I think the 1997 Labour final PEB sums up the mood pretty well. And notice how prominent The Sun is....! And all those nice people in blue and yellow shirts voting Labour...
"Only 3 LAB leaders have ever won overall majorities and the creed of the most successful is now being dismissed as a “virus”"
But was it Blairism that won it, or was it a) the unpopularity of the Conservatives b) the good economic times, which meant that voters could take a risk and c) Blair's sleazy salesman charm (which always eluded me, but had Beeboids and others slavering over him)?
We'll never know, but the polls, for what they're worth, had Labour 20 points ahead before Blair had been elected, and he was actually less popular in 1997 than when he became Labour leader in 1994. That may not prove that Blairism, which was unveiled better 1994-7, was unpopular, but it hardly proves that it was that, and nothing else, that won in 1997.
Most people who've given this any thought agree that John Smith would most likely have won handsomely in 1997, had he lived (or, such was the unpopularity of the Conservatives, maybe had he not ...) Of course it is pointless to speculate about 2001 and 2005 under him.
It was probably a mix of them all. However, the polls also put Labour at 64% in late 1997, and gave Blair an approval rating of 93% that September. So clearly he was more popular than his party, and that was considerably more popular than it had been in the 1980s. I don't think that can be put down just to the Tories or to the economy although the used car salesman schtick may have helped.
Of course, we all know how reliable the polls are, but...
On Today 4, about 7.05am, there was an interview with a owner of a haulage company at Haverford West (ferry to Ireland). About 90% of his business is to and from Continental Europe (often make-up, perfumes etc). He is now closing this part of his business down due to the problems with migrants.
He said that they were cutting locks to enter the lorries - spoiling or ejecting the goods and then he had to go through insurance clams, which are proving troublesome. Who in France is selling them bolt-cutters?
This seems to be a perfect picture of swarming.
Why doesn't he go via a non-Chunnel crossing?
David, you could apply that question to the rest of the lorries stacked in Kent. Margins in the haulage business are small and a longer route could be loss-making. Also his route depends on where his final destinations are.
Also I believe that the ferries no longer have the capacity required?
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
I too travel to Africa a fair bit as I am involved in some medical education programmes in Southern and central Africa. I love the lands and people.
I think that you are unduly pessimistic about Africa. There are some real success stories out there with good governments and increasingly vibrant economies, as well as the headline basket cases. Not all aid has been wasted and it is increasingly well spent, particularly compared to the cold war days when superpowers propped up despots with aid as a bribe. The decline of infant mortality and rise of democracy are growing trends.
However, the polls also put Labour at 64% in late 1997, and gave Blair an approval rating of 93% that September.
Rather satisfying to think I was one of the 7% not taken in by all that false charm.
One of the best bits of "what-iffery" is what if the media had not been so far up New Labour's colon, had gone for Blair over "the Ecclestone million" - and Blair had been forced to resign after a few months? (Blair himself reportedly said he thought it might have come to that). Whither New Labour without Blair?
The reason I'm only here occasionally is that I'm having a long holiday in the US - a week touring California doing all kinds of things I've never done from seal-watching to trampolining to painting to scary Disneyland rides, and currently 3 days in Las Vegas. I've just come in from a 3-hour poker session with eight affable, drunken rednecks, who adopted me as their English mascot, alternately calling me a frigging idiot and their best friend as they got through the Budweisers and I got through their stacks.
Hope you're having a great time NPXMP. I loved my time in the American West - everyone was so friendly and it was very relaxed. Can't imagine Vegas is quite like that though - I never got nearer to it than Carson City.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
In the early eighties, there was nothing to talk about. The IRA were making demands which the government had no intention of conceding. Talks only became viable when it became obvious that the IRA couldn't win.
Nah, just a Blairite government, which had tempxorarily gained control of the Labour Party...
Which is why both Labourites and Conservatives are willing to write it off. Blair was started off as a Christian Democrat and ended up a Neo-Con.
That said, John Smith would almost certainly have won in 1997 had he lived, and while on the right of the Labour Party, was without question straight out of its Social Democrat tradition.
It was a Labour govt. Tories are still in denial that they were not only defeated, but trounced. That's an opportunity.
It was a Labour government once Brown got his hands on it (which was straight after September 2001). He then promptly ran it into the ground. And that, and the legacy of it, is Labour's problem.
I don't accept that Tory ideas were 'trounced'. To the extent that the party needed bringing up to date and reconnecting, it's done a good job to that end. But the reforms to education that Blair made, for example, were a direct continuation of the Major government's (and have simply been accelerated by Cameron's); Brown pre-1997 committed himself to Clarke's economic plan. And the list goes on.
'Labour' only achieved success under Blair when (and because) it was aping the Tories. All the Tories need to do is not to catch ideology again and to keep up with social changes and they'll be very hard to shift.
Too many people see Labour as a movement, not a party. For them it's essentially a pressure group that has a core set of ideals that should never, ever be "betrayed" for anything as sordid as power - something that almost always involves compromise and listening to the electorate. If Corbyn wins then you will see that in action, with his leadership essentially being a non-leadership: ironically, he will be more a monarch who does the official duties, rather than someone who dictates policy; that will be left to various left-wing dominated policy groups. The movement side of Labour will love all this and the heavy defeats the party will suffer in the various elections next year will not bother them one bit. However, these setbacks will bring others to their senses. So, either the work to make Labour electable in 2020 begins in October, or it is delayed for a couple of years. Whether that is too late remains to be seen. Tory hubris will remain Labour's major (perhaps only) chance.
One of the best bits of "what-iffery" is what if the media had not been so far up New Labour's colon, had gone for Blair over "the Ecclestone million" - and Blair had been forced to resign after a few months? (Blair himself reportedly said he thought it might have come to that). Whither New Labour without Blair?
One of Paul MErton's finest quips on HIGNFY:
'He gives the money to Labour, he gets the deal he wants, then he gets his money back.'
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
Given that it is known that Labour had an open door policy and let millions in, I doubt they are best placed in suggesting how immigration or the issues in Calais should be dealt with. One should note NPXMP trying to make a statement that is only his own opinion and make it look like fact. It really isn't fact, its only an opinion. In any event all this argument about immigration brought up by the left has sweet fanny adams to do with immigration and everything to gettting leadership soundbites in the news.
Nothing Labour says about immigration should be trusted. We know what they did in office.
The usual unsubtiantiated drivel from you. Millions? Take out the EU workers who were entitled by treaty to come here and has immigration really run to millions (plural?).
Much of the EU immigration came due to us being one of just two EU nations not to have transitional controls, which was very much a government policy decision. I suspect non-EU immigration would have been over two million anyway, as gross immigration is more than a half million a year and 60% of that is non-EU, even allowing for the first term ramp up.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, with allegiance to the Crown on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
Yes, I know when I first learned of the Falklands War, being born after it, I would definitely have thought paying British citizens to leave their homes to appease the sort of people who invade and kill when they don't get their way was a great idea. I cannot believe a British government had the gall not to, why it's practically their fault the Argentinians invaded.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
If only Tony Blair had listened a bit more. Corbyn is weak on economic policy, but on social and foreign policy he tends to be correct.
Very left-wing view. He was not right on the miners strike or Sinn Fein.
He would have talked to SF under any circumstance. The British government only did so once they'd secured a measure of stability such that SF knew they could never win by force.
There's considerable historical revisionism. People who advocated talks with the IRA when their campaign was in full swing were not in favour of self-determination for Northern Ireland's inhabitants.
We don't know what the Falkland Islanders reaction would be to a £100,000 "bribe". It has never been put to them. I would have thought it was quite attractive if they could continue their way of life on a similar island nearer home. The referendum without a bribe is no indication of what would persuade them. Money eases lots of problems.
The cost of the war was £1,000,000 per Falklander plus one dead soldier per 12 Falklanders. We could have upped the "bribe" to £250,00 per head (say £1,000,000 per family) and it would still be a win/win. A win for the Falklanders if they preferred a £1,000,000 to staying put. A win for Britian in saving a lot of money, lives and ships.
Jingoism blinkers you to creative win/win solutions.
Why should we give way to bullies? We'd just encourage more people to bully us.
Nah, just a Blairite government, which had tempxorarily gained control of the Labour Party...
Which is why both Labourites and Conservatives are willing to write it off. Blair was started off as a Christian Democrat and ended up a Neo-Con.
That said, John Smith would almost certainly have won in 1997 had he lived, and while on the right of the Labour Party, was without question straight out of its Social Democrat tradition.
It was a Labour govt. Tories are still in denial that they were not only defeated, but trounced. That's an opportunity.
It was a Labour government once Brown got his hands on it (which was straight after September 2001). He then promptly ran it into the ground. And that, and the legacy of it, is Labour's problem.
I don't accept that Tory ideas were 'trounced'. To the extent that the party needed bringing up to date and reconnecting, it's done a good job to that end. But the reforms to education that Blair made, for example, were a direct continuation of the Major government's (and have simply been accelerated by Cameron's); Brown pre-1997 committed himself to Clarke's economic plan. And the list goes on.
'Labour' only achieved success under Blair when (and because) it was aping the Tories. All the Tories need to do is not to catch ideology again and to keep up with social changes and they'll be very hard to shift.
Blair's aping of the Tories on the minimum wage, tax credits, NHS and education spending, and windfall taxes certainly was something to see.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
From a position of legal and, given the context, extreme military weakness, Thatcher negotiated for the Hong Kongers to have one country, two systems until 2047. Given the recent democratic protests to protect the spirit of that deal, it could still lead to more widespread democracy in what will be the world's superpower. That would never happen had all the liberals left.
Such a deal would have been possible for the Falklands had not the Argies invaded.
But the Hong Kong Chinese were not given the same voice as the white people of the Falklands (indeed in 1982 Falkland Islanders did not have right to reside in the UK either as I recall).
Once the Argies started the war they lost their claim on the Falklands. We won the war fair and square.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
I think you're pretty confused on this issue. Argentina was the aggressor, not the UK.
Given that it is known that Labour had an open door policy and let millions in, I doubt they are best placed in suggesting how immigration or the issues in Calais should be dealt with. One should note NPXMP trying to make a statement that is only his own opinion and make it look like fact. It really isn't fact, its only an opinion. In any event all this argument about immigration brought up by the left has sweet fanny adams to do with immigration and everything to gettting leadership soundbites in the news.
Nothing Labour says about immigration should be trusted. We know what they did in office.
The usual unsubtiantiated drivel from you. Millions? Take out the EU workers who were entitled by treaty to come here and has immigration really run to millions (plural?).
Much of the EU immigration came due to us being one of just two EU nations not to have transitional controls, which was very much a government policy decision. I suspect non-EU immigration would have been over two million anyway, as gross immigration is more than a half million a year and 60% of that is non-EU, even allowing for the first term ramp up.
Monksfield doesn't know. Census data suggests 1.2 million but no one really knows because there were no proper checks.. just waved through immigration control. there were swarms of them.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
From a position of legal and, given the context, extreme military weakness, Thatcher negotiated for the Hong Kongers to have one country, two systems until 2047. Given the recent democratic protests to protect the spirit of that deal, it could still lead to more widespread democracy in what will be the world's superpower. That would never happen had all the liberals left.
Such a deal would have been possible for the Falklands had not the Argies invaded.
But the Hong Kong Chinese were not given the same voice as the white people of the Falklands (indeed in 1982 Falkland Islanders did not have right to reside in the UK either as I recall).
Once the Argies started the war they lost their claim on the Falklands. We won the war fair and square.
The reason we had to deal with the Chinese is due to the lease of the New Territories, at the end of which the land becomes Chinese territory. If those lands weren't leased, it'd probably still be a British territory now (or in independent city state perhaps).
Edit: and I'm not sure what race has to do with it? Are you suggesting the people in Hong Kong were treated differently because of racism?
Hope you're having a great time NPXMP. I loved my time in the American West - everyone was so friendly and it was very relaxed. Can't imagine Vegas is quite like that though - I never got nearer to it than Carson City.
Yes, thanks! Las Vegas strikes me as an American super-Skegness - brash, commercial, and wildly OTT, but basically loads of people having a good time: I've not seen anyone having an argument or looking upset even once over the last 48 hours. The ridiculously cheesy bits are part of the fun - I'm staying in the mock-pyramid Luxor, full of sphinxes and the like; the town also features an Eiffel Tower, a Caesar's Palace and a "Venetian" hotel with accordian-players and gondolas. There are lots of Brits here, and if we don't get snooty about the place we're very welcome.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Our lease was expiring on the New Territories. A barren rock without water, sewage or electricity isn't much use to anyone.
So what they did was negotiate, from a position of weakness, to protect the interests of the Hong Kong citizens. The One China / Two Systems approach was the result and - despite the occasional challenge - it's more or less held together to the great benefit of the people of both Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
The reforms to education that Blair made, for example, were a direct continuation of the Major government's (and have simply been accelerated by Cameron's); Brown pre-1997 committed himself to Clarke's economic plan. And the list goes on.
Not quite. Grant maintained schools were abolished in 1997, which caused more trouble and damage than every initiative Gove ever came up with put together (because they were then starved of funding by furious, unreformed, vindictive and deeply corrupt LEAs). Academies were brought back later (essentially the same thing) but under very strict conditions.
They did of course keep Chris Woodhead - but since he was a failed teacher on essentially an ego trip, rather than somebody with practical ideas on how to improve schools, he didn't actually help matters. And of course, the revelations of his affair with a pupil (I know he always denied it - it's just that his denials were fairly clearly not true) made matters worse for the government.
They also introduced things like literacy hour and numeracy hour, which were very prescriptive, badly designed and did not in any way support a rise in literacy or numeracy.
I would argue that what happened was Labour tried to undo the key school reforms of Major, and then a few years later realised that some of them had actually been introduced because they were major improvements and brought them back on the quiet. But you can't restore lost education. I was at school under Blair - mine was one of the ones that had its funding whipped away - and a concomitant loss of teaching staff certainly damaged my education as the staff/student ratio rocketed and half of the remaining staff went off with stress.
A similar thing happened with the scrapping and reintroduction of the NHS internal market, of course.
So I think Blair tried to be Labour in office, then realised, far too late, that there was a good reason why people didn't vote Labour in the 1980s.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, with allegiance to the Crown on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
Yes, I know when I first learned of the Falklands War, being born after it, I would definitely have thought paying British citizens to leave their homes to appease the sort of people who invade and kill when they don't get their way was a great idea. I cannot believe a British government had the gall not to, why it's practically their fault the Argentinians invaded.
More seriously, that is the implication I get and its silly. If I stand on someone's foot, provoke them even deliberately, and they punch me in the face, their action is still the more unreasonable as they unacceptably escalated things , and my responding with force would be the more justified. We weren't bribing people to leave, but I'm sure everyone agrees not meeting the Argentinians half way did not justify them invading. Them doing so meant responding with force was the only way, and it isn't our fault for not being more willing to bend beforehand, as the Argentinian response was still an unacceptable escalation.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
I increased it from £100,000 per person to £1,000,000 per family to make it clear that the Falklanders would have accepted it and we would still have been ahead.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
Nah, just a Blairite government, which had tempxorarily gained control of the Labour Party...
Which is why both Labourites and Conservatives are willing to write it off. Blair was started off as a Christian Democrat and ended up a Neo-Con.
That said, John Smith would almost certainly have won in 1997 had he lived, and while on the right of the Labour Party, was without question straight out of its Social Democrat tradition.
It was a Labour govt. Tories are still in denial that they were not only defeated, but trounced. That's an opportunity.
It was a Labour government once Brown got his hands on it (which was straight after September 2001). He then promptly ran it into the ground. And that, and the legacy of it, is Labour's problem.
I don't accept that Tory ideas were 'trounced'. To the extent that the party needed bringing up to date and reconnecting, it's done a good job to that end. But the reforms to education that Blair made, for example, were a direct continuation of the Major government's (and have simply been accelerated by Cameron's); Brown pre-1997 committed himself to Clarke's economic plan. And the list goes on.
'Labour' only achieved success under Blair when (and because) it was aping the Tories. All the Tories need to do is not to catch ideology again and to keep up with social changes and they'll be very hard to shift.
Blair's aping of the Tories on the minimum wage, tax credits, NHS and education spending, and windfall taxes certainly was something to see.
Tax credits and NHS and education spending were all Brown's ideas. Indeed, NHS and education spending didn't increase all that fast pre-2001. The windfall taxes were a gimmick and one which is not limited to Labour (see North Sea oil for details).
The minimum wage was a Labour initiative and one the Tories needed to catch up on, which has happened.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
I increased it from £100,000 per person to £1,000,000 per family to make it clear that the Falklanders would have accepted it and we would still have been ahead.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
How is it apple and chalk? Both are British territory inhabited by British citizens. I'm not sure what support has to do with it, does that somehow nullify our Government's commitment to defend it's citizens?
Hope you're having a great time NPXMP. I loved my time in the American West - everyone was so friendly and it was very relaxed. Can't imagine Vegas is quite like that though - I never got nearer to it than Carson City.
Yes, thanks! Las Vegas strikes me as an American super-Skegness - brash, commercial, and wildly OTT, but basically loads of people having a good time: I've not seen anyone having an argument or looking upset even once over the last 48 hours. The ridiculously cheesy bits are part of the fun - I'm staying in the mock-pyramid Luxor, full of sphinxes and the like; the town also features an Eiffel Tower, a Caesar's Palace and a "Venetian" hotel with accordian-players and gondolas. There are lots of Brits here, and if we don't get snooty about the place we're very welcome.
If you've seen the Louis Theroux documentary on gambling in Las Vegas, 'having a good time' would not be the sentence I would use.
I would still love to go for the sights and the experience, but I expect only a day or two would do me fine.
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their
I noted Nick XMP was on answering questions to other posters lst night but avoided my simple straightforward question. Tyson threw abuse only Mr Rural gave the ID card answer (thanks) which I can certainly see may be one of the reasons but I feel it's not uppermost in their minds.
So I will ask Nick again just in case he missed my question.... As he was an MP..... Thanks! Yes, I did miss the question, sorry. I don't know, but I think the appeal of Britain as a traditional country for immigrants and the widespread knowledge of English are both relevant. I doubt if it's much to do with relative benefits.
The reason I'm only here occasionally is that I'm having a long holiday in the US - a week touring California doing all kinds of things I've never done from seal-watching to trampolining to painting to scary Disneyland rides, and currently 3 days in Las Vegas. I've just come in from a 3-hour poker session with eight affable, drunken rednecks, who adopted me as their English mascot, alternately calling me a frigging idiot and their best friend as they got through the Budweisers and I got through their stacks.
My general plan is that if I'm taking a possibly permanent holiday from serious politics, I may as well catch up with the rest of life. It's proving not such a bad idea.
Worked in the US for quite a while so know all the issues. I was in the Deep South where they call themselves "coonasses" (well you get the drift.) New Orleans , mobile and all,the way along the I 10 to Texas. Few other places as well.
In regard to your response......
They speak English across Europe Nick. In the last 3 days I have passed on business through Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. In the last month I have passed through Norway, France, Spain , malta and errr Scotland. Every one understood me (except one) As they would have understood these guys.
I never mentioned benefits but you did. Interesting?
Don't worry enjoy the USA with the family I will not ask further until you return.
Phil Collins [Blairite] in The Times is most affronted and rightly so at being described as *a virus*, and joins in with voices from The Guardian that Labour is about to base jump from a small block of flats.
I'm struggling to think of a single mainstream journalist who thinks Jeremy Corbyn is the right answer to any question bar rolling in the aisles by Tories. Even the Guardian are accused of bias against him.
Nah, just a Blairite government, which had tempxorarily gained control of the Labour Party...
Which is why both Labourites and Conservatives are willing to write it off. Blair was started off as a Christian Democrat and ended up a Neo-Con.
That said, John Smith would almost certainly have won in 1997 had he lived, and while on the right of the Labour Party, was without question straight out of its Social Democrat tradition.
It was a Labour govt. Tories are still in denial that they were not only defeated, but trounced. That's an opportunity.
It was a Labour government once Brown got his hands on it (which was straight after September 2001). He then promptly ran it into the ground. And that, and the legacy of it, is Labour's problem.
I don't accept that Tory ideas were 'trounced'. To the extent that the party needed bringing up to date and reconnecting, it's done a good job to that end. But the reforms to education that Blair made, for example, were a direct continuation of the Major government's (and have simply been accelerated by Cameron's); Brown pre-1997 committed himself to Clarke's economic plan. And the list goes on.
'Labour' only achieved success under Blair when (and because) it was aping the Tories. All the Tories need to do is not to catch ideology again and to keep up with social changes and they'll be very hard to shift.
Come off it the Tories were trounced and forever changed by Blair who forced them to adapt to the C 21. I cite current Tory attitudes to minimum wages and gay relationship s that are 180 degrees from 1997.
To argue that Labour didn't trounce the Tories 97-05 is absurd.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
'Labour' only achieved success under Blair when (and because) it was aping the Tories. All the Tories need to do is not to catch ideology again and to keep up with social changes and they'll be very hard to shift.
David, a superb observation. I'd say the Tory MPs elected this year are less driven by ideology and more by pragmatism and practicality than any before them.
They are going to be tougher to shift than LibDem limpets....
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
If only Tony Blair had listened a bit more. Corbyn is weak on economic policy, but on social and foreign policy he tends to be correct.
Very left-wing view. He was not right on the miners strike or Sinn Fein.
He would have talked to SF under any circumstance. The British government only did so once they'd secured a measure of stability such that SF knew they could never win by force.
There's considerable historical revisionism. People who advocated talks with the IRA when their campaign was in full swing were not in favour of self-determination for Northern Ireland's inhabitants.
We don't know what the Falkland Islanders reaction would be to a £100,000 "bribe". It has never been put to them. I would have thought it was quite attractive if they could continue their way of life on a similar island nearer home. The referendum without a bribe is no indication of what would persuade them. Money eases lots of problems.
The cost of the war was £1,000,000 per Falklander plus one dead soldier per 12 Falklanders. We could have upped the "bribe" to £250,00 per head (say £1,000,000 per family) and it would still be a win/win. A win for the Falklanders if they preferred a £1,000,000 to staying put. A win for Britian in saving a lot of money, lives and ships.
Jingoism blinkers you to creative win/win solutions.
technically the Falklands isn't British soil.
It's an independent country that has a relationship with the Crown.
(So, basically, we were standing up to a bully on behalf of the Queen)
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
I increased it from £100,000 per person to £1,000,000 per family to make it clear that the Falklanders would have accepted it and we would still have been ahead.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
Britain had a lot more support than Argentina at the UN. But in any case, a nation is entitled to defend itself, regardless of support.
The reason we had to deal with the Chinese is due to the lease of the New Territories, at the end of which the land becomes Chinese territory. If those lands weren't leased, it'd probably still be a British territory now (or in independent city state perhaps).
Edit: and I'm not sure what race has to do with it? Are you suggesting the people in Hong Kong were treated differently because of racism?
I'd imagine it was much more to do with there being millions of them, and China having the ability to kick the UK's ass without raising an eyebrow.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
If only Tony Blair had listened a bit more. Corbyn is weak on economic policy, but on social and foreign policy he tends to be correct.
Very left-wing view. He was not right on the miners strike or Sinn Fein.
He would have talked to SF under any circumstance. The British government only did so once they'd secured a measure of stability such that SF knew they could never win by force.
There's considerable historical revisionism. People who advocated talks with the IRA when their campaign was in full swing were not in favour of self-determination for Northern Ireland's inhabitants.
We don't know what the Falkland Islanders reaction would be to a £100,000 "bribe". It has never been put to them. I would have thought it was quite attractive if they could continue their way of life on a similar island nearer home. The referendum without a bribe is no indication of what would persuade them. Money eases lots of problems.
The cost of the war was £1,000,000 per Falklander plus one dead soldier per 12 Falklanders. We could have upped the "bribe" to £250,00 per head (say £1,000,000 per family) and it would still be a win/win. A win for the Falklanders if they preferred a £1,000,000 to staying put. A win for Britian in saving a lot of money, lives and ships.
Jingoism blinkers you to creative win/win solutions.
technically the Falklands isn't British soil.
It's an independent country that has a relationship with the Crown.
(So, basically, we were standing up to a bully on behalf of the Queen)
Thatcher called it "British sovereign territory"... never known her to be wrong before..
The reason we had to deal with the Chinese is due to the lease of the New Territories, at the end of which the land becomes Chinese territory. If those lands weren't leased, it'd probably still be a British territory now (or in independent city state perhaps).
Edit: and I'm not sure what race has to do with it? Are you suggesting the people in Hong Kong were treated differently because of racism?
I'd imagine it was much more to do with there being millions of them, and China having the ability to kick the UK's ass without raising an eyebrow.
Yeah that probably factored into the negotiations.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Empty rhetoric.
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
I increased it from £100,000 per person to £1,000,000 per family to make it clear that the Falklanders would have accepted it and we would still have been ahead.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
Yuck. So much for morality. Its not about who has support for what, its about what is legal and right. Northern Ireland had a referendum in 1973 to ask if they wanted to stay part of the UK or join the Republic, should we have been offering to pay them money to influence that vote because The Troubles were a bit inconvenient ? How would we have felt if the Republic had been offering them 100k each to vote to join them. I know, lets offer the Scots 100k each to vote to stay in the union, I am sure the SNP wont mind (oh wait, they did vote to stay in for a generation, never mind then )
I've been to Vegas twice - just for a couple of days each time as part of a road-trip [that included Carson City!] - it's like Disneyland on LSD and an 18 rating.
For free entertainment, it's unbeatable - every hotel is an eye-watering explosion of OTTness. And who couldn't love the fountains outside the Bellagio?
Hope you're having a great time NPXMP. I loved my time in the American West - everyone was so friendly and it was very relaxed. Can't imagine Vegas is quite like that though - I never got nearer to it than Carson City.
Yes, thanks! Las Vegas strikes me as an American super-Skegness - brash, commercial, and wildly OTT, but basically loads of people having a good time: I've not seen anyone having an argument or looking upset even once over the last 48 hours. The ridiculously cheesy bits are part of the fun - I'm staying in the mock-pyramid Luxor, full of sphinxes and the like; the town also features an Eiffel Tower, a Caesar's Palace and a "Venetian" hotel with accordian-players and gondolas. There are lots of Brits here, and if we don't get snooty about the place we're very welcome.
If you've seen the Louis Theroux documentary on gambling in Las Vegas, 'having a good time' would not be the sentence I would use.
I would still love to go for the sights and the experience, but I expect only a day or two would do me fine.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
That may have been the reason given. But if the Chinese had been happy for HK to continue as a British colony no doubt they could have ensured that it could.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
That may have been the reason given. But if the Chinese had been happy for HK to continue as a British colony no doubt they could have ensured that it could.
But they probably weren't. So what were we to do? I think I agree on the passport issue though, although I haven't read much into reasons why it wasn't done.
I feel very bad for the lorry drivers in all this. They're doing their best to be stoical about it, but you can tell they know their livelihoods are being made hell. As always, it's the working class that gets hit hardest by the downsides of immigration.
To argue that Labour didn't trounce the Tories 97-05 is absurd.
Labour, even with a massive majority, were still herded into various positions by the 18 years of Tory rule that preceded them - and dictated the guidelines for governing. Otherwise, where was the roll-back of privatisation? Why keep the top rate of income tax at 40% for all but a month of their term in office?
The voters let New Labour have office because they perpetuated much of the Tory rule. There was nothing much to scare the horses about New Labour. Not until Gordon Brown came along - and looked scarily unreliable - did Labour's right to rule get revoked. .It remained revoked under Miliband. It will remain revoked under Corbyn.
@David Herdson - Are you claiming that Blair was opposed to tax credits, the windfall tax and increased NHS and education spending? He has cited all of them as great achievements of his time in office, so I am not sure there is much evidence for that. Labour won on a manifesto that was vehemently opposed by the Tories. The Tories may well have changed as a result - indeed, it's clear they did on a number of issues (and even now feel the need to say that NHS spending is ring-fenced). But that does not make Blair a Tory, it makes those who changed the Tories clever enough to realise that Blair changed Britain's centre of gravity. Just as both Blair and Brown realised that on many economic issues the Tories had changed things forever too.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
That may have been the reason given. But if the Chinese had been happy for HK to continue as a British colony no doubt they could have ensured that it could.
That's not true. Had a deal not been struck, the Chinese would have invaded abd we could not have stopped them. The Chinese delegation frequently made this point during negotiations.
I feel very bad for the lorry drivers in all this. They're doing their best to be stoical about it, but you can tell they know their livelihoods are being made hell. As always, it's the working class that gets hit hardest by the downsides of immigration.
I imagine it is not going unnoticed in white van areas that Labour are right in there defending the illegal immigrants, but rather less forthright when it comes to sympathy for the working classes. Plus ça change. Few more votes for the kippers, but no one will notice, pollsters don't get to talk to people in trucks queueing on the motorways.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
That may have been the reason given. But if the Chinese had been happy for HK to continue as a British colony no doubt they could have ensured that it could.
That's not true. Had a deal not been struck, the Chinese would have invaded abd we could not have stopped them. The Chinese delegation frequently made this point during negotiations.
Precisely. The Chinese were not happy for HK to continue as a British colony. That's why it did not happen.
Nah, just a Blairite government, which had tempxorarily gained control of the Labour Party...
Which is why both Labourites and Conservatives are willing to write it off. Blair was started off as a Christian Democrat and ended up a Neo-Con.
That said, John Smith would almost certainly have won in 1997 had he lived, and while on the right of the Labour Party, was without question straight out of its Social Democrat tradition.
It was a Labour govt. Tories are still in denial that they were not only defeated, but trounced. That's an opportunity.
It was a Labour government once Brown got his hands on it (which was straight after September 2001). He then promptly ran it into the ground. And that, and the legacy of it, is Labour's problem.
I don't accept that Tory ideas were 'trounced'. To the extent that the party needed bringing up to date and reconnecting, it's done a good job to that end. But the reforms to education that Blair made, for example, were a direct continuation of the Major government's (and have simply been accelerated by Cameron's); Brown pre-1997 committed himself to Clarke's economic plan. And the list goes on.
'Labour' only achieved success under Blair when (and because) it was aping the Tories. All the Tories need to do is not to catch ideology again and to keep up with social changes and they'll be very hard to shift.
Blair's aping of the Tories on the minimum wage, tax credits, NHS and education spending, and windfall taxes certainly was something to see.
Either the electorate has moved "rightwards" or it has become more accustomed to a market economy and enjoys its fruits.
Lab, perhaps because they never embarked upon an NPXMP-type odyssey to find out what is happening in the real world (travels for example post-1978 in China would have been illuminating), are hanging onto a semi-unreconstructed socialist view of the world or at least Jezza is.
Tony got it, and was long before and after the most approachable PM (I once saw him in a bar quietly and intently watching Arsenal vs Chelsea) and therefore a pragmatist.
I continue to ask what the point of Lab is, save, as another poster put it aptly previously today, to be slightly nicer people implementing more or less the same policies as the Cons.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
That may have been the reason given. But if the Chinese had been happy for HK to continue as a British colony no doubt they could have ensured that it could.
But they probably weren't. So what were we to do? I think I agree on the passport issue though, although I haven't read much into reasons why it wasn't done.
Fear of newspaper headlines about Chinese hordes descending on Britain, I imagine. .
I continue to ask what the point of Lab is, save, as another poster put it aptly previously today, to be slightly nicer people implementing more or less the same policies as the Cons.
To try and be nicer to people implementing the same policies, but to actually crash the economy and leave office with higher unemployment than when they enter it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But they probably weren't. So what were we to do? I think I agree on the passport issue though, although I haven't read much into reasons why it wasn't done.
Fear of newspaper headlines about Chinese hordes descending on Britain, I imagine. .
What? I don't think that's an answer to my question!
Edit: I understand now, that's the reason as to why "it wasn't done".. Sorry!
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
T
Empty rhetoric.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
I increased it from £100,000 per person to £1,000,000 per family to make it clear that the Falklanders would have accepted it and we would still have been ahead.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
Yuck. So much for morality. Its not about who has support for what, its about what is legal and right. Northern Ireland had a referendum in 1973 to ask if they wanted to stay part of the UK or join the Republic, should we have been offering to pay them money to influence that vote because The Troubles were a bit inconvenient ? How would we have felt if the Republic had been offering them 100k each to vote to join them. I know, lets offer the Scots 100k each to vote to stay in the union, I am sure the SNP wont mind (oh wait, they did vote to stay in for a generation, never mind then )
We are still paying bribes to Northern Ireland to keep the peace.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no matter how large so you would still have had war.
Morality is about doing what is right while minimising suffering. War is sometimes the moral thing to do, but most often it isn't if there are other solutions that bring lasting peace with less suffering (and at a lower cost).
Anyway - I started this topic to demonstrate that those who think Corbyn is on a loser regarding the Falklands are only reflecting their own views and may be mistaken about the views of others. I think his theme of negotiation rather than war is popular.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
T
Empty rhetoric.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
I increased it from £100,000 per person to £1,000,000 per family to make it clear that the Falklanders would have accepted it and we would still have been ahead.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
Yuck. So much for morality. Its not about who has support for what, its about what is legal and right. Northern Ireland had a referendum in 1973 to ask if they wanted to stay part of the UK or join the Republic, should we have been offering to pay them money to influence that vote because The Troubles were a bit inconvenient ? How would we have felt if the Republic had been offering them 100k each to vote to join them. I know, lets offer the Scots 100k each to vote to stay in the union, I am sure the SNP wont mind (oh wait, they did vote to stay in for a generation, never mind then )
The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
I feel very bad for the lorry drivers in all this. They're doing their best to be stoical about it, but you can tell they know their livelihoods are being made hell. As always, it's the working class that gets hit hardest by the downsides of immigration.
I think the final lorry driver's words, that: "Nothing will get done until someone innocent gets killed. And that will probably be one of us" is about right.
@Topping - There is no great groundswell of enthusiastic support for either Labour or Tory. The only party in the UK that attracts that currently is the SNP. What the Tories have over Labour is competence. In terms of centre of gravity, it is clear that the UK is much, much more socially liberal than it was before the Blair government, but that it is less convinced by the case for high government spending (except on things that it approves of, such as the NHS). Labour's role should be to ensure that within our capitalist system the disadvantaged are not left behind, that there is genuine equality of opportunity, that entrenched elites do not dominate, that the UK stays together and that its voice is effective and influential overseas. In other words, it's the same role that the Tories have. The argument, as ever, is over the methods to achieve this.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
On the same terms its extremely likely that some Falkland islanders would not have accepted the offer no matter how big, people with family buried there for example.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
T
Empty rhetoric.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
I increased it from £100,000 per person to £1,000,000 per family to make it clear that the Falklanders would have accepted it and we would still have been ahead.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
Yuck. So much for morality. Its not about who has support for what, its about what is legal and right. Northern Ireland had a referendum in 1973 to ask if they wanted to stay part of the UK or join the Republic, should we have been offering to pay them money to influence that vote bTroubles were a bit inconvenient ? How would we have felt if the Republic had been offering them 100k each to vote to join them. I know, lets offer the Scots 100k each to vote to stay in the union, I am sure the SNP wont mind (oh wait, they did vote to stay in for a generation, never mind then )
We are still paying bribes to Northern Ireland to keep the peace.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
Morality is about doing what is right while minimising suffering. War is sometimes the moral thing to do, but most often it isn't if there are other solutions that bring lasting peace with less suffering (and at a lower cost).
Anyway - I started this topic to demonstrate that those who think Corbyn is on a loser regarding the Falklands are only reflecting their own views and may be mistaken about the views of others. I think his theme of negotiation rather than war is popular.
Self-defence is always moral.
I think you're the one who's projecting your views onto the voters in general.
I noted Nick XMP was on answering questions to other posters lst night but avoided my simple straightforward question. Tyson threw abuse only Mr Rural gave the ID card answer (thanks) which I can certainly see may be one of the reasons but I feel it's not uppermost in their minds.
So I will ask Nick again just in case he missed my question.... As he was an MP.....
"Agreed Nick. Many in difficulties agreed again. My problem here and my only one is why do thousands and thousands cross so many safe countries then risk death under the wheels of a truck or in front of an express train just to get here?
What's wrong with France?"
Over to you Nick.
( just for the record as Nick knows I am quite a fan as he is one of the very few MPs and now former MPs that still puts himself in front of us the electorate and at least takes the incoming flak... Even if he is Labour)
My general plan is that if I'm taking a possibly permanent holiday from serious politics, I may as well catch up with the rest of life. It's proving not such a bad idea.
Labour's role should be to ensure that within our capitalist system the disadvantaged are not left behind, that there is genuine equality of opportunity, that entrenched elites do not dominate, that the UK stays together and that its voice is effective and influential overseas. In other words, it's the same role that the Tories have. The argument, as ever, is over the methods to achieve this.
To an outsider it appears that the argument has yet to reach that point, at least outside the "sensible wing" of Labour. Far too many centre and hard left Labour people appear unable to accept even that much of a change, and are still banging on about overthrowing the capitalist system and equality of outcomes. That argument either needs to be won or the party needs to split before your argument is going to get a hearing, at the moment anyone trying to talk about the things you propose is howled down as a closet Tory.
@Topping - There is no great groundswell of enthusiastic support for either Labour or Tory. The only party in the UK that attracts that currently is the SNP. What the Tories have over Labour is competence. In terms of centre of gravity, it is clear that the UK is much, much more socially liberal than it was before the Blair government, but that it is less convinced by the case for high government spending (except on things that it approves of, such as the NHS). Labour's role should be to ensure that within our capitalist system the disadvantaged are not left behind, that there is genuine equality of opportunity, that entrenched elites do not dominate, that the UK stays together and that its voice is effective and influential overseas. In other words, it's the same role that the Tories have. The argument, as ever, is over the methods to achieve this.
The Tories have embraced that change in social liberalism. Indeed, in some cases - gay marriage - they have driven it forward.
Labour has not similarly embraced economic competence.
On Today 4, about 7.05am, there was an interview with a owner of a haulage company at Haverford West (ferry to Ireland). About 90% of his business is to and from Continental Europe (often make-up, perfumes etc). He is now closing this part of his business down due to the problems with migrants.
He said that they were cutting locks to enter the lorries - spoiling or ejecting the goods and then he had to go through insurance clams, which are proving troublesome. Who in France is selling them bolt-cutters?
This seems to be a perfect picture of swarming.
Why doesn't he go via a non-Chunnel crossing?
Ok here are some of the points that we know off and does not include the risk of changes that we don't.......
Cost of diversion, longevity of goods in transit delivery times, fuel cost, extra booking time, waiting time coz everyone else doing same stuff..... Redoing insurance, cargo claim , import license and custom declaration to entry point, goods in transit declarations, hazardous goods in transit , hazardous cargo on board ship , tow point segregation from other interactive cargo ( nightmares) declarations for ISPS. Oh and extra wages for driver, extra mileage for maintenance point , deniability of vehicle for next transport due to regulatory maintenance ., loss of business , insurance as result, loss of client as result, additional maintenance hours, driver hours, fuel stops,Etc etc etc
You don't get logistics obviously
The French certainly do, as do the French strikers and no doubt now the immigrants.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
On the same terms its extremely likely that some Falkland islanders would not have accepted the offer no matter how big, people with family buried there for example.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
On the same terms its extremely likely that some Falkland islanders would not have accepted the offer no matter how big, people with family buried there for example.
Some people with houses on the HS2 route or one of the 800 houses to be demolished by the 3rd Heathrow runway may be unwilling to accept any amount of compensation. But they will be moved regardless for the common good.
have no idea of what *does* make an electoral strategy to deliver power.
Sure they do...
Hollande won (and will likely lead to Le Pen next time round)
Syriza won (and Greece is even more ****ed)
Corbyn can win...
Le Pen is highly unlikely to win the next Presidential election in France, because the FN is still very transfer unfriendly.
Look at the latest local elections (this year) in France. The FN was widely expected to "win". They trailed the Republicans in the first round by 5%.
In the second round they did appallingly. They ended up with just 1.5% of councillors.
1.5%.
That's less than the Communists got. In fact, in heads up between the Communists and the FN, the Republicans and the Socialists broke clearly for the Communists. The FN's second round performance was disastrous and bodes very poorly for the FN in 2017.
The most likely election result is that Juppe leads on about 30%, with Le Pen on 25-26%, and Hollande trailing in the mid to high teens.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
Thatcher said it well:
The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.
Yet our government handed millions of Hong Kong Chinese over to the communists without allowing them a vote or full British passports.
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
That may have been the reason given. But if the Chinese had been happy for HK to continue as a British colony no doubt they could have ensured that it could.
That's not true. Had a deal not been struck, the Chinese would have invaded abd we could not have stopped them. The Chinese delegation frequently made this point during negotiations.
They didn't need to invade. Hong Kong was dependent on water from China. They could simply have turned the taps off.
That's less than the Communists got. In fact, in heads up between the Communists and the FN, the Republicans and the Socialists broke clearly for the Communists. The FN's second round performance was disastrous and bodes very poorly for the FN in 2017.
The most likely election result is that Juppe leads on about 30%, with Le Pen on 25-26%, and Hollande trailing in the mid to high teens.
Wasn't there a new item a day or two ago that the communists were now proposing to give their transfers to Le Pen because they couldn't face giving them to Hollande after the Greece fiasco ?
That's less than the Communists got. In fact, in heads up between the Communists and the FN, the Republicans and the Socialists broke clearly for the Communists. The FN's second round performance was disastrous and bodes very poorly for the FN in 2017.
The most likely election result is that Juppe leads on about 30%, with Le Pen on 25-26%, and Hollande trailing in the mid to high teens.
Wasn't there a new item a day or two ago that the communists were now proposing to give their transfers to Le Pen because they couldn't face giving them to Hollande after the Greece fiasco ?
As Hollande won't be in the second round, that's unlikely to be an issue :-)
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
On the same terms its extremely likely that some Falkland islanders would not have accepted the offer no matter how big, people with family buried there for example.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
On the same terms its extremely likely that some Falkland islanders would not have accepted the offer no matter how big, people with family buried there for example.
Some people with houses on the HS2 route or one of the 800 houses to be demolished by the 3rd Heathrow runway may be unwilling to accept any amount of compensation. But they will be moved regardless for the common good.
It's a tricky thing, democracy, isn't it.
If you are an example of the mentality that supports Corbyn - if you represent the real labour - then gawd help you. What an utter and complete ignorant bigot you are.
Labour's role should be to ensure that within our capitalist system the disadvantaged are not left behind, that there is genuine equality of opportunity, that entrenched elites do not dominate, that the UK stays together and that its voice is effective and influential overseas. In other words, it's the same role that the Tories have. The argument, as ever, is over the methods to achieve this.
To an outsider it appears that the argument has yet to reach that point, at least outside the "sensible wing" of Labour. Far too many centre and hard left Labour people appear unable to accept even that much of a change, and are still banging on about overthrowing the capitalist system and equality of outcomes. That argument either needs to be won or the part needs to split before your argument is going to get a hearing
I think this is the bind that the "sensible wing" of Lab find themselves in. Differentiating at the margin while avoiding a Creasy-esque string of platitudes is tricky - witness Harriet's troubles over welfare. As @SouthamObserver has noted, it is about competence or its perception.
If Lab can somehow engender the belief that they are competent, economically, then that would give them the wiggle room to push their (albeit similar) set of policies. To do this IMO could involve a flagship policy (I mentioned housing previously) presented in exhaustive economic detail, incorporating obvious criticisms and weaknesses (if only to avoid the letter to The Times from 200 economists rubbishing it).
Lab could then throw in all the nasty jibes and chumocracy stuff without it being perceived as empty rhetoric. It still hits home, especially as Dave can't seem to avoid appointing yet more Etonians to No.10.
Of course, as you say, this would be the "sensible wing" approach. It is none too certain that this wing will emerge intact after the leadership election.
have no idea of what *does* make an electoral strategy to deliver power.
Sure they do...
Hollande won (and will likely lead to Le Pen next time round)
Syriza won (and Greece is even more ****ed)
Corbyn can win...
Le Pen is highly unlikely to win the next Presidential election in France, because the FN is still very transfer unfriendly.
Look at the latest local elections (this year) in France. The FN was widely expected to "win". They trailed the Republicans in the first round by 5%.
In the second round they did appallingly. They ended up with just 1.5% of councillors.
1.5%.
That's less than the Communists got. In fact, in heads up between the Communists and the FN, the Republicans and the Socialists broke clearly for the Communists. The FN's second round performance was disastrous and bodes very poorly for the FN in 2017.
The most likely election result is that Juppe leads on about 30%, with Le Pen on 25-26%, and Hollande trailing in the mid to high teens.
FN did worse (in the first round) than polls predicted. Had they come first, I expect a lot of UMP supporters would have switched to them to keep out the Left.
However, the polls also put Labour at 64% in late 1997, and gave Blair an approval rating of 93% that September.
Rather satisfying to think I was one of the 7% not taken in by all that false charm.
One of the best bits of "what-iffery" is what if the media had not been so far up New Labour's colon, had gone for Blair over "the Ecclestone million" - and Blair had been forced to resign after a few months? (Blair himself reportedly said he thought it might have come to that). Whither New Labour without Blair?
1997 was the first time I took the plunge and voted Tory. Before then I had voted anyone but the Tory party. There was not a connection between the Labour hierarchy and me, Brown and Blair were not an attractive proposition. As an idiosyncratic person, I thought Major had done a decent job in many ways. I have a good record of going for the unpopular or counter cyclical option.
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
Anyway - I started this topic to demonstrate that those who think Corbyn is on a loser regarding the Falklands are only reflecting their own views and may be mistaken about the views of others. I think his theme of negotiation rather than war is popular.
Of course negotation rather than war is popular, it's something almost everyone supports. The problem I and many others have - and I have opposed most interventions - is when people extend that argument as though it is always possible to continue negotiations, and sometimes it is not, sometimes matters come to a head.
I recall around the time of the Libya intervention, which many will have opposed on principled grounds, and the place has certainly been a mess ever since, but there was a QT where people kept intervening to say things like 'We shouldn't get involved that is totally wrong...but I do think Gaddafi needs to step down' as though it was possible to get the latter without getting involved. That choice was not on the table. Sometimes, no matter how much we want to negotiate, the other side are not willing to meet us halfway. Sometimes, it is the other way around - it's a good default position, but insisting upon a position of negotiation even when the other side are not engaging, is not a morally superior position in my opinion, it is grandstanding. It's like someone saying we need to negotiate with IS and therefore any military involvement, however slight, would be wrong - now, it is simply not true to say we and others do not negotiate with terrorists, because in the real world sometimes you have to do that, and terrorists can become those you do business with in the end as we know only too well, but at the current time, it would not be appropriate to even attempt to negotiate with them.
So you see, it's not that he advocates negotiation not war that is an issue, nor that anyone querying him is automatically a hawk onmilitary matters, but that it appears (and this may not be the case) that it is an immovable, inviolable position for him, when the vagaries and complexities of international affairs may dictate that negotiation is not the best option sometimes when either it is not morally acceptable for us to moderate our position or the other side are unwilling to come to the table, and vice-versa.
In international affairs, even more so than many other positions, I think having such an automatic, unthinking approach is unsound.
And the Falkland Islanders being handed over to the Argies. I was astonished that @Barnesian thought we could sell them off for £100k a throw bribes. And describing it as a "win-win". Win for who exactly?
They also voted in a ref to remain British. Good for them.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
That may have been the reason given. But if the Chinese had been happy for HK to continue as a British colony no doubt they could have ensured that it could.
That's not true. Had a deal not been struck, the Chinese would have invaded abd we could not have stopped them. The Chinese delegation frequently made this point during negotiations.
Precisely. The Chinese were not happy for HK to continue as a British colony. That's why it did not happen.
The lease on the New Territories ran out. HK was not viable without them. There was no threat from Chinese invasion. HK was UK territory and any invasion would have been illegal. The hand over was well known about and understood for decades before 1999. It was all a question of how the negotiations went.
Strange is it not how the discussions have turned in respect of what Corbyn's far leftism means? The bile and hatred of the left is beginning to spill over. We see what Labour really are under the thin cloak of respectability.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
On the same terms its extremely likely that some Falkland islanders would not have accepted the offer no matter how big, people with family buried there for example.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
On the same terms its extremely likely that some Falkland islanders would not have accepted the offer no matter how big, people with family buried there for example.
Some people with houses on the HS2 route or one of the 800 houses to be demolished by the 3rd Heathrow runway may be unwilling to accept any amount of compensation. But they will be moved regardless for the common good.
It's a tricky thing, democracy, isn't it.
If you are an example of the mentality that supports Corbyn - if you represent the real labour - then gawd help you. What an utter and complete ignorant bigot you are.
I too travel to Africa a fair bit as I am involved in some medical education programmes in Southern and central Africa. I love the lands and people.
I think that you are unduly pessimistic about Africa. There are some real success stories out there with good governments and increasingly vibrant economies, as well as the headline basket cases. Not all aid has been wasted and it is increasingly well spent, particularly compared to the cold war days when superpowers propped up despots with aid as a bribe. The decline of infant mortality and rise of democracy are growing trends.
Ok will accept that of course as you have first hand. My point was real and as yours is/was first hand. I just get fed up sometimes with arm chair righteous people that can barely find the places on a map let alone go there criticising others that have.
You as a medical person / doctor are NOT one of those I mention in any way. You know though and really have to agree where I am coming from. You saw it yourself .......you just did.
That little white flag with that Red Cross is one of the few if not the only the beacon of hope for many.
Mr Palmer (earlier comment) is in good company - the entire Labour Party is taking a 'possibly permanent' holiday from 'serious politics'. Your Party needs you Mr Palmer, and where are you? Las Vegas!
Attlee was the most successful Labour leader. His government may have only lasted 6 years, but after it fell, what he created survived for over a generation.
have no idea of what *does* make an electoral strategy to deliver power.
Sure they do...
Hollande won (and will likely lead to Le Pen next time round)
Syriza won (and Greece is even more ****ed)
Corbyn can win...
Le Pen is highly unlikely to win the next Presidential election in France, because the FN is still very transfer unfriendly.
Look at the latest local elections (this year) in France. The FN was widely expected to "win". They trailed the Republicans in the first round by 5%.
In the second round they did appallingly. They ended up with just 1.5% of councillors.
1.5%.
That's less than the Communists got. In fact, in heads up between the Communists and the FN, the Republicans and the Socialists broke clearly for the Communists. The FN's second round performance was disastrous and bodes very poorly for the FN in 2017.
The most likely election result is that Juppe leads on about 30%, with Le Pen on 25-26%, and Hollande trailing in the mid to high teens.
FN did worse (in the first round) than polls predicted. Had they come first, I expect a lot of UMP supporters would have switched to them to keep out the Left.
Realistically if its Socialists vs FN then enough of the UMP and others would break to the Socialists to keep out the FN. More likely though is UMP vs FN in which case the Socialists and others would overwhelmingly (if begrudgingly) break to the UMP to keep out the FN.
have no idea of what *does* make an electoral strategy to deliver power.
Sure they do...
Hollande won (and will likely lead to Le Pen next time round)
Syriza won (and Greece is even more ****ed)
Corbyn can win...
Le Pen is highly unlikely to win the next Presidential election in France, because the FN is still very transfer unfriendly.
Look at the latest local elections (this year) in France. The FN was widely expected to "win". They trailed the Republicans in the first round by 5%.
In the second round they did appallingly. They ended up with just 1.5% of councillors.
1.5%.
That's less than the Communists got. In fact, in heads up between the Communists and the FN, the Republicans and the Socialists broke clearly for the Communists. The FN's second round performance was disastrous and bodes very poorly for the FN in 2017.
The most likely election result is that Juppe leads on about 30%, with Le Pen on 25-26%, and Hollande trailing in the mid to high teens.
FN did worse (in the first round) than polls predicted. Had they come first, I expect a lot of UMP supporters would have switched to them to keep out the Left.
I don't think that's true at all.
This is a local election, where the second round is between the two parties who came first and second in that particular ward.
It is highly unlikely that the national order will have any any effect on local transfer patterns.
If electability is paramount, what's the point of the Liberal Democrats?
Depends if you aspire to be a protest group or a party of government. The LDs were the former with a brief flirtation with the later. Labour are the later hell bend on becoming the former.
If only Tony Blair had listened a bit more. Corbyn is weak on economic policy, but on social and foreign policy he tends to be correct.
The problem is that if you don't get the economic bit right, you can't afford the social or anything else.
Foxinsox is letting loose his inner dribbling leftie. All Corbyn's (ie rampant loony leftie) so called 'social' stuff is utter rubbish. All the Left's 'spend spend spend until your eyeballs burst' rubbish was tested to destruction by the stark staring bonkers Brown.
LOL at some of of the rewriting of history today, Tory hubris is has reached peak point.
Yes, Tony Blair really did 'ape' the Tories on civil partnerships, the EU, the human rights act, the minimum wage, the expansion of the state in welfare changes, and redistributive policies. Overall New Labour was far more socially liberal than Thatcher and Major's conservative governments - the idea that they were merely a continuation of Conservative governments is actually absurd. Dave Ward would be bloody proud at that declaration. Blair's governments were also far more keen on state intervention into people's lives (arguably too much when you at civil liberties') and state expansion than his predecessors. They also cared far about inequality, and issues affecting ethnic minorities and women far more - which perhaps demonstrates again, that by 1997 Britain was a far more socially liberal place than it was before.
Looking at the Conservatives over 30 years, I have only seen them mention tackling inequality under Cameron - before that it appeared that Conservatives, particularly Thatcher were keen to tackle absolute poverty, but did not entertain the notion tackling of inequality. Likewise, with Cameron's modernising agenda there was a reason why he attempted to get more women, ethnic minorities, and others from various different backgrounds on his 'A List' - to demonstrate that the Tories had accepted Britain was a far more socially liberal place than before New Labour, and indeed New Labour had arguably reinforced this too - gay marriage, could not have happened without civil partnerships, it's predecessor. In fact gay marriage, was far more about the PR of showing the Tories were inclusive party and *not nasty* than the actual policy itself if we go by how many within the Tories had such a massive issue with it....
New Labour were also an high tax-spending government - not necessarily between 1997-2001, but between 2001-2010, they were. The Conservatives right now aim to be a small state, low tax spending government who are eurosceptic (and not Europhile unlike Labour) who do not believe in the role of welfare in alleviating effects of poverty that Labour did, reject the Human Rights Act, and who are not pursuing redistributive policies. The Tories initially opposed the minimum wage, too. The Tories also arguably strike a far harsher line of immigration than Labour historically, both under Thatcher and under Cameron now - whereas both Blair and Brown, took far more liberal attitudes to immigration.
If anything, rather than Labour aping the Tories, it's now the Tories aping Blair to some degree - with their free-school/academies policies where this most obvious.
As @SouthamObserver no party enjoys enthusiastic support except the SNP. I'm not even convinced that most people's view of the Conservative party has changed women under 45-55, most ethnic minorities, and those who are poor generally do not vote Conservative. The Conservatives really did win, simply because people viewed them as most competent - so the idea they'll be hard to budge on the basis of some kind of forever Tory rule that's been going on, is one I evidently reject. As @Jonathan has said, of course 1997 was a defeat for Tory ideas. It was a rejection of a party that was seen as non-inclusive, and one unfit to lead modern Britain who did not reflect people's dreams, hopes and aspirations. By that point people were not arguing about cutting spending, but actively wanted spending in public services such as the NHS. Arguably with the boom in credit, particularly under New Labour - Tory ideals on being 'thrifty etc' were also hardly present. The Conservatives were seen as a party for the 20th century, Labour for the 21st - that is definitively a rejection of ideas. William Hague's rather cringe-worthy appearance at Carnival was probably the most obvious example of this - wanting to show the party was modern and inclusive, rather than party just for one section of society.
That well known PB Tory, Helen Lewis, in that infamous right wing rag, The New Statesman, on 'virtue signalling' and why Twitter lost Labour the election
At a recent Gay Pride march, Burnham wore a T-shirt proclaiming that he’d “never kissed a Tory”. Well, if he wants to win the next election he’s going to have to do a bit more than kiss some Tories. He’s going to have to convince them to vote Labour. (That’s third base, at least, in my book.) Will reaching out to those voters be seen as a betrayal, too?
Ultimately, in the secrecy of the ballot, when there’s no more virtue signalling to be done, Corbyn will fade away. But the country will have taken note of a Labour Party that seems to prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of power.
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
Of course negotation rather than war is popular, it's something almost everyone supports. The problem I and many others have - and I have opposed most interventions - is when people extend that argument as though it is always possible to continue negotiations, and sometimes it is not, sometimes matters come to a head.
I recall around the time of the Libya intervention, which many will have opposed on principled grounds, and the place has certainly been a mess ever since, but there was a QT where people kept intervening to say things like 'We shouldn't get involved that is totally wrong...but I do think Gaddafi needs to step down' as though it was possible to get the latter without getting involved. That choice was not on the table. Sometimes, no matter how much we want to negotiate, the other side are not willing to meet us halfway. Sometimes, it is the other way around - it's a good default position, but insisting upon a position of negotiation even when the other side are not engaging, is not a morally superior position in my opinion, it is grandstanding. It's like someone saying we need to negotiate with IS and therefore any military involvement, however slight, would be wrong - now, it is simply not true to say we and others do not negotiate with terrorists, because in the real world sometimes you have to do that, and terrorists can become those you do business with in the end as we know only too well, but at the current time, it would not be appropriate to even attempt to negotiate with them.
So you see, it's not that he advocates negotiation not war that is an issue, nor that anyone querying him is automatically a hawk onmilitary matters, but that it appears (and this may not be the case) that it is an immovable, inviolable position for him, when the vagaries and complexities of international affairs may dictate that negotiation is not the best option sometimes when either it is not morally acceptable for us to moderate our position or the other side are unwilling to come to the table, and vice-versa.
In international affairs, even more so than many other positions, I think having such an automatic, unthinking approach is unsound.
New Labour stole the Tories clothes in 1997, and there was much spluttering with That Was Our Idea!!! from the Tories.
Then the Tories returned the favour in 2015, cue much spluttering from Labourites That Was Our Idea!!!
Stealing the best ideas and making them your own is Politics 101.
The argument here isn't IMHO about hubris or whataboutery - it's that a large chunk of Noisy Labour are name-calling Blairites as Tories. Hence the notion that 1997 wasn't a Labour win as Tony Was A Tory.
We weren't called Tony's Tories for nothing even back then. And now we vote for Dave's Tories. Without voters who do this - neither Party would win, calling us names doesn't really help.
If anything, rather than Labour aping the Tories, it's now the Tories aping Blair to some degree - with their free-school/academies policies where this most obvious.
As @SouthamObserver no party enjoys enthusiastic support except the SNP. I'm not even convinced that most people's view of the Conservative party has changed women under 45-55, most ethnic minorities, and those who are poor generally do not vote Conservative. The Conservatives really did win, simply because people viewed them as most competent - so the idea they'll be hard to budge on the basis of some kind of forever Tory rule that's been going on, is one I evidently reject. As @Jonathan has said, of course 1997 was a defeat for Tory ideas. It was a rejection of a party that was seen as non-inclusive, and one unfit to lead modern Britain who did not reflect people's dreams, hopes and aspirations. By that point people were not arguing about cutting spending, but actively wanted spending in public services such as the NHS. Arguably with the boom in credit, particularly under New Labour - Tory ideals on being 'thrifty etc' were also hardly present. The Conservatives were seen as a party for the 20th century, Labour for the 21st - that is definitively a rejection of ideas. William Hague's rather cringe-worthy appearance at Carnival was probably the most obvious example of this - wanting to show the party was modern and inclusive, rather than party just for one section of society.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmwqEg-06Ww
Also I believe that the ferries no longer have the capacity required?
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
I too travel to Africa a fair bit as I am involved in some medical education programmes in Southern and central Africa. I love the lands and people.
I think that you are unduly pessimistic about Africa. There are some real success stories out there with good governments and increasingly vibrant economies, as well as the headline basket cases. Not all aid has been wasted and it is increasingly well spent, particularly compared to the cold war days when superpowers propped up despots with aid as a bribe. The decline of infant mortality and rise of democracy are growing trends.
One of the best bits of "what-iffery" is what if the media had not been so far up New Labour's colon, had gone for Blair over "the Ecclestone million" - and Blair had been forced to resign after a few months? (Blair himself reportedly said he thought it might have come to that). Whither New Labour without Blair?
Mrs Thatcher also had secret talks with the provisional IRA, and indeed these contacts went right back to 1972. The flare up of the Troubles in the early eighties came largely about because of the attitude of the Thatcher government to the contacts.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher
In the early eighties, there was nothing to talk about. The IRA were making demands which the government had no intention of conceding. Talks only became viable when it became obvious that the IRA couldn't win.
I don't accept that Tory ideas were 'trounced'. To the extent that the party needed bringing up to date and reconnecting, it's done a good job to that end. But the reforms to education that Blair made, for example, were a direct continuation of the Major government's (and have simply been accelerated by Cameron's); Brown pre-1997 committed himself to Clarke's economic plan. And the list goes on.
'Labour' only achieved success under Blair when (and because) it was aping the Tories. All the Tories need to do is not to catch ideology again and to keep up with social changes and they'll be very hard to shift.
'He gives the money to Labour, he gets the deal he wants, then he gets his money back.'
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
So let's say (hypothetically) France decided it wants the Channel Islands. Should we pay the residents there under threat of invasion money to relocate? What about the residents of Dover...?
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
They could have kept their British way of life, with allegiance to the Crown on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
Yes, I know when I first learned of the Falklands War, being born after it, I would definitely have thought paying British citizens to leave their homes to appease the sort of people who invade and kill when they don't get their way was a great idea. I cannot believe a British government had the gall not to, why it's practically their fault the Argentinians invaded.
I'm just kidding Tories, do not worry.
Such a deal would have been possible for the Falklands had not the Argies invaded.
But the Hong Kong Chinese were not given the same voice as the white people of the Falklands (indeed in 1982 Falkland Islanders did not have right to reside in the UK either as I recall).
Once the Argies started the war they lost their claim on the Falklands. We won the war fair and square.
They could have kept their British way of life, their allegiance to the Crown, on a Scottish island with £1,000,000 a family. They would have been better off. Britain would have been better off. But Maggie might not have won her election. It suited her to stir up jingoism (which sickened me at the time). A lot of people were opposed to it at the time. This is not revisionism.
When Corbyn explains what happened to young people who were not around at the time to experience the jingoism, many will say WTF?
I think you're pretty confused on this issue. Argentina was the aggressor, not the UK.
But the Hong Kong Chinese were not given the same voice as the white people of the Falklands (indeed in 1982 Falkland Islanders did not have right to reside in the UK either as I recall).
Once the Argies started the war they lost their claim on the Falklands. We won the war fair and square.
The reason we had to deal with the Chinese is due to the lease of the New Territories, at the end of which the land becomes Chinese territory. If those lands weren't leased, it'd probably still be a British territory now (or in independent city state perhaps).
Edit: and I'm not sure what race has to do with it? Are you suggesting the people in Hong Kong were treated differently because of racism?
So what they did was negotiate, from a position of weakness, to protect the interests of the Hong Kong citizens. The One China / Two Systems approach was the result and - despite the occasional challenge - it's more or less held together to the great benefit of the people of both Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
They did of course keep Chris Woodhead - but since he was a failed teacher on essentially an ego trip, rather than somebody with practical ideas on how to improve schools, he didn't actually help matters. And of course, the revelations of his affair with a pupil (I know he always denied it - it's just that his denials were fairly clearly not true) made matters worse for the government.
They also introduced things like literacy hour and numeracy hour, which were very prescriptive, badly designed and did not in any way support a rise in literacy or numeracy.
I would argue that what happened was Labour tried to undo the key school reforms of Major, and then a few years later realised that some of them had actually been introduced because they were major improvements and brought them back on the quiet. But you can't restore lost education. I was at school under Blair - mine was one of the ones that had its funding whipped away - and a concomitant loss of teaching staff certainly damaged my education as the staff/student ratio rocketed and half of the remaining staff went off with stress.
A similar thing happened with the scrapping and reintroduction of the NHS internal market, of course.
So I think Blair tried to be Labour in office, then realised, far too late, that there was a good reason why people didn't vote Labour in the 1980s.
More seriously, that is the implication I get and its silly. If I stand on someone's foot, provoke them even deliberately, and they punch me in the face, their action is still the more unreasonable as they unacceptably escalated things , and my responding with force would be the more justified. We weren't bribing people to leave, but I'm sure everyone agrees not meeting the Argentinians half way did not justify them invading. Them doing so meant responding with force was the only way, and it isn't our fault for not being more willing to bend beforehand, as the Argentinian response was still an unacceptable escalation.
I also note you've increased your bribe from £100k to £1m.
I increased it from £100,000 per person to £1,000,000 per family to make it clear that the Falklanders would have accepted it and we would still have been ahead.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
The minimum wage was a Labour initiative and one the Tories needed to catch up on, which has happened.
We owned Hong Kong on a lease. There was nothing we could do about the handover save gain as much as possible creating as little resentment or anger as possible.
We owned the New Territories on a lease, not Hong Kong and Kowloon. They were British territory. But we knew what would happen if we did not hand them back. The Canadians, the Americans, the Chinese and the Australians have reaped the considerable benefits of our shameful refusal not to give Hong Kong residents full British passports.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
How is it apple and chalk? Both are British territory inhabited by British citizens. I'm not sure what support has to do with it, does that somehow nullify our Government's commitment to defend it's citizens?
I would still love to go for the sights and the experience, but I expect only a day or two would do me fine.
Thatcher said it well:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4513159.ece
I'm struggling to think of a single mainstream journalist who thinks Jeremy Corbyn is the right answer to any question bar rolling in the aisles by Tories. Even the Guardian are accused of bias against him.
Come off it the Tories were trounced and forever changed by Blair who forced them to adapt to the C 21. I cite current Tory attitudes to minimum wages and gay relationship s that are 180 degrees from 1997.
To argue that Labour didn't trounce the Tories 97-05 is absurd.
Wasn't the reason the island was handed back because it didn't have the necessary infrastructure to sustain it's population without the New Territories?
They are going to be tougher to shift than LibDem limpets....
It's an independent country that has a relationship with the Crown.
(So, basically, we were standing up to a bully on behalf of the Queen)
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
Britain had a lot more support than Argentina at the UN. But in any case, a nation is entitled to defend itself, regardless of support.
France and the Channel Islands is apples and chalk. The Falkland Island dispute was two-sided. Britain didn't have much support. Even the US was lukewarm.
Yuck. So much for morality. Its not about who has support for what, its about what is legal and right. Northern Ireland had a referendum in 1973 to ask if they wanted to stay part of the UK or join the Republic, should we have been offering to pay them money to influence that vote because The Troubles were a bit inconvenient ? How would we have felt if the Republic had been offering them 100k each to vote to join them. I know, lets offer the Scots 100k each to vote to stay in the union, I am sure the SNP wont mind (oh wait, they did vote to stay in for a generation, never mind then
For free entertainment, it's unbeatable - every hotel is an eye-watering explosion of OTTness. And who couldn't love the fountains outside the Bellagio?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x21kClCjkW0
That may have been the reason given. But if the Chinese had been happy for HK to continue as a British colony no doubt they could have ensured that it could.
But they probably weren't. So what were we to do? I think I agree on the passport issue though, although I haven't read much into reasons why it wasn't done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_GFQZEbSYc
The voters let New Labour have office because they perpetuated much of the Tory rule. There was nothing much to scare the horses about New Labour. Not until Gordon Brown came along - and looked scarily unreliable - did Labour's right to rule get revoked. .It remained revoked under Miliband. It will remain revoked under Corbyn.
That's not true. Had a deal not been struck, the Chinese would have invaded abd we could not have stopped them. The Chinese delegation frequently made this point during negotiations.
Precisely. The Chinese were not happy for HK to continue as a British colony. That's why it did not happen.
Lab, perhaps because they never embarked upon an NPXMP-type odyssey to find out what is happening in the real world (travels for example post-1978 in China would have been illuminating), are hanging onto a semi-unreconstructed socialist view of the world or at least Jezza is.
Tony got it, and was long before and after the most approachable PM (I once saw him in a bar quietly and intently watching Arsenal vs Chelsea) and therefore a pragmatist.
I continue to ask what the point of Lab is, save, as another poster put it aptly previously today, to be slightly nicer people implementing more or less the same policies as the Cons.
Fear of newspaper headlines about Chinese hordes descending on Britain, I imagine. .
Edit: I understand now, that's the reason as to why "it wasn't done".. Sorry!
We are still paying bribes to Northern Ireland to keep the peace.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no matter how large so you would still have had war.
Morality is about doing what is right while minimising suffering. War is sometimes the moral thing to do, but most often it isn't if there are other solutions that bring lasting peace with less suffering (and at a lower cost).
Anyway - I started this topic to demonstrate that those who think Corbyn is on a loser regarding the Falklands are only reflecting their own views and may be mistaken about the views of others. I think his theme of negotiation rather than war is popular.
It's a tricky thing, democracy, isn't it.
He cites 1931 and Ramsey MacDonald as an example of the heresy-hunting insults thrown today at Liz Kendall.
Not having Gordon's PhD in Labour Party history - is that a fair point? I have no grasp as to what happened before the mid-60s here.
I suspect that most Brits would have been quite happy if the Republic had offered a bribe to people in Northen Ireland to join the Republic and they went along with it. The problem was that some Unionists wouldn't have accepted any bribe no mtter how large so you would still have had war.
Morality is about doing what is right while minimising suffering. War is sometimes the moral thing to do, but most often it isn't if there are other solutions that bring lasting peace with less suffering (and at a lower cost).
Anyway - I started this topic to demonstrate that those who think Corbyn is on a loser regarding the Falklands are only reflecting their own views and may be mistaken about the views of others. I think his theme of negotiation rather than war is popular.
Self-defence is always moral.
I think you're the one who's projecting your views onto the voters in general.
Labour has not similarly embraced economic competence.
Cost of diversion, longevity of goods in transit delivery times, fuel cost, extra booking time, waiting time coz everyone else doing same stuff..... Redoing insurance, cargo claim , import license and custom declaration to entry point, goods in transit declarations, hazardous goods in transit , hazardous cargo on board ship , tow point segregation from other interactive cargo ( nightmares) declarations for ISPS. Oh and extra wages for driver, extra mileage for maintenance point , deniability of vehicle for next transport due to regulatory maintenance ., loss of business , insurance as result, loss of client as result, additional maintenance hours, driver hours, fuel stops,Etc etc etc
You don't get logistics obviously
The French certainly do, as do the French strikers and no doubt now the immigrants.
EDIT
That's just for one 20 foot 8''6 container
Think of hundreds.... Thousands....
It's a tricky thing, democracy, isn't it.
Look at the latest local elections (this year) in France. The FN was widely expected to "win". They trailed the Republicans in the first round by 5%.
In the second round they did appallingly. They ended up with just 1.5% of councillors.
1.5%.
That's less than the Communists got. In fact, in heads up between the Communists and the FN, the Republicans and the Socialists broke clearly for the Communists. The FN's second round performance was disastrous and bodes very poorly for the FN in 2017.
The most likely election result is that Juppe leads on about 30%, with Le Pen on 25-26%, and Hollande trailing in the mid to high teens.
They didn't need to invade. Hong Kong was dependent on water from China. They could simply have turned the taps off.
narrowing the gap between the winners and the losers, maybe?
If Lab can somehow engender the belief that they are competent, economically, then that would give them the wiggle room to push their (albeit similar) set of policies. To do this IMO could involve a flagship policy (I mentioned housing previously) presented in exhaustive economic detail, incorporating obvious criticisms and weaknesses (if only to avoid the letter to The Times from 200 economists rubbishing it).
Lab could then throw in all the nasty jibes and chumocracy stuff without it being perceived as empty rhetoric. It still hits home, especially as Dave can't seem to avoid appointing yet more Etonians to No.10.
Of course, as you say, this would be the "sensible wing" approach. It is none too certain that this wing will emerge intact after the leadership election.
Labour 364
Conservative 253 (includes Ulster Unionists and National Liberals)
Liberal 12
Republican Labour 1
Labour Majority of 98.
Of course negotation rather than war is popular, it's something almost everyone supports. The problem I and many others have - and I have opposed most interventions - is when people extend that argument as though it is always possible to continue negotiations, and sometimes it is not, sometimes matters come to a head.
I recall around the time of the Libya intervention, which many will have opposed on principled grounds, and the place has certainly been a mess ever since, but there was a QT where people kept intervening to say things like 'We shouldn't get involved that is totally wrong...but I do think Gaddafi needs to step down' as though it was possible to get the latter without getting involved. That choice was not on the table. Sometimes, no matter how much we want to negotiate, the other side are not willing to meet us halfway. Sometimes, it is the other way around - it's a good default position, but insisting upon a position of negotiation even when the other side are not engaging, is not a morally superior position in my opinion, it is grandstanding. It's like someone saying we need to negotiate with IS and therefore any military involvement, however slight, would be wrong - now, it is simply not true to say we and others do not negotiate with terrorists, because in the real world sometimes you have to do that, and terrorists can become those you do business with in the end as we know only too well, but at the current time, it would not be appropriate to even attempt to negotiate with them.
So you see, it's not that he advocates negotiation not war that is an issue, nor that anyone querying him is automatically a hawk onmilitary matters, but that it appears (and this may not be the case) that it is an immovable, inviolable position for him, when the vagaries and complexities of international affairs may dictate that negotiation is not the best option sometimes when either it is not morally acceptable for us to moderate our position or the other side are unwilling to come to the table, and vice-versa.
In international affairs, even more so than many other positions, I think having such an automatic, unthinking approach is unsound.
The lease on the New Territories ran out. HK was not viable without them. There was no threat from Chinese invasion. HK was UK territory and any invasion would have been illegal. The hand over was well known about and understood for decades before 1999. It was all a question of how the negotiations went.
Strange is it not how the discussions have turned in respect of what Corbyn's far leftism means? The bile and hatred of the left is beginning to spill over. We see what Labour really are under the thin cloak of respectability.
You as a medical person / doctor are NOT one of those I mention in any way. You know though and really have to agree where I am coming from. You saw it yourself .......you just did.
That little white flag with that Red Cross is one of the few if not the only the beacon of hope for many.
Your Party needs you Mr Palmer, and where are you? Las Vegas!
More likely though is UMP vs FN in which case the Socialists and others would overwhelmingly (if begrudgingly) break to the UMP to keep out the FN.
In transit and know the issues. if I don't answer please repost. Except apologies now in long haul
This is a local election, where the second round is between the two parties who came first and second in that particular ward.
It is highly unlikely that the national order will have any any effect on local transfer patterns.
LOL at some of of the rewriting of history today, Tory hubris is has reached peak point.
Yes, Tony Blair really did 'ape' the Tories on civil partnerships, the EU, the human rights act, the minimum wage, the expansion of the state in welfare changes, and redistributive policies. Overall New Labour was far more socially liberal than Thatcher and Major's conservative governments - the idea that they were merely a continuation of Conservative governments is actually absurd. Dave Ward would be bloody proud at that declaration. Blair's governments were also far more keen on state intervention into people's lives (arguably too much when you at civil liberties') and state expansion than his predecessors. They also cared far about inequality, and issues affecting ethnic minorities and women far more - which perhaps demonstrates again, that by 1997 Britain was a far more socially liberal place than it was before.
Looking at the Conservatives over 30 years, I have only seen them mention tackling inequality under Cameron - before that it appeared that Conservatives, particularly Thatcher were keen to tackle absolute poverty, but did not entertain the notion tackling of inequality. Likewise, with Cameron's modernising agenda there was a reason why he attempted to get more women, ethnic minorities, and others from various different backgrounds on his 'A List' - to demonstrate that the Tories had accepted Britain was a far more socially liberal place than before New Labour, and indeed New Labour had arguably reinforced this too - gay marriage, could not have happened without civil partnerships, it's predecessor. In fact gay marriage, was far more about the PR of showing the Tories were inclusive party and *not nasty* than the actual policy itself if we go by how many within the Tories had such a massive issue with it....
New Labour were also an high tax-spending government - not necessarily between 1997-2001, but between 2001-2010, they were. The Conservatives right now aim to be a small state, low tax spending government who are eurosceptic (and not Europhile unlike Labour) who do not believe in the role of welfare in alleviating effects of poverty that Labour did, reject the Human Rights Act, and who are not pursuing redistributive policies. The Tories initially opposed the minimum wage, too. The Tories also arguably strike a far harsher line of immigration than Labour historically, both under Thatcher and under Cameron now - whereas both Blair and Brown, took far more liberal attitudes to immigration.
Continued:
If anything, rather than Labour aping the Tories, it's now the Tories aping Blair to some degree - with their free-school/academies policies where this most obvious.
As @SouthamObserver no party enjoys enthusiastic support except the SNP. I'm not even convinced that most people's view of the Conservative party has changed women under 45-55, most ethnic minorities, and those who are poor generally do not vote Conservative. The Conservatives really did win, simply because people viewed them as most competent - so the idea they'll be hard to budge on the basis of some kind of forever Tory rule that's been going on, is one I evidently reject. As @Jonathan has said, of course 1997 was a defeat for Tory ideas. It was a rejection of a party that was seen as non-inclusive, and one unfit to lead modern Britain who did not reflect people's dreams, hopes and aspirations. By that point people were not arguing about cutting spending, but actively wanted spending in public services such as the NHS. Arguably with the boom in credit, particularly under New Labour - Tory ideals on being 'thrifty etc' were also hardly present. The Conservatives were seen as a party for the 20th century, Labour for the 21st - that is definitively a rejection of ideas. William Hague's rather cringe-worthy appearance at Carnival was probably the most obvious example of this - wanting to show the party was modern and inclusive, rather than party just for one section of society.
I recall around the time of the Libya intervention, which many will have opposed on principled grounds, and the place has certainly been a mess ever since, but there was a QT where people kept intervening to say things like 'We shouldn't get involved that is totally wrong...but I do think Gaddafi needs to step down' as though it was possible to get the latter without getting involved. That choice was not on the table. Sometimes, no matter how much we want to negotiate, the other side are not willing to meet us halfway. Sometimes, it is the other way around - it's a good default position, but insisting upon a position of negotiation even when the other side are not engaging, is not a morally superior position in my opinion, it is grandstanding. It's like someone saying we need to negotiate with IS and therefore any military involvement, however slight, would be wrong - now, it is simply not true to say we and others do not negotiate with terrorists, because in the real world sometimes you have to do that, and terrorists can become those you do business with in the end as we know only too well, but at the current time, it would not be appropriate to even attempt to negotiate with them.
So you see, it's not that he advocates negotiation not war that is an issue, nor that anyone querying him is automatically a hawk onmilitary matters, but that it appears (and this may not be the case) that it is an immovable, inviolable position for him, when the vagaries and complexities of international affairs may dictate that negotiation is not the best option sometimes when either it is not morally acceptable for us to moderate our position or the other side are unwilling to come to the table, and vice-versa.
In international affairs, even more so than many other positions, I think having such an automatic, unthinking approach is unsound.
A good post.
@asabenn: Admirably detailed answer by @stellacreasy to the Mumsnet biscuit question http://t.co/CelYHwr24s
Then the Tories returned the favour in 2015, cue much spluttering from Labourites That Was Our Idea!!!
Stealing the best ideas and making them your own is Politics 101.
The argument here isn't IMHO about hubris or whataboutery - it's that a large chunk of Noisy Labour are name-calling Blairites as Tories. Hence the notion that 1997 wasn't a Labour win as Tony Was A Tory.
We weren't called Tony's Tories for nothing even back then. And now we vote for Dave's Tories. Without voters who do this - neither Party would win, calling us names doesn't really help.