Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Ed's done a speech today ?!
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
To be honest, Mr. Star, I have been hanging around here for much of the day waiting to catch the reaction to Ed Miliband's speech at Labours Policy Review conference. I assumed that it would be a major speech and with less than a year to the election it would crackle with the electricity of Labour's hitherto hidden economic policy announcements. Not a fucking sausage on here. Fine we have had some interesting posts and some interesting discussion, for which I am grateful, but of Miliband's big speech, not a bloody whisper.
Has he actually given his speech yet? Perhaps I am being premature.
Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Ed's done a speech today ?!
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
To be honest, Mr. Star, I have been hanging around here for much of the day waiting to catch the reaction to Ed Miliband's speech at Labours Policy Review conference. I assumed that it would be a major speech and with less than a year to the election it would crackle with the electricity of Labour's hitherto hidden economic policy announcements. Not a fucking sausage on here. Fine we have had some interesting posts and some interesting discussion, for which I am grateful, but of Miliband's big speech, not a bloody whisper.
Has he actually given his speech yet? Perhaps I am being premature.
Energy price freeze Living wage 2000billion new homes Balancing the books Devolution to local something Blah
Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Ed's done a speech today ?!
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Ed's done a speech today ?!
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
Perhaps I am being premature.
You can get some tablets to fix that problem
Not at my age, Mr. Eagles, a chance would be a fine thing.
Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Ed's done a speech today ?!
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
Perhaps I am being premature.
You can get some tablets to fix that problem
Not at my age, Mr. Eagles, a chance would be a fine thing.
Perhaps SeanT could find a young lady to help from among his Thai acquaintances!
Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Ed's done a speech today ?!
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
To be honest, Mr. Star, I have been hanging around here for much of the day waiting to catch the reaction to Ed Miliband's speech at Labours Policy Review conference. I assumed that it would be a major speech and with less than a year to the election it would crackle with the electricity of Labour's hitherto hidden economic policy announcements. Not a fucking sausage on here. Fine we have had some interesting posts and some interesting discussion, for which I am grateful, but of Miliband's big speech, not a bloody whisper.
Has he actually given his speech yet? Perhaps I am being premature.
Energy price freeze Living wage 2000billion new homes Balancing the books Devolution to local something Blah
Same old fringe nonsense.
Really, Mr. Ghost , (I do wish you would change your picture, by the way). That is it? Miliband has actually given his speech? Yet nobody on the Nation's foremost political discussion blog could actually summon up the energy to say how good/bad it was. It doesn't even get a mention on the front page of the Telegraph (actually on any page as far as I can see) and my twitter feed has been silent on the subject. FFS, you'd think at least Nick Palmer could have chucked a couple of encouraging words in (probably still on the piss as is usual for a Saturday).
Well stuff it, I am off to play Diplomacy. Cheers all.
we weren't allied to Belgium , we could and should have sat it out. The french and germans swap some colonoiies then, so what ?
well mr L that is the standard view, but I disagree with it. Too much of the germany hegemony theory is based on views of WW2 and not on WW1. Most of the ratcheting up of war aims came post 1916 when politcians suddenly had to justify a million plus deaths to their war weary electorates. French and Russian war aims if left unchecked were just as radical as german ones, with the UK appearing to agree to Russian control of Constantinople something we had spent the previous century trying to stop ! Since most of the adherents had drifted into the war none of them at the time really had any aims bar France wanting Alsace.
To me there are two possibilities if we had sat out.
1. short sharp war which ends in 1915 with a German victory over France and a score draw in the East. result - Germany nicks a few colonies, pushes its western border a bit further west Lux and all of Lorraine, but then is still in the same pickle it started. A sullen resentful french neighbour and shit scared of the russians. The german angst over russia has basically been their default position for all of the C20. The conflict would end in the old style imperial peace between monarchs which had been the european pattern for the previous 400 years.
2. a long slog which ends in 1916 or 1917 in a German victory. France gets hit much harder with a Versailles type peace so is even more sullen and resentful and probably heading down the route of fascism of some sort and eventual rearmament. Russia loses Poland and bits of the baltic, but the strategic hard facts don't change Germany still has a hostile and much bigger neighbour sat on it's door step. An exhausted and semi broke Germany isn't going to be doing much for the next few decades especially as it needs to keep it's arms expenditure high what with all the unstable neighbours.
So would we have been better off with another million of our citizens still alive and still the richest nation on earth ? Yes imo.
Yes,strange that; and funny no protests in London or Europe against the persecution and mass killing of Christians in the Mosul area of Iraq, conquered by ISIS.
Events have rather overshadowed the Ed-relaunch. No-one would believe what he has been saying either. I very much doubt he does himself.
First he says no return to tax and spend. Then he lists all the extra things he wants to spend money on - and then omits to say how it will be paid for (other than banker-bashing and the 50p tax rate that won't generate the income necessary)
I don't think Labour can shift the economic argument in their direction. They are hoping to squeak home regardless.
Ed's done a speech today ?!
With the storms, cricket and plane doubt an ameoba noticed.
Perhaps I am being premature.
You can get some tablets to fix that problem
Not at my age, Mr. Eagles, a chance would be a fine thing.
Perhaps SeanT could find a young lady to help from among his Thai acquaintances!
I think Mrs Llama, might have something to say about that, Mr. Cole. Anyway, to be honest, these days I'd rather read a good book.
A petted lip? Dare one ask? A pet seems to be either an animal that one keeps for companionship or pleasure or the act of caressing affectionately. That you had a petted lip that needed time to heal .. well. To be honest Mr. G the mind boggles.
Anyway, very pleased to see you up and about again.
Hurst, Mike gave me a yellow card for telling Financier to go forth and multiply , so in Scotland when someone goes in the huff , we say he has got a petted lip ( bottom lip sticking out ). I am hard to keep down though.
So would we have been better off with another million of our citizens still alive and still the richest nation on earth ? Yes imo.
Bugger! Never say you are off and then check to see if anyone has commented on a past post!
Mr Brooke, alas your two options whilst interesting have nothing to do with the German war aims. Germany, intended to win a quick victory (say early 1915 at the latest). Belgium's eastern portions would have been ethnically cleansed and resettled by German soldiers. France would have been disarmed and its coastal provinces from the Belgian border down to Cherburg given over to German control. The UK would have been shut out of cross channel trade and Germany would have the channel naval bases as they has in 1940-44, but we would not have had the USA coming to the rescue. In the end it would have come down to war between the UK and Germany, the question was when, on what terms and with what allies.
This is not idle speculation on my part but based on serious historical research. If you really want I will go up into the attic a dredge out my papers, but that will cost you a lot of beer.
Now I really, really am off to play Diplomacy. Morris Dancer is offering me an alliance that looks to good to be true (so it probably is) and Pulpstar is still trying to work out how to give Freggles (Italy) the Smackdown - too late, mate, you had your opportunity 2/3 game years ago
So would we have been better off with another million of our citizens still alive and still the richest nation on earth ? Yes imo.
Bugger! Never say you are off and then check to see if anyone has commented on a past post!
Mr Brooke, alas your two options whilst interesting have nothing to do with the German war aims. Germany, intended to win a quick victory (say early 1915 at the latest). Belgium's eastern portions would have been ethnically cleansed and resettled by German soldiers. France would have been disarmed and its coastal provinces from the Belgian border down to Cherburg given over to German control. The UK would have been shut out of cross channel trade and Germany would have the channel naval bases as they has in 1940-44, but we would not have had the USA coming to the rescue. In the end it would have come down to war between the UK and Germany, the question was when, on what terms and with what allies.
This is not idle speculation on my part but based on serious historical research. If you really want I will go up into the attic a dredge out my papers, but that will cost you a lot of beer.
Now I really, really am off to play Diplomacy. Morris Dancer is offering me an alliance that looks to good to be true (so it probably is) and Pulpstar is still trying to work out how to give Freggles (Italy) the Smackdown - too late, mate, you had your opportunity 2/3 game years ago
Remind me when the next game of Diplomacy begins, I want to play.
I have all the tact and diplomacy of Xerxes' messenger to Leonidas, I'm as subtle as a brick through a window.
well I'm in a quandry now. Do I let you go off to Diplomacy or cry tosh and hooey to your last post ?
Typically most of the stuff dredged up on German hegemony in the early part of the war is some nonsense from the Alldeutscher Verband. It's one thing saying what a bunch of ultra nationalists might like quite another to say what an eventual settlement might be. As is the nature of such things the hard light of reality tends to produce a different result than a think tanks day dreams.
Mr Hurstlama 'This is not idle speculation on my part but based on serious historical research. If you really want I will go up into the attic a dredge out my papers, but that will cost you a lot of beer.'
I agree with all of your points about our inevitable involvement in WW1. They are sound.
I think the next PB Diplomacy game should be another DeathMatch - the possibility of joint victories makes the working out of strategy more difficult. Pure zero-sum is the way forward
Comments
Remarkable that Labour MPs feel it appropriate to join this march (h/t @DouglasKMurray) http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/londons-pro-palestine-rally-was-a-disgusting-anti-semitic-spectacle/ …
All the Jew haters are coming out in a frenzy.
Has he actually given his speech yet? Perhaps I am being premature.
Living wage
2000billion new homes
Balancing the books
Devolution to local something
Blah
Same old fringe nonsense.
Well stuff it, I am off to play Diplomacy. Cheers all.
well mr L that is the standard view, but I disagree with it. Too much of the germany hegemony theory is based on views of WW2 and not on WW1. Most of the ratcheting up of war aims came post 1916 when politcians suddenly had to justify a million plus deaths to their war weary electorates. French and Russian war aims if left unchecked were just as radical as german ones, with the UK appearing to agree to Russian control of Constantinople something we had spent the previous century trying to stop ! Since most of the adherents had drifted into the war none of them at the time really had any aims bar France wanting Alsace.
To me there are two possibilities if we had sat out.
1. short sharp war which ends in 1915 with a German victory over France and a score draw in the East. result - Germany nicks a few colonies, pushes its western border a bit further west Lux and all of Lorraine, but then is still in the same pickle it started. A sullen resentful french neighbour and shit scared of the russians. The german angst over russia has basically been their default position for all of the C20. The conflict would end in the old style imperial peace between monarchs which had been the european pattern for the previous 400 years.
2. a long slog which ends in 1916 or 1917 in a German victory. France gets hit much harder with a Versailles type peace so is even more sullen and resentful and probably heading down the route of fascism of some sort and eventual rearmament. Russia loses Poland and bits of the baltic, but the strategic hard facts don't change Germany still has a hostile and much bigger neighbour sat on it's door step. An exhausted and semi broke Germany isn't going to be doing much for the next few decades especially as it needs to keep it's arms expenditure high what with all the unstable neighbours.
So would we have been better off with another million of our citizens still alive and still the richest nation on earth ? Yes imo.
Archbishop Cranmer @His_Grace 1h
The eradication of Mosul's Christians http://bit.ly/Uh6pb1
Just finishing the field work on a 14000 sample of marginal seats held by the Tories....already some surprises....all revealed next week..
Have you been to protest against ISIS?
Thought not. Just suck it up. The country doesn't support Israel. And frankly out of a few ultra loons neither does the world.
Seems like its the security guards arses that are coming out with stuff.
East Coast salt n sauce forever malc.
Mr Brooke, alas your two options whilst interesting have nothing to do with the German war aims. Germany, intended to win a quick victory (say early 1915 at the latest). Belgium's eastern portions would have been ethnically cleansed and resettled by German soldiers. France would have been disarmed and its coastal provinces from the Belgian border down to Cherburg given over to German control. The UK would have been shut out of cross channel trade and Germany would have the channel naval bases as they has in 1940-44, but we would not have had the USA coming to the rescue. In the end it would have come down to war between the UK and Germany, the question was when, on what terms and with what allies.
This is not idle speculation on my part but based on serious historical research. If you really want I will go up into the attic a dredge out my papers, but that will cost you a lot of beer.
Now I really, really am off to play Diplomacy. Morris Dancer is offering me an alliance that looks to good to be true (so it probably is) and Pulpstar is still trying to work out how to give Freggles (Italy) the Smackdown - too late, mate, you had your opportunity 2/3 game years ago
I have all the tact and diplomacy of Xerxes' messenger to Leonidas, I'm as subtle as a brick through a window.
A game called Diplomacy, seems ideal for me.
well I'm in a quandry now. Do I let you go off to Diplomacy or cry tosh and hooey to your last post ?
Typically most of the stuff dredged up on German hegemony in the early part of the war is some nonsense from the Alldeutscher Verband. It's one thing saying what a bunch of ultra nationalists might like quite another to say what an eventual settlement might be. As is the nature of such things the hard light of reality tends to produce a different result than a think tanks day dreams.
Toby Helm @tobyhelm 26
Labour lead at 4pts in latest Opinium/Obs poll. Lab 34 (-1), Con 30 (+1), Ukip 17 (-1), Lib Dems 9 (+2). Cam and Mili personal ratings up.
'This is not idle speculation on my part but based on serious historical research. If you really want I will go up into the attic a dredge out my papers, but that will cost you a lot of beer.'
I agree with all of your points about our inevitable involvement in WW1. They are sound.
Con 31% (-1)
Lab 34% (0)
LD 9% (+2)
UKIP 17% (-1)
Green 4% (0)
Other 5% (0)
Duh!
Swingback?