Not sure if that is the right sort of dogs - those with big jaws and sharp teeth may be better, especially if they are free to wander in the gap of a double fence.
Not sure if that is the right sort of dogs - those with big jaws and sharp teeth may be better, especially if they are free to wander in the gap of a double fence.
'Although sources suggested land could be released for an alternative lorry park to help ease the backlog - as Operation Stack remains in place - they dismissed reports that service personnel were poised to play any significant role.
Potential locations under discussions included the disused Manston Airport, in Kent.'
Mr. CD13, in medieval siege warfare, tunnels were dug to undermine foundations. Sometimes they would be counter-mined, and (on occasion) an angry bear or bees were sent down to attack the enemy.
Edited extra bit: also worth reading up on Wojtek the soldier-bear. A bear that was adopted by Polish troops in WWII. He caught a spy in the shower, drank beer, carried munitions and saw action at Monte Casino.
Not sure if that is the right sort of dogs - those with big jaws and sharp teeth may be better, especially if they are free to wander in the gap of a double fence.
Furry land sharks - the RAF have a few. What's happened to the ones that were in Afghanistan?
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
Once the lease expired, China had both the legal and moral right to the New Territories. And China had only to turn off the water supply to the rest of colony.
Neither Argentina nor the IRA had any legal or moral right to the territories they were seeking to conquer, and the British government was capable of resisting their attacks.
We agree. The UK had a right to Hong Kong and Kowloon, but instead they correctly negotiated and handed over the territories with a few conditions on their medium-term governance, to avoid a potential future involving costly and damaging conflict.
Or Trident, or on austerity, or on tuition fees, or on the Renationalisation of the railways, or on a highly unbalanced view on Palestine..
I don't quite get the renationalise the railways bit. I think it has become a kind of left slogan without real meaning. I was against the original privatisation and thought, rightly IMHO, that it was a dog's breakfast. But here we are twenty years later and the major issue seems to me that we need serious long-term investment in upgrade and new capacity and the publically owned bit (National Rail) seems to be a mess. Let's sort that out first before another wholesale top-down reorganisation.
It should be noted things were gradually improving even under BR - for example, the Chase line to Cannock and the Settle and Carlisle both had expanded passenger services before privatisation although things have improved more since.
However, it should also be noted - and this severely weakens the case for renationalisation - is that one key reason reason the railways are so much more expensive is because they have had to have massive investment in them to deal with what one of the Bob Reids called 'the crumbling edge of quality' - in other words, to make up for the fact that BR had not put any money into most of them for over forty years. This was of course because the civil servants at the Department of Transport believed that railways were out of date and needed to be gradually run down and replaced by roads ('managed decline' in their jargon) and although a few ministers, mostly Labour, tried to beat against it they were unable to make much headway. So as railways were to be got rid of, why waste money on them?
Renationalisation would have its advantages, starting with reintegrating the track and trains (possibly the worst idea in history to break the two up) but it's certainly not a panacea.
By picking railway nationalisation as a standard the left continually fails to appreciate that the railways suffered 35 years of managed decline under Government control. Private investment has brought huge improvements in quality and frequency of many services but at the expense of very high ticket prices. I'm not keen to go back here although I'd like to see a review of fares... And I'd be surprised if drivers, many of whom routinely earn 50-60K these days would be keen to go back as well.
Not sure if that is the right sort of dogs - those with big jaws and sharp teeth may be better, especially if they are free to wander in the gap of a double fence.
Many of the migrants will come from cultures that are terrified of dogs - broadly, Muslim and African countries. There would be MUCH greater reluctance to go under a fence if there was a high chance of meeting an Alsation on the other side. Although I suspect it won't be long before the first dog gets poisoned....
Remarkably few leadership polls being leaked recently, ie none. – Presumably even after selective tweaking, there aren't any decent ones for Andy and Eyvette?
This is an outstanding account of the IRA's campaign, by MLR Smith. In essence, they thought they could defeat the British militarily, up till the late 70's. They then adopted a long war strategy, believing that eventually, the British government would just get sick of keeping Northern Ireland in the UK. That lasted up till the early nineties, when they realised that the British were quite capable of absorbing the losses that they were inflicting (and at the same time, they were suffering at British and Loyalist hands). At no point prior to the 1990s would the IRA have settled for Northern Ireland remaining a part of the UK.
Well, history is all a matter of interpretation so who am I to criticise especially without having read it to consider the evidence, but I am not sure the author of that book had any more insight on the thinking of the IRA Army Council than you or I do. For instance, too much of a focus on the territorial objective is characteristic of a standard and valid military history analysis, but it ignores other important strategic and tactical motives for small paramilitary groups, like the self-mandated protection of Catholics from loyalist violence that motivated some to join the IRA. Furthermore, the loyalists weren't just background actors who took a few decades to make themselves obvious. It was a pretty relentless campaign from them too in the 1970s, eventually involving a lot of chaps with NF/BNP tendencies, and we now know that the extent of government support for them through collusion was large.
There was a definite peace dividend period (bar the breakup of Yugoslavia) in the nineties as terrorist groups supported by the Soviets with either tacit or overt technical and ideological support came around to political solutions.
At least until the Islamists arose to provide a counterbalance to the secular liberal capitalist world view. Politics abhorrs a vacuum.
On this track, with players out of form and against Bowlers who will surely be giving it their all, anything over 120 or so has to put England on a nervous footing. Time's like this I hate the free flowing, decent tail end batsmen you get a lot more of in modern times, for all it helps England too, normally. Whatever happened to the rabbits and weasels (so called becaue they go in after the rabbits) of yesteryear, of averages sub-5.
Chris Martin, anyone? How someone could average 2 with the bad is beyond me, no matter how bad they are.
How very odd, send out the membership card automatically and then decide not to let the person join... do you get any nice discounts if you show your membership card ?
How the mighty fall. Was a time that Hatton had the whole of the Labour Party in his pocket....
Did they remember to tell him that he'd been rejected or refund his application fee?
I thought this might happen. England are going to be under huge pressure now. Lyth and Bairstow definitely won't be able to cope with it. Buttler is wobbly. Let's hope the others can hold firm. The Aussie bowlers will be well up for it and Lyon can spin the ball. Another 30 runs or so and the Austealians could start to become a very good value bet.
"Strip away the blind hatred of Thatcher, and the idea that any PM would sacrifice the lives of hundreds of servicemen and naval vessels purely to win votes, rather than go with the ' 'easier' option of simply paying off those threatened by invasion to accept their new overlords is frankly ridiculous.
The Left would be unlikely to say the same of Jim Callaghan, 30 years later, had he won in '79 and been in the same position of executing the Falklands War to regain Sovereign ruled territory.
It's only an issue because 'Evil Milk Snatching Maggie' did it. Nothing more. Some people need to move on."
I don't really think she did it to win an election - though was the consequence. She did it because that's who she was. That was her personality. You've seen the photo of her enjoying herself in a tank.
And yet you're not critical of this picture, for example
My police officers are regularly called away from their jobs protecting the citizens of Surrey and sent to the M25 at Cobham services, where they have to run around mopping up hordes of illegal migrants. In the past few months alone, Surrey Police have caught 156 people piling out of lorries as their drivers stop for diesel or a coffee. Recently, in Redhill, we had another 16 go on the run in an industrial park. No one knows how many we missed. The last time they were sent to Cobham, police caught 20.
These operations take out virtually half of Surrey’s 999 response capability and can tie up our nine prisoner vans for hours, as well the helicopter and all the dogs we can spare, to say nothing of jamming up the county’s cells. The migrants have become a serious threat to our residents: we can’t respond to their needs or patrol adequately.
The government better do more than more sniffer dogs and fences pretty damn quick or this is going to get out of hand on many fronts, not least politically.
Those of us in East Kent have been putting up with this for ages, saying nothing will be done until it affects people further afield. Nothing is a problem until its on your doorstep.
"Strip away the blind hatred of Thatcher, and the idea that any PM would sacrifice the lives of hundreds of servicemen and naval vessels purely to win votes, rather than go with the ' 'easier' option of simply paying off those threatened by invasion to accept their new overlords is frankly ridiculous.
The Left would be unlikely to say the same of Jim Callaghan, 30 years later, had he won in '79 and been in the same position of executing the Falklands War to regain Sovereign ruled territory.
It's only an issue because 'Evil Milk Snatching Maggie' did it. Nothing more. Some people need to move on."
I don't really think she did it to win an election - though was the consequence. She did it because that's who she was. That was her personality. You've seen the photo of her enjoying herself in a tank.
And yet you're not critical of this picture, for example
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
This is an outstanding account of the IRA's campaign, by MLR Smith. In essence, they thought they could defeat the British militarily, up till the late 70's. They then adopted a long war strategy, believing that eventually, the British government would just get sick of keeping Northern Ireland in the UK. That lasted up till the early nineties, when they realised that the British were quite capable of absorbing the losses that they were inflicting (and at the same time, they were suffering at British and Loyalist hands). At no point prior to the 1990s would the IRA have settled for Northern Ireland remaining a part of the UK.
Well, history is all a matter of interpretation so who am I to criticise especially without having read it to consider the evidence, but I am not sure the author of that book had any more insight on the thinking of the IRA Army Council than you or I do. For instance, too much of a focus on the territorial objective is characteristic of a standard and valid military history analysis, but it ignores other important strategic and tactical motives for small paramilitary groups, like the self-mandated protection of Catholics from loyalist violence that motivated some to join the IRA. Furthermore, the loyalists weren't just background actors who took a few decades to make themselves obvious. It was a pretty relentless campaign from them too in the 1970s, eventually involving a lot of chaps with NF/BNP tendencies, and we now know that the extent of government support for them through collusion was large.
There was a definite peace dividend period (bar the breakup of Yugoslavia) in the nineties as terrorist groups supported by the Soviets with either tacit or overt technical and ideological support came around to political solutions.
At least until the Islamists arose to provide a counterbalance to the secular liberal capitalist world view. Politics abhorrs a vacuum.
Naturally. And it wasn't just terrorists who had to re-invent themselves, but also non-violent radicals and anyone else who had identified as ploughing a middle path between the extremes of US capitalism and Soviet socialism. Locally it was the Stickies in the Official IRA who were funded by the USSR - the Provos, of course, got their cash from the god-fearing US of A.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
Tory Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr. Corbyn. They may be your last as Labour Leader.
Jeremy Corbyn: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"? [He unsheathes and points his sword at the Messenger's throat]
Tory Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Jeremy Corbyn: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.[referring to the well]
Tory Messenger: No man, Tory or Labour, no man threatens a messenger!
Jeremy Corbyn: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered Trades Unions to Islington's city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my Party with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
Tory Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Jeremy Corbyn: Madness...? This is LABOUR! [He kicks the Tory messenger down the well]
Come on, Mr. Observer, it's not like the English cricket team has just been captured after losing the Battle of Kleidion.
It's going to be horrible. Defeat from the jaws of victory. A compelling, infuriating, inevitable collapse awaits us. But will we scrape over the line? This time, I fear not.
Just wonder how much the French government/Calais Mayor is limiting what the UK can do to protect the Chunnel etc and deter the would-be migrants?
Well it's in their interests to put a stop to the problem. Property prices and local businesses must be feeling the pain.
They have the same problem we do though. If they make life easy and pleasant for these people then they will stop wanting to go to the UK and all claim asylum in France, and many times as many will follow with the same expectation.
Just wonder how much the French government/Calais Mayor is limiting what the UK can do to protect the Chunnel etc and deter the would-be migrants?
Well it's in their interests to put a stop to the problem. Property prices and local businesses must be feeling the pain.
They have the same problem we do though. If they make life easy and pleasant for these people then they will stop wanting to go to the UK and all claim asylum in France, and many times as many will follow with the same expectation.
Perhaps the French could tighten up their own borders?
As RCS points out, the fastest way to get results would be massive fines and lengthy jail terms for employing illegals.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
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.
Did SF ever think they could win by force? Surely the support given to loyalists was sufficient to convince them otherwise from the early 70s at latest. It's a Conservative Party version of history, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it is too neatly designed to say "Thatcher Strong" when the real status quo in Northern Ireland was not stability but brutality.
The more convincing interpretation of history, to me, is that talks started when the IRA switched from killing Irish people, which didn't garner much concern in Britain, to maximising damage to British commercial targets like Manchester city centre and Canary Wharf.
Not true. The IRA had several bombing campaigns in England in the Seventies. Both sides escalated the violence in the early eighties.
There's no contradiction between what we wrote. Yes, there were bombing campaigns through the 70s, 80s and part of the early 90s. But it was clear that official government support for loyalists would see every IRA action responded to with equal and opposite force. Callaghan and Thatcher authorised unofficial talks with the IRA, but the situation was not considered in need of urgent resolution. Later, the focus switched dramatically from violence in Ireland to outrages targeted at Britain, and specifically, major commercial areas like Canary Wharf. Then people started to talk.
Birmingham, Guildford, Hyde Park and Brighton all happened LONG before Canary Wharf and Manchester.
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?
"1 - The concept of paying them to move may not have been officially suggested, but the Islanders are not unaware of the concept. I was warned not to bring up the subject in casual social discussion; an earlier person had (using the 1 million per Islander level) and the response had been extremely negative.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations."
Touchy lot. They expect a great deal don't they! All that blood and treasure. And you can't bring it up in casual social discussion or risk an extremely negative response. If that's true, they've lost my sympathy.
If any householder turned down a £1m offer for their £300K house in the way of the 3rd Heathrow runway, they'd get little sympathy.
You keep citing that invalid analogy. They weren't being turfed out to make way for a public utility. If someone had their home invaded at gunpoint, and the authorities responded by refusing to confront the aggressors because violence is bad, that would be wrong. It doesn't matter if it's cheaper and easier. It would also bring into question the point of recognising the authorities at all.
Argentina invaded their home. Killing people. Demanding their home be surrendered. Meek acquiescence would have been despicable and an abdication of authority. I wouldn't have signed up to defend a country that operated your instant surrender policy. It may achieve temporary "peace in our time", but you soon run out of concessions to give.
It's the equivalent of advising a bullied child to ensure they give up whatever the bully wants as quickly as possible and not doing anything else.
Tory Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr. Corbyn. They may be your last as Labour Leader.
Jeremy Corbyn: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"? [He unsheathes and points his sword at the Messenger's throat]
Tory Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Jeremy Corbyn: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.[referring to the well]
Tory Messenger: No man, Tory or Labour, no man threatens a messenger!
Jeremy Corbyn: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered Trades Unions to Islington's city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my Party with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
Tory Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Jeremy Corbyn: Madness...? This is LABOUR! [He kicks the Tory messenger down the well]
- You there. What is your profession? - I am an aspirational lawyer in a Middle England constituency, sir. - And you, Blairite. What is your profession? - I am a brand image specialist, sir. - Spartacists? What is your profession? - HOOAH! HOOAH! HOOAH!
England need 100 now. This is going to be one hell of a lot closer than expected.
I expected it. The afternoon is going to be very, very tense, and quite possibly intensely unpleasant.
Don't. I missed my chance to back the convicts at decent odds yesterday, have stuck with my initial bets of backing Eng and laying the draw at the start, both at 4/1. Spent yesterday evening laughing and sledging in an Aussie bar, think I'll stay home and watch today... Only England can so easily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
"Strip away the blind hatred of Thatcher, and the idea that any PM would sacrifice the lives of hundreds of servicemen and naval vessels purely to win votes, rather than go with the ' 'easier' option of simply paying off those threatened by invasion to accept their new overlords is frankly ridiculous.
The Left would be unlikely to say the same of Jim Callaghan, 30 years later, had he won in '79 and been in the same position of executing the Falklands War to regain Sovereign ruled territory.
It's only an issue because 'Evil Milk Snatching Maggie' did it. Nothing more. Some people need to move on."
I don't really think she did it to win an election - though was the consequence. She did it because that's who she was. That was her personality. You've seen the photo of her enjoying herself in a tank.
You've never ridden in a tank have you? If you had, you'd realise everyone loves it.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
English is still an official language in Hong Kong
Come on, Mr. Observer, it's not like the English cricket team has just been captured after losing the Battle of Kleidion.
It's going to be horrible. Defeat from the jaws of victory. A compelling, infuriating, inevitable collapse awaits us. But will we scrape over the line? This time, I fear not.
Ah I was confused - you're back on the Labour party, yes?
Tory Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr. Corbyn. They may be your last as Labour Leader.
Jeremy Corbyn: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"? [He unsheathes and points his sword at the Messenger's throat]
Tory Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Jeremy Corbyn: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.[referring to the well]
Tory Messenger: No man, Tory or Labour, no man threatens a messenger!
Jeremy Corbyn: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered Trades Unions to Islington's city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my Party with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
Tory Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Jeremy Corbyn: Madness...? This is LABOUR! [He kicks the Tory messenger down the well]
- You there. What is your profession? - I am an aspirational lawyer in a Middle England constituency, sir. - And you, Blairite. What is your profession? - I am a brand image specialist, sir. - Spartacists? What is your profession? - HOOAH! HOOAH! HOOAH!
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
Barnesian: Would your suggested response to the Calais issue be for the State to instruct drivers to hand over the keys and get out of the lorry if attacked by the migrants and in response they'd underwrite the cargo and buy them another lorry? And do nothing else. After all, these interventions must cost far more than the price of the vehicles.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
Indeed, we negotiated a settlement.
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
So England have apparently lost having been set less than 125 on 3 occasions, the last of which was 1902. WIth the last time Australia lost inside 2 days, which looked possible yesterday, being 1890, as much as I like a full five day absorbing encounter, it would seen early Test Cricket had its fair share of short, sharp matches, so not going the distance is not exactly anathema to the idea of true Cricket.
This is a great opportunity for Lyth. If he can see it through to the end with an unbeaten half-century, he'll secure his place in the next test. Had we knocked over the last three Australian wickets for 20 or so, his place would have been a lot less certain.
So England have apparently lost having been set less than 125 on 3 occasions, the last of which was 1902. WIth the last time Australia lost inside 2 days, which looked possible yesterday, being 1890, as much as I like a full five day absorbing encounter, it would seen early Test Cricket had its fair share of short, sharp matches, so not going the distance is not exactly anathema to the idea of true Cricket.
This is a great opportunity for Lyth. If he can see it through to the end with an unbeaten half-century, he'll secure his place in the next test. Had we knocked over the last three Australian wickets for 20 or so, his place would have been a lot less certain.
This is a great opportunity for Lyth. If he can see it through to the end with an unbeaten half-century, he'll secure his place in the next test. Had we knocked over the last three Australian wickets for 20 or so, his place would have been a lot less certain.
But on current form he's much more likely to be out first ball after lunch, and back to playing county cricket next week!
On topic, being the pedant I am, there have in fact been four Labour leaders who've won workable majorities at a general election. It's just that only three of them happened to be Labour leader at the time they did it.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
Indeed, we negotiated a settlement.
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worr you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
Indeed, we negotiated a settlement.
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
Even the French were supportive of the UK.
HMS Sheffield and Coventry, which came to grief in the War, had two sister-ships in the Argentinian Navy, sold to the pre-Galtieri government in the 1970s.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
Indeed, we negotiated a settlement.
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
My understanding was that Reagan was very supportive of us, but the State Department, led by Casper Weinberger, felt the US's Latin American relationships were more important, and fought Reagan tooth-and-nail.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
Indeed, we negotiated a settlement.
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
Barnesian: Would your suggested response to the Calais issue be for the State to instruct drivers to hand over the keys and get out of the lorry if attacked by the migrants and in response they'd underwrite the cargo and buy them another lorry? And do nothing else. After all, these interventions must cost far more than the price of the vehicles.
It'd be a win-win, surely?
No - it doesn't solve the problem. They'd still swarm over here in their newly acquired lorries!
But if the migrants would be willing to go and bother someone else in the South of France if we gave them £100 each, I'd say that's a bargain. You might say that it is giving in to blackmail. I'd say just go and do it.
NB This is just an example. I don't think it would work.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after the end of the lease on the adjacent New Territories, was resolved with the pragmatic Thatcher-Deng agreement that Britain would get out PDQ while delaying the full integration of Hong Kong to China. Britain wasn't crippled diplomatically. It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
Indeed, we negotiated a settlement.
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
Even the French were supportive of the UK.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Francois Mitterand was very supportive.
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations.
That's what happened to Hong Kong and Kowloon: the possibility of future hostility, not even a direct threat, after . It was very sensible.
That doesn't really qualify as a response to a military invasion. It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
Indeed, we negotiated a settlement.
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
But the SNP tidal wave continues unabated. These are the results of today's local elections in Aberdeen. These represent swings of 20 per cent plus since 2012 when the SNP and Labour were dead heated around Scotland and Labour topped the poll in both of these wards on the Council.
It iplies an SNP lead over Labour in Scotland of around 40 that is 40 per cent!
Results (On first preference votes): Hilton/Woodside/Stockethill
Roy Begg (Scottish Conservative and Unionist) 350 votes
Neil Copland (Scottish National Party) 1,690 votes
Peter Kennedy (Scottish Green Party) 130 votes
Charlie Pirie (Scottish Labour Party) 771 votes
Jonathan Waddell (Scottish Liberal Democrats) 125 votes
Kincorth/Nigg/Cove
Donna Clark (Scottish Labour Party) 606 votes
Stephen Flynn (Scottish National Party) 1,939 votes
Ken McLeod (Scottish Liberal Democrats) 207 votes
Philip Sellar (Scottish Conservative and Unionist) 313 votes
Nah, just a Blairite government, which had temporarily gained control of the Labour Party...
TBF the minimum wage and tax credits were big, important, long-lasting left-wing policies.
And the Freedom of Information Act was a big progressive win, although Blair personally turned against it.
I think the left would see the whole thing differently if it hadn't been for the Iraq War.
I don't see Freedom of Information as a left-wing thing.
Yes, I see what you're getting at - partly why I talked about it as "progressive", which has a slightly different nuance to "left-wing". On the other hand the fact that the Tories are now trying to de-claw the legislation tells you something...
So England have apparently lost having been set less than 125 on 3 occasions, the last of which was 1902. WIth the last time Australia lost inside 2 days, which looked possible yesterday, being 1890, as much as I like a full five day absorbing encounter, it would seen early Test Cricket had its fair share of short, sharp matches, so not going the distance is not exactly anathema to the idea of true Cricket.
One thing that test cricket could do with is a proper World Championship. Two groups of teams to play series against each other home and away over three years, with the top two in each playing off in knock-out series (5-match series for the semis, played in the group winner; 6-match series, three in each, for the final). If any of the knock-out series is tied going into the final match, then that game should be timeless, as should any deciding match if the series ends as a tie.
Barnesian: Would your suggested response to the Calais issue be for the State to instruct drivers to hand over the keys and get out of the lorry if attacked by the migrants and in response they'd underwrite the cargo and buy them another lorry? And do nothing else. After all, these interventions must cost far more than the price of the vehicles.
It'd be a win-win, surely?
No - it doesn't solve the problem. They'd still swarm over here in their newly acquired lorries!
But if the migrants would be willing to go and bother someone else in the South of France if we gave them £100 each, I'd say that's a bargain. You might say that it is giving in to blackmail. I'd say just go and do it.
NB This is just an example. I don't think it would work.
But there are only a few thousand of them at Calais. We can cope with that level of new lorries, surely?
Hong Kong and Kowloon were not rented. They were long-standing British territories which pre-dated the lease of the New Territories by two generations.
We could have kept Hong Kong and Kowloon.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
It would have been difficult to keep those British territories. But Britain faced a threat, and it pragmatically, correctly handed over its territory, against the will of much of the local population - not that they enjoyed democratic institutions to voice that will.
Indeed, we negotiated a settlement.
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
My understanding was that Reagan was very supportive of us, but the State Department, led by Casper Weinberger, felt the US's Latin American relationships were more important, and fought Reagan tooth-and-nail.
The United States was concerned by the prospect of Argentina turning to the Soviet Union for support,[29] and initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict. However, when Argentina refused the US peace overtures, US Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the US Congress passed resolutions supporting the US action siding with the United Kingdom.[30]
The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.[31][32][33][34] President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier. The United States Navy developed a plan to help the British man the ship with American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of the Iwo Jima 's systems.[35]
Barnesian: Would your suggested response to the Calais issue be for the State to instruct drivers to hand over the keys and get out of the lorry if attacked by the migrants and in response they'd underwrite the cargo and buy them another lorry? And do nothing else. After all, these interventions must cost far more than the price of the vehicles.
It'd be a win-win, surely?
No - it doesn't solve the problem. They'd still swarm over here in their newly acquired lorries!
But if the migrants would be willing to go and bother someone else in the South of France if we gave them £100 each, I'd say that's a bargain. You might say that it is giving in to blackmail. I'd say just go and do it.
NB This is just an example. I don't think it would work.
But there are only a few thousand of them at Calais. We can cope with that level of new lorries, surely?
Until another 5000 arrive. What happens when they don't get their new lorries as promised by the traffickers?
Radio4 Today had a reporter in Calais, and the main lure drawing people to the UK was the prospect of working for cash in the black economy. Villagers were clubbing together to finance the passage of immigrants across Europe. Very enlightening.
"Strip away the blind hatred of Thatcher, and the idea that any PM would sacrifice the lives of hundreds of servicemen and naval vessels purely to win votes, rather than go with the ' 'easier' option of simply paying off those threatened by invasion to accept their new overlords is frankly ridiculous.
The Left would be unlikely to say the same of Jim Callaghan, 30 years later, had he won in '79 and been in the same position of executing the Falklands War to regain Sovereign ruled territory.
It's only an issue because 'Evil Milk Snatching Maggie' did it. Nothing more. Some people need to move on."
I don't really think she did it to win an election - though was the consequence. She did it because that's who she was. That was her personality. You've seen the photo of her enjoying herself in a tank.
You've never ridden in a tank have you? If you had, you'd realise everyone loves it.
It's not just tanks that turn politicians into big gurning kids:
So England have apparently lost having been set less than 125 on 3 occasions, the last of which was 1902. WIth the last time Australia lost inside 2 days, which looked possible yesterday, being 1890, as much as I like a full five day absorbing encounter, it would seen early Test Cricket had its fair share of short, sharp matches, so not going the distance is not exactly anathema to the idea of true Cricket.
Uncovered pitches which were lines painted on ordinary grass, plus much slower bowlers off shorter run-ups so you could get in more overs, plus attacking fields so you could score fast and lose wickets quickly tended to have that effect.
Take Grace - he averaged 39 with the bat in his career (32 in Tests) and 18 with the ball (26 in Tests). Yet his batting average was still about 10% higher than anyone who played at the same time, e.g. Arthur Shrewsbury, whom Grace thought was a better batsman, averaged 36 (not forgetting Grace was still playing in his 60s which took his average below 40). That gives you some idea of what the pitches were like!
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
Yes. This is (to my mind) the definitive academic work on this - the Falklands produced a temporary boost; Howe's 1982 budget and the overall economic picture were much more important.
Labour's majority in 1966 was 97 - not just under 80! Also Attlee could have carried on much longer after the 1950 election - his majority was not much smaller than what Cameron has today.
So England have apparently lost having been set less than 125 on 3 occasions, the last of which was 1902. WIth the last time Australia lost inside 2 days, which looked possible yesterday, being 1890, as much as I like a full five day absorbing encounter, it would seen early Test Cricket had its fair share of short, sharp matches, so not going the distance is not exactly anathema to the idea of true Cricket.
Caspar Weinberger was Defense Secretary. He was awarded Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1988, awarded in recognition for an "outstanding and invaluable" contribution to military cooperation between the UK and the US, particularly during the Falklands War of 1982.
Barnesian: Would your suggested response to the Calais issue be for the State to instruct drivers to hand over the keys and get out of the lorry if attacked by the migrants and in response they'd underwrite the cargo and buy them another lorry? And do nothing else. After all, these interventions must cost far more than the price of the vehicles.
It'd be a win-win, surely?
No - it doesn't solve the problem. They'd still swarm over here in their newly acquired lorries!
But if the migrants would be willing to go and bother someone else in the South of France if we gave them £100 each, I'd say that's a bargain. You might say that it is giving in to blackmail. I'd say just go and do it.
NB This is just an example. I don't think it would work.
But there are only a few thousand of them at Calais. We can cope with that level of new lorries, surely?
The British could buy a few weeks with decoy lorries that drove slowly on the approach roads then turned around and went somewhere else.
That said, I wonder if the costs of manning an external Schengen border like this justify the benefits. Loads of people want to go to Germany, but they don't have people camped out in front of the fences, because they don't have any fences. If these guys had just moved to Britain to take shitty jobs or whatever nobody would have noticed the difference.
Barnesian: Would your suggested response to the Calais issue be for the State to instruct drivers to hand over the keys and get out of the lorry if attacked by the migrants and in response they'd underwrite the cargo and buy them another lorry? And do nothing else. After all, these interventions must cost far more than the price of the vehicles.
It'd be a win-win, surely?
No - it doesn't solve the problem. They'd still swarm over here in their newly acquired lorries!
But if the migrants would be willing to go and bother someone else in the South of France if we gave them £100 each, I'd say that's a bargain. You might say that it is giving in to blackmail. I'd say just go and do it.
NB This is just an example. I don't think it would work.
But there are only a few thousand of them at Calais. We can cope with that level of new lorries, surely?
Until another 5000 arrive. What happens when they don't get their new lorries as promised by the traffickers?
Radio4 Today had a reporter in Calais, and the main lure drawing people to the UK was the prospect of working for cash in the black economy. Villagers were clubbing together to finance the passage of immigrants across Europe. Very enlightening.
I think the UK media are shocked that none of the men at Calais comes close to meeting the definition of an asylum seeker.
We allow migration to the UK, it's just that we have a process to follow - and don't appreciate people wrecking our export economy by trying to circumvent that.
"Strip away the blind hatred of Thatcher, and the idea that any PM would sacrifice the lives of hundreds of servicemen and naval vessels purely to win votes, rather than go with the ' 'easier' option of simply paying off those threatened by invasion to accept their new overlords is frankly ridiculous.
The Left would be unlikely to say the same of Jim Callaghan, 30 years later, had he won in '79 and been in the same position of executing the Falklands War to regain Sovereign ruled territory.
It's only an issue because 'Evil Milk Snatching Maggie' did it. Nothing more. Some people need to move on."
I don't really think she did it to win an election - though was the consequence. She did it because that's who she was. That was her personality. You've seen the photo of her enjoying herself in a tank.
You've never ridden in a tank have you? If you had, you'd realise everyone loves it.
It's not just tanks that turn politicians into big gurning kids:
So England have apparently lost having been set less than 125 on 3 occasions, the last of which was 1902. WIth the last time Australia lost inside 2 days, which looked possible yesterday, being 1890, as much as I like a full five day absorbing encounter, it would seen early Test Cricket had its fair share of short, sharp matches, so not going the distance is not exactly anathema to the idea of true Cricket.
Early test cricket was 3 days.
So is today's Test cricket!
(Say about 15,000 people who were looking forward to Saturday at Edgbaston!)
"Strip away the blind hatred of Thatcher, and the idea that any PM would sacrifice the lives of hundreds of servicemen and naval vessels purely to win votes, rather than go with the ' 'easier' option of simply paying off those threatened by invasion to accept their new overlords is frankly ridiculous.
The Left would be unlikely to say the same of Jim Callaghan, 30 years later, had he won in '79 and been in the same position of executing the Falklands War to regain Sovereign ruled territory.
It's only an issue because 'Evil Milk Snatching Maggie' did it. Nothing more. Some people need to move on."
I don't really think she did it to win an election - though was the consequence. She did it because that's who she was. That was her personality. You've seen the photo of her enjoying herself in a tank.
You've never ridden in a tank have you? If you had, you'd realise everyone loves it.
It's not just tanks that turn politicians into big gurning kids:
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
Almost certainly. The Conservatives had touched bottom in December 1981 at 23% in the polls, and by March 1982 had improved to 31% - still third, but only two points behind Labour/the Alliance rather than 27. Unemployment was also showing signs of falling from a high of just over 3 million in December 1981 and industrial production was up three points. The riots had also stopped.
What the Falklands did, at a time when many Conservative backbenchers were agitating for a change in course towards some kind of Keynesianism to tackle unemployment, was reassert Thatcher's own authority over her party while baring the splits in Labour between the hawkish Foot and Healey and the more pacific Benn, clearing the way for her to extend that authority later when she chose by sacking Pym, moving Howe and promoting Lawson.
In January 1982, sober observers, the Dan Hodges of the 80s, thought the Conservatives would win in 1983/84 with a fair but not overwhelming majority - 25-30 was the figure mentioned. The Falklands factor may of course have helped to increase that, but whether it did it directly, or by causing Labour's final implosion, or by giving Thatcher a personal boost, or by some mixture of them all is still hotly debated.
Barnesian: Would your suggested response to the Calais issue be for the State to instruct drivers to hand over the keys and get out of the lorry if attacked by the migrants and in response they'd underwrite the cargo and buy them another lorry? And do nothing else. After all, these interventions must cost far more than the price of the vehicles.
It'd be a win-win, surely?
No - it doesn't solve the problem. They'd still swarm over here in their newly acquired lorries!
But if the migrants would be willing to go and bother someone else in the South of France if we gave them £100 each, I'd say that's a bargain. You might say that it is giving in to blackmail. I'd say just go and do it.
NB This is just an example. I don't think it would work.
But there are only a few thousand of them at Calais. We can cope with that level of new lorries, surely?
The British could buy a few weeks with decoy lorries that drove slowly on the approach roads then turned around and went somewhere else.
That is actually a genius idea. Load 'em up, U turn in the terminal and simply head south.
@Cookie you are wrong about public opinion in the war - by 1940, public opinion had swung decisively against Halifax and appeasement and was for continuing the war at any cost. In 1938 it was rather different!
On topic, it is also well worth noting that Harold Wilson was on the right of the Labour party and was certainly no socialist - in fact, he achieved his first steps in cabinet when Bevan and the other genuine socialists stormed out in a huff over emergency measures to try and deal with the huge debts their policies had run up.
In the 1940s and 50s Wilson was regarded as a left-winger, having joined Nye Bevan and John Freeman in resigning from the Attlee government in April 1951 over NHS charges for teeth and specs.
Yes you're right, he did resign with Bevan. It was Dalton's disgrace that got him his first leg up and that was because Dalton was a crook rather than for any other reason. My mistake!
However, by the time he was in office he was firmly on the right of the party, insofar as he was ever firm on anything. Who was it said that he only had two problems - his face?
Wilson was still seen as the left-wing candidate in the election to succeed Gaitskell in February 1963.
Yes. This is (to my mind) the definitive academic work on this.
Agreed but it might have been closer. In terms of a show of force, the Iranian embassy siege was also important.
The SAS acquired an almost mythical status in newspapers like the Sun in the 1980s because they appeared to show that we still 'could'
It soaked into the very heart of British culture. Del Boy Trotter's motto was 'he who dares wins, Rodders'.
Absolutely the Falklands was still very important and enhanced the Tories' majority a bit. It probably increased support for Thatcher in her later domestic battles - notably versus Scargill.
In terms of Britain;s allies, is this the right time to bring up General Pinochet...??
"Chile gave support to Britain in the form of intelligence about Argentine military and early warning radar.[40][41] Throughout the war, Argentina was afraid of a Chilean military intervention in Patagonia and kept some of her best mountain regiments away from the Falklands near the Chilean border as a precaution.[42]"
So England have apparently lost having been set less than 125 on 3 occasions, the last of which was 1902. WIth the last time Australia lost inside 2 days, which looked possible yesterday, being 1890, as much as I like a full five day absorbing encounter, it would seen early Test Cricket had its fair share of short, sharp matches, so not going the distance is not exactly anathema to the idea of true Cricket.
Early test cricket was 3 days.
So is today's Test cricket!
(Say about 15,000 people who were looking forward to Saturday at Edgbaston!)
But today, 3 days is 270 overs - then, it could easily have been over 400. We have three day Tests across five days.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33729024
Not sure if that is the right sort of dogs - those with big jaws and sharp teeth may be better, especially if they are free to wander in the gap of a double fence.
It's a pity about Cecil the Lion. He'd have been useful patrolling the tunnel.
Potential locations under discussions included the disused Manston Airport, in Kent.'
Edited extra bit: also worth reading up on Wojtek the soldier-bear. A bear that was adopted by Polish troops in WWII. He caught a spy in the shower, drank beer, carried munitions and saw action at Monte Casino.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/animals-in-ancient-warfare.html
His strike rate is sub 50.
Who hasn't been picking him ?!
"When some NGO or charity or think-tank suddenly declares its support for the EU, ask one question: where's the money coming from?"
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=aITzCyYGnJg
At least until the Islamists arose to provide a counterbalance to the secular liberal capitalist world view. Politics abhorrs a vacuum.
Chris Martin, anyone? How someone could average 2 with the bad is beyond me, no matter how bad they are.
Those of us in East Kent have been putting up with this for ages, saying nothing will be done until it affects people further afield. Nothing is a problem until its on your doorstep.
It was the response to an expiry of a lease.
It's the difference between leaving a house you've been renting at the end of a tenancy and responding to an aggressive squatter who forced entry into a house you own by handing him the keys and paying to remove your possessions.
300 Nominations
==============
Tory Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr. Corbyn. They may be your last as Labour Leader.
Jeremy Corbyn: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"?
[He unsheathes and points his sword at the Messenger's throat]
Tory Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Jeremy Corbyn: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.[referring to the well]
Tory Messenger: No man, Tory or Labour, no man threatens a messenger!
Jeremy Corbyn: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered Trades Unions to Islington's city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my Party with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
Tory Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Jeremy Corbyn: Madness...? This is LABOUR!
[He kicks the Tory messenger down the well]
As RCS points out, the fastest way to get results would be massive fines and lengthy jail terms for employing illegals.
Surely.
But they wouldn't have had a water supply, sewage treatment facility or electricity generation system. The Chinese made clear they were unwilling to continue supplying these services. Consequently negotiation was the right thing to do. But that is a very different scenario to one in which someone invades your territory with a view to dispossessing you
But this happened forty years ago today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Showband_killings
2 - For a State to respond to military invasion of territory that it undertakes to defend with, "Oh, sorry! We'll get our people out of your way immediately. No, don't worry; we'll pay for it all. Don't get up. We'll clear out for you. Can we get you anything else?" would be enormously detrimental to their legitimacy, encourage other militaristic adventurers, and cripple them diplomatically for generations."
Touchy lot. They expect a great deal don't they! All that blood and treasure. And you can't bring it up in casual social discussion or risk an extremely negative response. If that's true, they've lost my sympathy.
If any householder turned down a £1m offer for their £300K house in the way of the 3rd Heathrow runway, they'd get little sympathy.
You keep citing that invalid analogy. They weren't being turfed out to make way for a public utility.
If someone had their home invaded at gunpoint, and the authorities responded by refusing to confront the aggressors because violence is bad, that would be wrong. It doesn't matter if it's cheaper and easier. It would also bring into question the point of recognising the authorities at all.
Argentina invaded their home. Killing people. Demanding their home be surrendered.
Meek acquiescence would have been despicable and an abdication of authority.
I wouldn't have signed up to defend a country that operated your instant surrender policy. It may achieve temporary "peace in our time", but you soon run out of concessions to give.
It's the equivalent of advising a bullied child to ensure they give up whatever the bully wants as quickly as possible and not doing anything else.
- I am an aspirational lawyer in a Middle England constituency, sir.
- And you, Blairite. What is your profession?
- I am a brand image specialist, sir.
- Spartacists? What is your profession?
- HOOAH! HOOAH! HOOAH!
Spent yesterday evening laughing and sledging in an Aussie bar, think I'll stay home and watch today...
Only England can so easily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
(R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.
Would your suggested response to the Calais issue be for the State to instruct drivers to hand over the keys and get out of the lorry if attacked by the migrants and in response they'd underwrite the cargo and buy them another lorry? And do nothing else. After all, these interventions must cost far more than the price of the vehicles.
It'd be a win-win, surely?
And when Argentina invaded the threat was not to the Falklands, but to the principle that we will not allow British territories to be conquered by force.
(Someone pointed out earlier that the Americans were not supportive. That is untrue: they were very supportive - just look at the Exocet story. They just couldn't be publicly supportive because of the Monroe Declaration)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_42_destroyer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17256975
But if the migrants would be willing to go and bother someone else in the South of France if we gave them £100 each, I'd say that's a bargain. You might say that it is giving in to blackmail. I'd say just go and do it.
NB This is just an example. I don't think it would work.
But the SNP tidal wave continues unabated. These are the results of today's local elections in Aberdeen. These represent swings of 20 per cent plus since 2012 when the SNP and Labour were dead heated around Scotland and Labour topped the poll in both of these wards on the Council.
It iplies an SNP lead over Labour in Scotland of around 40 that is 40 per cent!
Results (On first preference votes): Hilton/Woodside/Stockethill
Roy Begg (Scottish Conservative and Unionist) 350 votes
Neil Copland (Scottish National Party) 1,690 votes
Peter Kennedy (Scottish Green Party) 130 votes
Charlie Pirie (Scottish Labour Party) 771 votes
Jonathan Waddell (Scottish Liberal Democrats) 125 votes
Kincorth/Nigg/Cove
Donna Clark (Scottish Labour Party) 606 votes
Stephen Flynn (Scottish National Party) 1,939 votes
Ken McLeod (Scottish Liberal Democrats) 207 votes
Philip Sellar (Scottish Conservative and Unionist) 313 votes
Dan Yeats (Scottish Green Party) 114 votes
Discuss with examples.
The US provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles.[31][32][33][34] President Ronald Reagan approved the Royal Navy's request to borrow the Sea Harrier-capable amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) if the British lost an aircraft carrier. The United States Navy developed a plan to help the British man the ship with American military contractors, likely retired sailors with knowledge of the Iwo Jima 's systems.[35]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
Radio4 Today had a reporter in Calais, and the main lure drawing people to the UK was the prospect of working for cash in the black economy. Villagers were clubbing together to finance the passage of immigrants across Europe. Very enlightening.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00778/gordon-brown-gun404_778902c.jpg
Take Grace - he averaged 39 with the bat in his career (32 in Tests) and 18 with the ball (26 in Tests). Yet his batting average was still about 10% higher than anyone who played at the same time, e.g. Arthur Shrewsbury, whom Grace thought was a better batsman, averaged 36 (not forgetting Grace was still playing in his 60s which took his average below 40). That gives you some idea of what the pitches were like!
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=3275896&jid=JPS&volumeId=17&issueId=03&aid=3275888&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=
Caspar Weinberger was Defense Secretary. He was awarded Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1988, awarded in recognition for an "outstanding and invaluable" contribution to military cooperation between the UK and the US, particularly during the Falklands War of 1982.
That said, I wonder if the costs of manning an external Schengen border like this justify the benefits. Loads of people want to go to Germany, but they don't have people camped out in front of the fences, because they don't have any fences. If these guys had just moved to Britain to take shitty jobs or whatever nobody would have noticed the difference.
We allow migration to the UK, it's just that we have a process to follow - and don't appreciate people wrecking our export economy by trying to circumvent that.
Agreed but it might have been closer. In terms of a show of force, the Iranian embassy siege was also important.
The SAS acquired an almost mythical status in newspapers like the Sun in the 1980s because they appeared to show that we still 'could'
It soaked into the very heart of British culture. Del Boy Trotter's motto was 'he who dares wins, Rodders'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00947/SNN1406GA-280_947799a.jpg
(Say about 15,000 people who were looking forward to Saturday at Edgbaston!)
http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Gordon+Brown+Makes+Visit+Afghanistan+mZDjey8rD8Ll.jpg
What the Falklands did, at a time when many Conservative backbenchers were agitating for a change in course towards some kind of Keynesianism to tackle unemployment, was reassert Thatcher's own authority over her party while baring the splits in Labour between the hawkish Foot and Healey and the more pacific Benn, clearing the way for her to extend that authority later when she chose by sacking Pym, moving Howe and promoting Lawson.
In January 1982, sober observers, the Dan Hodges of the 80s, thought the Conservatives would win in 1983/84 with a fair but not overwhelming majority - 25-30 was the figure mentioned. The Falklands factor may of course have helped to increase that, but whether it did it directly, or by causing Labour's final implosion, or by giving Thatcher a personal boost, or by some mixture of them all is still hotly debated.
1. Hundreds of emails with information derived from FBI, CIA and DIA materials which should have been classified among the 30,000 emails Clinton has kept on a thumb drive that were on her personal server. Admittedly the source is the very right wing Washington Times, but it should be noted that the WT is the paper of record for CIA leaks: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/30/hillary-clinton-emails-us-intelligence-preparing-m/
2. The whispers about a Biden run is becoming chatter. At some point an inversion will/may happen. At that point, Biden enters, and Hillary's support collapses:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/clinton-campaign-reportedly-growing-edgy-over-possible-biden-run/
3. Donations to the Clinton Foundation increased during her phony campaign when she all but told the world she was running but had not formally announced. These donations will be a gold mine for those arguing that donors were paying it forward for favours once she became President. Also, she and Bill earned over $30 million in just over 16 months to May this year - more kindle for fighting her claims to understand ordinary working folk, or to have been dead broke: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/us/politics/spike-in-donor-numbers-for-bill-hillary-clinton-foundation.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1
4. Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post is laying into her yet again, linking her to Trump. No way can that be a good thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/30/voters-want-someone-who-is-honest-and-trustworthy-in-2016-they-dont-think-thats-hillary-clinton/