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.
His majority over the second-largest party was a lot, lot smaller though. And this in an era of far more by-elections. Although no seats changed hands in the by-elections of the 1950-1 parliament, there were 16 in total, including eight in Labour seats. Had Labour's popularity dipped, as most governments' popularity does, they could have found themselves without a majority within months - prompting an election at what must, by definition, have been an inopportune moment.
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.
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.
Her reaction to the assassination attempt in the Brighton bombing helped too. When it comes down to it she was just a class act.
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.
Holy shit, your understanding is exactly wrong! Reagan was initially lukewarm in support at best, with Alexander Haig and Jeanne Kirkpatrick actively working against the UK. Then as events unfolded Reagan, his administration, and Congress swung definitely pro-UK. The events that led the US to be pro-UK are discussed elsewhere, but one little-mentioned event was an argument Weinberger had with Reagan, with Weinberger forcefully pointing out to Reagan that the UK was a democracy and a NATO ally, that Argentina was neither, and Reagan should pull his head out of his arse.
The tale has grown in the telling over the years (did it take place in the Oval Office? Did Weinberger swear and/or bang the desk?) but Dame Rumor has it that this encounter was the reason why Weinberger received a honorary knighthood, which he did in 1988.
I realise the rising tide of Euroscepticism has led to some historical revisionism regarding French and American support for the UK, with unauthorised French assistance to Argentina being foregrounded and authorised[1] American assistance to Argentina being ignored, but even by normal standards that's a lulu. Weinberger was one of the heros in the conflict and this should be recognised
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.
s 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.
@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.
I think he was the 'dry' candidate rather than the left-wing one, bearing in mind who his opponent was, although Brown was seen as on the right of the party.
This is quite an interesting statement by Roy Jenkins, which I have just come across on the ODNB, about Wilson's leanings in 1963:
'He treated the Gaitskellites with calculated generosity. They did much better in the allocation of shadow portfolios than did the Bevanites, who with a few exceptions had to be content with having got their man, in so far as he was their man, into the top job. These adjustments were made easier for Wilson by his light ideological baggage. He had been against Gaitskell's revisionism of 1959, but that was largely because he thought it too abruptly done. He was not literally in favour of Clause 4, but he did not think it worth arguing about. He was initially more hostile than Gaitskell to Macmillan's bid in 1961 to join the European Community, but that was largely because it came from the tories. He subsequently made two bids of his own and also gave a clear if subdued pro-EEC recommendation in the referendum of 1975. He was not a unilateralist, but he thought Gaitskell was too intransigent in his opposition to those who were.'
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.
Her reaction to the assassination attempt in the Brighton bombing helped too. When it comes down to it she was just a class act.
Once again the SNP rhetoric would founder against the harsh rocks of economic reality.
As noted in the comments, "Who pays for your Utopian fantasy?"
The rhetoric of "the only way to avoid Tory austerity is separation" actually hides,,,
The only way to avoid Tory austerity record growth and employment, low inflation, and rising living standards is separation a huge black hole in Scottish finance because oil is less have half what Swinney said it would be
The only way to avoid Tory austerity the most successful economy in the Western World is separation to join the Euro
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.
Really? My recollection from the Max Hastings book on the Falklands was that Weinberger was the villain of the piece.
"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:
"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:
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.
Ted Lowe, when the live coverage was over and the BBC went back to the snooker World Championship:
"A political party is not about winning an election or being credible. Discuss." This would make an interesting topic for an essay for politics students.
As an approach for Labour, I'm less convinced.
It strikes me that the Corbynites are much like UKippers. Just as the latter (or many of them) want to go back to a forgotten / imagined world of the 1950's, the Corbynites seem to want to return to the world of the 1960's and 1970's.
Meantime in the real world the Tories - on the basis of really quite a small majority - are remaking the world of the 2020's.
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.
Ted Lowe, when the live coverage was over and the BBC went back to the snooker World Championship:
"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:
Excellent post as usual by Antifrank but I'd add something interesting Peter Kellner said at the post-election Nuffield College seminar that's doing the re-runs on BBC Parliament, available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wdqq7
As for the hard-left calling Blairites Tories - they are doing that because they are idiots. To hear people like Dave Ward talk the way they do is an absolute disgrace - these people did nothing to get Labour elected, and if anything their actions make Tory majority governments more likely and yet they had the nerve to call out people who actually won elections?
As for 1997 not being a Labour win - that's the first time I've heard that notion. Even by people who do regard Blair as a 'Tory', most see 1997 as a triumph for Labour after years in opposition.
William Hague has referred to Blair as a Tory - it is not simply a figment of the hard-left's imagination. Blair was essentially a Christian Democrat - right of centre but less extreme than Thatcher . He was certainly well to the right of the 1951 -1964 Tory Government and Heath's administration. I actually believe that he misread the mood of the electorate in 1997 in that people were ready to see much more of a reversal of the Thatcher/Major years than Blair was offering or inclined to implement. People were not expecting continued privatisation or a failure to redress the imbalances in the workplace brought about by years of anti-union bashing. People were soon disillusioned as reflected in the collapse in both turnout and Labour's absolute vote in 2001.
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.
Really? My recollection from the Max Hastings book on the Falklands was that Weinberger was the villain of the piece.
But I could be misremembering.
Wasn't Haig at State? I remember him making remarks which the UK press interpreted as supporting Argentina and leading to his vilification. Not undeserved, he was regularly a total prat.
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.
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.
Really? My recollection from the Max Hastings book on the Falklands was that Weinberger was the villain of the piece.
But I could be misremembering.
Wasn't Haig at State? I remember him making remarks which the UK press interpreted as supporting Argentina and leading to his vilification. Not undeserved, he was regularly a total prat.
You are absolutely right. Sunil, I'm sorry, I said Weinberger when I meant Haig.
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.
Really? My recollection from the Max Hastings book on the Falklands was that Weinberger was the villain of the piece.
But I could be misremembering.
Wasn't Haig at State? I remember him making remarks which the UK press interpreted as supporting Argentina and leading to his vilification. Not undeserved, he was regularly a total prat.
Yes. He spent most of the war flying backwards and forwards from London to Washington to New York to Buenos Aires trying to negotiate a peace settlement, which Britain insisted had to be based on self-determination and the UN resolution, and Argentina insisted had to start with Britain surrendering the principle of absolute sovereignty over the islands. It wasn't helpful for some reason and apparently made him very ill.
Those of us who grew up following England when they were bowled for 46, or saw collapses like from 147/3 to 150 all out, always know it is never safe to be complacent when it comes to England.
I actually believe that he misread the mood of the electorate in 1997 in that people were ready to see much more of a reversal of the Thatcher/Major years than Blair was offering or inclined to implement. People were not expecting continued privatisation or a failure to redress the imbalances in the workplace brought about by years of anti-union bashing. People were soon disillusioned as reflected in the collapse in both turnout and Labour's absolute vote in 2001.
Possibly, they were certainly expecting him to do something major, there was a sense of "Bloody hell, 179 majority, fasten your seatbelts". Followed by... well not very much really. The left were clearly disenchanted that he didn't do more to roll back Thatcherism, the more centrist were just aghast that he hadn't done much of anything and squandered his massive majority.
Note the Greens outpolled the Libs in hilton Aberdeen. Until recently the Libs controlled the Council and had a Councillor in this ward. Changed days and the SNP bandwagon just keeps rolling along.
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
The truth is the British electorate will only elect a Labour government when they have a right-wing leader like Wilson or Blair. So that means Liz Kendall would be the best option for the party this time. She's currently about 65-1 with Betfair.
In the programme about that siege, the SAS revealed they were talking to the caretaker about the building and its layout and he casually told them the windows were reinforced.
If he hadn;t the charges would not have been powerful enough...
In the programme about that siege, the SAS revealed they were talking to the caretaker about the building and its layout and he casually told them the windows were reinforced.
If he hadn;t the charges would not have been powerful enough...
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.
Being generally pro-migration I'm not offering to help pay for this but maybe you guys could crowd-fund it...
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.
Really? My recollection from the Max Hastings book on the Falklands was that Weinberger was the villain of the piece.
But I could be misremembering.
Wasn't Haig at State? I remember him making remarks which the UK press interpreted as supporting Argentina and leading to his vilification. Not undeserved, he was regularly a total prat.
Yes. He spent most of the war flying backwards and forwards from London to Washington to New York to Buenos Aires trying to negotiate a peace settlement, which Britain insisted had to be based on self-determination and the UN resolution, and Argentina insisted had to start with Britain surrendering the principle of absolute sovereignty over the islands. It wasn't helpful for some reason and apparently made him very ill.
Meanwhile, Weinberger worked his Defense Department overtime to provide the logistical support to ensure success of the British campaign. My recollection is that various US forces flew way more flights than the Brits at St Helena or Tristan da Cunha, transferring materielle to the transports.
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.
Being generally pro-migration I'm not offering to help pay for this but maybe you guys could crowd-fund it...
Are there many Somalians without documentation in Japan?
"A political party is not about winning an election or being credible. Discuss." This would make an interesting topic for an essay for politics students.
As an approach for Labour, I'm less convinced.
It strikes me that the Corbynites are much like UKippers. Just as the latter (or many of them) want to go back to a forgotten / imagined world of the 1950's, the Corbynites seem to want to return to the world of the 1960's and 1970's.
Meantime in the real world the Tories - on the basis of really quite a small majority - are remaking the world of the 2020's.
A political party can't just be about winning an election.
"Being credible" is probably more necessary. People here thought Ed Miliband was very credible when he promised, e.g., to set prices and interfere with the free market. It's not clear whether credible is code for something else, though.
The Conservatives have done nothing yet that can't be reversed if they lose 35 seats. Leave the EU and we'll talk, but free-market-plus-the-NHS is very much a safe and enduring generational ideology.
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.
Italy would be an amusing destination....
Tyson spluttering "But, I thought we'd got rid of you" as another 38 tonner rolls into the Piazza del Wonga.
The truth is the British electorate will only elect a Labour government when they have a right-wing leader like Wilson or Blair. So that means Liz Kendall would be the best option for the party this time. She's currently about 65-1 with Betfair.
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.
Italy would be an amusing destination....
Tyson spluttering "But, I thought we'd got rid of you" as another 38 tonner rolls into the Piazza del Wonga.
12 runs in 11 overs! I know it's not a sprint race, but thank God for Bell at the other end for not prolonging the misery.
What's wrong with 12 runs in 11 overs? Let's have a bit of old-fashioned Test cricket for a change, not playing as if it's a 20/20 match.
If another wicket goes down, I wonder if it would be worth sending in Moeen Ali rather than Jonny Bairstow? Clean striker in good form - he could get us close to the line very quickly.
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.
Being generally pro-migration I'm not offering to help pay for this but maybe you guys could crowd-fund it...
Are there many Somalians without documentation in Japan?
I doubt it, it's a hard place to sneak into because there's not as much trade with anybody as UK-France/Holland, and the Japanese empire didn't last long so there aren't a lot of people in poor countries who speak Japanese or have connections with Japan. There's North Korea, but if you try to leave North Korea they shoot you.
The truth is the British electorate will only elect a Labour government when they have a right-wing leader like Wilson or Blair. So that means Liz Kendall would be the best option for the party this time. She's currently about 65-1 with Betfair.
Wilson was not perceived as right-wing in 1964.
1964 is quite a long time ago. Lot less cloth caps nowadays.
The truth is the British electorate will only elect a Labour government when they have a right-wing leader like Wilson or Blair. So that means Liz Kendall would be the best option for the party this time. She's currently about 65-1 with Betfair.
Their right-wing leaders like Gaitskell and Gordon Brown were thrashed too. And right-wing splitters like MacDonald and Jenkins didn't poach much support from their own side in general elections.
"A political party is not about winning an election or being credible. Discuss." This would make an interesting topic for an essay for politics students.
As an approach for Labour, I'm less convinced.
It strikes me that the Corbynites are much like UKippers. Just as the latter (or many of them) want to go back to a forgotten / imagined world of the 1950's, the Corbynites seem to want to return to the world of the 1960's and 1970's.
Meantime in the real world the Tories - on the basis of really quite a small majority - are remaking the world of the 2020's.
A political party can't just be about winning an election.
"Being credible" is probably more necessary. People here thought Ed Miliband was very credible when he promised, e.g., to set prices and interfere with the free market. It's not clear whether credible is code for something else, though.
The Conservatives have done nothing yet that can't be reversed if they lose 35 seats. Leave the EU and we'll talk, but free-market-plus-the-NHS is very much a safe and enduring generational ideology.
A political party that isn't interested in winning an election is just a pressure group.
Labour are having the arguments now that they should have been having after Blair left. They didn't and having put the lid on any debate for 8 years, now that it's out in the open it's getting bitter.
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.
Ted Lowe, when the live coverage was over and the BBC went back to the snooker World Championship:
"And so, from one Embassy to another."
Steely eyed merchants of death. They weren't too concerned with saving ammunition that evening.
The truth is the British electorate will only elect a Labour government when they have a right-wing leader like Wilson or Blair. So that means Liz Kendall would be the best option for the party this time. She's currently about 65-1 with Betfair.
Wilson was not perceived as right-wing in 1964.
1964 is quite a long time ago. Lot less cloth caps nowadays.
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.
Being generally pro-migration I'm not offering to help pay for this but maybe you guys could crowd-fund it...
Are there many Somalians without documentation in Japan?
I doubt it, it's a hard place to sneak into because there's not as much trade with anybody as UK-France/Holland, and the Japanese empire didn't last long so there aren't a lot of people in poor countries who speak Japanese or have connections with Japan. There's North Korea, but if you try to leave North Korea they shoot you.
And many Japanese aren't too fond of foreigners either.
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.
Being generally pro-migration I'm not offering to help pay for this but maybe you guys could crowd-fund it...
Are there many Somalians without documentation in Japan?
I doubt it, it's a hard place to sneak into because there's not as much trade with anybody as UK-France/Holland, and the Japanese empire didn't last long so there aren't a lot of people in poor countries who speak Japanese or have connections with Japan. There's North Korea, but if you try to leave North Korea they shoot you.
And many Japanese aren't too fond of foreigners either.
I'm sure this was probably highlighted at the time, but for anyone who hasn't seen it this Sutton Trust summary of MPs educational backgrounds is interesting:
Summary •Almost a third (32%) of MPs in the new House of Commons was privately educated. This means that the new House is only a little more representative than that elected in 2010, when 35% of MPs had been to a fee-paying school. • The research brief, Parliamentary Privilege – the MPs, shows that around half (48%) of Conservative MPs were privately educated, compared to 14% of Liberal Democrats, 5% of SNP MPs for whom we have data and 17% of Labour MPs. Among other MPs, 24% went to a fee-paying school. However, the proportion of privately educated Conservative MPs has fallen from 54% in the last parliament and 73% in 1979. •With only 7% of the general population attending independent schools, MPs are over four times more likely to have gone to a fee-paying school than their constituents. Out of those MPs who were privately educated, almost one in ten went to Eton. •The research draws on data compiled by the Sutton Trust and public affairs consultant Tim Carr from public sources, requests to candidates in marginal constituencies and those in seats where the previous MP was not standing again. •Nine out of ten MPs are graduates. Of those who went to a UK university, 26% hold an Oxbridge degree and 28% went to another Russell Group university. Whilst the public might expect MPs to have good degrees, previous research by the Trust found that those from the richest fifth of neighbourhoods are still nine times more likely to go to the top universities than those from the poorest fifth.
"A political party is not about winning an election or being credible. Discuss." This would make an interesting topic for an essay for politics students.
As an approach for Labour, I'm less convinced.
It strikes me that the Corbynites are much like UKippers. Just as the latter (or many of them) want to go back to a forgotten / imagined world of the 1950's, the Corbynites seem to want to return to the world of the 1960's and 1970's.
Meantime in the real world the Tories - on the basis of really quite a small majority - are remaking the world of the 2020's.
A political party can't just be about winning an election.
"Being credible" is probably more necessary. People here thought Ed Miliband was very credible when he promised, e.g., to set prices and interfere with the free market. It's not clear whether credible is code for something else, though.
The Conservatives have done nothing yet that can't be reversed if they lose 35 seats. Leave the EU and we'll talk, but free-market-plus-the-NHS is very much a safe and enduring generational ideology.
A political party that isn't interested in winning an election is just a pressure group.
Labour are having the arguments now that they should have been having after Blair left. They didn't and having put the lid on any debate for 8 years, now that it's out in the open it's getting bitter.
You need a balance between winning power and implementing policies, and it should be clear to a fair-minded observer that Labour believes the balance was incorrect on the side of excess electability and a surfeit of purpose during the 90s. Compare this to the efficiency of Conservative policy implementation in 2010-15, and you see why one side is much happier with its leadership than the other.
The ironic thing is that if they really "hate Tories", they should love Tony Blair. But their revealed preference is that they do not hate Tories enough to validate winning at all costs.
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
Other counterfactual on my mind at the moment - if 2015 had been John McDonnell's turn, or Diane Abbott's instead of Jeremy Corbyn's as the standard-bearer of the left - would they be doing so well?
In other words, is it just that 2015 is the moment for the left - or is it that Jeremy Corbyn can articulate it better than before?
I suspect Labour supporters hate Blair for winning three times more than anything he actually did. They enjoy the purity of opposition where they can maintain moral superiority whilst sniping at the Tories.
They're going for Corbyn because they don't want to win the next election.
"A political party is not about winning an election or being credible. Discuss." This would make an interesting topic for an essay for politics students.
As an approach for Labour, I'm less convinced.
It strikes me that the Corbynites are much like UKippers. Just as the latter (or many of them) want to go back to a forgotten / imagined world of the 1950's, the Corbynites seem to want to return to the world of the 1960's and 1970's.
Meantime in the real world the Tories - on the basis of really quite a small majority - are remaking the world of the 2020's.
A political party can't just be about winning an election.
"Being credible" is probably more necessary. People here thought Ed Miliband was very credible when he promised, e.g., to set prices and interfere with the free market. It's not clear whether credible is code for something else, though.
The Conservatives have done nothing yet that can't be reversed if they lose 35 seats. Leave the EU and we'll talk, but free-market-plus-the-NHS is very much a safe and enduring generational ideology.
A political party that isn't interested in winning an election is just a pressure group.
Labour are having the arguments now that they should have been having after Blair left. They didn't and having put the lid on any debate for 8 years, now that it's out in the open it's getting bitter.
You need a balance between winning power and implementing policies, and it should be clear to a fair-minded observer that Labour believes the balance was incorrect on the side of excess electability and a surfeit of purpose during the 90s. Compare this to the efficiency of Conservative policy implementation in 2010-15, and you see why one side is much happier with its leadership than the other.
The ironic thing is that if they really "hate Tories", they should love Tony Blair. But their revealed preference is that they do not hate Tories enough to validate winning at all costs.
If your political philosophy is such that you are unelectable if you hold to all the red lines, then you are not a major national political party but much akin to a pressure group. So, in essence, the present debate within Labour is about whether they want to be a major national political party, or cleave to some outdated set of values which will relegate them to pressure group - or at best regional/urban party - status.
12 runs in 11 overs! I know it's not a sprint race, but thank God for Bell at the other end for not prolonging the misery.
What's wrong with 12 runs in 11 overs? Let's have a bit of old-fashioned Test cricket for a change, not playing as if it's a 20/20 match.
A run an over is fine Boycottian cricket only if you stay at the crease for 3 days. It is crap if you only last 25 balls.
Oops! That was meant to be in response to Andy's comment, not Plato's
Me too. Apparently, that was the year that the FCO disconnected the cricket score number from its phones. The story goes that the dear gents and ladies at King Charles St ran up a significant bill.
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
Other counterfactual on my mind at the moment - if 2015 had been John McDonnell's turn, or Diane Abbott's instead of Jeremy Corbyn's as the standard-bearer of the left - would they be doing so well?
In other words, is it just that 2015 is the moment for the left - or is it that Jeremy Corbyn can articulate it better than before?
McDonnell would probably have done OK. Abbott maybe not as she's too well known and has more baggage.
It's possible that in the near future a great counterfactual will be 'what if one less MP had nominated Corbyn?'
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
On the BBC's 1983 election programme, the Falklands was mentioned once in about 15 hours. (That was by David Owen). It seems like it wasn't as big an issue as many people today assume.
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
Other counterfactual on my mind at the moment - if 2015 had been John McDonnell's turn, or Diane Abbott's instead of Jeremy Corbyn's as the standard-bearer of the left - would they be doing so well?
In other words, is it just that 2015 is the moment for the left - or is it that Jeremy Corbyn can articulate it better than before?
McDonnell would probably have done OK. Abbott maybe not as she's too well known and has more baggage.
It's possible that in the near future a great counterfactual will be 'what if one less MP had nominated Corbyn?'
Or that he was not seen as a threat so was able to get onto the ballot.
I suspect Labour supporters hate Blair for winning three times more than anything he actually did. They enjoy the purity of opposition where they can maintain moral superiority whilst sniping at the Tories.
They're going for Corbyn because they don't want to win the next election.
This is, I think, not fair-minded. They don't really hate Blair or the Tories, they don't want to lose an election. Any empathetic observer would see that they found losing the 2015 election to be a harrowing experience. What they do want is to find a position in which they can not only win power but use it; they seem to be trying to work out how far they can go in the second direction.
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
Other counterfactual on my mind at the moment - if 2015 had been John McDonnell's turn, or Diane Abbott's instead of Jeremy Corbyn's as the standard-bearer of the left - would they be doing so well?
In other words, is it just that 2015 is the moment for the left - or is it that Jeremy Corbyn can articulate it better than before?
Both are true. 2015 is a time of turmoil when Ed Miliband's attempt to hold Labour together fell apart on election night, while left movements throughout Europe protest loudly against the establishment. Jeremy Corbyn is a well-spoken white man in his sixties from the South of England, which like it or not is a more avuncular and less threatening image for a radical politician than John McDonnell or Diane Abbott, and his lifestyle as a modest-living teetotal cyclist is fitting for a decade in which austerity is seen as virtuous.
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
On the BBC's 1983 election programme, the Falklands was mentioned once in about 15 hours. (That was by David Owen). It seems like it wasn't as big an issue as many people today assume.
Living through that era, and working for MOD as well, I recall that the Falklands was mentioned a lot during the last week of the campaign. (The Election was on 9th June 1983, and liberation of Port Stanley was 14th June 1982)
I've always been perplexed by the notion of the Falklands Factor as its become known subsequently. It certainly didn't seem it at the time.
As you note, it wasn't The Thing that delivered Thatcher her success that GE - but has been elevated in the same mode as Cameron is Lucky blah blah, as if that excuses the failings of their rivals.
If there's one thing that the advent of YouTube et al has brought is the facility to see contemporaneous progs of the time. It's the same with the Sheffield Rally - that didn't even register as something that effected my vote, or coloured my opinion of Kinnock.
Him falling in the sea at conference in Brighton, and Labour showing the same biopic PEB twice by popular demand stuck in my mind at the time.
Would the tories have won the1983 election if Argentina had not invaded?
Discuss with examples.
On the BBC's 1983 election programme, the Falklands was mentioned once in about 15 hours. (That was by David Owen). It seems like it wasn't as big an issue as many people today assume.
Mr. Disraeli, ey up, ye soft southern basterd. Nowt wrong wi' dialect.
Oddly, when I was university a woman I was talking to thought I might be from the south, though she couldn't place where. My accent is (or was, at least) not overpoweringly Yorkshirish.
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?
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54rhgUrzOXM
I'd have thought we'd settled only Cooper seems to be the one to beat Corbyn and she is moving out
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/30/bloomberg_hosts_focus_group_for_donald_trump_supporters_in_new_hampshire.html
The tale has grown in the telling over the years (did it take place in the Oval Office? Did Weinberger swear and/or bang the desk?) but Dame Rumor has it that this encounter was the reason why Weinberger received a honorary knighthood, which he did in 1988.
I realise the rising tide of Euroscepticism has led to some historical revisionism regarding French and American support for the UK, with unauthorised French assistance to Argentina being foregrounded and authorised[1] American assistance to Argentina being ignored, but even by normal standards that's a lulu. Weinberger was one of the heros in the conflict and this should be recognised
[1] A better word may be "not actively prevented". It depends whether you think Haig was acting on specific instructions or just given his head. See http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
cook bowled
Smithson junior can't spell Mitterrand.
This is quite an interesting statement by Roy Jenkins, which I have just come across on the ODNB, about Wilson's leanings in 1963:
'He treated the Gaitskellites with calculated generosity. They did much better in the allocation of shadow portfolios than did the Bevanites, who with a few exceptions had to be content with having got their man, in so far as he was their man, into the top job. These adjustments were made easier for Wilson by his light ideological baggage. He had been against Gaitskell's revisionism of 1959, but that was largely because he thought it too abruptly done. He was not literally in favour of Clause 4, but he did not think it worth arguing about. He was initially more hostile than Gaitskell to Macmillan's bid in 1961 to join the European Community, but that was largely because it came from the tories. He subsequently made two bids of his own and also gave a clear if subdued pro-EEC recommendation in the referendum of 1975. He was not a unilateralist, but he thought Gaitskell was too intransigent in his opposition to those who were.'
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/58000?docPos=1 (needs library card to log in)
Once again the SNP rhetoric would founder against the harsh rocks of economic reality.
As noted in the comments, "Who pays for your Utopian fantasy?"
The rhetoric of "the only way to avoid Tory austerity is separation" actually hides,,,
The only way to avoid
Tory austerityrecord growth and employment, low inflation, and rising living standards isseparationa huge black hole in Scottish finance because oil is less have half what Swinney said it would beThe only way to avoid
Tory austeritythe most successful economy in the Western World isseparationto join the Eurobut the SNP are welcome to try it again
But I could be misremembering.
"And so, from one Embassy to another."
As an approach for Labour, I'm less convinced.
It strikes me that the Corbynites are much like UKippers. Just as the latter (or many of them) want to go back to a forgotten / imagined world of the 1950's, the Corbynites seem to want to return to the world of the 1960's and 1970's.
Meantime in the real world the Tories - on the basis of really quite a small majority - are remaking the world of the 2020's.
Those of us who grew up following England when they were bowled for 46, or saw collapses like from 147/3 to 150 all out, always know it is never safe to be complacent when it comes to England.
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
In the programme about that siege, the SAS revealed they were talking to the caretaker about the building and its layout and he casually told them the windows were reinforced.
If he hadn;t the charges would not have been powerful enough...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI3HY7g0MDU
"Being credible" is probably more necessary. People here thought Ed Miliband was very credible when he promised, e.g., to set prices and interfere with the free market. It's not clear whether credible is code for something else, though.
The Conservatives have done nothing yet that can't be reversed if they lose 35 seats. Leave the EU and we'll talk, but free-market-plus-the-NHS is very much a safe and enduring generational ideology.
Waste of a review, more plum than plum pudding !
Reminds of the 'Sir Galahad' episode from MP and the Holy Grail
Labour are having the arguments now that they should have been having after Blair left. They didn't and having put the lid on any debate for 8 years, now that it's out in the open it's getting bitter.
Slowly starting to relax, yes @Plato we seem to be winning.
Treatment of refugees is appalling, however.
I thought until fairly recently Kenya was quite a sensible place.
http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Parliamentary-Privilege-The-MPs-2015-2.pdf
Summary
•Almost a third (32%) of MPs in the new House of Commons was privately educated. This means that the new House is only a little more representative than that elected in 2010, when 35% of MPs had been to a fee-paying school.
• The research brief, Parliamentary Privilege – the MPs, shows that around half (48%) of Conservative MPs were privately educated, compared to 14% of Liberal Democrats, 5% of SNP MPs for whom we have data and 17% of Labour MPs. Among other MPs, 24% went to a fee-paying school. However, the proportion of privately educated Conservative MPs has fallen from 54% in the last parliament and 73% in 1979.
•With only 7% of the general population attending independent schools, MPs are over four times more likely to have gone to a fee-paying school than their constituents. Out of those MPs who were privately educated, almost one in ten went to Eton.
•The research draws on data compiled by the Sutton Trust and public affairs consultant Tim Carr from public sources, requests to candidates in marginal constituencies and those in seats where the previous MP was not standing again.
•Nine out of ten MPs are graduates. Of those who went to a UK university, 26% hold an Oxbridge degree and 28% went to another Russell Group university. Whilst the public might expect MPs to have good degrees, previous research by the Trust found that those from the richest fifth of neighbourhoods are still nine times more likely to go to the top universities than those from the poorest fifth.
The ironic thing is that if they really "hate Tories", they should love Tony Blair. But their revealed preference is that they do not hate Tories enough to validate winning at all costs.
Oops! That was meant to be in response to Andy's comment, not Plato's
(I'm here all week)
In other words, is it just that 2015 is the moment for the left - or is it that Jeremy Corbyn can articulate it better than before?
They're going for Corbyn because they don't want to win the next election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjSDvdgTOzg
Might put up the mid-season review this weekend. The graph looks like a corpse being shocked back t life.
It's possible that in the near future a great counterfactual will be 'what if one less MP had nominated Corbyn?'
Looks like you are using the Yorkshire Spell Checker again, Mr Dancer!
As you note, it wasn't The Thing that delivered Thatcher her success that GE - but has been elevated in the same mode as Cameron is Lucky blah blah, as if that excuses the failings of their rivals.
If there's one thing that the advent of YouTube et al has brought is the facility to see contemporaneous progs of the time. It's the same with the Sheffield Rally - that didn't even register as something that effected my vote, or coloured my opinion of Kinnock.
Him falling in the sea at conference in Brighton, and Labour showing the same biopic PEB twice by popular demand stuck in my mind at the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8ktNsie0I
or if you are Tyson
Nuova Discussione
Oddly, when I was university a woman I was talking to thought I might be from the south, though she couldn't place where. My accent is (or was, at least) not overpoweringly Yorkshirish.
Reward aggression and you encourage more.