Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
Dresden for instance
Dresden was a legitimate military target - a major rail junction 60 miles from the Russian front. Berlin suffered much heavier bombing with fewer casualties - all down to the preparation of the local authorise - the Dresden Gaulieter was corrupt and incompetent.
The "Dresden was not a legitimate target" story was started by Goebels....
Dresden was a legitimate target, the question is whether the bombing campaign mounted actually reflected that military aim in toto, or whether there was a significant element of targetting civilian morale or other aims which were not necessitated.
The interviewee presents a symapthetic picture of the bombings (and the military worth of Dresden) but says this:
Taylor: The question therefore is not whether Dresden contained legitimate bombing targets, but whether the method and intensity of the February 1945 bombing was justifiable.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think it was justifiable?
Taylor: Personally, though I can trace the logic of it, I have serious doubts. It is a ghastly example of how war depletes the moral reserves even of democratic nations. Goetz Bergander has described the bombing in his characteristically forgiving way as "outsize." It was certainly all of that.
It's interesting that europhiles like yourself now concede the UK will do so much better outside the EU that other countries would want to follow. I think you are correct for countries like Sweden and Denmark. However, most of Europe is now in the single currency, which is a lot harder to exit from, so I imagine those lot would integrate more fully.
Other things that should be remembered here is that the UK is among the top EU nations in terms of government functionality. While it would make sense for us to swap Brussels for Westminster, the same logic doesn't apply to swap Brussels for Rome.
Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
Dresden for instance
Dresden was a legitimate military target - a major rail junction 60 miles from the Russian front. Berlin suffered much heavier bombing with fewer casualties - all down to the preparation of the local authorise - the Dresden Gaulieter was corrupt and incompetent.
The "Dresden was not a legitimate target" story was started by Goebels....
Still civilians and if anyone looked back over British history I bet they could have a field day on civilians getting in the way. Its a fantasy just like the one that we are still a world power rather than a two bit backwater sliding ever further down the pecking order
Absurd hyperbole - I detest when people proclaim that Britain is some piddling nothing which has delusions of world power., as it is arguing against something no rational personal claims is the truth in the first place. We know perfectly well we are not a world power, in the sense of a superpower. Yes, we may still try to do things, involve ourselves in things, which are more difficult for us to achieve now, or beyond us as it turns out, but that doesn't mean we somehow think we are still a superpower or something.
We are, however, still a significant power, and that other powers are or will eclipse us and we know that, does not mean we are not aware of this or that we cannot still contribute meaningfully and in a significant way.
Our politicians seem well aware of this fact as well, in fact, hence pussyfooting around involving us in things we clearly would like to involve ourselves in. The only fantasy being put about is that the British government or public are still somehow stuck in the 'scramble for Africa' phase of international relations in terms of our position on the world stage.
It's maddening to me. There's so much about this country that is not as great as it was or could be, but arrogance at our national importance (outside of pretensions at how much the Americans need us/like us) is not one of our problems, in fact we put ourselves down about the good things about the country, and mock our own influence to well beyond the actuality of it, and constantly worry about doing anything because we're so little and insignificant. To call that arrogance is misguided, insulting and just plain nonsensical, all to back up someone's narrative of how they like to think the nation is going.
Time they faced reality and instead of meddling in other countries, tried to fix the sh**hole they have turned this country into. Trying to project that we are some great power is only a smokescreen for their incompetence and desperation to be seen to be something. They could not run a bath.
Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
Dresden for instance
Dresden was a legitimate military target - a major rail junction 60 miles from the Russian front. Berlin suffered much heavier bombing with fewer casualties - all down to the preparation of the local authorise - the Dresden Gaulieter was corrupt and incompetent.
The "Dresden was not a legitimate target" story was started by Goebels....
Still civilians and if anyone looked back over British history I bet they could have a field day on civilians getting in the way. Its a fantasy just like the one that we are still a world power rather than a two bit backwater sliding ever further down the pecking order
Absurd hyperbole - I detest when people proclaim that Britain is some piddling nothing which has delusions of world power., as it is arguing against something no rational personal claims is the truth in the first place. We know perfectly well we are not a world power, in the sense of a superpower. Yes, we may still try to do things, involve ourselves in things, which are more difficult for us to achieve now, or beyond us as it turns out, but that doesn't mean we somehow think we are still a superpower or something.
We are, however, still a significant power, and that other powers are or will eclipse us and we know that, does not mean we are not aware of this or that we cannot still contribute meaningfully and in a significant way.
Our politicians seem well aware of this fact as well, in fact, hence pussyfooting around involving us in things we clearly would like to involve ourselves in. The only fantasy being put about is that the British government or public are still somehow stuck in the 'scramble for Africa' phase of international relations in terms of our position on the world stage.
It's maddening to me. There's so much about this country that is not as great as it was or could be, but arrogance at our national importance (outside of pretensions at how much the Americans need us/like us) is not one of our problems, in fact we put ourselves down about the good things about the country, and mock our own influence to well beyond the actuality of it, and constantly worry about doing anything because we're so little and insignificant. To call that arrogance is misguided, insulting and just plain nonsensical, all to back up someone's narrative of how they like to think the nation is going.
Time they faced reality and instead of meddling in other countries, tried to fix the sh**hole they have turned this country into. Trying to project that we are some great power is only a smokescreen for their incompetence and desperation to be seen to be something. They could not run a bath.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my admittedly rambling post, that even our government know we are not a world power, but that it is simply not true to regard us as unsignificant, which is what you and too many others claim in ignoring of the facts. And who is 'they'? From what I can tell, merely those who still think this country can contribute around the globe, in addition to at home, so I can only assume you think we must be insignificant just because attempts at military intervention are almost always beyond us and catastrophic, when that being true does not make us insignificant either, as there is more to being a significant power than mere military prowess, which was my point, but clearly since we cannot take back the Suez canal and still have child poverty to deal with at home we must be a piddling backwater, right?
Perhaps the Cameroons and Cleggites should get together and form their own version of the FDP - 'progressive' conservatism and social liberalism based upon urban professionals worshipping high finance.
That's a niche market though outside of Notting Hill.
The odd thing about British politics right now is that there isn't anybody in the EPP at all. British voters will have no way to support the mainstream centre-right candidate for Commission President.
Classical liberalism is a niche market, but moderate conservatism isn't. It's maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. That's why the Conservative Party is currently split over gay marriage and EU membership, rather than everybody just opposing gay marriage and EU membership.
If the Tories can't fill that space any more, well, politics abhors a vacuum...
Why is staying in the EU the moderate position? It's less mainstream in public opinion than leaving.
The 'moderate' position is often assumed to be the establishment position.
Perhaps Edmund being in Tokyo hasn't fully picked up on how much the establishment are now distrusted, often despised.
I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going on here, but is the current outbreak of Tory BOOism related to people scared of being deselected if they disappoint their local parties, and will it calm down once the Westminster selection decisions have been made?
I can't see that that is the reason here Edmund, given that Marta is a refugee from UKIP but still, as far as I am aware, a BOO supporter.
I don't pretend to know why she was deselected but would be surprised if it was because anyone thought she wasn't Eurosceptic enough.
Perhaps the Cameroons and Cleggites should get together and form their own version of the FDP - 'progressive' conservatism and social liberalism based upon urban professionals worshipping high finance.
That's a niche market though outside of Notting Hill.
The odd thing about British politics right now is that there isn't anybody in the EPP at all. British voters will have no way to support the mainstream centre-right candidate for Commission President.
Classical liberalism is a niche market, but moderate conservatism isn't. It's maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. That's why the Conservative Party is currently split over gay marriage and EU membership, rather than everybody just opposing gay marriage and EU membership.
If the Tories can't fill that space any more, well, politics abhors a vacuum...
Why is staying in the EU the moderate position? It's less mainstream in public opinion than leaving.
The 'moderate' position is often assumed to be the establishment position.
Perhaps Edmund being in Tokyo hasn't fully picked up on how much the establishment are now distrusted, often despised.
We're arguing about the meanings of words here not actual things in the world, but "moderate" is a bit hard to define without circularity. If I had to choose between "establishment" and "majority" I'd say "establishment" was closer; The majority often reject the moderate position, and when they do the moderate position doesn't automatically become the radical or extremist position. "Centrist" is probably closer than either, but there are probably some mismatches there, too.
I also used "mainstream", but with reference to Europe as a whole. I obviously wasn't saying the mainstream right who will be picking Barroso or his successor are in a majority in Britain - my point was that no party is even occupying that slot at all, although there's a (15% / 20%) market for it. (Not particularly with regard to the EU constitution, where they wouldn't have that much.)
You think 15% to 20% of the British public are right of centre yet want more integration with the EU? Based on my subjective experience I'd be surprised if it was 5% - where are you getting your numbers from?
Mr. Jonathan, I must take great exception to your description of the nation states of Europe working without the EU as 'Balkanisation'. The idea that France and Germany are mere splinters of some theoretical greater whole that exists only in the fevered imaginations of ideologues is bonkers.
Nation states that function democratically are infinitely better than an anti-democratic, unaccountable, unauditable collection of meddlesome eurocrats.
The phone poll from ComRes towards the end of the month will be revealing. The trend from regular monthly pollsters so far this month has been Labour declining faster than either the Tories or Lib Dems.
Ukip's relentless rise is good for our democracy anyway. They are certainly shaking things up a bit.
They're just not as credible as they used to be, sadly. Even if true he still comes out on top at the moment given his current competition, even if 'many senior Labour figures' are convinced it won't work out in the long run, and it robs such topics of their fun for me, as a focus on how our next PM will be so crap is a bit depressing.
Hopefully this has already been mentioned, but the latest Scottish Panelbase poll
Constituency vote:
SNP 45% (-2) Labour 30% (n/c) Conservatives 13% (+1) Liberal Democrats 5% (n/c)
Regional list vote:
SNP 45% (n/c) Labour 27% (+2) Conservatives 13% (+1) Greens 6% (-2) Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
Do they list UKIP, or 'others' at all?
UKIP are not Scottish.
They are attempting a presence in Scotland though. It may well be very unsuccessful, but if there are Scottish Tories, and there are, even if nowhere near as many as there used to be, then odds are some of them let alone some from other parties, may well now be Scottish UKIPers.
They are not a significant option in Scotland I think would be more appropriate. They are not a regionally focused party (in theory), they just lack support in the other constituent countries of the current UK, which is not the same as saying they are simply not Scottish.
This re-selection/re-adoption vote by an Electoral College made up by regional officers and local associations' chairmen was to guarantee sitting MEPs the top spots on the 2014 lists.
As she defected only months ago, I guess some chairmen may have not liked to give her the easy route to the top instead opting for her to face the membership ballots against newcomers.
As for Richard Ashworth...I don't know what he has done to anger chairmen and co.
All other MEPs wishing to re-stand have been reselected so far apart from Yorkshire and East where the EC hasn't met yet.
I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going on here, but is the current outbreak of Tory BOOism related to people scared of being deselected if they disappoint their local parties, and will it calm down once the Westminster selection decisions have been made?
I can't see that that is the reason here Edmund, given that Marta is a refugee from UKIP but still, as far as I am aware, a BOO supporter.
I don't pretend to know why she was deselected but would be surprised if it was because anyone thought she wasn't Eurosceptic enough.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 3h Sugar is nowhere near being a billionaire-and I know, he works for me! Expand
Lord Sugar Lord Sugar @Lord_Sugar 3h @realDonaldTrump You ignorant ego crazed liar.You don't have the money you say you have.You've been bust 4 times.Work for you.Bare face lie.
@HYUFD Until very recently, these kinds of silly spats would have been confined to the dinner table or a private club. Our lives are not enriched by having them laid bare for all of us to see.
Tories not hitting 30% in any poll. They could soon hit 25% if this "disunity" thing gets traction.
Thats the weird thing, the "Tories" are NOT divided.
The bizarre, useless, Etonian fopocracy currently leading the party is divided from the other 90%. Then you still have the occasional Europhile from the 70's and 80's like Howe and Heseltine (people who have been wrong about pretty much everything for the past 40 years) given far more prominence by the media than they should and thus a party thats actually quite united around its euroscepticism looks massively divided.
Silly old duffers like Howe are really a side-show. The main issue is the leadership being so out of the touch with the vast majority of their party. Cameron was elected as Conservative leader pretending to be a eurosceptic but has turned out to be a profound europhile.
That's the main problem here... Well, that and the fact he is absoluely useless at politics, blew an unloseable general election, ran the worst election campaign for 30 years, is governing in the same manner in which he ran the worst election campaign in 30 years and showed absolutely no sign of understanding, nevermind acting decisively on, the importance of the UKIP county council result and the game changing moment Lord Lawson intervened in the european issue.
I've thought for some time that the Tories have got to get rid of Cameron and the fopocracy before the election. Cameron (and those around him) is the problem.
The next election is winnable for the Tories, but I can't see how they dare go into it with Cameron and Osborne leading the party - A D.I.V.O.R.C.E is looming and it was entirely unavoidable and is entirely down to Camerons complete uselessness as a politician.
Cameron was elected as leader as a reformist not a BOO. He promised to put the Conservatives in another euro Parl grouping and despite much sniping and smearing from the left/Guardian bloc he succeeeded. He still thinks it should be reformed and can be justifiably called a eurosceptic, but his eyes do not swivel.
Hopefully this has already been mentioned, but the latest Scottish Panelbase poll
Constituency vote:
SNP 45% (-2) Labour 30% (n/c) Conservatives 13% (+1) Liberal Democrats 5% (n/c)
Regional list vote:
SNP 45% (n/c) Labour 27% (+2) Conservatives 13% (+1) Greens 6% (-2) Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
Do they list UKIP, or 'others' at all?
UKIP are not Scottish.
They are attempting a presence in Scotland though. It may well be very unsuccessful, but if there are Scottish Tories, and there are, even if nowhere near as many as there used to be, then odds are some of them let alone some from other parties, may well now be Scottish UKIPers.
They are not a significant option in Scotland I think would be more appropriate. They are not a regionally focused party (in theory), they just lack support in the other constituent countries of the current UK, which is not the same as saying they are simply not Scottish.
That's not really my comment.
It's what the no Campaign are saying in Scotland about UKIP.
Hopefully this has already been mentioned, but the latest Scottish Panelbase poll
Constituency vote:
SNP 45% (-2) Labour 30% (n/c) Conservatives 13% (+1) Liberal Democrats 5% (n/c)
Regional list vote:
SNP 45% (n/c) Labour 27% (+2) Conservatives 13% (+1) Greens 6% (-2) Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
Do they list UKIP, or 'others' at all?
UKIP are not Scottish.
They are attempting a presence in Scotland though. It may well be very unsuccessful, but if there are Scottish Tories, and there are, even if nowhere near as many as there used to be, then odds are some of them let alone some from other parties, may well now be Scottish UKIPers.
They are not a significant option in Scotland I think would be more appropriate. They are not a regionally focused party (in theory), they just lack support in the other constituent countries of the current UK, which is not the same as saying they are simply not Scottish.
That's not really my comment.
It's what the no Campaign are saying in Scotland about UKIP.
Morris - I think there's a chance we'll never find out. Consider this scenario;
Suppose what swivelgate boils down to is an on-the-record / off-the-record cock-up between the person involved (X) & times/telegraph journalists who were expected to be friendly.
It's likely that X actively wanted to brief the media & feed a pro-dave narrative, but retain deniability. All those involved probably agreed the phrases which could be used to describe the source.
When the X realises they created a sh1tstorm, they panic. X's name leaks out. X ups the stakes & denies outright. X gambles that that no-one has hard evidence of the conversation. Journo's stick by the story. As far as they're concerned, they were given permission to print.
A civil servant who was present when the comments were made develops short-term amnesia.
A legal case would be costly & difficult to prove.
You think 15% to 20% of the British public are right of centre yet want more integration with the EU? Based on my subjective experience I'd be surprised if it was 5% - where are you getting your numbers from?
No, I specifically said the mainstream European centre-right position on the EU constitution wouldn't have that much support in the UK. But the moderate conservative positions on other issues would. If the Tories get dragged to the populist right, it'll leave a space for someone else to represent them.
Comments
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/post-war-myths-the-logic-behind-the-destruction-of-dresden-a-607524.html
The interviewee presents a symapthetic picture of the bombings (and the military worth of Dresden) but says this:
Taylor: The question therefore is not whether Dresden contained legitimate bombing targets, but whether the method and intensity of the February 1945 bombing was justifiable.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think it was justifiable?
Taylor: Personally, though I can trace the logic of it, I have serious doubts. It is a ghastly example of how war depletes the moral reserves even of democratic nations. Goetz Bergander has described the bombing in his characteristically forgiving way as "outsize." It was certainly all of that.
It's interesting that europhiles like yourself now concede the UK will do so much better outside the EU that other countries would want to follow. I think you are correct for countries like Sweden and Denmark. However, most of Europe is now in the single currency, which is a lot harder to exit from, so I imagine those lot would integrate more fully.
Other things that should be remembered here is that the UK is among the top EU nations in terms of government functionality. While it would make sense for us to swap Brussels for Westminster, the same logic doesn't apply to swap Brussels for Rome.
Nonsense.
Perhaps Edmund being in Tokyo hasn't fully picked up on how much the establishment are now distrusted, often despised.
I don't pretend to know why she was deselected but would be surprised if it was because anyone thought she wasn't Eurosceptic enough.
I also used "mainstream", but with reference to Europe as a whole. I obviously wasn't saying the mainstream right who will be picking Barroso or his successor are in a majority in Britain - my point was that no party is even occupying that slot at all, although there's a (15% / 20%) market for it. (Not particularly with regard to the EU constitution, where they wouldn't have that much.)
You think 15% to 20% of the British public are right of centre yet want more integration with the EU? Based on my subjective experience I'd be surprised if it was 5% - where are you getting your numbers from?
"Many senior Labour figures are now convinced they’re heading for defeat in 2015"
how about an ed is crap thread!
Mr. Jonathan, I must take great exception to your description of the nation states of Europe working without the EU as 'Balkanisation'. The idea that France and Germany are mere splinters of some theoretical greater whole that exists only in the fevered imaginations of ideologues is bonkers.
Nation states that function democratically are infinitely better than an anti-democratic, unaccountable, unauditable collection of meddlesome eurocrats.
Ukip's relentless rise is good for our democracy anyway. They are certainly shaking things up a bit.
Astonishing and impressive figures for the SNP 6 years into government.
And a marked contrast with the superior decision makers at Westminster
They are not a significant option in Scotland I think would be more appropriate. They are not a regionally focused party (in theory), they just lack support in the other constituent countries of the current UK, which is not the same as saying they are simply not Scottish.
As she defected only months ago, I guess some chairmen may have not liked to give her the easy route to the top instead opting for her to face the membership ballots against newcomers.
As for Richard Ashworth...I don't know what he has done to anger chairmen and co.
All other MEPs wishing to re-stand have been reselected so far apart from Yorkshire and East where the EC hasn't met yet.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 3h
Sugar is nowhere near being a billionaire-and I know, he works for me!
Expand
Lord Sugar Lord Sugar @Lord_Sugar 3h
@realDonaldTrump You ignorant ego crazed liar.You don't have the money you say you have.You've been bust 4 times.Work for you.Bare face lie.
In response to Frankie Boyle's Beliebers 'are emotionally retarted happy to identify themselves with the brand of a corporate sexless childman monster
In response to Frankie Boyle's Beliebers 'are emotionally retarted happy to identify themselves with the brand of a corporate sexless childman monster
It could be true, but it could also be a smear.
It's what the no Campaign are saying in Scotland about UKIP.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/better-together-campaign-says-theyre-1870822
A Better Together spokesman said: “UKIP have asked to join us and we have said no. If they ask again, we will say no again.
“They are not a Scottish party and this is a Scottish debate.”
Suppose what swivelgate boils down to is an on-the-record / off-the-record cock-up between the person involved (X) & times/telegraph journalists who were expected to be friendly.
It's likely that X actively wanted to brief the media & feed a pro-dave narrative, but retain deniability. All those involved probably agreed the phrases which could be used to describe the source.
When the X realises they created a sh1tstorm, they panic. X's name leaks out. X ups the stakes & denies outright. X gambles that that no-one has hard evidence of the conversation. Journo's stick by the story. As far as they're concerned, they were given permission to print.
A civil servant who was present when the comments were made develops short-term amnesia.
A legal case would be costly & difficult to prove.
Stalemate.