Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Speaking of gimmicks, when is Salmond going to get his icy drenching ?
Hopefully he will not stoop to the depths of flipper , lacking in morals but happy to debase himself for mammon.
By the way Malcolm, when's that Salmond vs Cameron debate you repeatedly assured us was bound to happen? Up there with Alan Cumming's polling card?
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Speaking of gimmicks, when is Salmond going to get his icy drenching ?
Well as it’s raising money for MND research the sooner the better. Incurable and cruel disease
It is cancer research in this country I believe , at least some of them. Though both worthy causes.
For the record I think Auchinleck was harshly treated
I agree and he always behaved honourably thereafter. To compare Cameron with the Awk is grossly unfair to the later. Cameron might, just on a good day have been fit to clean his boots.
What a pathetic comment. One is a civilian the other a general. Each doing different jobs in a different era.
Don't moan at me, old boy, go talk to the person who made the initial comparison.
Of course, if you want to say that Cameron is a man of deep principle who will do what he thinks is right regardless of what the focus groups come up with then please go for it. We will all, I am sure, be interested to see your narrative and, if any, evidence.
I am sorry but you said Cameron was not fit to lace the Auks boots. That is not a valid comparison. The pursue different occupations and I would argue they are equally honourable in each. The original comparison was that Cameron is to Boris (I guess meaning that Boris is better - a winner? - than Cameron) as Auk was to Monty.
Its this latter comparison which deserves analysis. Auk won the First Battle of Alamein and planned the Battle of Alam Halfa and Churchill then sacked him. Monty followed the same strategy and used ULTRA intercepts to confirm it. He then won Alam Halfa. Monty was the man in place but its moot if he was 'better' than the Auk.
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan.
So no Alan Cumming then?
Despite your claims to the contrary?
You are almost as desperate as Scott nowadays, both a pair of sad caricatures, wailing and gnashing against Scotland. Desperately using false figures and twisting things in your agony. The final dagger thrust will soon end your torture.
You were wrong and don't have the guts to admit it!
It's not me who is the sad caricature desperately twisting in agony!
Phew that's a relief Richard, that means we're still due a Dave is crap thread and I'm hoping Avery will be back by then .
Yes, well of course they are very rare, so you have to enjoy them when you get them.
As things stand it looks as though Dave is going to have brought off a triumph in a few weeks' time by calling Salmond's bluff, doesn't it?
Just one more referendum to go after that to make the hat-trick.
It's one of the things I'd give Cameron full marks for. Fatboy Slim was hoping to have his debate and didn't get it so he then had to go back and argue facts with the electorate where currently Darling is hammering him. Fingers crossed it continues.
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Speaking of gimmicks, when is Salmond going to get his icy drenching ?
Well as it’s raising money for MND research the sooner the better. Incurable and cruel disease
Quite right. I hope Salmond won't be a stick in the mud about it, unless of course his doctors have advised him against participating.
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Speaking of gimmicks, when is Salmond going to get his icy drenching ?
Hopefully he will not stoop to the depths of flipper , lacking in morals but happy to debase himself for mammon.
By the way Malcolm, when's that Salmond vs Cameron debate you repeatedly assured us was bound to happen? Up there with Alan Cumming's polling card?
Still imagining things , I think you will find I said Cameron was far too scared to debate him. However if it makes you happy keep going.
Just for you MrG - "victory was secured by the combined army of England, Holland, Hanover, Brunswick, Nassau and the Jocks, whose heroic deeds were immortalised in the famous painting "Charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo." - pax?
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Yeah forgive me if I don't take everything the SNP's spinners say at face value.
How many Mickey McMouses and Donald Macducks made the petition?
For the record I think Auchinleck was harshly treated
I agree and he always behaved honourably thereafter. To compare Cameron with the Awk is grossly unfair to the later. Cameron might, just on a good day have been fit to clean his boots.
What a pathetic comment. One is a civilian the other a general. Each doing different jobs in a different era.
Don't moan at me, old boy, go talk to the person who made the initial comparison.
Of course, if you want to say that Cameron is a man of deep principle who will do what he thinks is right regardless of what the focus groups come up with then please go for it. We will all, I am sure, be interested to see your narrative and, if any, evidence.
That's an easy one to answer, Mr Llama: the Syria vote last year. No-one can doubt that Cameron thought it was right to tackle Assad's evil and the use of chemical weapons, and yet the focus groups and polls showed such a move would be deeply unpopular. Yet he tried to get action despite this.
Since then, events have only proved that he was right. Even that leader of the perfidious French, Hollande, says it should have happened.
Claiming Cameron only listens to focus groups is, I fear, wrong.
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Yeah forgive me if I don't take everything the SNP's spinners say at face value.
How many Mickey McMouses and Donald Macducks made the petition?
No idea haven't read it, but malc's claiming it's zero.
@HurstLlama 'The number of US troops was relatively small, their effect was psychological if anything.'
Two million men was a significant presence, even if the British army was more than four times that. But you're maybe overlooking the other crucial things America brought - money, materials and food to continue the fight, all of which Britain was rapidly running out of after four years of war wastage. Admittedly, the British army had always been much better equipped and fed than the German army (descriptions of appalling German rations in All Quiet on the Western Front and forage parties seizing British cans of corned beef in attacks on the front line appear to be accurate) but it was a much needed boost at the time, psychologically and physically.
What America brought to the fight was defeat - for Germany. An endless supply of men and it marked defeat for Germany. Thats why they attacked in the Spring. These attacks were slowed down by losses and by delays whilst German troops ransacked British supply dumps for food. In terms of relative fighting in the last 3 months you only need to look at casualty figures and the number of prisoners taken to see who did the lions share - but that is not to denigrate French and American fighting.
After the Somme the Germans embarked on unrestricted U-Boat warfare and this brought America into the war. The Somme (and Verdun of course) was a savage blow to Germany and it sowed the seeds of their defeat.
On topic, the results of the PCC by-election in the West Midlands show Labour doing a bit better, the Tories and bit worse, UKIP a bit better and the LibDems about the same as last time, do they not?
Not quite according to these figures from andrea parma:
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan.
So no Alan Cumming then?
Despite your claims to the contrary?
You are almost as desperate as Scott nowadays, both a pair of sad caricatures, wailing and gnashing against Scotland. Desperately using false figures and twisting things in your agony. The final dagger thrust will soon end your torture.
You were wrong and don't have the guts to admit it!
It's not me who is the sad caricature desperately twisting in agony!
aw diddums, are you going to start cursing me out next.
I still struggle with the concept that political views change with the days of the week and the notion that the electorate is more Tory midweek than at the weekends.
Some odd comments about the French - let's be honest had there not been a 22-mile strip of water, the German panzers would have swept through England as effectively as France. The French played a big part in the rear-guard at Dunkirk and a significant number of those left behind were French.
As for WW1, Verdun was a brutal battle every bit as attritional (if not more so) than some of the British offensives. It was of course the introduction of tens of thousands of fresh American troops which tipped the balance in 1918 once the Spring Offensive had been stopped - whether, without them, the British and French alone could have forced the final victory is debatable.
Hmm
I think you'll find it was the British Empire that delivered the coup de grace in 1918.
The french were exhausted, the US too inexperienced; it's probably one of the major European conflicts where it was the brits did it, though chiefly the aussies and canadians who were our shock troops.
One account I read speculated that things could have been very different if the Germans had not tried to hold onto so much land in the East with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
With more soldiers available for the Western Front, rather than holding territory in the East, and the German Spring Offensive of 1918 might have succeeded.
Crikey, Mr. Me, there are so many alternative history suggestions that one could make a whole career out of them. I have enough trouble working out what did happen, let alone what might have happened if only X had done Y.
That said, I think that there was a real chance to have ended the war in 1917 and it was Ludendorff who scuppered it.
That's an easy one to answer, Mr Llama: the Syria vote last year. No-one can doubt that Cameron thought it was right to tackle Assad's evil and the use of chemical weapons, and yet the focus groups and polls showed such a move would be deeply unpopular. Yet he tried to get action despite this.
Since then, events have only proved that he was right. Even that leader of the perfidious French, Hollande, says it should have happened.
Claiming Cameron only listens to focus groups is, I fear, wrong.
There are lots and lots of examples, for example:
- Overseas aid - Gay marriage - Lowering the top rate of income tax - So-called 'bedroom tax'
All things where he took an electoral hit in order to do what he thinks is right. You might agree with him or not (I agree on three out of the four), but you can't possibly claim his policy on these has been driven by focus groups. He's not Tony Blair or Ed Miliband.
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Yeah forgive me if I don't take everything the SNP's spinners say at face value.
How many Mickey McMouses and Donald Macducks made the petition?
Ha Ha Ha , all checked and names had to be valid and on the electoral register or they were not counted as valid. There were lots from people who were not on electoral register , ie not in Scotland but were supporters, so they could have had many many more if they had used BT tactics. Still coming in as well.
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Speaking of gimmicks, when is Salmond going to get his icy drenching ?
Hopefully he will not stoop to the depths of flipper , lacking in morals but happy to debase himself for mammon.
By the way Malcolm, when's that Salmond vs Cameron debate you repeatedly assured us was bound to happen? Up there with Alan Cumming's polling card?
Still imagining things , I think you will find I said Cameron was far too scared to debate him. However if it makes you happy keep going.
No, you said he'd be "forced" into it. The same way Salmond is going to "force" a currency union, no doubt.
You've been wrong about so much - but your certainty over a Cumming vote and a Cameron debate stick in the mind - however embarrassed you evidently are about them....
Just catching up on the threads. Some heroic trolling, and some ridicuolous biting by people who should know better. When people are trolling please leave them to it and ignore them, it makes the threads so much better.
Just catching up on the threads. Some heroic trolling, and some ridicuolous biting by people who should know better. When people are trolling please leave them to it and ignore them, it makes the threads so much better.
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Yeah forgive me if I don't take everything the SNP's spinners say at face value.
How many Mickey McMouses and Donald Macducks made the petition?
Ha Ha Ha , all checked and names had to be valid and on the electoral register or they were not counted as valid. There were lots from people who were not on electoral register , ie not in Scotland but were supporters, so they could have had many many more if they had used BT tactics. Still coming in as well.
100% true. Just like Swinney's in depth technical discussions about CU with the BoE and that legal advice on EU membership.
That's an easy one to answer, Mr Llama: the Syria vote last year. No-one can doubt that Cameron thought it was right to tackle Assad's evil and the use of chemical weapons, and yet the focus groups and polls showed such a move would be deeply unpopular. Yet he tried to get action despite this.
Since then, events have only proved that he was right. Even that leader of the perfidious French, Hollande, says it should have happened.
Claiming Cameron only listens to focus groups is, I fear, wrong.
There are lots and lots of examples, for example:
- Overseas aid - Gay marriage - Lowering the top rate of income tax - So-called 'bedroom tax'
All things where he took an electoral hit in order to do what he thinks is right. You might agree with him or not (I agree on three out of the four), but you can't possibly claim his policy on these has been driven by focus groups. He's not Tony Blair or Ed Miliband.
Fripperies Mr N.
He spent his political capital unwisely and as you say he took the hit but got little return on his investment.
@HurstLlama 'The number of US troops was relatively small, their effect was psychological if anything.'
Two million men was a significant presence, even if the British army was more than four times that. But you're maybe overlooking the other crucial things America brought - money, materials and food to continue the fight, all of which Britain was rapidly running out of after four years of war wastage. Admittedly, the British army had always been much better equipped and fed than the German army (descriptions of appalling German rations in All Quiet on the Western Front and forage parties seizing British cans of corned beef in attacks on the front line appear to be accurate) but it was a much needed boost at the time, psychologically and physically.
What America brought to the fight was defeat - for Germany. An endless supply of men and it marked defeat for Germany. Thats why they attacked in the Spring. These attacks were slowed down by losses and by delays whilst German troops ransacked British supply dumps for food. In terms of relative fighting in the last 3 months you only need to look at casualty figures and the number of prisoners taken to see who did the lions share - but that is not to denigrate French and American fighting.
After the Somme the Germans embarked on unrestricted U-Boat warfare and this brought America into the war. The Somme (and Verdun of course) was a savage blow to Germany and it sowed the seeds of their defeat.
Yep the 'Mericans weren't specially interested in the war and it was only the bizarre persistence of Germany sinking their merchant vessels (they thought the US would offer too little too late ), plus the famous "Zimmerman" telegram", that gave final impetus to entry.
For the record I think Auchinleck was harshly treated
I agree and he always behaved honourably thereafter. To compare Cameron with the Awk is grossly unfair to the later. Cameron might, just on a good day have been fit to clean his boots.
What a pathetic comment. One is a civilian the other a general. Each doing different jobs in a different era.
Don't moan at me, old boy, go talk to the person who made the initial comparison.
Of course, if you want to say that Cameron is a man of deep principle who will do what he thinks is right regardless of what the focus groups come up with then please go for it. We will all, I am sure, be interested to see your narrative and, if any, evidence.
That's an easy one to answer, Mr Llama: the Syria vote last year. No-one can doubt that Cameron thought it was right to tackle Assad's evil and the use of chemical weapons, and yet the focus groups and polls showed such a move would be deeply unpopular. Yet he tried to get action despite this.
Since then, events have only proved that he was right. Even that leader of the perfidious French, Hollande, says it should have happened.
Claiming Cameron only listens to focus groups is, I fear, wrong.
This is a key feature of lack of swingback.He keeps getting pulled up for making up figures by his own stats authority,ONS.He looks what he is,a PR man.
Just catching up on the threads. Some heroic trolling, and some ridicuolous biting by people who should know better. When people are trolling please leave them to it and ignore them, it makes the threads so much better.
your usual tripe , take a hike
Obvious troll, trolls obviously. You are a pathetic one trick pony, bye, bye.
Just catching up on the threads. Some heroic trolling, and some ridicuolous biting by people who should know better. When people are trolling please leave them to it and ignore them, it makes the threads so much better.
your usual tripe , take a hike
Obvious troll, trolls obviously. You are a pathetic one trick pony, bye, bye.
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Speaking of gimmicks, when is Salmond going to get his icy drenching ?
Well as it’s raising money for MND research the sooner the better. Incurable and cruel disease
It is cancer research in this country I believe , at least some of them. Though both worthy causes.
Had both in my immediate family and the cancer sufferer is alive, well and told he's cured. The MND sufferer on the other hand, someone much younger......
So if anyone wants to sponsor anyone. Or send any money anywhere....
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
all checked against the electoral roll Alan, all donald ducks and those not eligible to vote were not counted in the million, and you could only register once. As I said impressive.
Speaking of gimmicks, when is Salmond going to get his icy drenching ?
Well as it’s raising money for MND research the sooner the better. Incurable and cruel disease
It is cancer research in this country I believe , at least some of them. Though both worthy causes.
Had both in my immediate family and the cancer sufferer is alive, well and told he's cured. The MND sufferer on the other hand, someone much younger......
Commiserations to you. Both are terrible , my mother died of liver cancer and was not old.
Before I joined OGH's loonie-house it was apparently well-stocked with left-wing knuckle-draggers. That changed when Gormless and Badger fecked the English economy.
As a proponent of the phrase 'Correlation =/= Causation' I feel uneasy saying this but: Does the approach of 'full-employment' - as defined by Milton's Wage-Adjusted theory - mean that parasitical sectors that rely on the benefit-state have become more adventurous? Do the left'ards rely on a secure money-tree before they start spewing on here...?
For the record I think Auchinleck was harshly treated
I agree and he always behaved honourably thereafter. To compare Cameron with the Awk is grossly unfair to the later. Cameron might, just on a good day have been fit to clean his boots.
What a pathetic comment. One is a civilian the other a general. Each doing different jobs in a different era.
Don't moan at me, old boy, go talk to the person who made the initial comparison.
Of course, if you want to say that Cameron is a man of deep principle who will do what he thinks is right regardless of what the focus groups come up with then please go for it. We will all, I am sure, be interested to see your narrative and, if any, evidence.
That's an easy one to answer, Mr Llama: the Syria vote last year. No-one can doubt that Cameron thought it was right to tackle Assad's evil and the use of chemical weapons, and yet the focus groups and polls showed such a move would be deeply unpopular. Yet he tried to get action despite this.
Since then, events have only proved that he was right. Even that leader of the perfidious French, Hollande, says it should have happened.
Claiming Cameron only listens to focus groups is, I fear, wrong.
This is a key feature of lack of swingback.He keeps getting pulled up for making up figures by his own stats authority,ONS.He looks what he is,a PR man.
Urrm, what has that got to do with anything? The question posed was whether Cameron ever did anything because he thinks it is right against popular opinion, and I detailed a classic and vastly important case where he did.
Show me a top politician who has not been shown to be economical with figures, and I'll show you someone who was not a top politician.
This is a key feature of lack of swingback.He keeps getting pulled up for making up figures by his own stats authority,ONS.He looks what he is,a PR man.
If Britain won the first war, who won the Battle of Britain?
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective, Smarmy. The Long, or Epochal war, which began in 1914, didn't end until 1990.
I don't want to be too melodramatic, but some might argue that Putin is intent on proving that 1989/1991 was not the end of an era that it seemed to be at the time.
@TOPPING That particular one never ends, and started before homo sapiens The Battle of Britain, it could be argued that the Poles won it. Experienced pilots, who were not allowed in combat till the till the RAF had no alternative than to let the "foreigners fly". My own view is that it was the pilot/s that started bombing the cities,
If Britain won the first war, who won the Battle of Britain?
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective, Smarmy. The Long, or Epochal war, which began in 1914, didn't end until 1990.
I don't want to be too melodramatic, but some might argue that Putin is intent on proving that 1989/1991 was not the end of an era that it seemed to be at the time.
Don't disagree but in terms of the more formal competing ideologies that are defined in terms of the Long War - when between liberal democracy, socialism or fascism, liberal democracy can be said to have won out - then he is probably going to define a different flavour of liberal democracy rather than reprise socialism or fascism.
@TOPPING That particular one never ends, and started before homo sapiens The Battle of Britain, it could be argued that the Poles won it. Experienced pilots, who were not allowed in combat till the till the RAF had no alternative than to let the "foreigners fly". My own view is that it was the pilot/s that started bombing the cities,
Poles were fighting and flying with the RAF from the first day of the Battle of Britain.
The challenge for those who claim Cameron has some principles after all is not to find a few occasions where he has done or supported something which was demonstrably contrary to public opinion, but to identify precise issues where he has a taken a consistent and principled stand throughout his political career. None, other his fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries, springs to mind.
@TOPPING The "ex" bit, is important, as by that time Russia was owned by the oligarchs, fueled by a belief in the population, that capitalism did indeed offer Utopia. He is in power now because a lot of Russians noticed that it offered Utopia only to a very few.
The challenge for those who claim Cameron has some principles after all is not to find a few occasions where he has done or supported something which was demonstrably contrary to public opinion, but to identify precise issues where he has a taken a consistent and principled stand throughout his political career. None, other his fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries, springs to mind.
Well, he certainly hasn't deviated from the principles he laid out when he was bidding to become leader 9 years ago:
America proved to be the greatest killing machine of the period 1914-1920. They brought with them the curiously named 'Spanish Flu' virus: No army would have survived in-take in 1919.
The challenge for those who claim Cameron has some principles after all is not to find a few occasions where he has done or supported something which was demonstrably contrary to public opinion, but to identify precise issues where he has a taken a consistent and principled stand throughout his political career. None, other his fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries, springs to mind.
Well, he certainly hasn't deviated from the principles he laid out when he was bidding to become leader 9 years ago:
That was what the Conservative Party was offered. It took up the offer. He has remained true to it.
It is invariably the case that when anyone says he has no principles, what they actually mean is that they don't agree with him.
Thing is, what with Thatcherism or being a Blairite etc, we have come to value and vote multiple times into power those leaders who not only can articulate their vision but who are able to imprint it onto the public's consciousness.
At present, we have a reactive govt. Reacting to the holy chaos bequeathed by Labour. They haven't had time to define themselves apart from being not (as bad as) the previous administration.
My (true blue) view of Cameron? Meh. Now I don't mind that; for me less government is good government but it's hardly inspirational. The broad masses aren't going to google a 10 year old piece in the Graun and nod their heads at its wisdom. They need to be wowed. Much as cabinet ministers are responsible for raising their own profile and capturing the public's imagination and sympathy with whatever policy or iniative they are pushing, so Cam needs to assert his presence and his vision now.
I have sympathy for Cam, of course I do, because he is leader of a coalition government but it's also the case that he didn't win an OM and also that he has to govern by consensus rather than sheer strength of personality but as I have always wondered - is there actually an iron fist there to emerge should he be given the opportunity to take off his velvet glove?
More than my idle speculation rests upon the answer.
Well, he certainly hasn't deviated from the principles he laid out when he was bidding to become leader 9 years ago: That was what the Conservative Party was offered. It took up the offer. He has remained true to it.
It is invariably the case that when anyone says he has no principles, what they actually mean is that they don't agree with him.
Richard, you can surely do much better than the extraordinarily intellectually disingenuous reply that you just gave. I did not ask whether he had stuck to a vague set of platitudes contained in a politician's speech from 2005. It is frankly irrelevant to the question I asked whether Cameron has stuck to a promise to 'be that new generation, changing our party to change our country.' I asked a simple question which you ducked. Can you identify precise issues where he has a taken a consistent and principled stand throughout his political career? I will grant you his fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries. Any others?
I still struggle with the concept that political views change with the days of the week and the notion that the electorate is more Tory midweek than at the weekends.
Some odd comments about the French - let's be honest had there not been a 22-mile strip of water, the German panzers would have swept through England as effectively as France. The French played a big part in the rear-guard at Dunkirk and a significant number of those left behind were French.
As for WW1, Verdun was a brutal battle every bit as attritional (if not more so) than some of the British offensives. It was of course the introduction of tens of thousands of fresh American troops which tipped the balance in 1918 once the Spring Offensive had been stopped - whether, without them, the British and French alone could have forced the final victory is debatable.
Hmm
I think you'll find it was the British Empire that delivered the coup de grace in 1918.
The french were exhausted, the US too inexperienced; it's probably one of the major European conflicts where it was the brits did it, though chiefly the aussies and canadians who were our shock troops.
One account I read speculated that things could have been very different if the Germans had not tried to hold onto so much land in the East with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
With more soldiers available for the Western Front, rather than holding territory in the East, and the German Spring Offensive of 1918 might have succeeded.
The hundreds and thousands of veteran troops freed up from the Eastern front in 1918 made the March 1918 Kaiserschlagcht possible, but it was poorly led by the German Generals and the troops infected by Bolshevism and defeatism from fraternising with the Russians. The Germans collapsed because of the British Imperial offensive, but also by their own blowback from unleashing Bolshevism and Leninism on Russia. A very contemporary lesson that the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend...
@TOPPING - It's been a pretty iron-hard fist already, hasn't it? This government has been laying into vested interests all over the place - welfare reform, educational reform, NHS reform, child benefit, tax avoidance, planning laws, spare-room subsidy, removing lots of tax breaks, fracking, HS2...
How hard do you want the guy to be??
Sure, there's more to do. But apart from the very special case of Maggie, I don't think there has been any government in my lifetime more prepared to take on difficult issues.
I think the point about the apparent lack of an 'overall vision' is a diffcult one. The basic problem is that there isn't one clear and dominant problem today (as there was in 1979). It's a whole load of things which gradually went wrong under Labour. The overall vision is to Do The Right Thing. I accept that's a hard sell, especially when as is inevitable you have to pick a path through a whole set of issues and correcting one causes problems in another (a good example being getting more houses built vs localism).
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
I don't think Ronald McDonald would sign it, he's BettertogetherUKOKNoThanks' pet economist.
I seem to remember at the time that herd wisdom said the one million would never be reached.
It was one of those interesting non-bets.
Unionists saying they'd never make a million and Nats claiming they'd do it overnight. In the event it's better late than never assuming of course one believes what one's told.
It's actually quite a good indicator of changed expectations. The current Unionist security blanket is a 60/40 win for No; with an 80% turnout that's around 1.3m for Yes, well over the million for the declaration. Of course two years ago between 3 & 2 to 1 for No with a low turnout 'cos no one was interested was the oft repeated PB prediction..
The challenge for those who claim Cameron has some principles after all is not to find a few occasions where he has done or supported something which was demonstrably contrary to public opinion, but to identify precise issues where he has a taken a consistent and principled stand throughout his political career. None, other his fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries, springs to mind.
"fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries."
@TOPPING I doubt it, Cameron fully believes that what is good for business is good for the state, but he is smart enough to know it is somehow not right. In theory it "should" work, but never seems too. Communists have a similar problem, it's like that smart Greek philosopher, with his chariot pulled by a "black" and white "horse" The goal can only be solved by one horse taking taking the lead, while the other follows it's lead by trusting it. We argue about which should lead, and fight instead of going forward smoothly. All I am suggesting is a slightly wider yoke between them. (Which is what several people have found out when reconstructing old chariots. I should further add, that there is indeed a source for the wider yokes in reconstruction, But no!......You can look that up for yourselves if you wish.
Richard, you can surely do much better than the extraordinarily intellectually disingenuous reply that you just gave. I did not ask whether he had stuck to a vague set of platitudes contained in a politician's speech from 2005. It is frankly irrelevant to the question I asked whether Cameron has stuck to a promise to 'be that new generation, changing our party to change our country.' I asked a simple question which you ducked. Can you identify precise issues where he has a taken a consistent and principled stand throughout his political career? I will grant you his fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries. Any others?
His consistent and principled stand is pragmatic, of course, in the true tradition of the Conservative Party. If you want me to find some issue on which he has an ideological obsession (such as 'not using private providers in the NHS'), then of course there won't be any: sensible people don't regard such things as 'principles', they do whatever works best for the country.
But his political philosophy, on which he has been very consistent, was neatly laid out in that 2005 speech: "We know we have a shared responsibility, that we're all in this together, that there is such a thing as society; it's just not the same thing as the state."
Scottish independence: 1m voters sign declaration in favour of yes vote Yes Scotland campaign hails milestone that Alex Salmond predicted would show Scotland would become independent
wasn't that meant to happen in the first year of campaigning rather than with 27 days to go ?
No
LOL
I'll take then malc it's been a struggle to get the signatures.
regardless Alan a fine achievement and a portent of what is to come
believe it when I see it.
When you've excluded the A Darling, G Haddy and Ronald McDonald from the list which you always get in petitions what's left ? A PR opportunity, that's all.
I don't think Ronald McDonald would sign it, he's BettertogetherUKOKNoThanks' pet economist.
I seem to remember at the time that herd wisdom said the one million would never be reached.
It was one of those interesting non-bets.
Unionists saying they'd never make a million and Nats claiming they'd do it overnight. In the event it's better late than never assuming of course one believes what one's told.
It's actually quite a good indicator of changed expectations. The current Unionist security blanket is a 60/40 win for No; with an 80% turnout that's around 1.3m for Yes, well over the million for the declaration. Of course two years ago between 3 & 2 to 1 for No with a low turnout 'cos no one was interested was the oft repeated PB prediction..
@TOPPING - It's been a pretty iron-hard fist already, hasn't it? This government has been laying into vested interests all over the place - welfare reform, educational reform, NHS reform, child benefit, tax avoidance, planning laws, spare-room subsidy, removing lots of tax breaks, fracking, HS2...
How hard do you want the guy to be??
Sure, there's more to do. But apart from the very special case of Maggie, I don't think there has been any government in my lifetime more prepared to take on difficult issues.
I think the point about the apparent lack of an 'overall vision' is a diffcult one. The basic problem is that there isn't one clear and dominant problem today (as there was in 1979). It's a whole load of things which gradually went wrong under Labour. The overall vision is to Do The Right Thing. I accept that's a hard sell, especially when as is inevitable you have to pick a path through a whole set of issues and correcting one causes problems in another (a good example being getting more houses built vs localism).
In one sense the fact that Lab was so extraordinarily bad and that the Cons have as you say worked hard to right some of the many many wrongs under Blair/Brown actually works against Cam.
Lab set them up and he has knocked them in. He could and did let GO (hi @Alanbrooke), Jeremy Hunt, notably Michael Gove even IDS (I say this because I rate the man lower than I rate the welfare bee in his bonnet, which is of course laudable) do their thing. Which again is admirable. And has again worked against him. The public is, without slipping into an it's all gawn to the dogs-type rant, a different public now to what it was then.
We all need personalities and strong visions and ladies not for turning, etc. Cam might be said to be the most unsuccessful successful PM of our times. He has let govt run itself, he has taken a stand when he had to (eg. Syria) and has seen us emerge economically stronger than even his supporters could have imagined.
But. He needs to convince the British public that he has that X-factor. In 2015 not being Labour won't be enough and he will need to be ...*CAM*...
Thing is, no one really knows who ...*CAM*... actually is.
He needs to sort this; I'm not sure there is time.
@TOPPING What you needed was less PR and more honesty. And I think you are right, in that he has no way to remedy it now. This is my honest view, with which you are free to disagree
@TOPPING - You might be depressingly right. Smarmeron has of course got it completely backwards: any failures of Cameron are not too much PR, but too little: not putting enough effort into the media spin. Personally I think that is a very refreshing change after a government which did nothing else (except take us into Iraq), but it's true that it might be politically risky. Cameron is basically carrying out an interesting political experiment: can you get re-elected by governing well rather than by managing headlines the whole time?
We shall see.
I would add that I think the party does have the right message for the GE, and they are doing a good job in repeating it ad nauseam.
@TOPPING What you needed was less PR and more honesty. And I think you are right, in that he has no way to remedy it now. This is my honest view, with which you are free to disagree
Thing is, I still believe that the British public would vote out in a heartbeat anyone who was "honest" with them.
Honest as in explaining to them the implications of public/private debt levels; the reality of governement "investment" plans, the capital markets and borrowing rates (talking to you, here, @Hugh; the ever-increasing competition from newly developed countries and the implications for wage levels in this country; and Britain's place in a modern globalised economy.
In 1997 the Cons were stale, unfocused, scandal-ridden and although they had delivered economic stability, the public were ready for a change.
In 2010 small children in Weymouth realised how bad Lab had been but the Cons were still too nasty.
In 2015 ain't no one winning without a healthy dose of PR. Honesty just doesn't cut it these days. Not because Cam or EdM or anyone else wouldn't like to be honest, but because they know it would be electoral suicide.
@TOPPING - You might be depressingly right. Smarmeron has of course got it completely backwards: any failures of Cameron are not too much PR, but too little: not putting enough effort into the media spin. Personally I think that is a very refreshing change after a government which did nothing else (except take us into Iraq), but it's true that it might be politically risky. Cameron is basically carrying out an interesting political experiment: can you get re-elected by governing well rather than by managing headlines the whole time?
We shall see.
Agree and yep.
In weaker moments I think: to hell with the British public. But then I try to regain my equilibrium and continue to fight the fight for what I believe is best for us all.
The media and political class are ignoring all the stuff happening with China vs the US because it messes up their "Putin vs the world" narrative when the main driving force is actually "USUK vs the world."
(Due primarily to all the conflicts that revolve around maintaining the dollar and petrodollar).
"fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries."
Oh dear. You really call it 'fanatical'?
Given that he committed to an entirely arbitrary target of spending a certain proportion of national income on foreign subsidies for the sake of it, regardless of the state of the national finances and whether the Department in question could effectively spend the money etc., fanaticism seems a fair description on any measure.
His consistent and principled stand is pragmatic, of course, in the true tradition of the Conservative Party. If you want me to find some issue on which he has an ideological obsession (such as 'not using private providers in the NHS'), then of course there won't be any: sensible people don't regard such things as 'principles', they do whatever works best for the country.
But his political philosophy, on which he has been very consistent, was neatly laid out in that 2005 speech: "We know we have a shared responsibility, that we're all in this together, that there is such a thing as society; it's just not the same thing as the state."
In other words, he has conformed to a vague set of platitudes which no other mainstream British politician would dissent from (e.g. the quote about society being separate from the state). Foreign aid notwithstanding, the best and the brightest of his supporters cannot identify a single specific issue of public policy on which he has been consistent throughout his political career. As you seem to accept, he is one of many politicians professing to do 'whatever works best for the country' without consideration of the broader principles involved in their decisions.
It's an odd coincidence that France decided to make gay marriage legal at exactly the same time as the UK - almost like it was an EU directive or something.
I don't watch the telly news much so i don't know if the massive protests against it in France got on the telly over here.
@Life_ina_market_town - Governing is hard. It's about choices, and governing well is not about elevating some obsession to a 'principle' even if in the circumstances that leads you to an outcome where the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.
You are defining a 'man or woman of principle' in such a way that it would exclude Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher, let alone politicians such as Macmillan, Willie Whitelaw or R. A. Butler who are more directly Cameron's political ancestors. You could make the same statement regarding consistency of principles, by your narrow and incorrect definition, about any of them. That reflects the fact that they spent their careers trying to wrestle with difficult problems in an uncertain, contradictory and changing world. Cameron is doing the same, and very well.
@HurstLlama 'The number of US troops was relatively small, their effect was psychological if anything.'
Two million men was a significant presence, even if the British army was more than four times that. But you're maybe overlooking the other crucial things America brought - money, materials and food to continue the fight, all of which Britain was rapidly running out of after four years of war wastage. Admittedly, the British army had always been much better equipped and fed than the German army (descriptions of appalling German rations in All Quiet on the Western Front and forage parties seizing British cans of corned beef in attacks on the front line appear to be accurate) but it was a much needed boost at the time, psychologically and physically.
What America brought to the fight was defeat - for Germany. An endless supply of men and it marked defeat for Germany. Thats why they attacked in the Spring. These attacks were slowed down by losses and by delays whilst German troops ransacked British supply dumps for food. In terms of relative fighting in the last 3 months you only need to look at casualty figures and the number of prisoners taken to see who did the lions share - but that is not to denigrate French and American fighting.
After the Somme the Germans embarked on unrestricted U-Boat warfare and this brought America into the war. The Somme (and Verdun of course) was a savage blow to Germany and it sowed the seeds of their defeat.
Yep the 'Mericans weren't specially interested in the war and it was only the bizarre persistence of Germany sinking their merchant vessels (they thought the US would offer too little too late ), plus the famous "Zimmerman" telegram", that gave final impetus to entry.
Balfour Declaration? US entry in the war in return for Palestine.
"fanatical support for subsidies to foreign countries."
Oh dear. You really call it 'fanatical'?
Given that he committed to an entirely arbitrary target of spending a certain proportion of national income on foreign subsidies for the sake of it, regardless of the state of the national finances and whether the Department in question could effectively spend the money etc., fanaticism seems a fair description on any measure.
"an entirely arbitrary target"
urrrm, the 0.7% target is surely the ODA, which is an international agreement dating back to the 1960s. It is therefore hardly 'arbitrary'.
Your shrieks of 'fanaticism' in this matter are stupid and facile.
@HurstLlama 'The number of US troops was relatively small, their effect was psychological if anything.'
Two million men was a significant presence, even if the British army was more than four times that. But you're maybe overlooking the other crucial things America brought - money, materials and food to continue the fight, all of which Britain was rapidly running out of after four years of war wastage. Admittedly, the British army had always been much better equipped and fed than the German army (descriptions of appalling German rations in All Quiet on the Western Front and forage parties seizing British cans of corned beef in attacks on the front line appear to be accurate) but it was a much needed boost at the time, psychologically and physically.
What America brought to the fight was defeat - for Germany. An endless supply of men and it marked defeat for Germany. Thats why they attacked in the Spring. These attacks were slowed down by losses and by delays whilst German troops ransacked British supply dumps for food. In terms of relative fighting in the last 3 months you only need to look at casualty figures and the number of prisoners taken to see who did the lions share - but that is not to denigrate French and American fighting.
After the Somme the Germans embarked on unrestricted U-Boat warfare and this brought America into the war. The Somme (and Verdun of course) was a savage blow to Germany and it sowed the seeds of their defeat.
Yep the 'Mericans weren't specially interested in the war and it was only the bizarre persistence of Germany sinking their merchant vessels (they thought the US would offer too little too late ), plus the famous "Zimmerman" telegram", that gave final impetus to entry.
Balfour Declaration? US entry in the war in return for Palestine.
Um no. The US didn't want any post war machinations. Wilson's "Four Ends" specifically demanded that individual nations should have the right of self-determination.
Of course his and the US' attitude to the Ottoman Empire needed some deciphering given the conflicting aims involved but that was separate from the Allies' many designs of which the Balfour Declaration was but one.
Does it just amuse you to invent this stuff or do you actually believe it? There are plenty of sources for you to consult if anything is too problematic for your imagination to create.
@Life_ina_market_town - Governing is hard. It's about choices, and governing well is not about elevating some obsession to a 'principle' even if in the circumstances that leads you to an outcome where the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.
You are defining a 'man or woman of principle' in such a way that it would exclude Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher, let alone politicians such as Macmillan, Willie Whitelaw or R. A. Butler who are very much Cameron's political ancestors. You could make the same statement regarding consistency of principles, by your narrow and incorrect definition, about any of them. That reflects the fact that they spent their careers trying to wrestle with difficult problems in an uncertain, contradictory and changing world. Cameron is doing the same, and very well.
The problem with your approach is that it leads to the situation where someone can produce the following arguments. Don't make a fetish of the foolishly ideologically position that you shouldn't hold a foreign national in immigration detention where there is no realistic prospect of deporting them. Don't make a fetish of the idea that someone shouldn't be detained except under the sentence of a court or in pursuance of active criminal proceedings. Don't make a fetish of the "principle" that if evidence is placed before a court on which it can rely, both parties to the proceedings should be able to see it and test it. Don't make a fetish of the idea that a newspaper, which has never been mixed up in wrongdoing, should not be liable for the costs of a losing party, merely because it didn't sign up to a government approved regulator. Instead of obsessing with such trivialities, politicians should simply do whatever works best for the country. That is Cameron's core philosophy, and on every one of the foregoing issues, he picked the side of easy populism over the defence of liberty.
There is a debate to be had about whether such principles can be set aside in a grave national emergency, such as that which existed from 1939 to 1945. Unlike Cameron, however, none of Churchill, Thatcher and even the pragmatic Tories of the 1950s and 1960s he worships would have dispensed with any of the foregoing principles outside of war.
urrrm, the 0.7% target is surely the ODA, which is an international agreement dating back to the 1960s. It is therefore hardly 'arbitrary'.
That a figure has been plucked out of the air by the caprice of an international conference does not in any way affect the arbitrariness of the figure. What is nobler or more logical about 0.7% compared to say 0.6% or 0.8%?
Unlike several of my fellow Tories on this site who are trying to convince themselves that the Blues are only around 3% behind, I feel they have definitely lost ground over the past couple of weeks. The last three polls show them to be 5% adrift of Labour and this average of course excludes the 7% shocker from the "Gold Standard" pollster ICM which was blithely disregarded as being an outlier - I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it almost certainly was not. I just don't go with the argument that it's "all simply noise"(whatever that means) - would the same explanation be put forward if and very possibly when Labour's lead extends to 5 - 6% or more, I hardly think so. Dave needs to arrest this slide and quickly.
urrrm, the 0.7% target is surely the ODA, which is an international agreement dating back to the 1960s. It is therefore hardly 'arbitrary'.
That a figure has been plucked out of the air by the caprice of an international conference does not in any way affect the arbitrariness of the figure. What is nobler or more logical about 0.7% compared to say 0.6% or 0.8%?
True, but that is the same for virtually all such figures, which are not based on science but on long and tortuous debate.
The point is your accusations against Cameron of fanatical support in this regard are obviously rubbish. He chose - and he is hardly alone in this - to meet a longstanding international criteria.
Would you accuse him of fanaticism for trying to meet NATO's 2% of GDP spending agreement?
@Life_ina_market_town Your pragmatic Tories had an advantage Cameron doesn't, When they were in power, the majority of the financial sector and businesses were seen as basically honest, and with a duty to the country. This is not so now, and trust in "any" government is weak.
Unlike several of my fellow Tories on this site who are trying to convince themselves that the Blues are only around 3% behind, I feel they have definitely lost ground over the past couple of weeks. The last three polls show them to be 5% adrift of Labour and this average of course excludes the 7% shocker from the "Gold Standard" pollster ICM which was blithely disregarded as being an outlier - I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it almost certainly was not. I just don't go with the argument that it's "all simply noise"(whatever that means) - would the same explanation be put forward if and very possibly when Labour's lead extends to 5 - 6% or more, I hardly think so. Dave needs to arrest this slide and quickly.
I plotted Tory lead on my spreadsheet, I don't recall their being a drop in recent weeks, more of a plateau. When I get to my computer I can share the link!
Comments
As things stand it looks as though Dave is going to have brought off a triumph in a few weeks' time by calling Salmond's bluff, doesn't it?
Just one more referendum to go after that to make the hat-trick.
The original comparison was that Cameron is to Boris (I guess meaning that Boris is better - a winner? - than Cameron) as Auk was to Monty.
Its this latter comparison which deserves analysis.
Auk won the First Battle of Alamein and planned the Battle of Alam Halfa and Churchill then sacked him. Monty followed the same strategy and used ULTRA intercepts to confirm it. He then won Alam Halfa.
Monty was the man in place but its moot if he was 'better' than the Auk.
It's not me who is the sad caricature desperately twisting in agony!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo#mediaviewer/File:Scotland_Forever!.jpg
Since then, events have only proved that he was right. Even that leader of the perfidious French, Hollande, says it should have happened.
Claiming Cameron only listens to focus groups is, I fear, wrong.
I thought Dacre had her locked up in DM's basement?
On a 60% turnout for the same area?
In terms of relative fighting in the last 3 months you only need to look at casualty figures and the number of prisoners taken to see who did the lions share - but that is not to denigrate French and American fighting.
After the Somme the Germans embarked on unrestricted U-Boat warfare and this brought America into the war. The Somme (and Verdun of course) was a savage blow to Germany and it sowed the seeds of their defeat.
Jamieson (Lab) 102,561 (50.8%)
Jones (C) 54,091 (26.8%)
Rowe (UKIP) 32,187 (16.0%)
Khan (L Dem) 12,950 (6.4%)
compared to 2012
Lab +8.8
Con +8.29
UKIP +8.63
LD unchanged
That said, I think that there was a real chance to have ended the war in 1917 and it was Ludendorff who scuppered it.
- Overseas aid
- Gay marriage
- Lowering the top rate of income tax
- So-called 'bedroom tax'
All things where he took an electoral hit in order to do what he thinks is right. You might agree with him or not (I agree on three out of the four), but you can't possibly claim his policy on these has been driven by focus groups. He's not Tony Blair or Ed Miliband.
You've been wrong about so much - but your certainty over a Cumming vote and a Cameron debate stick in the mind - however embarrassed you evidently are about them....
He spent his political capital unwisely and as you say he took the hit but got little return on his investment.
So if anyone wants to sponsor anyone. Or send any money anywhere....
Before I joined OGH's loonie-house it was apparently well-stocked with left-wing knuckle-draggers. That changed when Gormless and Badger fecked the English economy.
As a proponent of the phrase 'Correlation =/= Causation' I feel uneasy saying this but: Does the approach of 'full-employment' - as defined by Milton's Wage-Adjusted theory - mean that parasitical sectors that rely on the benefit-state have become more adventurous? Do the left'ards rely on a secure money-tree before they start spewing on here...?
Show me a top politician who has not been shown to be economical with figures, and I'll show you someone who was not a top politician.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11027574/Labour-rebuked-over-benefit-increase-claims.html
That particular one never ends, and started before homo sapiens
The Battle of Britain, it could be argued that the Poles won it. Experienced pilots, who were not allowed in combat till the till the RAF had no alternative than to let the "foreigners fly".
My own view is that it was the pilot/s that started bombing the cities,
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/289342-wetter-together-alistair-darling-says-yes-with-ice-bucket-challenge/
Putin was on the right track at one time, separate "state" from "business". But like all the others, he fumbled the ball.
Shame. He had all the building blocks, what with being in charge of the largest ex-Communist bloc, and all.
The "ex" bit, is important, as by that time Russia was owned by the oligarchs, fueled by a belief in the population, that capitalism did indeed offer Utopia.
He is in power now because a lot of Russians noticed that it offered Utopia only to a very few.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/oct/04/conservatives2005.conservatives3
That was what the Conservative Party was offered. It took up the offer. He has remained true to it.
It is invariably the case that when anyone says he has no principles, what they actually mean is that they don't agree with him.
'The Great War'.
America proved to be the greatest killing machine of the period 1914-1920. They brought with them the curiously named 'Spanish Flu' virus: No army would have survived in-take in 1919.
At present, we have a reactive govt. Reacting to the holy chaos bequeathed by Labour. They haven't had time to define themselves apart from being not (as bad as) the previous administration.
My (true blue) view of Cameron? Meh. Now I don't mind that; for me less government is good government but it's hardly inspirational. The broad masses aren't going to google a 10 year old piece in the Graun and nod their heads at its wisdom. They need to be wowed. Much as cabinet ministers are responsible for raising their own profile and capturing the public's imagination and sympathy with whatever policy or iniative they are pushing, so Cam needs to assert his presence and his vision now.
I have sympathy for Cam, of course I do, because he is leader of a coalition government but it's also the case that he didn't win an OM and also that he has to govern by consensus rather than sheer strength of personality but as I have always wondered - is there actually an iron fist there to emerge should he be given the opportunity to take off his velvet glove?
More than my idle speculation rests upon the answer.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x247wrz_yes-all-the-way_news
How hard do you want the guy to be??
Sure, there's more to do. But apart from the very special case of Maggie, I don't think there has been any government in my lifetime more prepared to take on difficult issues.
I think the point about the apparent lack of an 'overall vision' is a diffcult one. The basic problem is that there isn't one clear and dominant problem today (as there was in 1979). It's a whole load of things which gradually went wrong under Labour. The overall vision is to Do The Right Thing. I accept that's a hard sell, especially when as is inevitable you have to pick a path through a whole set of issues and correcting one causes problems in another (a good example being getting more houses built vs localism).
Oh dear. You really call it 'fanatical'?
I doubt it, Cameron fully believes that what is good for business is good for the state, but he is smart enough to know it is somehow not right.
In theory it "should" work, but never seems too.
Communists have a similar problem, it's like that smart Greek philosopher, with his chariot pulled by a "black" and white "horse"
The goal can only be solved by one horse taking taking the lead, while the other follows it's lead by trusting it. We argue about which should lead, and fight instead of going forward smoothly.
All I am suggesting is a slightly wider yoke between them.
(Which is what several people have found out when reconstructing old chariots.
I should further add, that there is indeed a source for the wider yokes in reconstruction, But no!......You can look that up for yourselves if you wish.
But his political philosophy, on which he has been very consistent, was neatly laid out in that 2005 speech: "We know we have a shared responsibility, that we're all in this together, that there is such a thing as society; it's just not the same thing as the state."
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ting-tong-row-rumbles-on-22346/
Lab set them up and he has knocked them in. He could and did let GO (hi @Alanbrooke), Jeremy Hunt, notably Michael Gove even IDS (I say this because I rate the man lower than I rate the welfare bee in his bonnet, which is of course laudable) do their thing. Which again is admirable. And has again worked against him. The public is, without slipping into an it's all gawn to the dogs-type rant, a different public now to what it was then.
We all need personalities and strong visions and ladies not for turning, etc. Cam might be said to be the most unsuccessful successful PM of our times. He has let govt run itself, he has taken a stand when he had to (eg. Syria) and has seen us emerge economically stronger than even his supporters could have imagined.
But. He needs to convince the British public that he has that X-factor. In 2015 not being Labour won't be enough and he will need to be ...*CAM*...
Thing is, no one really knows who ...*CAM*... actually is.
He needs to sort this; I'm not sure there is time.
What you needed was less PR and more honesty. And I think you are right, in that he has no way to remedy it now.
This is my honest view, with which you are free to disagree
I should add that it got Tony Blair in the end as well.
We shall see.
I would add that I think the party does have the right message for the GE, and they are doing a good job in repeating it ad nauseam.
Honest as in explaining to them the implications of public/private debt levels; the reality of governement "investment" plans, the capital markets and borrowing rates (talking to you, here, @Hugh; the ever-increasing competition from newly developed countries and the implications for wage levels in this country; and Britain's place in a modern globalised economy.
In 1997 the Cons were stale, unfocused, scandal-ridden and although they had delivered economic stability, the public were ready for a change.
In 2010 small children in Weymouth realised how bad Lab had been but the Cons were still too nasty.
In 2015 ain't no one winning without a healthy dose of PR. Honesty just doesn't cut it these days. Not because Cam or EdM or anyone else wouldn't like to be honest, but because they know it would be electoral suicide.
In weaker moments I think: to hell with the British public. But then I try to regain my equilibrium and continue to fight the fight for what I believe is best for us all.
*sobs*
The media and political class are ignoring all the stuff happening with China vs the US because it messes up their "Putin vs the world" narrative when the main driving force is actually "USUK vs the world."
(Due primarily to all the conflicts that revolve around maintaining the dollar and petrodollar).
Cameron (and Osborne) constantly parrot this, and it was part of Cameron's "Big Speech". It's very, very obvious that "we" are not.
"In 2015 ain't no one winning without a healthy dose of PR."
The battle lines have already been drawn up.
I don't watch the telly news much so i don't know if the massive protests against it in France got on the telly over here.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/world/europe/france-same-sex-marriage/
You are defining a 'man or woman of principle' in such a way that it would exclude Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher, let alone politicians such as Macmillan, Willie Whitelaw or R. A. Butler who are more directly Cameron's political ancestors. You could make the same statement regarding consistency of principles, by your narrow and incorrect definition, about any of them. That reflects the fact that they spent their careers trying to wrestle with difficult problems in an uncertain, contradictory and changing world. Cameron is doing the same, and very well.
Oh dear, you appear to have committed sacrilege upon the gods.
On the brighter side, I am sure Richard will not crucify you.
Of course his and the US' attitude to the Ottoman Empire needed some deciphering given the conflicting aims involved but that was separate from the Allies' many designs of which the Balfour Declaration was but one.
Does it just amuse you to invent this stuff or do you actually believe it? There are plenty of sources for you to consult if anything is too problematic for your imagination to create.
There is a debate to be had about whether such principles can be set aside in a grave national emergency, such as that which existed from 1939 to 1945. Unlike Cameron, however, none of Churchill, Thatcher and even the pragmatic Tories of the 1950s and 1960s he worships would have dispensed with any of the foregoing principles outside of war.
I just don't go with the argument that it's "all simply noise"(whatever that means) - would the same explanation be put forward if and very possibly when Labour's lead extends to 5 - 6% or more, I hardly think so.
Dave needs to arrest this slide and quickly.
The point is your accusations against Cameron of fanatical support in this regard are obviously rubbish. He chose - and he is hardly alone in this - to meet a longstanding international criteria.
Would you accuse him of fanaticism for trying to meet NATO's 2% of GDP spending agreement?
Your pragmatic Tories had an advantage Cameron doesn't, When they were in power, the majority of the financial sector and businesses were seen as basically honest, and with a duty to the country. This is not so now, and trust in "any" government is weak.
Plus I caught a bit of R3 this morning and the presenters were woeful beyond belief.
Truly the world is going to hell in a handbasket...now where's my copy of the Enigma Variations?