Anything blow 50/1 is an utter waste of money. Darlington votes red even if the candidate are incompetent monkeys, and in a large number of wards they are.
That rather ignores the fact that Darlington was Tory -held 1983 -1992 - and before 1964.
We should keep on reminding Kippers of that Hannan article, for only this part
....Plus, obviously, he [Cameron] represents our one chance of a referendum on leaving the EU.
Well, quite. Hannan is that rare thing: a rational BOOer.
And I wonder at what point Hannan will realise that Cameron will keep us in the EU no matter what. His position within the Tory party will become untenable before we reach referendum day.
Richard, you don't know the way that Cameron thinks.
The one thing that he will not sacrifice is the Tory Party: he doesn't want to go down in history as the man who split it.
If he can't carry 2/3 of his party with him (i.e. supporting staying in on renegotiated terms) he will support 'out'.
That is an interesting thought Charles. Until now I had been with Richard on this (i.e. Cameron will never accept leaving the EU) but you are right he has consistently prioritized party unity over his preferred EU policy in the past (i.e. when he was forced to concede the referendum) and he might well do so again.
Actually, I think it's more prioritising his career (if his party splits he goes down in flames), than party unity. But the outcome is still the same.
Perhaps they should have taken a leaf out of Mountbatten's book. At the end of WW2 after the Japanese surrendered, they were still the only effective police force across large areas of south-east Asia. Mountbatten recognised this and made use of the Japanese army as (usually unarmed) police. In a number of cases in Vietnam he actually rearmed Japanese troops and used them to help regain control of towns which had rebelled against the returning French rule.
An interesting thing for Mountbatten to do. I believe he was decidedly frosty to the Japanese until he died wasn't he?
However that isn't the same thing. A thin colonial force trying to supplant another thin colonial force.
Iraq was an invasion of a sovereign nation by another (ok coalition of), and the goal was regime change. It's hard to see that this goal is dissimilar to the invasion of Germany or Japan.
Something is different. My suspicion is that it may be something to do with the value of life that the invaded people have. The Germans and the Japanese had a huge incentive to regain that value of life, but the Iraqi's (many of them anyway) have never enjoyed a life that is worth fighting for. However this is mere conjecture, and I'm sure that there are many reasons.
My guess the absence of will to fight shown by the Iraqi army so far is quite likely down to the good old hierarchy of loyalties that every Arab society is built on. There is an old saying amongst the Arabs, "My brother and I against my cousin; my cousin and I against the world". Loyalty to immediate family comes first, then extended family and them tribe (the extended, extended family). Fighting for a country, especially an artificial country that has not been good to your tribe, is a doubtful proposition. Without either very good leadership (very rare in the Iraqi army) or heavy duty coercion (as per Saddam's time) it really isn't going to happen.
Then add in the religious angle. Asking Sunnis to fight Sunnis on behalf of a Shia dominated government which has already broken its word to the Sunni tribes that helped throw out its enemy before, and, well, why would they put their lives on the line? For Shia troops that were caught up in the North they will have seen their Sunni colleagues melting away and they were being asked to fight in defence of Sunni lands, again not a likely event.
However, now that the fight seems to be settling down as one for Baghdad a whole different set of dynamics come into play. At least part of the army will fight and, for sure, the Shia militias will.
Perhaps they should have taken a leaf out of Mountbatten's book. At the end of WW2 after the Japanese surrendered, they were still the only effective police force across large areas of south-east Asia. Mountbatten recognised this and made use of the Japanese army as (usually unarmed) police. In a number of cases in Vietnam he actually rearmed Japanese troops and used them to help regain control of towns which had rebelled against the returning French rule.
An interesting thing for Mountbatten to do. I believe he was decidedly frosty to the Japanese until he died wasn't he?
However that isn't the same thing. A thin colonial force trying to supplant another thin colonial force.
Iraq was an invasion of a sovereign nation by another (ok coalition of), and the goal was regime change. It's hard to see that this goal is dissimilar to the invasion of Germany or Japan.
Something is different. My suspicion is that it may be something to do with the value of life that the invaded people have. The Germans and the Japanese had a huge incentive to regain that value of life, but the Iraqi's (many of them anyway) have never enjoyed a life that is worth fighting for. However this is mere conjecture, and I'm sure that there are many reasons.
I think there might be something about the nature of the defeat as well. Germany and Japan were involved in total war and at the end were utterly crushed. For all the horror of the Iraq war I am not sure you could say the same about the Iraqi people. Indeed some of them considered themselves to have been on the winning side. As far as Germany is concerned there is also the matter of cultural similarity between the defeated country and the victors - at least on the Western side. Not sure the same applies to Iraq and I think it is a failure to understand those cultural differences which has led to so many mistakes being made in the post-war settlement.
We should keep on reminding Kippers of that Hannan article, for only this part
....Plus, obviously, he [Cameron] represents our one chance of a referendum on leaving the EU.
Well, quite. Hannan is that rare thing: a rational BOOer.
And I wonder at what point Hannan will realise that Cameron will keep us in the EU no matter what. His position within the Tory party will become untenable before we reach referendum day.
Richard, you don't know the way that Cameron thinks.
The one thing that he will not sacrifice is the Tory Party: he doesn't want to go down in history as the man who split it.
If he can't carry 2/3 of his party with him (i.e. supporting staying in on renegotiated terms) he will support 'out'.
That is an interesting thought Charles. Until now I had been with Richard on this (i.e. Cameron will never accept leaving the EU) but you are right he has consistently prioritized party unity over his preferred EU policy in the past (i.e. when he was forced to concede the referendum) and he might well do so again.
Actually, I think it's more prioritising his career (if his party splits he goes down in flames), than party unity. But the outcome is still the same.
You know, if the circumstances are right, David Cameron will go down in history as the Prime Minister who oversaw
1) The end of the United Kingdom 2) Britain's withdrawal of the EU 3) The split of the Conservative Party.
and culloden 1745 (sorry got confused that's 18 September )
1485? Were those traitorous Lancastrians funded by the Spanish?
Lancastrians? In 1485? I think not Mr. Herdson. Bosworth was the Tudor usurper (boo hiss) versus the rightful king, Richard of York (huzzah!). They just had the same sort of dodgy refereeing that we saw last night and the wrong team won.
We should keep on reminding Kippers of that Hannan article, for only this part
....Plus, obviously, he [Cameron] represents our one chance of a referendum on leaving the EU.
Well, quite. Hannan is that rare thing: a rational BOOer.
And I wonder at what point Hannan will realise that Cameron will keep us in the EU no matter what. His position within the Tory party will become untenable before we reach referendum day.
Richard, you don't know the way that Cameron thinks.
The one thing that he will not sacrifice is the Tory Party: he doesn't want to go down in history as the man who split it.
If he can't carry 2/3 of his party with him (i.e. supporting staying in on renegotiated terms) he will support 'out'.
That is an interesting thought Charles. Until now I had been with Richard on this (i.e. Cameron will never accept leaving the EU) but you are right he has consistently prioritized party unity over his preferred EU policy in the past (i.e. when he was forced to concede the referendum) and he might well do so again.
Actually, I think it's more prioritising his career (if his party splits he goes down in flames), than party unity. But the outcome is still the same.
You know, if the circumstances are right, David Cameron will go down in history as the Prime Minister who oversaw
1) The end of the United Kingdom 2) Britain's withdrawal of the EU 3) The split of the Conservative Party.
Perhaps they should have taken a leaf out of Mountbatten's book. At the end of WW2 after the Japanese surrendered, they were still the only effective police force across large areas of south-east Asia. Mountbatten recognised this and made use of the Japanese army as (usually unarmed) police. In a number of cases in Vietnam he actually rearmed Japanese troops and used them to help regain control of towns which had rebelled against the returning French rule.
An interesting thing for Mountbatten to do. I believe he was decidedly frosty to the Japanese until he died wasn't he?
However that isn't the same thing. A thin colonial force trying to supplant another thin colonial force.
Iraq was an invasion of a sovereign nation by another (ok coalition of), and the goal was regime change. It's hard to see that this goal is dissimilar to the invasion of Germany or Japan.
Something is different. My suspicion is that it may be something to do with the value of life that the invaded people have. The Germans and the Japanese had a huge incentive to regain that value of life, but the Iraqi's (many of them anyway) have never enjoyed a life that is worth fighting for. However this is mere conjecture, and I'm sure that there are many reasons.
I think there might be something about the nature of the defeat as well. Germany and Japan were involved in total war and at the end were utterly crushed. For all the horror of the Iraq war I am not sure you could say the same about the Iraqi people. Indeed some of them considered themselves to have been on the winning side. As far as Germany is concerned there is also the matter of cultural similarity between the defeated country and the victors - at least on the Western side. Not sure the same applies to Iraq and I think it is a failure to understand those cultural differences which has led to so many mistakes being made in the post-war settlement.
The cultural similarity point, at last with Germany, is a good one. The essence of relationship in much of the the ME is family and then (if there's a difference) tribe. The ides of national loyalty is a weak one, if only because national boundaries are relatively new and arguably arbitrary. One could have made the same argument for much of subsaharan Africa until15 years ago. This has been consistently missed by non-ME politicians. The focus on the inviolability of national boundaries flows out of a lack of understanding of the nature of societal relationships and interpretations of the state.
Not really. If Ukraine ends up in a shooting war it will have very limited effect on us, even Cameron isn't daft enough to get us involved it that. However, if Iraq really does descend into civil war it will hit the price of oil quite hard and that will have an effect on the UK economy. In terms of importance to UK interests the situation in Iraq ranks much higher.
We should keep on reminding Kippers of that Hannan article, for only this part
....Plus, obviously, he [Cameron] represents our one chance of a referendum on leaving the EU.
Well, quite. Hannan is that rare thing: a rational BOOer.
And I wonder at what point Hannan will realise that Cameron will keep us in the EU no matter what. His position within the Tory party will become untenable before we reach referendum day.
Richard, you don't know the way that Cameron thinks.
The one thing that he will not sacrifice is the Tory Party: he doesn't want to go down in history as the man who split it.
If he can't carry 2/3 of his party with him (i.e. supporting staying in on renegotiated terms) he will support 'out'.
That is an interesting thought Charles. Until now I had been with Richard on this (i.e. Cameron will never accept leaving the EU) but you are right he has consistently prioritized party unity over his preferred EU policy in the past (i.e. when he was forced to concede the referendum) and he might well do so again.
Actually, I think it's more prioritising his career (if his party splits he goes down in flames), than party unity. But the outcome is still the same.
You know, if the circumstances are right, David Cameron will go down in history as the Prime Minister who oversaw
1) The end of the United Kingdom 2) Britain's withdrawal of the EU 3) The split of the Conservative Party.
Anything blow 50/1 is an utter waste of money. Darlington votes red even if the candidate are incompetent monkeys, and in a large number of wards they are.
That rather ignores the fact that Darlington was Tory -held 1983 -1992 - and before 1964.
I have the advantage of local knowledge. UKIP won't get a hold because there will be zero proof that they can do well until after the local elections (to be held at the same time as the general election). Plus the area hasn't be swamped with immigrants. There has been enough to ensure the local Catholic schools are full to bursting but thats about it.
And while its possible that Tories can win, since 1992 the demographics have changed and its becoming a more Northern less rural seat.
Reasons why Tories may win, Labour are making a mess of the cuts they have had to make. Reasons why Tories will lose, They are seen as responsible for those cuts...
So while I would like things to change, I somehow doubt they will
Since 1951 the formal general election campaign post-dissolution has normally favoured the Opposition rather than the Incumbent. Exceptions to that have largely been limited to where the Government has been lagging by a big margin -Callaghan in 1979 and Major in 1997. In 1983 the Tory lead did increase during the campaign, but was due to a swing between the Opposition parties - the Tory vote actually fell. 1992 breaks the pattern a bit - though it is now widely believed that the polls were wrong all along, and we had a relatively new PM. Thus, if the general pattern holds the Tories now only have 9.5 months to build up a lead to withstand likely erosion during the campaign period itself.
We should keep on reminding Kippers of that Hannan article, for only this part
....Plus, obviously, he [Cameron] represents our one chance of a referendum on leaving the EU.
Well, quite. Hannan is that rare thing: a rational BOOer.
And I wonder at what point Hannan will realise that Cameron will keep us in the EU no matter what. His position within the Tory party will become untenable before we reach referendum day.
Richard, you don't know the way that Cameron thinks.
The one thing that he will not sacrifice is the Tory Party: he doesn't want to go down in history as the man who split it.
If he can't carry 2/3 of his party with him (i.e. supporting staying in on renegotiated terms) he will support 'out'.
That is an interesting thought Charles. Until now I had been with Richard on this (i.e. Cameron will never accept leaving the EU) but you are right he has consistently prioritized party unity over his preferred EU policy in the past (i.e. when he was forced to concede the referendum) and he might well do so again.
Actually, I think it's more prioritising his career (if his party splits he goes down in flames), than party unity. But the outcome is still the same.
You know, if the circumstances are right, David Cameron will go down in history as the Prime Minister who oversaw
1) The end of the United Kingdom 2) Britain's withdrawal of the EU 3) The split of the Conservative Party.
And 4) Losing a war in Afghanistan
Other British PMs have lost wars in Afghanistan, plus we really can't blame Cameron for that.
Tories, Kippers and Liberals (okay maybe not Liberals, they don't like football) unite.
Spain - absolutely destroyed. Best World Cup match ever. This pub in London is rocking.
LOL.
Evening all
"Liberals don't like football" - without doubt the most stupid remark ever to grace the annls of this Forum and that includes all of Ave It and SeanT's posts.
Having seen the plucky Orange underdogs sweep aside the arrogant favourites, I confidently predict a Liberal Democrat overall majority of 250 next year with the Conservatives down to 10 seats.
and culloden 1745 (sorry got confused that's 18 September )
1485? Were those traitorous Lancastrians funded by the Spanish?
Lancastrians? In 1485? I think not Mr. Herdson. Bosworth was the Tudor usurper (boo hiss) versus the rightful king, Richard of York (huzzah!). They just had the same sort of dodgy refereeing that we saw last night and the wrong team won.
. I think you will find Richard the Third was the usurper who murdered the true heirs. Indeed so was his brother who had Henry VI murdered.
Not really. If Ukraine ends up in a shooting war it will have very limited effect on us, even Cameron isn't daft enough to get us involved it that. However, if Iraq really does descend into civil war it will hit the price of oil quite hard and that will have an effect on the UK economy. In terms of importance to UK interests the situation in Iraq ranks much higher.
Particularly since a rise in the price of oil aids the case for Scottish independence.
Russia is doing an unofficial invasion in slow motion, it suits everyone but Ukraine, the west can pretend nothing is happening so that relations wont be rocked. (See the friendly atmosphere at normandy) By the way, the israeli government last month was divided between supporting Assad and Iran in the fight against ISIS (almost everyone) and supporting ISIS against Assad and Iran (def. min and PM), I think the balance has shifted since then beacuse of Iraq (although Netanyahu still prefers death that dealing with Iran).
Quite right. Clegg is a Clog wearer! There will be celebrations in the Clegg household (though not in front of Miriam and the nippers. That would be rude boorish kipper like behaviour!)
Tories, Kippers and Liberals (okay maybe not Liberals, they don't like football) unite.
Spain - absolutely destroyed. Best World Cup match ever. This pub in London is rocking.
LOL.
Evening all
"Liberals don't like football" - without doubt the most stupid remark ever to grace the annls of this Forum and that includes all of Ave It and SeanT's posts.
Having seen the plucky Orange underdogs sweep aside the arrogant favourites, I confidently predict a Liberal Democrat overall majority of 250 next year with the Conservatives down to 10 seats.
Interesting that the Honours list has been announced early, thought it wasn't released until midnight. Knighthoods for Daniel Day-Lewis, Bill Cash, Nicholas Soames and an honorary Damehood for Angelina with a posthumous MBE for Stephen Sutton,
Russia is doing an unofficial invasion in slow motion, it suits everyone but Ukraine, the west can pretend nothing is happening so that relations wont be rocked. (See the friendly atmosphere at normandy) By the way, the israeli government last month was divided between supporting Assad and Iran in the fight against ISIS (almost everyone) and supporting ISIS against Assad and Iran (def. min and PM), I think the balance has shifted since then beacuse of Iraq (although Netanyahu still prefers death that dealing with Iran).
I think that you may be confusing friendly and polite.
Interesting that the Honours list has been announced early, thought it wasn't released until midnight. Knighthoods for Daniel Day-Lewis, Bill Cash, Nicholas Soames and an honorary Damehood for Angelina with a posthumous MBE for Stephen Sutton,
Yes the idea of total defeat occurred to me as a factor. I don't think it holds though. The Japanese had the heaviest defeat it is possible to imagine, but there's no question about the concept of Japanese-ness having faded.
Maybe there's a thing in that the Japanese could before the war imagine living in the society that they are now in, and the Germans too. Perhaps the Iraqi's can't.
Russia is doing an unofficial invasion in slow motion, it suits everyone but Ukraine, the west can pretend nothing is happening so that relations wont be rocked. (See the friendly atmosphere at normandy) By the way, the israeli government last month was divided between supporting Assad and Iran in the fight against ISIS (almost everyone) and supporting ISIS against Assad and Iran (def. min and PM), I think the balance has shifted since then beacuse of Iraq (although Netanyahu still prefers death that dealing with Iran).
I think that you may be confusing friendly and polite.
Not at all, Russia and the west are pretending that nothing is happening and they are both very happy. Its the power of money, the size of Russia's economy and the trouble with the european economy that warrants good relations (especially with the middle east going up in flames again). Ukraine, as long as the media had something big about it to televise, forced both sides to make a public war of words, but as it falls off the media radar (thanks to russia's slow motion invasion) things return to normal.
Other British PMs have lost wars in Afghanistan, plus we really can't blame Cameron for that.
I agree that we cannot totally blame Cameron for our defeat in Afghanistan. However, which Afghan war would you say a Prime Minister actually lost.
The third war (summer of 1919) was barely a war at all and, if it wasn't a British Victory, it was a score draw.
The second Afghan War (1878-1880) saw the UK achieve all its war aims. So not a defeat.
The first Afghan War (1839-42) was a frightful cock-up and ended in a massacre, not on the battlefield but as the British Army was leaving the Country. However, given that in those days it took about six months to get a letter to/from the front, i.e. a year for a question to be asked and a reply received. So I am not sure you can that the PM was actually in charge. Furthermore, at that time the British bit of India was actually run by the East India Company, thus a purist might actually argue the first Afghan War was not actually a British war at all.
Although the great irony is that these aren't EU migrants - who don't need British passports - but Russians and Chinese and Ukranians and those taking advantage of 'invest in Britain, get a passport' legislation.
With large parts of Northern Iraq already in ISIS hands the only thing that can prevent the overrunning of the south is a battle fought either just north or just south of Bagdad itself commanded by Irani generals and an a couple of thousand of crack Iranian troops. I wouldn't like to be a prisoner on either side of the sectarian divide.
The fantasy Game of Thrones has at most a dozen heads on spikes on the city walls: in real life it is reported that 1800 heads were taken off in Mosul.
I think the key difference is that both Germans and Japanese had strong traditions of following rules set down by the civil authorities (indeed this is in part how they went along with brutal totalitarianism). Iraq does not have this tradition, it is the clan or religious leader rather than the civil authority that is respected.
Yes the idea of total defeat occurred to me as a factor. I don't think it holds though. The Japanese had the heaviest defeat it is possible to imagine, but there's no question about the concept of Japanese-ness having faded.
Maybe there's a thing in that the Japanese could before the war imagine living in the society that they are now in, and the Germans too. Perhaps the Iraqi's can't.
and culloden 1745 (sorry got confused that's 18 September )
1485? Were those traitorous Lancastrians funded by the Spanish?
Lancastrians? In 1485? I think not Mr. Herdson. Bosworth was the Tudor usurper (boo hiss) versus the rightful king, Richard of York (huzzah!). They just had the same sort of dodgy refereeing that we saw last night and the wrong team won.
He was playing for the Lancastrians even if they'd got him on a free transfer.
Other British PMs have lost wars in Afghanistan, plus we really can't blame Cameron for that.
I agree that we cannot totally blame Cameron for our defeat in Afghanistan. However, which Afghan war would you say a Prime Minister actually lost.
The third war (summer of 1919) was barely a war at all and, if it wasn't a British Victory, it was a score draw.
The second Afghan War (1878-1880) saw the UK achieve all its war aims. So not a defeat.
The first Afghan War (1839-42) was a frightful cock-up and ended in a massacre, not on the battlefield but as the British Army was leaving the Country. However, given that in those days it took about six months to get a letter to/from the front, i.e. a year for a question to be asked and a reply received. So I am not sure you can that the PM was actually in charge. Furthermore, at that time the British bit of India was actually run by the East India Company, thus a purist might actually argue the first Afghan War was not actually a British war at all.
The First Afghan war is listed as an Afghan victory on wikipedia, and Wiki is always right.
From my experience Sir Bob works hard for his constituents and will take some digging out.
While I'm more at the 'Libdemaggedon' spectrum than most on here, I think Sir Bob will be the MP for Colchester even if the LibDems are on 8% nationwide. He's more popular than his party, and the Libs held on to 9 of their 10 seats in Colchester locals in May. 3,500-5,000 vote majority next year, I'd reckon.
With large parts of Northern Iraq already in ISIS hands the only thing that can prevent the overrunning of the south is a battle fought either just north or just south of Bagdadl
Actually: I suspect the biggest danger to ISIS is that they have no control over reliable food and water supplies. They have managed to pillage and steal what they've needed as they've spread across Iraq. But there is next to no agricultural production in the areas they occupy, and (I suspect) limited foodstuffs going in.
and culloden 1745 (sorry got confused that's 18 September )
1485? Were those traitorous Lancastrians funded by the Spanish?
Lancastrians? In 1485? I think not Mr. Herdson. Bosworth was the Tudor usurper (boo hiss) versus the rightful king, Richard of York (huzzah!). They just had the same sort of dodgy refereeing that we saw last night and the wrong team won.
. I think you will find Richard the Third was the usurper who murdered the true heirs. Indeed so was his brother who had Henry VI murdered.
Mr. Flightpath, it is sad to see someone still falling for the Tudor propaganda. I expect you believe Richard was an evil hunch back as well. "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York" *evil cackle* and all that nonsense.
and culloden 1745 (sorry got confused that's 18 September )
1485? Were those traitorous Lancastrians funded by the Spanish?
Lancastrians? In 1485? I think not Mr. Herdson. Bosworth was the Tudor usurper (boo hiss) versus the rightful king, Richard of York (huzzah!). They just had the same sort of dodgy refereeing that we saw last night and the wrong team won.
. I think you will find Richard the Third was the usurper who murdered the true heirs. Indeed so was his brother who had Henry VI murdered.
Would that be Henry VI, grandson of usurper and regicide Henry IV, by any chance?
and culloden 1745 (sorry got confused that's 18 September )
1485? Were those traitorous Lancastrians funded by the Spanish?
Lancastrians? In 1485? I think not Mr. Herdson. Bosworth was the Tudor usurper (boo hiss) versus the rightful king, Richard of York (huzzah!). They just had the same sort of dodgy refereeing that we saw last night and the wrong team won.
. I think you will find Richard the Third was the usurper who murdered the true heirs. Indeed so was his brother who had Henry VI murdered.
Mr. Flightpath, it is sad to see someone still falling for the Tudor propaganda. I expect you believe Richard was an evil hunch back as well.
Well, we now know about the hunchback. "The severe curvature of the spine was evident as the skeleton was excavated. It has been attributed to adolescent-onset scoliosis. Although it was probably visible in making one shoulder higher than the other and reducing the person's apparent height, it did not preclude an active lifestyle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_of_Richard_III_of_England#Bones
Other British PMs have lost wars in Afghanistan, plus we really can't blame Cameron for that.
I agree that we cannot totally blame Cameron for our defeat in Afghanistan. However, which Afghan war would you say a Prime Minister actually lost.
The third war (summer of 1919) was barely a war at all and, if it wasn't a British Victory, it was a score draw.
That war ensured Afghanistan's independence and an end to British influence in place since the Second Afghan War. Britain for her part secured what is the current Afghan-Pakistan border as the border of what was then The Raj, the Durand Line.
Interesting that the Honours list has been announced early, thought it wasn't released until midnight. Knighthoods for Daniel Day-Lewis, Bill Cash, Nicholas Soames and an honorary Damehood for Angelina with a posthumous MBE for Stephen Sutton,
Unconfirmed rumours that Mike Smithson is to receive an OGH...
Other British PMs have lost wars in Afghanistan, plus we really can't blame Cameron for that.
I agree that we cannot totally blame Cameron for our defeat in Afghanistan. However, which Afghan war would you say a Prime Minister actually lost.
The third war (summer of 1919) was barely a war at all and, if it wasn't a British Victory, it was a score draw.
That war ensured Afghanistan's independence and an end to British influence in place since the Second Afghan War. Britain for her part secured what is the current Afghan-Pakistan border as the border of what was then The Raj, the Durand Line.
Other British PMs have lost wars in Afghanistan, plus we really can't blame Cameron for that.
I agree that we cannot totally blame Cameron for our defeat in Afghanistan. However, which Afghan war would you say a Prime Minister actually lost.
The third war (summer of 1919) was barely a war at all and, if it wasn't a British Victory, it was a score draw.
That war ensured Afghanistan's independence and an end to British influence in place since the Second Afghan War. Britain for her part secured what is the current Afghan-Pakistan border as the border of what was then The Raj, the Durand Line.
As I say, Cap'n Doc, either a tactical British win or a score draw depending how you want to define each countries' war aims. What it wasn't was a British defeat.
P.S. Of course that Durand Line was to go on to become the cause of all sorts of problems later, but by then we had buggered off and left the locals to it. Why that ****ing, **** Blair thought it would be a good idea to go back and get, half-heartedly, involved on the ground again, we will never know.
What an incredible game earlier between Spain and Holland, what an incredible result for the Dutch. I was cheering Holland on from the start, but it was bizarre to find myself ending up so full of pity for that Spanish team that I was almost willing the Ref to blow the final whistle and put them out of their misery.
What an incredible game earlier between Spain and Holland, what an incredible result for the Dutch! I never thought that I would end up so full of pity for that Spanish team that I was almost willing the Ref to blow the final whistle and put them out of their misery.
and culloden 1745 (sorry got confused that's 18 September )
1485? Were those traitorous Lancastrians funded by the Spanish?
Lancastrians? In 1485? I think not Mr. Herdson. Bosworth was the Tudor usurper (boo hiss) versus the rightful king, Richard of York (huzzah!). They just had the same sort of dodgy refereeing that we saw last night and the wrong team won.
. I think you will find Richard the Third was the usurper who murdered the true heirs. Indeed so was his brother who had Henry VI murdered.
Mr. Flightpath, it is sad to see someone still falling for the Tudor propaganda. I expect you believe Richard was an evil hunch back as well.
Well, we now know about the hunchback. "The severe curvature of the spine was evident as the skeleton was excavated. It has been attributed to adolescent-onset scoliosis. Although it was probably visible in making one shoulder higher than the other and reducing the person's apparent height, it did not preclude an active lifestyle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_of_Richard_III_of_England#Bones
Not really, Mr, Liburne. The deformity on the Leicester skeleton, if it is indeed that of Richard III (the DNA is by no means conclusive), doesn't match up to the malignant deformation of Shakespeare's creation and Shakespeare was, without doubt, a Tudor propagandist.
Contemporary accounts from when Richard was de facto viceroy of the North make no mention of such a deformity. Furthermore, far from being an evil schemer it would seem he was an very able, fair, and popular administrator (one of his first acts on accession to the throne was to settle his outstanding debts with York wine merchants).
I'm surprised by that - wouldn't have thought she had really done enough to get that.
She carried the British flag in Womens Golf for quite a few years before it became as popular as it now. Nice one Laura!
Are you by any chance a former captain of your local golf club? I'd be stunned to find out you weren't.
Sorry to disappoint you Saddened. It's just that I love golf above most sports: One man or women battling his/her talent, skill and nerves against the field. No teamwork; just self.
I'm surprised by that - wouldn't have thought she had really done enough to get that.
She carried the British flag in Womens Golf for quite a few years before it became as popular as it now. Nice one Laura!
Are you by any chance a former captain of your local golf club? I'd be stunned to find out you weren't.
Sorry to disappoint you Saddened. It's just that I love golf above most sports: One man or women battling his/her talent, skill and nerves against the field. No teamwork; just self.
So which golf club bar do/did you hang around in then?
and culloden 1745 (sorry got confused that's 18 September )
1485? Were those traitorous Lancastrians funded by the Spanish?
Lancastrians? In 1485? I think not Mr. Herdson. Bosworth was the Tudor usurper (boo hiss) versus the rightful king, Richard of York (huzzah!). They just had the same sort of dodgy refereeing that we saw last night and the wrong team won.
. I think you will find Richard the Third was the usurper who murdered the true heirs. Indeed so was his brother who had Henry VI murdered.
Mr. Flightpath, it is sad to see someone still falling for the Tudor propaganda. I expect you believe Richard was an evil hunch back as well.
Well, we now know about the hunchback. "The severe curvature of the spine was evident as the skeleton was excavated. It has been attributed to adolescent-onset scoliosis. Although it was probably visible in making one shoulder higher than the other and reducing the person's apparent height, it did not preclude an active lifestyle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumation_of_Richard_III_of_England#Bones
Not really, Mr, Liburne. The deformity on the Leicester skeleton, if it is indeed that of Richard III (the DNA is by no means conclusive),
I guess, but it matches the broad time period, general description and was in the area where he was supposed to have been buried, so add it all together and it seems pretty safe. My alma mater was so proud of it too, don't take the discovery away from them.
What's totally clear is that Afghanistan as a nation hasn't really achieved much for a long while. Merely been in the way. Achieving less is both impossible and a seemingly unlikely goal. It's merely a question of how ambitious the Afghan 'achieving more' can be.
I now need to work out what I should do in my ambitious programme to be a good person and British!
What an incredible game earlier between Spain and Holland, what an incredible result for the Dutch. I was cheering Holland on from the start, but it was bizarre to find myself ending up so full of pity for that Spanish team that I was almost willing the Ref to blow the final whistle and put them out of their misery.
Tories, Kippers and Liberals (okay maybe not Liberals, they don't like football) unite.
Spain - absolutely destroyed. Best World Cup match ever. This pub in London is rocking.
LOL.
Evening all
"Liberals don't like football" - without doubt the most stupid remark ever to grace the annls of this Forum and that includes all of Ave It and SeanT's posts.
Having seen the plucky Orange underdogs sweep aside the arrogant favourites, I confidently predict a Liberal Democrat overall majority of 250 next year with the Conservatives down to 10 seats.
Of course, I might be wrong....
I was kinda trolling a bit.
But the Liberal score among football fans (4%) is even lower than among the general population. YouGov polled it this week.
No Richard, you scared of losing the arguments, and losing an In/Out Referendum in the near future. Utterly incredible to try to claim an In/Out EU referendum would be 'fixed' by Cameron or anyone else after both the AV referendum and now the Independence Referendum we are having up here in Scotland!
Its an even more farcical claim when we consider that both Labour and the Libdems supported a Yes to voting reform, and the current Scottish Government are supporting the Yes to Independence campaign when its pretty clear they are going to lose the arguments and the Indy Referendum. You don't like Cameron, and you don't agree with his stance on our position in the EU, fair enough. But its utterly pathetic to then try to undermine Cameron by suggesting he is some how dishonest in his genuine offer of putting the decision of our continued EU membership to the British public in a Referendum! And simple because he opposes your position, and the public might end up agreeing with him rather than you!
We should keep on reminding Kippers of that Hannan article, for only this part
....Plus, obviously, he [Cameron] represents our one chance of a referendum on leaving the EU.
Well, quite. Hannan is that rare thing: a rational BOOer.
And I wonder at what point Hannan will realise that Cameron will keep us in the EU no matter what. His position within the Tory party will become untenable before we reach referendum day.
Well he is rational enough to see that Edonomics plus no referendum is significantly worse for the entire country than a Con govt and a referendum - so he won't be going anywhere as long as there is a referendum in the next parly.
Contrast with you - gagging to foist Ed on us for 5 years "for the greater good" - no thanks !
Of course if I were gagging to foist Ed on you it would indeed only be for 5 years. You on the other hand are gagging to foist ever closer union with the EU on to the rest of us permanently.
Why are you so scared of a referendum ?
I am not scared of a fair referendum, I am scared of a fixed one, which is what Cameron is planning. Why are you so scared of a fair referendum?
Apparently the Iraqi army is relying on Shia militias, who are in turn relying on Iran.
What a great idea it was of Gen Garner and Paul Bremer to disband the Iraqi army in 2003.
I wonder what the difference is with postwar Germany? The army was disbanded there. Huge forces of occupation, and total foreign rule. Why did the Germans (and Japanese) knuckle down, and then thrive on that basis and yet the Iraqi's have found things much harder?
Are there areas of Iraq that have followed what happened in Germany? Is the issue that Iraq isn't a united nation?
Anyway I think you're being a touch hard on the merits of that decision.
After WWII the Germans got a German government and the Japanese got a Japanese government.
Iraq can have either a southern Shia/Persian government or a northern Sunni/Arab government neither of which can hold the loyalty of the whole country.
The Times have got another Farage story/document, that won't help Farage re his expenses.
Crux of it is, this
However, EU documents seen by The Times show that Mr Farage, who became an MEP in 1999, disclosed Mr Longhurst’s donations in January 2004, almost three years after first receiving them. MEPs must make “personal, detailed” declarations each year of any financial support.
Ukip last night refused to explain why it had apparently falsely stated that Mr Farage had declared the donations in “every year since 2001”. The parliament has the power to strip Mr Farage of his entitlement to generous EU allowances if it finds him guilty.
I'm surprised by that - wouldn't have thought she had really done enough to get that.
She carried the British flag in Womens Golf for quite a few years before it became as popular as it now. Nice one Laura!
Are you by any chance a former captain of your local golf club? I'd be stunned to find out you weren't.
Sorry to disappoint you Saddened. It's just that I love golf above most sports: One man or women battling his/her talent, skill and nerves against the field. No teamwork; just self.
As a lover of golf I see where you are coming from. But what about the Ryder Cup?
Not sure why I should feel sorry for people who volunteer to serve a prison sentence. If you don't want to live in overcrowded conditions don't volunteer to do so by stealing from or assaulting your fellow citizens.
As a dyed in the wool Dutch supporter when Scots not at a big tournment, it says something when I was hoping the ref would blow the whistle and let the Spanish head for the sanctuary of the dressing room. Fitaloon did point out to me that Spain lost their opening game in the last World Cup, but I think this defeat is going to prove far more painful for them. Its down to just the Dutch (been a fan since 78'), and the English (always support any British team in a big tournament) this time when it comes to my support. Neither Poland or Ireland (family roots) in the mix which is a real shame.
What an incredible game earlier between Spain and Holland, what an incredible result for the Dutch. I was cheering Holland on from the start, but it was bizarre to find myself ending up so full of pity for that Spanish team that I was almost willing the Ref to blow the final whistle and put them out of their misery.
Not sure why I should feel sorry for people who volunteer to serve a prison sentence. If you don't want to live in overcrowded conditions don't volunteer to do so by stealing from or assaulting your fellow citizens.
Except for the fact that poor prison conditions probably reduce rehabilitation and lead to reoffending. Prison is about removing people's freedom - not driving them into the abyss.
He sounds a fool, but there is some evidence that he may not be.
These are shadows of arguments. A rich diversity of labels for crimes.
I quote: "When we Palestinians look at the Holocaust we impose it on our own suffering. We see a Nazi guard tower and we think of the Israeli guard tower or barbed wire. But Jews see the "final solution" and an attempt to annihilate them as a people.
This is intolerable.
I hope, NP, that you reflect on your initial comment.
No its not, its the standard ticket cost of a lunch with political speakers at events held all the time across the UK. Its totally misleading to try and claim that 'Alistair Carmichael' is charging £20 to hear him defend the No Campaign when you fail to mention that the cost of a lunch is included in that ticket price! And after the fiasco earlier this week which involved Salmond's Spad, I am surprised that more Nats have not learnt from this.
Good for you, supporting England. Hopefully they will take inspiration from the Dutch that running at defenders can break down dull Mediterranean walls.
Not sure why I should feel sorry for people who volunteer to serve a prison sentence. If you don't want to live in overcrowded conditions don't volunteer to do so by stealing from or assaulting your fellow citizens.
more evidence the political class are not fit for purpose
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvCQGdIhCDU
All about big countries losing to small countries!!!
Australia 9.6
Chile 1.45
Draw 4.7
(It's fairly close isn't it?)
Then add in the religious angle. Asking Sunnis to fight Sunnis on behalf of a Shia dominated government which has already broken its word to the Sunni tribes that helped throw out its enemy before, and, well, why would they put their lives on the line? For Shia troops that were caught up in the North they will have seen their Sunni colleagues melting away and they were being asked to fight in defence of Sunni lands, again not a likely event.
However, now that the fight seems to be settling down as one for Baghdad a whole different set of dynamics come into play. At least part of the army will fight and, for sure, the Shia militias will.
Pub absolutely rocking
Goodbye tika taka
LOL
1) The end of the United Kingdom
2) Britain's withdrawal of the EU
3) The split of the Conservative Party.
Spain - absolutely destroyed. Best World Cup match ever. This pub in London is rocking.
LOL.
Russia Has Sent Tanks to Ukraine Rebels, U.S. Says
Mist rolling in from the Trent.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/99732/the_daily_mail_friday_13th_june_2014.html
Bit like 1983 a year after the Argie pals lost in the world cup!!!!!!!!!!!!
4) Losing a war in Afghanistan
And while its possible that Tories can win, since 1992 the demographics have changed and its becoming a more Northern less rural seat.
Reasons why Tories may win, Labour are making a mess of the cuts they have had to make.
Reasons why Tories will lose, They are seen as responsible for those cuts...
So while I would like things to change, I somehow doubt they will
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour
Cambridge Liberal Democrats vote 45 to 32 in a secret ballot not to seek to trigger a party leadership election.
"Liberals don't like football" - without doubt the most stupid remark ever to grace the annls of this Forum and that includes all of Ave It and SeanT's posts.
Having seen the plucky Orange underdogs sweep aside the arrogant favourites, I confidently predict a Liberal Democrat overall majority of 250 next year with the Conservatives down to 10 seats.
Of course, I might be wrong....
I think you will find Richard the Third was the usurper who murdered the true heirs. Indeed so was his brother who had Henry VI murdered.
By the way, the israeli government last month was divided between supporting Assad and Iran in the fight against ISIS (almost everyone) and supporting ISIS against Assad and Iran (def. min and PM), I think the balance has shifted since then beacuse of Iraq (although Netanyahu still prefers death that dealing with Iran).
Better still, he was informed before he died - his reply: Awesome.
Yes the idea of total defeat occurred to me as a factor. I don't think it holds though. The Japanese had the heaviest defeat it is possible to imagine, but there's no question about the concept of Japanese-ness having faded.
Maybe there's a thing in that the Japanese could before the war imagine living in the society that they are now in, and the Germans too. Perhaps the Iraqi's can't.
I'm surprised by that - wouldn't have thought she had really done enough to get that.
Its the power of money, the size of Russia's economy and the trouble with the european economy that warrants good relations (especially with the middle east going up in flames again). Ukraine, as long as the media had something big about it to televise, forced both sides to make a public war of words, but as it falls off the media radar (thanks to russia's slow motion invasion) things return to normal.
http://worldginday.com/
The third war (summer of 1919) was barely a war at all and, if it wasn't a British Victory, it was a score draw.
The second Afghan War (1878-1880) saw the UK achieve all its war aims. So not a defeat.
The first Afghan War (1839-42) was a frightful cock-up and ended in a massacre, not on the battlefield but as the British Army was leaving the Country. However, given that in those days it took about six months to get a letter to/from the front, i.e. a year for a question to be asked and a reply received. So I am not sure you can that the PM was actually in charge. Furthermore, at that time the British bit of India was actually run by the East India Company, thus a purist might actually argue the first Afghan War was not actually a British war at all.
I wouldn't like to be a prisoner on either side of the sectarian divide.
The fantasy Game of Thrones has at most a dozen heads on spikes on the city walls: in real life it is reported that 1800 heads were taken off in Mosul.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10899134/Iraq-crisis-Generals-in-army-handed-over-entire-city-to-al-Qaeda-inspired-ISIS-forces.html
So I'm counting that.
Incidentally any motion that 'seeks to trigger' ... well, can I be rude?
What does it mean? Are they prepared to assassinate Clegg which would most surely trigger a party leadership election.
I really could forgive this amongst Oxford Liberal Democrats, but such foolishness needs to be highlighted amongst those that should know better.
Plenty of Imperial derring do in both wars.
P.S. Of course that Durand Line was to go on to become the cause of all sorts of problems later, but by then we had buggered off and left the locals to it. Why that ****ing, **** Blair thought it would be a good idea to go back and get, half-heartedly, involved on the ground again, we will never know.
Contemporary accounts from when Richard was de facto viceroy of the North make no mention of such a deformity. Furthermore, far from being an evil schemer it would seem he was an very able, fair, and popular administrator (one of his first acts on accession to the throne was to settle his outstanding debts with York wine merchants).
I now need to work out what I should do in my ambitious programme to be a good person and British!
Just LOL.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/palestinian-professor-resigns-students-auschwitz
But the Liberal score among football fans (4%) is even lower than among the general population. YouGov polled it this week.
Its an even more farcical claim when we consider that both Labour and the Libdems supported a Yes to voting reform, and the current Scottish Government are supporting the Yes to Independence campaign when its pretty clear they are going to lose the arguments and the Indy Referendum. You don't like Cameron, and you don't agree with his stance on our position in the EU, fair enough. But its utterly pathetic to then try to undermine Cameron by suggesting he is some how dishonest in his genuine offer of putting the decision of our continued EU membership to the British public in a Referendum! And simple because he opposes your position, and the public might end up agreeing with him rather than you!
Iraq can have either a southern Shia/Persian government or a northern Sunni/Arab government neither of which can hold the loyalty of the whole country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27836961
Crux of it is, this
However, EU documents seen by The Times show that Mr Farage, who became an MEP in 1999, disclosed Mr Longhurst’s donations in January 2004, almost three years after first receiving them. MEPs must make “personal, detailed” declarations each year of any financial support.
Ukip last night refused to explain why it had apparently falsely stated that Mr Farage had declared the donations in “every year since 2001”. The parliament has the power to strip Mr Farage of his entitlement to generous EU allowances if it finds him guilty.
He sounds a fool, but there is some evidence that he may not be.
These are shadows of arguments. A rich diversity of labels for crimes.
I quote:
"When we Palestinians look at the Holocaust we impose it on our own suffering. We see a Nazi guard tower and we think of the Israeli guard tower or barbed wire. But Jews see the "final solution" and an attempt to annihilate them as a people.
This is intolerable.
I hope, NP, that you reflect on your initial comment.
Guardian - Alex Salmond accused of breaching Holyrood rules with lunch auction
Good for you, supporting England. Hopefully they will take inspiration from the Dutch that running at defenders can break down dull Mediterranean walls.