war in Europe, where we faced the existential threat, and so perhaps would not have needed so much support from dominion and empire troops (save probably the Canadian contribution on land and sea, something that is frequently under-rated in my view).
On the other hand, if we had no empire the RN would probably have been so small that we would have lost the Battle of the Atlantic by 1941 and so been starved into submission.
"1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization,"
Really? They might have favoured it, the Atlee government just did not do it and actively pursued policies inimical to the aims and principles you say they had.
" if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances"
I wonder if you and I would have done so. Looking back I can see that the Empire was not a good thing for the UK a massive expense and a cause of much mis-allocation of resources. It was created mostly by accident rather than deliberate policy and we should have dumped it long, long before we did. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
Hmm, there is the thought that the UK would have lost the war without the Empire and Commonwealth - when Britain stood "alone", as is often claimed, against the Germans etc.
But the key distinction is (presumably) much of this (e.g. Canada, Newfoundland, Aus, NZ, and in their rather special ways the RSA and even the USA) were not imperial possessions but at least in part the British diaspora.
And much of the war (perhaps almost all) in SE Asia was to do with defending imperial possessions or more accurately keeping them in UK hands and out of Japanese hands. Interesting thought: was the continued occupation of India and Malaya and securing the associated oil, rubber, manpower, etc., worth the cost of fighting a second front?
I think it a mistake to confuse the Empire with the dominions, who by WWII had been self-governing for a long time but with whom we were (and still are) tied to by kinship and who joined the war of their own volition. That is not to take away from the contribution empire countries made (the largest volunteer army in history was the Indian Army of 1939-45).
That said suppose we had divested ourselves of empire before 1939 we would have had a lot more manpower to use in our own defence and the war in Europe, where we faced the existential threat, and so perhaps would not have needed so much support from dominion and empire troops (save probably the Canadian contribution on land and sea, something that is frequently under-rated in my view).
On the other hand, if we had no empire the RN would probably have been so small that we would have lost the Battle of the Atlantic by 1941 and so been starved into submission.
Indeed so, and one could add the Canadian contribution to air (and the Commonwealth and US training and so on).
The question to my mind is also oil - the dependence on Mesopotamia/Iran/Iraq and therefore the eastern Mediterranean.
"The question to my mind is also oil - the dependence on Mesopotamia/Iran/Iraq and therefore the eastern Mediterranean. "
Good point. I am not sure though just how important Middle-Eastern oil was for the UK war effort.
The North African campaign, I think was a lot more about the Suez canal, which was only important to us because of the India and the empire in the East and the Germans only joined in down there because we stomped all over the Italians. We did invade Iran in 1941 in conjunction with the Soviets but that, I think, was more about having access to the Trans-Iranian railway for American aide to Russia than Iranian oil.
I don't have any figures to back this up but I am fairly certain that most of the oil products to he UK came from Western Hemisphere sources and across the Atlantic. No doubt we would have wanted to stop Germany getting their paws on Middle-Eastern supplies but how realistic would that have been in the first place? I dunno.
"1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization,"
Really? They might have favoured it, the Atlee government just did not do it and actively pursued policies inimical to the aims and principles you say they had.
" if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances"
I wonder if you and I would have done so. Looking back I can see that the Empire was not a good thing for the UK a massive expense and a cause of much mis-allocation of resources. It was created mostly by accident rather than deliberate policy and we should have dumped it long, long before we did. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
Err, that would be why I used the conditional 'may'. I can examine my current views and the views of writers and figures of the time that I admire and have a pretty good guess at what I'd have thought. Anti-imperialism was just as much a part of the British Left for the first half of the 20th century as a desire for social justice, pacifism, anti-capitalism and all the other -isms.
I'm not sure why you're so keen to construct an equivalence between avowed imperialist Churchill, and Attlee who, however imperfectly, started the process of de-colonization, apart from a desire to spread the blame.
Oh dear not the answers Carlotta was hoping for but of course we know her position re the polling company so probably not real.............................
When asked, "If the UK parties do make pledges regarding further devolution in the event of a No vote, do you trust them to deliver on those pledges?"
42% said they did not trust Labour to honour their more powers promises, 28% trusted the party. Nearly one third (30%) did not know. 61% said they did not trust the Conservatives, against only 16% who trusted David Cameron's party to honour its pledge. Less than a quarter (23%) said they did not know. 57% said they did not trust the Lib Dems to deliver more powers against 16% who did. Just over one quarter (27%) said they did not know.
When asked if they believed the extra powers being offered by the three main Unionist parties would match their own expectations, there was a similar pattern with more people saying they did not believe the new powers would match what they believed the Scottish Parliament should have.
Only 13% thought the Conservatives would offer enough new powers, 48% said they would not offer enough and 39% did not know. 23% thought Labour would offer enough new powers, 34% said they would not and 43% did not know. 13% said they believed the Lib Dems would offer enough new powers, 42% said they would not and 44% did not know.
The survey results will prove a sobering reminder to pro-Union strategists as they struggle with just how much to offer Scots in an attempt at luring them away from the increasingly appealing opportunities being offered by a Yes vote. However there is sure to be concern at the level of distrust felt by many voters who appear simply not to trust London based parties to deliver on their promises.
Precisely what I was indicating earlier funnily enough. Of course you wouldn't expect shrieking old biddies from SCON to have a clue about scottish public opinion, and they don't.
Comments
I'm quite interested in the referendum in Venice, for example, but I'm discussing it on another forum today. Over here it'd merge rapidly with the exchange of insults about Scotland (or Catalonia, which nobody else on here understands)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26604044
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10715888/Veneto-residents-support-leaving-Italy-in-unofficial-referendum.html
Mr. M, one does hope not. I watched Lost for about 2-3 seasons but the endless teasing with no payoffs just bored me, in the end.
Edited extra bit: cheers or the link, Mr. M. Sounds like Rome doesn't want Venice to go, though.
I remember the BBC in the 1960s when it represented the current thinking of the time. Now it represents what it believes is the perceived thinking of today. In 1968, I was annoyed by the BBC, but as that great philosopher, Bob Dylan said ... "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."
The local press around here often have paid-for, four-page pull-outs on how great the Labour party is. I'm not sure why Labour bother, the local press is sympathetic anyway, and if this constituency were to go Blue, only Bootle would remain. But it's the coverage that most people consider fair.
Stalin probably thought he had about the right balance, as did Hitler.
Just accept that the BBC rather likes equality, the EU, global warming, green issues, immigration and Better Together, and assumes that all right-thinking licence payers do too.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-snp-has-to-work-to-win-round-scunnered-scots.17677823
* Would Venice automatically be part of the EU?
* Could Venice join a sterling zone without asking the UK?
* Would Venice be entitled to 1/20th of Italian embassies abroad?
* Is Venice entitled to all regiments with the word "Venice" in them?
* Does this solve the West San Marco Question?
See you all later... with your answers prepared I hope!
Would an independent Venice be part of the EU? I think we should be told!
http://media.scotslanguage.com/library/document/census_results_report.pdf
Mr. G, you must be glad to be part of such a reasonable country like the UK, and not one like Italy or Spain
As an aside one thing that comes across very clearly for reading the old Cabinet papers was how much less power Atlee had compared to today's Prime Ministers. He was far more first amongst equals than we are used to now and was forced to accept policies with which he disagreed. In my view that was one of the reasons why his administration was such a fecking disaster as far as rebuilding the UK was concerned - there was no unified strategy but at least three cliques (empire and defence, re-building industry and the New Jerusalemites) each with their own demands on a very limited pool of resources. It really is a fascinating period for study.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/21/tebbit-food-bank_n_5005676.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics
Edited extra bit: actually, that's a poor use of language. Fitness and fatness can go together. Gladiators were often on the rotund side. Fat bleeds a lot and offered (literally) a little extra protective padding.
When asked, "If the UK parties do make pledges regarding further devolution in the event of a No vote, do you trust them to deliver on those pledges?"
42% said they did not trust Labour to honour their more powers promises, 28% trusted the party. Nearly one third (30%) did not know.
61% said they did not trust the Conservatives, against only 16% who trusted David Cameron's party to honour its pledge. Less than a quarter (23%) said they did not know.
57% said they did not trust the Lib Dems to deliver more powers against 16% who did. Just over one quarter (27%) said they did not know.
When asked if they believed the extra powers being offered by the three main Unionist parties would match their own expectations, there was a similar pattern with more people saying they did not believe the new powers would match what they believed the Scottish Parliament should have.
Only 13% thought the Conservatives would offer enough new powers, 48% said they would not offer enough and 39% did not know.
23% thought Labour would offer enough new powers, 34% said they would not and 43% did not know.
13% said they believed the Lib Dems would offer enough new powers, 42% said they would not and 44% did not know.
The survey results will prove a sobering reminder to pro-Union strategists as they struggle with just how much to offer Scots in an attempt at luring them away from the increasingly appealing opportunities being offered by a Yes vote. However there is sure to be concern at the level of distrust felt by many voters who appear simply not to trust London based parties to deliver on their promises.
'The Labour narrative relies mainly on emotion – but to the extent that evidence comes into the equation it takes a jolt with the latest edition of the OECD social indicators. In 2007 and 2012 they commissioned Gallup World to provide survey which included this question:
Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?
In 2007 there were 9.8 per cent in the UK who said there had been. In 2012 that figure had fallen to 8.1 per cent. In many other countries the figure rose – the OECD average saw an increase from 11.2 per cent to 13.2 per cent.'
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2014/03/fewer-people-are-going-hungry-than-under-labour.html
1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization, Churchill wanted to preserve what remained of the Empire come hell or high water. You can say that in some instances Atlee's government was dishonest/pragmatic over UK interests (and if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances), but it was still essentially de-colonisation. If Churchill had managed his first democratic PM-ship in '45 rather than '51, I can only imagine our imperial sunset would have been far more bloody.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10359238/Alex-Salmonds-secrecy-battle-over-250-tartan-trews.html
Open your eyes Malcolm. He's a sinner, not a saint.
First Populus poll results on budget
He's worse.
And is going to ever more ridiculous lengths to keep it a secret from the public.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10712784/Alex-Salmond-refuses-to-disclose-luxury-hotel-costs-over-security-fears.html
As to his figure, he looked like a porky kebab as he was skewered on the Andrew Marr show. I know TV adds a few pounds, but Eck is no slim jimmy.
As for the latest data released they demonstrate 'people are sceptical of politician's promises' - I wonder how the SNP would fare if asked 'Would all that the SNP promises happen in an independent Scotland?'
Bingo is not number one? ('nothing' is at 26.7%, followed by 'Pensions' at 21.6%)..
....not even in the top 10? (the lowest, 40% tax, recalled by 2%.....)....
.....but, but, Twitter........
I have just been up to the shops and in the butchers I was in the queue behind an elderly lady who wanted to buy some fillet steak. Clive, the butcher, showed her some very nice looking steak indeed. "Where is it from?" asked the old girl. "Its Aberdeen Angus meat and actually from from Aberdeenshire", says Clive. "Oh, no!" she said, "I only buy British meat".
P.S. There was a happy ending, she bought some fillet steak from a West Sussex organic farm, more expensive but even nicer and so much better for the local economy.
"1945 Labour was broadly anti-imperialist and favoured de-colonization,"
Really? They might have favoured it, the Atlee government just did not do it and actively pursued policies inimical to the aims and principles you say they had.
" if I'd been around then I may have opposed those instances"
I wonder if you and I would have done so. Looking back I can see that the Empire was not a good thing for the UK a massive expense and a cause of much mis-allocation of resources. It was created mostly by accident rather than deliberate policy and we should have dumped it long, long before we did. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it is a mistake to imagine you or I would have held our current views if we had been adults in the late forties or before.
Ed Miliband: Prime Minister in Waiting
Instead of spending money they do not have on expensive focus groups and polling, the Labour Party should just watch Channel Four’s GoggleBox. The show has people from all walks of society watching TV at home and it captures their reactions. Miliband and his pie-in-the-sky Jobs Guarantee Scheme popped up on the news, and the response will not make for comfortable viewing if you’re a Labour strategist or supporter
http://order-order.com/2014/03/19/ed-miliband-prime-minister-in-waiting/?utm_source=Guy+Fawkes'+Blog+List&utm_campaign=e032958dbe-Local+Tories+Want+Crispin+Blunt+Out&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_547885726c-e032958dbe-
But the key distinction is (presumably) much of this (e.g. Canada, Newfoundland, Aus, NZ, and in their rather special ways the RSA and even the USA) were not imperial possessions but at least in part the British diaspora.
And much of the war (perhaps almost all) in SE Asia was to do with defending imperial possessions or more accurately keeping them in UK hands and out of Japanese hands. Interesting thought: was the continued occupation of India and Malaya and securing the associated oil, rubber, manpower, etc., worth the cost of fighting a second front?
That said suppose we had divested ourselves of empire before 1939 we would have had a lot more manpower to use in our own defence and the war in Europe, where we faced the existential threat, and so perhaps would not have needed so much support from dominion and empire troops (save probably the Canadian contribution on land and sea, something that is frequently under-rated in my view).
On the other hand, if we had no empire the RN would probably have been so small that we would have lost the Battle of the Atlantic by 1941 and so been starved into submission.
The question to my mind is also oil - the dependence on Mesopotamia/Iran/Iraq and therefore the eastern Mediterranean.
"The question to my mind is also oil - the dependence on Mesopotamia/Iran/Iraq and therefore the eastern Mediterranean. "
Good point. I am not sure though just how important Middle-Eastern oil was for the UK war effort.
The North African campaign, I think was a lot more about the Suez canal, which was only important to us because of the India and the empire in the East and the Germans only joined in down there because we stomped all over the Italians. We did invade Iran in 1941 in conjunction with the Soviets but that, I think, was more about having access to the Trans-Iranian railway for American aide to Russia than Iranian oil.
I don't have any figures to back this up but I am fairly certain that most of the oil products to he UK came from Western Hemisphere sources and across the Atlantic. No doubt we would have wanted to stop Germany getting their paws on Middle-Eastern supplies but how realistic would that have been in the first place? I dunno.
I can examine my current views and the views of writers and figures of the time that I admire and have a pretty good guess at what I'd have thought. Anti-imperialism was just as much a part of the British Left for the first half of the 20th century as a desire for social justice, pacifism, anti-capitalism and all the other -isms.
I'm not sure why you're so keen to construct an equivalence between avowed imperialist Churchill, and Attlee who, however imperfectly, started the process of de-colonization, apart from a desire to spread the blame.