Today is the somethingth anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final between West Ham and West Germany.
I watched it recently. Sadly with the ITV rather than the Wolstenholme commentary.
It remains a wonderful spectacle, but man, were they slow. In no parallel universe was Nobby Styles ever an athlete.
England played all their games at Wembley which was a real disadvantage as its pitch was very tiring. As for athleticism, look at the 1970 squad singing Back Home, and count the chins! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ-EutNDgZQ
ETA that reminds me that of course Gordon Banks' tummy bug led to Labour's defeat at the general election, but also that in 1976 Brendan Foster's almost certain gold medal was lost to a similar illness. These were before the days of careful food preparation and a gastroenterologist on call.
Training was I believe focused around beer and fags.
The Newky Browns provided the calories for the 90 minutes whilst those Park Drives kept the weight off the international sportsman.
@taz, can I thank you for your nice comment on the last thread. I hope you enjoy your cruise. I am avoiding cruises like the plague as I enjoy my food and booze too much They would be rolling me off the gang plank. I guess I will eventually succumb. I used to enjoy activity holidays (skiing, sailing, etc), but I am past that at 70, although I do cycle every year in France. This year was sight seeing in Spain and Italy in June and May, cycling in September down the Canal du Midi then for a regular birthday celebration of my cousin in Portugal. Might pop over to France in October house hunting.
Our cruise is also the start of our new life as my wife is retiring and returning to the NHS and accessing her pension. Retiring really is the best thing I’ve ever done. You’ll succumb to a cruise eventually, I’m sure 😀
Labour has settled claims brought by 20 people, mainly former staffers, who featured in a leaked internal document about antisemitism in the party, with the costs estimated to be close to £2m.
The settlements include a payout to Labour’s former elections chief Patrick Heneghan, who was falsely accused in the dossier of having tried to sabotage Jeremy Corbyn’s chances of winning the 2017 general election.
It is understood the payouts will total just under £1m, but with Labour paying both sides’ legal fees the cost to the party will be near to £2m. This puts the total legal costs for Labour connected to the dossier at more than £4m, with court documents released last year showing the party spent £2.4m on its own eventually abandoned lawsuit pursuing five separate staffers it accused of being behind the leak.
Sorry, is this good for Starmerites or the Corbynites?
Neither. Zack Polanski's the one to fear. I'm sure his broadcast has been seen here by now but a great example of 'reading the room'. Until yesterday something Starmer wasn't good at.
@taz, can I thank you for your nice comment on the last thread. I hope you enjoy your cruise. I am avoiding cruises like the plague as I enjoy my food and booze too much They would be rolling me off the gang plank. I guess I will eventually succumb. I used to enjoy activity holidays (skiing, sailing, etc), but I am past that at 70, although I do cycle every year in France. This year was sight seeing in Spain and Italy in June and May, cycling in September down the Canal du Midi then for a regular birthday celebration of my cousin in Portugal. Might pop over to France in October house hunting.
Our cruise is also the start of our new life as my wife is retiring and returning to the NHS and accessing her pension. Retiring really is the best thing I’ve ever done. You’ll succumb to a cruise eventually, I’m sure 😀
Good evening
Many congratulations on your news and enjoy your cruise
We have been on many cruises including Southampton - Canada - New York and back, Vancouver to Beijing via Alaska, Japan, Russia and South Korea, and for our retiremernt we joined an expedition ship to Antartica, South Georgia and the Falklands with the most amazing majestic scenery and wildlife
We only went on cruises for the destinations, and did not join the social life or shows, but did enjoy lectures on our destinations and the culture of the places we visited
We are unable to travel now due to our age and health, but we did it when we could and we always advise those in advancing years to do their buckets lists as soon as they can
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
If only we could have had a Conservative dictatorship since 1906 we'd all be infinitely happier, wealthier and wiser, perhaps?
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
Labour has settled claims brought by 20 people, mainly former staffers, who featured in a leaked internal document about antisemitism in the party, with the costs estimated to be close to £2m.
The settlements include a payout to Labour’s former elections chief Patrick Heneghan, who was falsely accused in the dossier of having tried to sabotage Jeremy Corbyn’s chances of winning the 2017 general election.
It is understood the payouts will total just under £1m, but with Labour paying both sides’ legal fees the cost to the party will be near to £2m. This puts the total legal costs for Labour connected to the dossier at more than £4m, with court documents released last year showing the party spent £2.4m on its own eventually abandoned lawsuit pursuing five separate staffers it accused of being behind the leak.
Sorry, is this good for Starmerites or the Corbynites?
Neither. Zack Polanski's the one to fear. I'm sure his broadcast has been seen here by now but a great example of 'reading the room'. Until yesterday something Starmer wasn't good at.
@taz, can I thank you for your nice comment on the last thread. I hope you enjoy your cruise. I am avoiding cruises like the plague as I enjoy my food and booze too much They would be rolling me off the gang plank. I guess I will eventually succumb. I used to enjoy activity holidays (skiing, sailing, etc), but I am past that at 70, although I do cycle every year in France. This year was sight seeing in Spain and Italy in June and May, cycling in September down the Canal du Midi then for a regular birthday celebration of my cousin in Portugal. Might pop over to France in October house hunting.
Our cruise is also the start of our new life as my wife is retiring and returning to the NHS and accessing her pension. Retiring really is the best thing I’ve ever done. You’ll succumb to a cruise eventually, I’m sure 😀
Good evening
Many congratulations on your news and enjoy your cruise
We have been on many cruises including Southampton - Canada - New York and back, Vancouver to Beijing via Alaska, Japan, Russia and South Korea, and for our retiremernt we joined an expedition ship to Antartica, South Georgia and the Falklands with the most amazing majestic scenery and wildlife
We only went on cruises for the destinations, and did not join the social life or shows, but did enjoy lectures on our destinations and the culture of the places we visited
We are unable to travel now due to our age and health, but we did it when we could and we always advise those in advancing years to do their buckets lists as soon as they can
Would you have attended lecture(s) on political betting on your cruises? I have a relative that does cruises and she mentioned the lectures. I think I could run up a set of lectures on the subject and I'd like to spend some time honing my craft when I retire.
To be slightly controversial, I'm not entirely convinced the country is on the "wrong track". I think we are treading water to an extent but the sense of doom and disaster is somewhat overplayed (often for political points scoring).
What has disappointed me has been our failure over my adult lifetime to make any headway on some social issues such as housing. We should have eradicated homelessness by now but we haven't. Our roads and railways should be better than they are but they aren't.
My mother always believed things went wrong when the park keepers were let go - she was right only inasmuch as the basis of business seemed to be to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. That pervades the economy like a shadow and if we could break that ethos and get back to the notion of good service provision across both public and private sectors, we might move forward.
Heroic stuff from the RNLI social media team this evening. £20 headed their way.
I've sailed a little and I think people don't appreciate how keenly felt the duty is to look after people at sea. That's why you get cargo ships circling paddleboarders until the helicopter turns up, despite the enormous cost of doing so.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
There are many problems with that view. If WW1 had not started in 1914, it may well have started later - and potentially at a more disadvantageous time for us.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
To be slightly controversial, I'm not entirely convinced the country is on the "wrong track". I think we are treading water to an extent but the sense of doom and disaster is somewhat overplayed (often for political points scoring).
What has disappointed me has been our failure over my adult lifetime to make any headway on some social issues such as housing. We should have eradicated homelessness by now but we haven't. Our roads and railways should be better than they are but they aren't.
My mother always believed things went wrong when the park keepers were let go - she was right only inasmuch as the basis of business seemed to be to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. That pervades the economy like a shadow and if we could break that ethos and get back to the notion of good service provision across both public and private sectors, we might move forward.
I agree with your mother. Today's equivalent of park keepers could well be shop cashiers and public transport ticket checkers, among others. The automation of self-service checkouts, and turnstiles at stations, in order to reduce business costs, may have something to do with the inexorable rise of shoplifting and fare-dodging, I rather suspect.
And yet there are planes landing? I guess they have to let them land….
The alternative is a bit mangly
How long can the average passenger plane stay on the air for before running out of fuel?
At least a couple of hours, even on a very short flight.
Unsurprisingly there’s a lot of rules about this, and pilots are required to declare a “Mayday” emergency if they will land with less than 30 minutes’ duration fuel left, which will clear the skies around them for a priority landing (and a fair amount of paperwork afterwards!).
There’s a lot of airports within flying distance of the disruption, and no risk whatsoever to passengers.
In 1998, a Singapore Airlines flight landed at Heathrow, having not declared a fuel emergency, and barely had enough fuel to make it onto the stand. It caused a lot of consternation, because the pilots should have declared Mayday ahead of time.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
There are many problems with that view. If WW1 had not started in 1914, it may well have started later - and potentially at a more disadvantageous time for us.
We were already in decline by 1914 so delay would have been worse i think.
@taz, can I thank you for your nice comment on the last thread. I hope you enjoy your cruise. I am avoiding cruises like the plague as I enjoy my food and booze too much They would be rolling me off the gang plank. I guess I will eventually succumb. I used to enjoy activity holidays (skiing, sailing, etc), but I am past that at 70, although I do cycle every year in France. This year was sight seeing in Spain and Italy in June and May, cycling in September down the Canal du Midi then for a regular birthday celebration of my cousin in Portugal. Might pop over to France in October house hunting.
Our cruise is also the start of our new life as my wife is retiring and returning to the NHS and accessing her pension. Retiring really is the best thing I’ve ever done. You’ll succumb to a cruise eventually, I’m sure 😀
Good evening
Many congratulations on your news and enjoy your cruise
We have been on many cruises including Southampton - Canada - New York and back, Vancouver to Beijing via Alaska, Japan, Russia and South Korea, and for our retiremernt we joined an expedition ship to Antartica, South Georgia and the Falklands with the most amazing majestic scenery and wildlife
We only went on cruises for the destinations, and did not join the social life or shows, but did enjoy lectures on our destinations and the culture of the places we visited
We are unable to travel now due to our age and health, but we did it when we could and we always advise those in advancing years to do their buckets lists as soon as they can
Would you have attended lecture(s) on political betting on your cruises? I have a relative that does cruises and she mentioned the lectures. I think I could run up a set of lectures on the subject and I'd like to spend some time honing my craft when I retire.
No - I have no desire to bet and never have
The lectures were all about our locations, history and culture and no politics
Indeed most cruise lectures relate to the ships destinations
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Well, commercial aircraft might be stuck but I've just been buzzed by a Douglas A-26 in Korean War colours flying low over the Flatlands. Flew from Wick, but got there via Goose Bay, Greenland, and Iceland over several days.
Well, commercial aircraft might be stuck but I've just been buzzed by a Douglas A-26 in Korean War colours flying low over the Flatlands. Flew from Wick, but got there via Goose Bay, Greenland, and Iceland over several days.
Quite a trip for someone!
Must be for an airshow?
Or cover for Trump's recce of the invasion of Greenland?
Heroic stuff from the RNLI social media team this evening. £20 headed their way.
I've sailed a little and I think people don't appreciate how keenly felt the duty is to look after people at sea. That's why you get cargo ships circling paddleboarders until the helicopter turns up, despite the enormous cost of doing so.
Heroic stuff from the RNLI social media team this evening. £20 headed their way.
I've sailed a little and I think people don't appreciate how keenly felt the duty is to look after people at sea. That's why you get cargo ships circling paddleboarders until the helicopter turns up, despite the enormous cost of doing so.
In the last week our son and his colleagues [RNLI] have attended a paddleboarder with a broken leg, a young women with a broken ankle, a yacht in distress having lost it engines in quite stormy seas, and been on routine exercises
And all as a volunteer so all donations are very gratefully received
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
We had no choice.
France and Russia would have both been defeated (Russia was as it is, and France came close in 1917) and we'd have faced a totally German dominated Europe. They could have united the fleets of up to 4 navies against us, and would have occupied the low countries and the Channel coast, which would have meant the UK's safety and its links to the Empire would have been utterly at its mercy. The Royal Navy wouldn't have been able to protect our independence.
We want to believe it was avoidable due to the terrible cost. But, whilst a catastrophe, the alternative for this country would have been worse.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
Personally I think the shift to farming from hunter-gathering was the real error
You've been reading Sapiens. Brilliant book.
One might see it as an error, but once one society did it, it became a matter of survival for other societies to follow suit. From the dawn of States, until very recently, the principal function of the State was to wage war. A State with a burgeoning population, supported by agriculture, can simply overwhelm any non-State society without agriculture (other than steppe cultures).
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
There's a better argument that we'd have done well to have supported France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and prevent full German unification.
But, at the time, France was seen as the threat and Prussia was seen as a good Wellingtonian era ally.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
That's the Massie book? I read it 30 years ago, and it is seared into my memory.
With the said, I think you are being harsh to some of commenters. It is hard to think of anyone who has been more resolute in his views that we need to stand up to Russian expansionism and aggression than @Cicero.
Its obviously the sinking of the Titanic. That's the actual moment the Empire began to die
Nah, the Second Boer War IMHO
The failure of 250,000 troops to defeat some farmers was a bleak moment, as was not getting all the gold
The UK was fortunate that some other European power did not intervene on the Boers' side. But, the lessons we learned about the deadliness of defensive rifle fire served us well in WWI. Germany and France learned the wrong lessons (that if you attacked hard enough, and were willing to sustain terrible casualties, you would break the enemy).
A pyrrhic victory, anyway.
It just led to a Boer reverse takeover of the whole of South Africa inside 10 years.
It was fought 20 years too late, and the Union would only have worked properly with a plurality of British settlers over theirs.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
That's the Massie book? I read it 30 years ago, and it is seared into my memory.
With the said, I think you are being harsh to some of commenters. It is hard to think of anyone who has been more resolute in his views that we need to stand up to Russian expansionism and aggression than @Cicero.
Yes. I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since.
I can just picture myself in that room.
They all would have felt deeply the failure of Statesmanship, and couldn't believe this was happening to them and us, and full known the horror of what would come next.
Heroic stuff from the RNLI social media team this evening. £20 headed their way.
I've sailed a little and I think people don't appreciate how keenly felt the duty is to look after people at sea. That's why you get cargo ships circling paddleboarders until the helicopter turns up, despite the enormous cost of doing so.
Heroic stuff from the RNLI social media team this evening. £20 headed their way.
I've sailed a little and I think people don't appreciate how keenly felt the duty is to look after people at sea. That's why you get cargo ships circling paddleboarders until the helicopter turns up, despite the enormous cost of doing so.
In the last week our son and his colleagues [RNLI] have attended a paddleboarder with a broken leg, a young women with a broken ankle, a yacht in distress having lost it engines in quite stormy seas, and been on routine exercises
And all as a volunteer so all donations are very gratefully received
Thank you
A bit silly to go paddleboarding when you have a broken leg.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
Wasn't Dreadnought and her near-sisters and subsequent designs built BY the Liberals?
The true answer is that aspects of what Thatcher did and particularly Blair have had the biggest impact.
But, strangely, I'd trust both more than anyone else to put it right today - they were both skilled and impactful politicians.
I’m a fair way into ‘Who dares, wins’ about the years 1979 to 1982. What is interesting me so far is just how many things that are strongly associated with Thatcher were either happening already (council houses being sold off, coal mines closing etc) or she was very unsure about (squeezing inflation out of the system by restricting the money supply). She is a totemic demon to so many but much of it is unfair.
The true answer is that aspects of what Thatcher did and particularly Blair have had the biggest impact.
But, strangely, I'd trust both more than anyone else to put it right today - they were both skilled and impactful politicians.
I’m a fair way into ‘Who dares, wins’ about the years 1979 to 1982. What is interesting me so far is just how many things that are strongly associated with Thatcher were either happening already (council houses being sold off, coal mines closing etc) or she was very unsure about (squeezing inflation out of the system by restricting the money supply). She is a totemic demon to so many but much of it is unfair.
Ask yourself this: would she have got the same level of criticism had she been a bloke?
Well, commercial aircraft might be stuck but I've just been buzzed by a Douglas A-26 in Korean War colours flying low over the Flatlands. Flew from Wick, but got there via Goose Bay, Greenland, and Iceland over several days.
Quite a trip for someone!
Must be for an airshow?
New owner, it would seem. Jammy sod - and you too for seeing it.
The true answer is that aspects of what Thatcher did and particularly Blair have had the biggest impact.
But, strangely, I'd trust both more than anyone else to put it right today - they were both skilled and impactful politicians.
I’m a fair way into ‘Who dares, wins’ about the years 1979 to 1982. What is interesting me so far is just how many things that are strongly associated with Thatcher were either happening already (council houses being sold off, coal mines closing etc) or she was very unsure about (squeezing inflation out of the system by restricting the money supply). She is a totemic demon to so many but much of it is unfair.
Ask yourself this: would she have got the same level of criticism had she been a bloke?
The treatment she got from her own party at the time [edit] of her leadership election - and after that for a while? - does rather suggest you have a hypothesis worth considering.
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
There are some murky chapters of British history but one thing we can be proud of is that we fought the second world war from the start (asterisk) to the end, and for a noble principle, to defeat Nazism. The other major powers joined only after being themselves attacked.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
Wasn't Dreadnought and her near-sisters and subsequent designs built BY the Liberals?
And weren't they right to do everything possible to stop the cataclysm that a generalised European war would be?
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
It is beyond doubt that this government have lost control of the small boats, but Rwanda was an appalling stunt by Johnson, Braverman and Patel. Even sensible Cabinet Ministers like Cleverly and Sunak confirmed it was utter nonsense until they fell into line and U turned.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
There are some murky chapters of British history but one thing we can be proud of is that we fought the second world war from the start (asterisk) to the end, and for a noble principle, to defeat Nazism. The other major powers joined only after being themselves attacked.
Didn't France declare war the same day as us in 1939?
The Beeb have posted a puff piece about deciding to use the Met Office again - endlessly messing about with things that didn't need messed about with is how you get promoted.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
Wasn't Dreadnought and her near-sisters and subsequent designs built BY the Liberals?
And weren't they right to do everything possible to stop the cataclysm that a generalised European war would be?
Not really my era of interest, but did people generally think it would be a 'cataclysm' ? "Over by Christmas" was apparently a common thought.
The Franco-Prussian war, just forty years earlier, lasted just six months and led to a conclusive Prussian victory. Many thought that would be the pattern in 1914.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
There's a better argument that we'd have done well to have supported France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and prevent full German unification.
But, at the time, France was seen as the threat and Prussia was seen as a good Wellingtonian era ally.
And we didn't need allies anyway.
Going back further, if we had backed Denmark against Prussia in 1846* then both the Austro Prussian war and the Franco Prussian war may never have happened.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
There are some murky chapters of British history but one thing we can be proud of is that we fought the second world war from the start (asterisk) to the end, and for a noble principle, to defeat Nazism. The other major powers joined only after being themselves attacked.
Didn't France declare war the same day as us in 1939?
In any case WW2 was 2 years old in China by then.
Doesn’t it have to be a war involving most of the world to be a World War? Until the British Empire, Germany, French Empire, Russia, other European countries with their global territories and the Pacific countries involved then it wasn’t a World War.
Just the Sino-Japanese war at that point I would think.
We are afraid to talk about Black violent crime in the way we do about Grooming gangs which is dominated by Muslims because race is even more sensitive a subject than religion. But needs to change.
Get outside London and look at Liverpool, Manchester or Newcastle where it is mainly White gang members stabbing or shooting each other. It's not really a race thing.
I'd recommend an a day at either of Manchester's Crown Courts to disabuse you of this notion. Drug and county lines gangs with high levels of violence are on trial daily, and Pakistani/Bangaldeshi heritage defendants are over-represented. Albanians are massively over-represented in OCGs, depends whether they fall into your definition of 'white', they're certainly not White British.
Albanians have recently taken over drugs, yes. But by and large they were never the ‘youth’ stabbing each other.
My holiday reading a couple of years ago was ‘The Real Top Boy’.
Quite an eye opener as to what some communities are living with and it touches on not only the Albanians but the Somali gangs now running drugs. Hellbanianz was one such group.
One has to admire the entrepreneurial skills these people have and they know if they’re caught they won’t be deported.
The road men are the mugs who take the fall for them.
Apparently if you call the Albanians for drugs theses days, you pretty much go through a professional call centre.
But those are the sorts of jobs most at risk of being replaced by AI.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
Wasn't Dreadnought and her near-sisters and subsequent designs built BY the Liberals?
And weren't they right to do everything possible to stop the cataclysm that a generalised European war would be?
Not really my era of interest, but did people generally think it would be a 'cataclysm' ? "Over by Christmas" was apparently a common thought.
The Franco-Prussian war, just forty years earlier, lasted just six months and led to a conclusive Prussian victory. Many thought that would be the pattern in 1914.
If it had been all over by Christmas (a definite possibility at the battle of the Marne) then it would still have been a cataclysm. Ditto if the Germans and aausto-Hungarians had collapsed in months.
Well, commercial aircraft might be stuck but I've just been buzzed by a Douglas A-26 in Korean War colours flying low over the Flatlands. Flew from Wick, but got there via Goose Bay, Greenland, and Iceland over several days.
Quite a trip for someone!
Must be for an airshow?
New owner, it would seem. Jammy sod - and you too for seeing it.
It may or may not have betting implications, but in a tour de force of political dexterity Donald Trump has discovered the only possible way to boost Nicola Sturgeon's popularity.
One of the reasons I loathed the 2010-15 coalition was their brushing over of the impact of the financial crisis. Instead it was all Gordon Brown and spending. But then why had borrowing got so much worse? And pinstripe Farage isn't the type to emphasise it either.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
Wasn't Dreadnought and her near-sisters and subsequent designs built BY the Liberals?
And weren't they right to do everything possible to stop the cataclysm that a generalised European war would be?
Not really my era of interest, but did people generally think it would be a 'cataclysm' ? "Over by Christmas" was apparently a common thought.
The Franco-Prussian war, just forty years earlier, lasted just six months and led to a conclusive Prussian victory. Many thought that would be the pattern in 1914.
If it had been all over by Christmas (a definite possibility at the battle of the Marne) then it would still have been a cataclysm. Ditto if the Germans and aausto-Hungarians had collapsed in months.
Austria-Hungary came close to collapse in 1914. They were no match for the Russians, without German leadership and assistance.
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
Given that Starmer is almost universally disliked. Is it possible to have a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister as opposed to the Govt.. or are they one and the same thing.?
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
There's a better argument that we'd have done well to have supported France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and prevent full German unification.
But, at the time, France was seen as the threat and Prussia was seen as a good Wellingtonian era ally.
And we didn't need allies anyway.
Going back further, if we had backed Denmark against Prussia in 1846* then both the Austro Prussian war and the Franco Prussian war may never have happened.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
There are some murky chapters of British history but one thing we can be proud of is that we fought the second world war from the start (asterisk) to the end, and for a noble principle, to defeat Nazism. The other major powers joined only after being themselves attacked.
Didn't France declare war the same day as us in 1939?
In any case WW2 was 2 years old in China by then.
You can argue that it only became a world war when Germany invaded Poland, Japan in China may have been the first conflict, but it was a skirmish in the scheme of things.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
There are some murky chapters of British history but one thing we can be proud of is that we fought the second world war from the start (asterisk) to the end, and for a noble principle, to defeat Nazism. The other major powers joined only after being themselves attacked.
Didn't France declare war the same day as us in 1939?
In any case WW2 was 2 years old in China by then.
You can argue that it only became a world war when Germany invaded Poland, Japan in China may have been the first conflict, but it was a skirmish in the scheme of things.
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
It would, and it has in those nations its done, as people won't pay smugglers to cross them over if they're not going to get to stay. Not when there's alternative nations they could go to instead.
The question is whether we are willing to change the law to do it. Any suggestion its against the law is weird as we are sovereign and can determine what the law is.
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
There are a few things possible. The Dutch process nearly all asylum claims in under six months. If successful they only get leave to remain for 3 years, no path to citizenship and no right to bring over family.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
The book I read recently, Dreadnought and the path to WW1, tells very lucidly how a Liberal government which absolutely didn't want war in any way (made up of people like @stodge@Foxy and @Cicero ) tried incredibly hard to keep Germany from escalating it, and were stonewalled, and how they fell silent and went white as a sheet around the Cabinet table when Germany invaded Belgium and they knew they'd have to fight.
Wasn't Dreadnought and her near-sisters and subsequent designs built BY the Liberals?
I'm not sure all Conservatives wanted war but our treaty obligation to Belgium made war inevitable in 1914 as it would have done in 1870 had the Prussians attacked the French the same way.
By 1914, the rigidity of the two superpower blocs (sound familiar?) and the Schlieffen Plan which was all the Germans had meant they would be facing a two-front war IF thety failed to knock out the French (and by extension the British) quickly.
I don't imagine the Liberals knew what kind of war it would be - they knew what kind of war it could be and don't forget the casualty numbers up to the point the front stabilised were appalling. At the Battle of the Marne, 250,000 French and 260,000 German troops were killed or wounded along with nearly 13,000 British. That rate of loss would have ended the war in weeks.
Machine guns massacred infantry and cavalry alike before trenches were dug and the line stabilised.
The failure of a century of keeping Britain out of Continental conflicts (Crimea doesn't really count), the failure of generations of diplomacy and deterrence - the likely economic and political consequences of a Central Powers victory.
Imagine how a British PM and Cabinet in the 1980s would have felt on hearing Warsaw Pact forces had crossed into West Germany - it's comparable.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
There are some murky chapters of British history but one thing we can be proud of is that we fought the second world war from the start (asterisk) to the end, and for a noble principle, to defeat Nazism. The other major powers joined only after being themselves attacked.
Didn't France declare war the same day as us in 1939?
In any case WW2 was 2 years old in China by then.
You can argue that it only became a world war when Germany invaded Poland, Japan in China may have been the first conflict, but it was a skirmish in the scheme of things.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
There's a better argument that we'd have done well to have supported France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and prevent full German unification.
But, at the time, France was seen as the threat and Prussia was seen as a good Wellingtonian era ally.
And we didn't need allies anyway.
Going back further, if we had backed Denmark against Prussia in 1846* then both the Austro Prussian war and the Franco Prussian war may never have happened.
* the infamous Schwelsig-Holstein question.
A question solved in 1920 by plebiscite.
Schleswig 52% - 48% Holstein, one assumes, without bothering to look it up.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
There are some murky chapters of British history but one thing we can be proud of is that we fought the second world war from the start (asterisk) to the end, and for a noble principle, to defeat Nazism. The other major powers joined only after being themselves attacked.
Didn't France declare war the same day as us in 1939?
In any case WW2 was 2 years old in China by then.
You can argue that it only became a world war when Germany invaded Poland, Japan in China may have been the first conflict, but it was a skirmish in the scheme of things.
A skirmish with 10 million dead?
The first and second Minor Disagreements, as Autoshenanigans refers to them as.
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
I feel like maybe we should give the Greek response a go. Starmer could get away with that if we committed to maintaining or increasing the number of people we grant asylum via direct entry from UK Embassies in Turkey, Pakistan etc.
It's the queue-jumping that is really toxic here. Brits are typically exceptionally tolerant, and welcoming of refugees and even economic migrants, but a sense of of fair play is keenly felt. It's why there is a such a deep loathing of travellers in rural areas - when someone leaves litter all over the place and trespasses on someone's field for weeks...
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
There's a better argument that we'd have done well to have supported France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and prevent full German unification.
But, at the time, France was seen as the threat and Prussia was seen as a good Wellingtonian era ally.
And we didn't need allies anyway.
Going back further, if we had backed Denmark against Prussia in 1846* then both the Austro Prussian war and the Franco Prussian war may never have happened.
* the infamous Schwelsig-Holstein question.
A question solved in 1920 by plebiscite.
Schleswig 52% - 48% Holstein, one assumes, without bothering to look it up.
Zone I, the northern most bit, was 75% for Denmark, 25% for Germany Zone II, the middle section, was 80% for Germany, 20% for Denmark Zone III, the southern-most bit, was seen as overwhelmingly German, so no vote was held there
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The stronger argument, based purely on national self-interest and putting all morality aside, is for sitting out the second war and allowing the two totalitarian dictatorships to slug it out, intervening at the end to finish off whoever was left.
Thus speaks hindsight. Recall that in 1939 and 1940 Germany and Russia had signed a pact. This only broke down when Britain refused to stop fighting and Hitler then gambled on defeating Russia (USSR for purists) as a way to remove Britains last hope. We know that defeating Russia to gain lebensraum was his ultimate aim, but that was not necessarily certain in 1939.
There are some murky chapters of British history but one thing we can be proud of is that we fought the second world war from the start (asterisk) to the end, and for a noble principle, to defeat Nazism. The other major powers joined only after being themselves attacked.
Didn't France declare war the same day as us in 1939?
In any case WW2 was 2 years old in China by then.
You can argue that it only became a world war when Germany invaded Poland, Japan in China may have been the first conflict, but it was a skirmish in the scheme of things.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
We had no choice.
France and Russia would have both been defeated (Russia was as it is, and France came close in 1917) and we'd have faced a totally German dominated Europe. They could have united the fleets of up to 4 navies against us, and would have occupied the low countries and the Channel coast, which would have meant the UK's safety and its links to the Empire would have been utterly at its mercy. The Royal Navy wouldn't have been able to protect our independence.
We want to believe it was avoidable due to the terrible cost. But, whilst a catastrophe, the alternative for this country would have been worse.
We had to fight.
No, I don't really think that holds water. Even with whatever survived of France and Russia's Navies that had not been scuttled or come to us, Germany would not have been a serious naval threat. And where is the solid evidence that the Kaiser would have been more successful in conquering Russia than Napoleon before him?
A Germany that had only recently united itself acting as the overlord of an annoyed Europe would have had far more pressing problems than attacking Britain at sea.
It was just a catastrophical error. We have to accept it, forgive, and move on.
Could Palestine do to Labour what Europe did to the Tories?
Actually, Starmer is in a bit of a difficult position. He's seen on the Left as a Jew-lover for being married to Victoria, and now he's seen on the Right as an appeaser of Hamas.
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
And, small boat crossings have increased 50% since it was cancellled.
Could Palestine do to Labour what Europe did to the Tories?
Actually, Starmer is in a bit of a difficult position. He's seen on the Left as a Jew-lover for being married to Victoria, and now he's seen on the Right as an appeaser of Hamas.
So one side criticises him for antisemitic racism, the other side for appeasing terrorists, and he's in a difficult position?
No difficulty there, screw the racists and screw the terrorists.
Incredible thread on the ways HMG tried to censor entirely legitimate but “concerning” opinions online last year. They even tried to censor the fact some freedom of information requests were refused
They will use the disgusting Online Safety Act to push this further
Starmer is adept at U-Turns so he should just admit cancelling Rwanda was a bad idea, sent totally the wrong message, and bring it make with a tweak and call it the Labour version.
Simply because Labour knows it wouldn't work just as the Conservatives probably did.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
And, small boat crossings have increased 50% since it was cancellled.
Personally I'd say our decision to go to war with France and Russia against Germany in 1914 was where it all started to go wrong.
It killed almost a million men over some inconsequential tracts of Flanders, beggared the Empire, strengthened the United States, led to the Russian Revolution and Labour Governments and eventually to the Second World War.
Honourable mentions to Lloyd George's 1909 Budget that set us on the disastrous road to the current welfare junkie tax and spend doom loop, and the Attlee government that pushed us further in that direction and passed the current disastrous planning system.
This is Peter Hitchens' view IIRC.
It is - of course - worth remembering that British foreign policy for the last 500 years has been to avoid a European continental hegemon emerging. It led to us fighting in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701–1714; the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815, and then both the World Wars in the 20th Century.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
We had no choice.
France and Russia would have both been defeated (Russia was as it is, and France came close in 1917) and we'd have faced a totally German dominated Europe. They could have united the fleets of up to 4 navies against us, and would have occupied the low countries and the Channel coast, which would have meant the UK's safety and its links to the Empire would have been utterly at its mercy. The Royal Navy wouldn't have been able to protect our independence.
We want to believe it was avoidable due to the terrible cost. But, whilst a catastrophe, the alternative for this country would have been worse.
We had to fight.
No, I don't really think that holds water. Even with whatever survived of France and Russia's Navies that had not been scuttled or come to us, Germany would not have been a serious naval threat. And where is the solid evidence that the Kaiser would have been more successful in conquering Russia than Napoleon before him?
A Germany that had only recently united itself acting as the overlord of an annoyed Europe would have had far more pressing problems than attacking Britain at sea.
It was just a catastrophical error. We have to accept it, forgive, and move on.
I suppose the evidence is that in 1918 Germany had successfully conquered Russia.
Comments
The Newky Browns provided the calories for the 90 minutes whilst those Park Drives kept the weight off the international sportsman.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0MDzMvLYeNg
https://x.com/ArchRose90/status/1950578162741411852
But it did give us the Cadfael stories
Many congratulations on your news and enjoy your cruise
We have been on many cruises including Southampton - Canada - New York and back, Vancouver to Beijing via Alaska, Japan, Russia and South Korea, and for our retiremernt we joined an expedition ship to Antartica, South Georgia and the Falklands with the most amazing majestic scenery and wildlife
We only went on cruises for the destinations, and did not join the social life or shows, but did enjoy lectures on our destinations and the culture of the places we visited
We are unable to travel now due to our age and health, but we did it when we could and we always advise those in advancing years to do their buckets lists as soon as they can
Seriously....
Simply, unless the boats are stopped this issue will damage whatever party is in government
To be slightly controversial, I'm not entirely convinced the country is on the "wrong track". I think we are treading water to an extent but the sense of doom and disaster is somewhat overplayed (often for political points scoring).
What has disappointed me has been our failure over my adult lifetime to make any headway on some social issues such as housing. We should have eradicated homelessness by now but we haven't. Our roads and railways should be better than they are but they aren't.
My mother always believed things went wrong when the park keepers were let go - she was right only inasmuch as the basis of business seemed to be to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. That pervades the economy like a shadow and if we could break that ethos and get back to the notion of good service provision across both public and private sectors, we might move forward.
I've sailed a little and I think people don't appreciate how keenly felt the duty is to look after people at sea. That's why you get cargo ships circling paddleboarders until the helicopter turns up, despite the enormous cost of doing so.
The view - rightly or wrongly - was that Britain was strongest when Europe was fractured. (And I would argue that the fracturing of the European continent was -mostly- good for citizens too. It meant countries were competing and innovating.)
So... you can argue that Britain should have avoided the First World War, but you do have to remember that would have had consequences too.
The lectures were all about our locations, history and culture and no politics
Indeed most cruise lectures relate to the ships destinations
Quite a trip for someone!
Must be for an airshow?
The true answer is that aspects of what Thatcher did and particularly Blair have had the biggest impact.
But, strangely, I'd trust both more than anyone else to put it right today - they were both skilled and impactful politicians.
What we need is the ghost of Harold Wilson.
And all as a volunteer so all donations are very gratefully received
Thank you
France and Russia would have both been defeated (Russia was as it is, and France came close in 1917) and we'd have faced a totally German dominated Europe. They could have united the fleets of up to 4 navies against us, and would have occupied the low countries and the Channel coast, which would have meant the UK's safety and its links to the Empire would have been utterly at its mercy. The Royal Navy wouldn't have been able to protect our independence.
We want to believe it was avoidable due to the terrible cost. But, whilst a catastrophe, the alternative for this country would have been worse.
We had to fight.
But, at the time, France was seen as the threat and Prussia was seen as a good Wellingtonian era ally.
And we didn't need allies anyway.
With the said, I think you are being harsh to some of commenters. It is hard to think of anyone who has been more resolute in his views that we need to stand up to Russian expansionism and aggression than @Cicero.
It just led to a Boer reverse takeover of the whole of South Africa inside 10 years.
It was fought 20 years too late, and the Union would only have worked properly with a plurality of British settlers over theirs.
https://x.com/dailymailceleb/status/1950577706057293927?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
I can just picture myself in that room.
They all would have felt deeply the failure of Statesmanship, and couldn't believe this was happening to them and us, and full known the horror of what would come next.
https://youtu.be/X35uwWv1Z9s?t=355
(Art of Law)
https://x.com/iamtomskinner/status/1950597247969689636?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/jdvance/status/1950598914970886438?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
But seriously, the RNLI do a grand job.
The British public: “Could you please not censor the internet like a third world dictator?”
The UK government: “Best I can do is call you a nonce”.
Why the supposed “rule of law” now protects the offender rather than the law-abiding citizen
David Starkey"
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2025/binghams-failed-revolution
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightradar24/comments/1mdepj8/n4313_miss_michelle_a26_invader_flying_over_the/
"What will the new banknotes look like"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgy7j02xzro
Other obvious explanations are available, depending on how paranoid one is feeling.
Skinner:
"I love Trump I think he is brilliant, that's my opinion. I think it's good he is back in charge, it will be good for the UK economy".
Our answer to the My Pillow guy?
It was absolute immoral and profligate lunacy.
In any case WW2 was 2 years old in China by then.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crm4z8mple3o
The Franco-Prussian war, just forty years earlier, lasted just six months and led to a conclusive Prussian victory. Many thought that would be the pattern in 1914.
* the infamous Schwelsig-Holstein question.
Just the Sino-Japanese war at that point I would think.
Only pans!
https://www.europeanairshows.co.uk/news/second-a26-invader-coming-to-europe
Quite a history.
I hope the new owner looks after it and doesn't attract any more flak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg7jge5r8exo
Ggrinder
Is what I‘ve seen so far.
In truth, no one has come up with a coherent, legal, practical, workable and above all inexpensive solution to the problem of "the boats". If such a solution existed, it would have been implemented by either this Government or the last Government.
If withdrawing from the ECHR is the panacea some seem to think it would have been done by this Government or the last Government.
You could try the Greek response and immediately arrest and deport all those who come over illegally but that wouldn't stop them coming.
Radio Rum Baba
It's a Hard Loaf
Under Pressure Cooker
It's a Rind of Magic
We are the Champignons
The question is whether we are willing to change the law to do it. Any suggestion its against the law is weird as we are sovereign and can determine what the law is.
By 1914, the rigidity of the two superpower blocs (sound familiar?) and the Schlieffen Plan which was all the Germans had meant they would be facing a two-front war IF thety failed to knock out the French (and by extension the British) quickly.
I don't imagine the Liberals knew what kind of war it would be - they knew what kind of war it could be and don't forget the casualty numbers up to the point the front stabilised were appalling. At the Battle of the Marne, 250,000 French and 260,000 German troops were killed or wounded along with nearly 13,000 British. That rate of loss would have ended the war in weeks.
Machine guns massacred infantry and cavalry alike before trenches were dug and the line stabilised.
The failure of a century of keeping Britain out of Continental conflicts (Crimea doesn't really count), the failure of generations of diplomacy and deterrence - the likely economic and political consequences of a Central Powers victory.
Imagine how a British PM and Cabinet in the 1980s would have felt on hearing Warsaw Pact forces had crossed into West Germany - it's comparable.
It's the queue-jumping that is really toxic here. Brits are typically exceptionally tolerant, and welcoming of refugees and even economic migrants, but a sense of of fair play is keenly felt. It's why there is a such a deep loathing of travellers in rural areas - when someone leaves litter all over the place and trespasses on someone's field for weeks...
Must be difficult to know people would rather have taco small dick be back in charge than you.
Zone II, the middle section, was 80% for Germany, 20% for Denmark
Zone III, the southern-most bit, was seen as overwhelmingly German, so no vote was held there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Schleswig_plebiscites
A Germany that had only recently united itself acting as the overlord of an annoyed Europe would have had far more pressing problems than attacking Britain at sea.
It was just a catastrophical error. We have to accept it, forgive, and move on.
No difficulty there, screw the racists and screw the terrorists.
They will use the disgusting Online Safety Act to push this further
https://x.com/jim_jordan/status/1950368307372020086?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
What choice do we have? How do we get rid of a government that loathes us, like this, and openly lies to us?
Since then the country has assumed it can permanently live beyond its means.
And once you think you can live beyond your means then increasing your means loses its importance.
It has to reach 52% to hit the news.