Is this not a really bad publicity for YouGov? Are they happy with this?
Erm, YouGov have nothing to do with Labour's "consultation" - it was just a bog-standard web form. The YouGov data today (via @election_data) is a proper survey.
Ah sorry I thought it was an interpretation of the YouGov poll. Thats two misunderstandings of polls today. My defence is that I did have a horrible nights lack of sleep last night. Corbyn and the PLP seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to agreeing to disagree. We know the Corbyn side is as mad as a box of frogs, the rest of the Shadow Cabinet and PLP really should just set their stall out and try to plough as straight a furrow as possible so we can see what Ordinary Labour looks like.
Looking it up on Wiki, I think Corbyn would have to serve for 357 days to avoid being the shortest-serving Labour leader (deputies promoted on deaths of leaders excepted).
Which I think means he's got 279 days to go (head maths, so might be wrong).
@paulwaugh: As we speak, Shadow Cabinet are disputing that Corbyn can have a party position AND a free vote at the same time. This could get messy
It's new and fresh and inclusive.
But it's no way to run a political party, still less HMO.
I think it is possible for a party leader to state that he has a very personal view on a matter such as this but at the same time acknowledging that the rest of the parliamentary party has a range of differing opinions and that he is willing to let them vote according to their own consciences - just as he is doing.
If you view a vote to engage in military action as a moral choice then you can see how a party leader who happened to be a devout Catholic would take a personal stand on an abortion vote whilst leaving the rest of the MPs to make their own decisions.
Personally I don't see Corbyn's position as moral one, rather one of dogma - and so his position is weakened as a result. But in theoretical terms, I can see how a Party leader can be at odds with his or her parliamentary forces and see find a way to allow everyone to make their own decisions based on moral and political considerations.
couldn't agree more.
And if the message from Day 1 had been a unified response to that effect then I would agree even more than that.
But it wasn't. This episode has allowed us to see the formless, shapeless mass that the Labour Party has become in a matter of weeks. Diane Abbott, John McConnell each saying opposing things didn't give the impression they were voicing their own moral positions within a unified party structure that encouraged such debate.
It gave the impression that Lab are like cats fighting in a sack.
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
It's a matter of war and peace, a two day debate in the commons seems perfectly reasonable. Debate for two days, vote, then bomb the snot out of IS.
@faisalislam: More intriguingly: talk of some restrictions on the ability of relevant senior shad cabinet members to argue for, if not vote for airstrikes
How would that work in the House when Cameron politely asks what they think?
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
But you simply cannot run a meaningful political party run by the membership. Any party like that would be utterly slaughtered at a GE.
Well, if you are a Socialist groupuscule, convinced of the rightness of your cause, of course you can believe that 250,000 people can run a party how they wish, regardless of the wishes of 9 million voters.
It's the very essence of such people to believe that the elect few know better than the ignorant many.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a metropolitan elite running the Corbynistas? Do they know about this?
Er, I haven't mentioned any sort of "metropolitan elite". But there are a lot of SWP/Respect people (former) around Corbyn and acting as his advisors. I don't think such people have much regard for the views of ordinary voters.
My post was obviously badly framed - it was intended to be ironic. I agree completely with your take and was trying to suggest that Corbynistas are significantly London-centric.
Mr. Eagles, perhaps you should ask Flaminius, Marcellus, Sempronius and Paullus how bad Hannibal was at warfare.
Honestly. I'm trying to get some work done, so someone else must endeavour in vain to educate you about the Roman and Carthaginian politico-military situation in the 3rd century BC.
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
It's a matter of war and peace, a two day debate in the commons seems perfectly reasonable. Debate for two days, vote, then bomb the snot out of IS.
If a 2 day debate was needed this should have been raised before the 1 day debate started and then it could have been extended easily. The fact that Corbyn is coming out with this now is simply to allow Lab more time to sort itself out and for Momentum to put pressure on the MPs.
It is more than probable that if only a third of Tory voters vote UKIP in Oldham, Labour will lose and Jezza may follow the result into oblivion.
To be fair, Mark Clarke has done his best to put voters off the tory brand....
But Mark Clarke, the Budget shambles, the NHS strike - are all open goals - which Labour have missed. They have meanwhile scored two Own Goals...The Budget and Syria..
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
It's a matter of war and peace, a two day debate in the commons seems perfectly reasonable. Debate for two days, vote, then bomb the snot out of IS.
It would be reasonable, except we have had plenty of debate on the issue already, including in Parliament, so I do not see how a further two days is necessary when the majority of it will have already been debated and it will just be rehashing the same points already made. Arguing it is a 'matter of war and peace' doesn't automatically make 2 days now, irrespective of what came before, reasonable. Why not 3 days, why not a week? Why is 1 full day not enough given previous debates and statements? What about that extra day is going to add value to the discussion of the issue?
Mr. Eagles, perhaps you should ask Flaminius, Marcellus, Sempronius and Paullus how bad Hannibal was at warfare.
Honestly. I'm trying to get some work done, so someone else must endeavour in vain to educate you about the Roman and Carthaginian politico-military situation in the 3rd century BC.
I said war,not warfare/battles, Hannibal was lucky in winning a few battles but ultimately losing the war.
Winning the Leadership was Corbyn's Cannae, his leadership is just one long Zama.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have played this pretty well to me. He's made his position abundantly clear on a subject where he will have the support of the majority of party members against MPs and shadow cabinet members. He has strengthened the case for transferring more power into the hands of the membership, which is his top priority right now.
But you simply cannot run a meaningful political party run by the membership. Any party like that would be utterly slaughtered at a GE.
Well, if you are a Socialist groupuscule, convinced of the rightness of your cause, of course you can believe that 250,000 people can run a party how they wish, regardless of the wishes of 9 million voters.
It's the very essence of such people to believe that the elect few know better than the ignorant many.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a metropolitan elite running the Corbynistas? Do they know about this?
Er, I haven't mentioned any sort of "metropolitan elite". But there are a lot of SWP/Respect people (former) around Corbyn and acting as his advisors. I don't think such people have much regard for the views of ordinary voters.
My post was obviously badly framed - it was intended to be ironic. I agree completely with your take and was trying to suggest that Corbynistas are significantly London-centric.
Oops, sorry
PS As a Londoner myself, I'm fed up with these people ruining our good name (no sniggering at the back there, please!). We're no keener than anyone else on homicidal maniacs slaughtering us all. And we're pretty pissed off at the spread of intolerance and hatred as well.
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
It's a matter of war and peace, a two day debate in the commons seems perfectly reasonable. Debate for two days, vote, then bomb the snot out of IS.
It isn't.
It is an extension of an existing military campaign into a new - adjacent - area. The overall goal and aims have not changed - just that the geographical focus has been expanded to include those areas that pose the greatest threat to the UK and our allies. It is in no way a matter of war.
We are already engaged. This is just about expanding the area.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak 1m1 minute ago Labour will offer a free vote - and senior sources tell me no official position on strikes - policy remains conference resolution
-------------
Corbyn being forced to row back all the time here.
Mr. Eagles, perhaps you should ask Flaminius, Marcellus, Sempronius and Paullus how bad Hannibal was at warfare.
Honestly. I'm trying to get some work done, so someone else must endeavour in vain to educate you about the Roman and Carthaginian politico-military situation in the 3rd century BC.
In fairness, he may well have been great at warfare, as those gentlemen would attest, but the war itself was still lost.
In any case, if Corbyn is like Hannibal, that means it will take 12 years to defeat him?
@paulwaugh: As we speak, Shadow Cabinet are disputing that Corbyn can have a party position AND a free vote at the same time. This could get messy
It's new and fresh and inclusive.
But it's no way to run a political party, still less HMO.
I think it is possible for a party leader to state that he has a very personal view on a matter such as this but at the same time acknowledging that the rest of the parliamentary party has a range of differing opinions and that he is willing to let them vote according to their own consciences - just as he is doing.
If you view a vote to engage in military action as a moral choice then you can see how a party leader who happened to be a devout Catholic would take a personal stand on an abortion vote whilst leaving the rest of the MPs to make their own decisions.
Personally I don't see Corbyn's position as moral one, rather one of dogma - and so his position is weakened as a result. But in theoretical terms, I can see how a Party leader can be at odds with his or her parliamentary forces and see find a way to allow everyone to make their own decisions based on moral and political considerations.
couldn't agree more.
And if the message from Day 1 had been a unified response to that effect then I would agree even more than that.
But it wasn't. This episode has allowed us to see the formless, shapeless mass that the Labour Party has become in a matter of weeks. Diane Abbott, John McConnell each saying opposing things didn't give the impression they were voicing their own moral positions within a unified party structure that encouraged such debate.
It gave the impression that Lab are like cats fighting in a sack.
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
It's a matter of war and peace, a two day debate in the commons seems perfectly reasonable. Debate for two days, vote, then bomb the snot out of IS.
It would be reasonable, except we have had plenty of debate on the issue already, including in Parliament, so I do not see how a further two days is necessary when the majority of it will have already been debated and it will just be rehashing the same points already made. Arguing it is a 'matter of war and peace' doesn't automatically make 2 days now, irrespective of what came before, reasonable. Why not 3 days, why not a week? Why is 1 full day not enough given previous debates and statements? What about that extra day is going to add value to the discussion of the issue?
Makes Dave look very generous, won't affect the Conservative position one bit. Creates maximum trouble within Labour and shows that more than ample time has been given to the question of bombing.
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
It's a matter of war and peace, a two day debate in the commons seems perfectly reasonable. Debate for two days, vote, then bomb the snot out of IS.
2 days to debate the decision to commence bombing ISIS in Syria as well as in Iraq like we are already doing now? Are you really serious? The proposal is not to bomb the (still) official Syrian Army. Has anyone told Corbyn this? Two days debate to allow us to comply with a UN resolution? Get away!! No, 2 hours more like, not 2 days.
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
It's a matter of war and peace, a two day debate in the commons seems perfectly reasonable. Debate for two days, vote, then bomb the snot out of IS.
It would be reasonable, except we have had plenty of debate on the issue already, including in Parliament, so I do not see how a further two days is necessary when the majority of it will have already been debated and it will just be rehashing the same points already made. Arguing it is a 'matter of war and peace' doesn't automatically make 2 days now, irrespective of what came before, reasonable. Why not 3 days, why not a week? Why is 1 full day not enough given previous debates and statements? What about that extra day is going to add value to the discussion of the issue?
Makes Dave look very generous, won't affect the Conservative position one bit. Creates maximum trouble within Labour and shows that more than ample time has been given to the question of bombing.
While I don't see any great urgency for a vote next week, say, other than politicking from Cameron and co, I think it naiive to think the argument will not be made that not enough time had been given if 2 day debate is allowed. Sure, Corbyn would find it harder to argue that, but he or his fellows will, I have no doubt. The wrong information was provided in the debate, joe bloggs MP still didn't get to speak, which would have swung the whole vote no doubt, life and death, iraq war, not enough substance in the words, iraq war, tories playing politics on date, iraq war, iraq war, iraq war.
Im surprisingly really annoyed actually at this idea of further delay and 2 day debate on Syria being proposed. It's dishonest - are we to believe that the vast bulk of comments will not be the same old rehash of points that have been heard before? I'm not buying that.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
It's a matter of war and peace, a two day debate in the commons seems perfectly reasonable. Debate for two days, vote, then bomb the snot out of IS.
If a 2 day debate was needed this should have been raised before the 1 day debate started and then it could have been extended easily. The fact that Corbyn is coming out with this now is simply to allow Lab more time to sort itself out and for Momentum to put pressure on the MPs.
Speaking of debates.... What fun we will have trying to organise the ones for 2020. I hope Osborne sticks to Cameron's guns and just has one early in the campaign again. :-)
38% @ 37.5% turnout would be just over 10,000 UKIP votes.
@shadsy - if you're lurking, how about a u/o line on this?
I want to bet a decent amount on unders.
The David Cameron school of negotiation on display!
The value bet is on turnout.
If he knows you want to go under wont he just quote it lower? That's all I was saying
That's how salesmen work, not bookmakers!
Hmmmm !!
I just want to bet against the implied UKIP performance at the lowest juice.
Bookies offer Asian Handicap bets for a reason.
I just think you are better off not telling a bookmaker what you want to do before he says the price, but you do what you like
Fair enough.
Ideally, Betfair would get their arse into gear and offer some other markets for OW&R.
IIRC, a few years back BF had an interesting market where, instead of trading odds, you traded seat numbers @ evens. It would be great to have a similar market for byelection votes.
38% @ 37.5% turnout would be just over 10,000 UKIP votes.
@shadsy - if you're lurking, how about a u/o line on this?
I want to bet a decent amount on unders.
The David Cameron school of negotiation on display!
The value bet is on turnout.
If he knows you want to go under wont he just quote it lower? That's all I was saying
That's how salesmen work, not bookmakers!
Hmmmm !!
I just want to bet against the implied UKIP performance at the lowest juice.
Bookies offer Asian Handicap bets for a reason.
I just think you are better off not telling a bookmaker what you want to do before he says the price, but you do what you like
Fair enough.
Ideally, Betfair would get their arse into gear and offer some other markets for OW&R.
IIRC, a few years back BF had an interesting market where, instead of trading odds, you traded seat numbers @ evens. It would be great to have a similar market for byelection votes.
I am sure if you phoned them, asked them to put some up and said that you would seed the mkt they'd do it
BBC ''there is a "potential agreement" between the British Medical Association and the government, under the guidance of Acas. After working "through the weekend" it was potentially agreed to resume negotiations .... The BMA would suspend strike action and the government would not proceed will implementing a contract.''
BBC ''there is a "potential agreement" between the British Medical Association and the government, under the guidance of Acas. After working "through the weekend" it was potentially agreed to resume negotiations .... The BMA would suspend strike action and the government would not proceed will implementing a contract.''
That is good news. Will there be beer and sandwiches?
Apparently Labour MPs will be allowed a free vote but not free speech in parliament.
There are plenty of ways that shadow cabinet members can make their position known. And there are a vast number of former shadow ministers who will join in to make sure that the full scale of the anti-Corbyn opposition is revealed.
@paulwaugh: I'm told Shadow Cabinet insisted that Hilary Benn will close the Syria vote, Corbyn will open it - with two different positions on bombing.
Well, if the rumour mill is even close to accurate, it's surprising he would get 40%. Just as he is popular with members, I wonder if he has more support, grudging or not, than is supposed. His detractors are vocal and not exactly a tiny minority safely ignored, but apparently most are willing to work with him or do what he says still.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 25s25 seconds ago I'm told Shadow Cabinet insisted that Hilary Benn will close the Syria vote, Corbyn will open it - with two different positions on bombing.
@paulwaugh: I'm told Shadow Cabinet insisted that Hilary Benn will close the Syria vote, Corbyn will open it - with two different positions on bombing.
Mr. Eagles, if Britain First hasn't broken any laws or website rules, it's a bad move, as it was wrong when BNP members were, I think, forbidden to be teachers. If a party's legal, it's legal, regardless of whether it's mad or has vile views.
The price of free speech is that idiots and bigots get it too.
@paulwaugh · 34s35 seconds ago Rumours that LibDems will vote FOR Syria bombing But spksmn tells me that's 'presumptious', MPs/peers meet tonight + more discussions follow
Labour offer a free vote, which Cameron wins. Labour squeak Oldham No member of the shadow cabinet resigns Corbyn remains in post, and those members of the PLP not deselected by Momentum get hammered by the voters
@paulwaugh · 34s35 seconds ago Rumours that LibDems will vote FOR Syria bombing But spksmn tells me that's 'presumptious', MPs/peers meet tonight + more discussions follow
A couple of backbench rebellions and half the party's against!
@paulwaugh · 34s35 seconds ago Rumours that LibDems will vote FOR Syria bombing But spksmn tells me that's 'presumptious', MPs/peers meet tonight + more discussions follow
Maybe the LibDems have taken the bold decision to listen to their voter....
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 25s25 seconds ago I'm told Shadow Cabinet insisted that Hilary Benn will close the Syria vote, Corbyn will open it - with two different positions on bombing.
Push me pull you.
That is actually a pretty sensible way forward given their current splits
It is not going to be difficult to guess who will be the more persuasive...
As I said last week, Labour couldn't put together a backbone if they tried. Allegedly, the two-day debate is to delay the vote until after the Oldham by-election!!!!!!!
Mr. Taffys, as do I. The police keeping an eye on Twitter in case anyone's mean is ridiculous, and the idea sky fairies and their followers deserve special protection is insane.
@paulwaugh · 34s35 seconds ago Rumours that LibDems will vote FOR Syria bombing But spksmn tells me that's 'presumptious', MPs/peers meet tonight + more discussions follow
A couple of backbench rebellions and half the party's against!
It looks like Labour isn't the only party whose leader has been sat on:
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 25s25 seconds ago I'm told Shadow Cabinet insisted that Hilary Benn will close the Syria vote, Corbyn will open it - with two different positions on bombing.
Push me pull you.
That is actually a pretty sensible way forward given their current splits
It is not going to be difficult to guess who will be the more persuasive...
Jezza has had a lifetime of speaking against western prosecuted war.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 25s25 seconds ago I'm told Shadow Cabinet insisted that Hilary Benn will close the Syria vote, Corbyn will open it - with two different positions on bombing.
Push me pull you.
That is actually a pretty sensible way forward given their current splits
It is not going to be difficult to guess who will be the more persuasive...
Jezza has had a lifetime of speaking against western prosecuted war.
He should have the main arguments off pat by now.
But his Commons performances are woeful
Benn gets the last word. Surprised Corbyn didn't fight for that. His contribution will be long forgotten
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
We won that one as well.
I nearly included the Seven Years War. As well as global scope it also had very long-lasting consequences. On the other hand I think that when we use the term "world war" there is also the idea of mobilising all the resources of a nation, of nationalist ideology and of a remorseless war that ends in the collapse of the losing side and reorganisation of their home state by the victors. As I understand it, those elements are not there in the Seven Years War but are to some extent in Napoleonic France. But we could certainly see the Seven Years War as WW-1.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
In terms of total war, the Thirty Years War was more intense than the Seven Years War but its geographic scope was much more limited. Even so, I'd be inclined to view 1756-63 as the first of four truly global conflicts.
Bobbitt's concept of "Epochal" or Long War (1914-1990) makes a lot of sense to me.
Good afternoon all. I prefer to think of 1870-1945 as being Europe's Peloponnesian war. I'd accept the argument that there was an overlapping conflict from 1917-1989(ish).
BBC ''there is a "potential agreement" between the British Medical Association and the government, under the guidance of Acas. After working "through the weekend" it was potentially agreed to resume negotiations .... The BMA would suspend strike action and the government would not proceed will implementing a contract.''
That is good news. Will there be beer and sandwiches?
Intense negotiations in a completely smoke-free room, how the world has changed (note to Mr Corbyn - yes, the world has changed).
"Mr Corbyn then told Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary who supports air strikes, that he would not allow him to close the Parliamentary debate on strikes, as would be normal. A furious Mr Benn replied: "If you do that, I'll just do it from the backbenches." One shadow minister's verdict on the meeting: "It was a riot in there.""
As I said last week, Labour couldn't put together a backbone if they tried. Allegedly, the two-day debate is to delay the vote until after the Oldham by-election!!!!!!!
Equally allegedly, the Conservatives scheduled it for Wednesday because that was the day before the byelection.
@paulwaugh · 34s35 seconds ago Rumours that LibDems will vote FOR Syria bombing But spksmn tells me that's 'presumptious', MPs/peers meet tonight + more discussions follow
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
We won that one as well.
I nearly included the Seven Years War. As well as global scope it also had very long-lasting consequences. On the other hand I think that when we use the term "world war" there is also the idea of mobilising all the resources of a nation, of nationalist ideology and of a remorseless war that ends in the collapse of the losing side and reorganisation of their home state by the victors. As I understand it, those elements are not there in the Seven Years War but are to some extent in Napoleonic France. But we could certainly see the Seven Years War as WW-1.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
In terms of total war, the Thirty Years War was more intense than the Seven Years War but its geographic scope was much more limited. Even so, I'd be inclined to view 1756-63 as the first of four truly global conflicts.
Bobbitt's concept of "Epochal" or Long War (1914-1990) makes a lot of sense to me.
Good afternoon all. I prefer to think of 1870-1945 as being Europe's Peloponnesian war. I'd accept the argument that there was an overlapping conflict from 1917-1989(ish).
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
We won that one as well.
I nearly included the Seven Years War. As well as global scope it also had very long-lasting consequences. On the other hand I think that when we use the term "world war" there is also the idea of mobilising all the resources of a nation, of nationalist ideology and of a remorseless war that ends in the collapse of the losing side and reorganisation of their home state by the victors. As I understand it, those elements are not there in the Seven Years War but are to some extent in Napoleonic France. But we could certainly see the Seven Years War as WW-1.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
In terms of total war, the Thirty Years War was more intense than the Seven Years War but its geographic scope was much more limited. Even so, I'd be inclined to view 1756-63 as the first of four truly global conflicts.
Bobbitt's concept of "Epochal" or Long War (1914-1990) makes a lot of sense to me.
Good afternoon all. I prefer to think of 1870-1945 as being Europe's Peloponnesian war. I'd accept the argument that there was an overlapping conflict from 1917-1989(ish).
How do you explain how some of the participants switched sides? For example, Italy was allied with the Triple Alliance but then joined the Entente in WWI. Under Mussolini it went back to being allied with Germany, before switching halfway through the war and then being part of NATO against Russia.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the aristocratic Benn traitor will be purged! All those who question to the wisdom of Chairman Jao will be exiled to the northern wastes of Jezikistan!
I thought it may be lively today - but the DT staff have been run off their feet as Labour play the hokey-cokey.
I'm totally confused what their policy is right now. And given it's changed at least 3x in 2hrs - I'm not convinced it won't change again at least twice before Wednesday
"Mr Corbyn then told Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary who supports air strikes, that he would not allow him to close the Parliamentary debate on strikes, as would be normal. A furious Mr Benn replied: "If you do that, I'll just do it from the backbenches." One shadow minister's verdict on the meeting: "It was a riot in there.""
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
We won that one as well.
I nearly included the Seven Years War. As well as global scope it also had very long-lasting consequences. On the other hand I think that when we use the term "world war" there is also the idea of mobilising all the resources of a nation, of nationalist ideology and of a remorseless war that ends in the collapse of the losing side and reorganisation of their home state by the victors. As I understand it, those elements are not there in the Seven Years War but are to some extent in Napoleonic France. But we could certainly see the Seven Years War as WW-1.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
In terms of total war, the Thirty Years War was more intense than the Seven Years War but its geographic scope was much more limited. Even so, I'd be inclined to view 1756-63 as the first of four truly global conflicts.
Bobbitt's concept of "Epochal" or Long War (1914-1990) makes a lot of sense to me.
Good afternoon all. I prefer to think of 1870-1945 as being Europe's Peloponnesian war. I'd accept the argument that there was an overlapping conflict from 1917-1989(ish).
How do you explain how some of the participants switched sides? For example, Italy was allied with the Triple Alliance but then joined the Entente in WWI. Under Mussolini it went back to being allied with Germany, before switching halfway through the war and then being part of NATO against Russia.
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
We won that one as well.
I nearly included the Seven Years War. As well as global scope it also had very long-lasting consequences. On the other hand I think that when we use the term "world war" there is also the idea of mobilising all the resources of a nation, of nationalist ideology and of a remorseless war that ends in the collapse of the losing side and reorganisation of their home state by the victors. As I understand it, those elements are not there in the Seven Years War but are to some extent in Napoleonic France. But we could certainly see the Seven Years War as WW-1.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
In terms of total war, the Thirty Years War was more intense than the Seven Years War but its geographic scope was much more limited. Even so, I'd be inclined to view 1756-63 as the first of four truly global conflicts.
Bobbitt's concept of "Epochal" or Long War (1914-1990) makes a lot of sense to me.
Good afternoon all. I prefer to think of 1870-1945 as being Europe's Peloponnesian war. I'd accept the argument that there was an overlapping conflict from 1917-1989(ish).
How do you explain how some of the participants switched sides? For example, Italy was allied with the Triple Alliance but then joined the Entente in WWI. Under Mussolini it went back to being allied with Germany, before switching halfway through the war and then being part of NATO against Russia.
'Events dear boy, events'
Disputed[edit] Events, dear boy, events. Response to a journalist when asked what is most likely to blow governments off course. The quote is also given as "Events, my dear boy, events", with the word "my", but it may never have been uttered at all. Knowles, Elizabeth M. (2006). What they didn't say: a book of misquotations. Oxford University Press. pp. vi, 33.
"Mr Corbyn then told Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary who supports air strikes, that he would not allow him to close the Parliamentary debate on strikes, as would be normal. A furious Mr Benn replied: "If you do that, I'll just do it from the backbenches." One shadow minister's verdict on the meeting: "It was a riot in there.""
Whose side is Bercow on? Has he got it worked out yet? I guess he must be familiar with these bizarre sorts of arrangements by now.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the aristocratic Benn traitor will be purged! All those who question to the wisdom of Chairman Jao will be exiled to the northern wastes of Jezikistan!
OT For anyone interested in the story of K-129 and the CIA cover story to raise the sub, there's a two part docu on PBS America called Azorian. Well worth a looksee.
Mr. Taffys, as do I. The police keeping an eye on Twitter in case anyone's mean is ridiculous, and the idea sky fairies and their followers deserve special protection is insane.
Mr. P, Burnham's a jester.
Do you actually think that the Police are monitoring or do you think that they potentially respond to complaints?
A few years back I received verbal death threats from an ex employee who had parted on bad terms. Later that week my car was vandalised in the work parking lot. Reported both incidents to the Police but was basically told that without CCTV footage or a threat in writing there was little they could do. The issue with Twitter is that it is black and white in writing in a way verbal comments aren't.
I completely agree on the need for a First Amendment style protection for free speech.
As I said last week, Labour couldn't put together a backbone if they tried. Allegedly, the two-day debate is to delay the vote until after the Oldham by-election!!!!!!!
Well, while I'm against the delaying tactic of the 2-day debate, I don't see other than politics why the vote might be before Oldham in any case.
"Mr Corbyn then told Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary who supports air strikes, that he would not allow him to close the Parliamentary debate on strikes, as would be normal. A furious Mr Benn replied: "If you do that, I'll just do it from the backbenches." One shadow minister's verdict on the meeting: "It was a riot in there.""
Whose side is Bercow on? Has he got it worked out yet? I guess he must be familiar with these bizarre sorts of arrangements by now.
What has it got to do with Bercow ?
The referee doesn't decide the penalty taker order in a football match shootout.
Comments
Thats two misunderstandings of polls today. My defence is that I did have a horrible nights lack of sleep last night.
Corbyn and the PLP seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to agreeing to disagree. We know the Corbyn side is as mad as a box of frogs, the rest of the Shadow Cabinet and PLP really should just set their stall out and try to plough as straight a furrow as possible so we can see what Ordinary Labour looks like.
Which I think means he's got 279 days to go (head maths, so might be wrong).
The record is currently held by George Nicoll Barnes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Barnes_(British_politician)
Suspect @CllrJimMcMahon serial blocking of people asking him questions is a colossal error of judgement.
More discussion and clarification is usuallty a good thing, and there will be points that still require clarification, but at a point what we will hear will not be discussion but mere words to fill space.
Bookies offer Asian Handicap bets for a reason.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/671353755770609664
PP PSOE CIU POD
TNS Demoscopia 27.1 20.0 21.6 15.5
NC Report 29.3 23.1 17.4 15.6
Sigma Dos 27.1 20.2 23.0 16.2
Demoscopia y Servicios 28.3 21.2 19.9 15.5
PP = Tory PSOE = Labour CIU = Centre right Podemos = corbynistas!
Honestly. I'm trying to get some work done, so someone else must endeavour in vain to educate you about the Roman and Carthaginian politico-military situation in the 3rd century BC.
Winning the Leadership was Corbyn's Cannae, his leadership is just one long Zama.
PS As a Londoner myself, I'm fed up with these people ruining our good name (no sniggering at the back there, please!). We're no keener than anyone else on homicidal maniacs slaughtering us all. And we're pretty pissed off at the spread of intolerance and hatred as well.
It is an extension of an existing military campaign into a new - adjacent - area. The overall goal and aims have not changed - just that the geographical focus has been expanded to include those areas that pose the greatest threat to the UK and our allies. It is in no way a matter of war.
We are already engaged. This is just about expanding the area.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Labour will offer a free vote - and senior sources tell me no official position on strikes - policy remains conference resolution
-------------
Corbyn being forced to row back all the time here.
In any case, if Corbyn is like Hannibal, that means it will take 12 years to defeat him?
@DPJHodges: Corbynites though this was going to be their greatest day since he became leader. They're not happy. Not happy at all...
The proposal is not to bomb the (still) official Syrian Army. Has anyone told Corbyn this?
Two days debate to allow us to comply with a UN resolution? Get away!!
No, 2 hours more like, not 2 days.
Thing is: you never know if they are going to be replaced with anyone better.
"glad Jeremy has called a free vote....don't bomb Syria..."
is this code?
Ideally, Betfair would get their arse into gear and offer some other markets for OW&R.
IIRC, a few years back BF had an interesting market where, instead of trading odds, you traded seat numbers @ evens. It would be great to have a similar market for byelection votes.
''there is a "potential agreement" between the British Medical Association and the government, under the guidance of Acas.
After working "through the weekend" it was potentially agreed to resume negotiations .... The BMA would suspend strike action and the government would not proceed will implementing a contract.''
over 40% of his party won't go his way?
I'm told Shadow Cabinet insisted that Hilary Benn will close the Syria vote, Corbyn will open it - with two different positions on bombing.
Push me pull you.
Facebook has taken the unbelievable step of closing down the enormous Britain First Facebook fan page.
Recently, our fan page exceeded 1.1 million “Likes”, twice as big as the Conservative party page.
http://bit.ly/1Xs2G9V
It is facebook and hence deeply, deeply unimportant.
TIA
The price of free speech is that idiots and bigots get it too.
Rumours that LibDems will vote FOR Syria bombing
But spksmn tells me that's 'presumptious', MPs/peers meet tonight + more discussions follow
@BBCNormanS: Andy Burnham says free vote on Syria is "right decision"
I sincerely wish we had a First Amendment type free speech law in our country.
It is not going to be difficult to guess who will be the more persuasive...
Mr. P, Burnham's a jester.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/tim-farron-warns-against-syria-vote-48126.html
He should have the main arguments off pat by now.
Benn gets the last word. Surprised Corbyn didn't fight for that. His contribution will be long forgotten
"Mr Corbyn then told Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary who supports air strikes, that he would not allow him to close the Parliamentary debate on strikes, as would be normal.
A furious Mr Benn replied: "If you do that, I'll just do it from the backbenches."
One shadow minister's verdict on the meeting: "It was a riot in there.""
“I can't go on like this."
1689 to 1815
Edited extra bit: I really ought to be working...
I'm totally confused what their policy is right now. And given it's changed at least 3x in 2hrs - I'm not convinced it won't change again at least twice before Wednesday
Events, dear boy, events. Response to a journalist when asked what is most likely to blow governments off course.
The quote is also given as "Events, my dear boy, events", with the word "my", but it may never have been uttered at all. Knowles, Elizabeth M. (2006). What they didn't say: a book of misquotations. Oxford University Press. pp. vi, 33.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harold_Macmillan
A few years back I received verbal death threats from an ex employee who had parted on bad terms. Later that week my car was vandalised in the work parking lot. Reported both incidents to the Police but was basically told that without CCTV footage or a threat in writing there was little they could do. The issue with Twitter is that it is black and white in writing in a way verbal comments aren't.
I completely agree on the need for a First Amendment style protection for free speech.
The referee doesn't decide the penalty taker order in a football match shootout.
What have I
What have I done to deserve this?