politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Donald Brind says a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership is now

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Donald Brind says a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership is now a “virtual certainty”

“If you want them to eat chicken, don’t lay out a buffet”. That’s a favourite piece of advice from a Lefty friend who I work with offering training in media skills to progressive folk in the Labour movement and charities. The point of the advice is — focus on your key message and don’t get drawn into highways and byways which will provide the media with negative stories.

Read the full story here

JosiasJessop

Thirst? Again?

It's been a certainty since he was elected IMO.

Edit: and thanks for this, Mr Brind. One thing I would add: we always say we want politicians to state their true views with no spin. It's sad that the only top politician to do so has views which are rather loony ...

foxinsoxuk

Second past the post!

Innocent_Abroad

Test

richardDodd

The abolition of Slavery..

ThomasNashe

That headline will be reusable every week until Corbyn goes.

dr_spyn

Hand of God.

https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/dot-commons-diary/so-why-did-you-leave-parliament-ed-balls-gets-grilling

Ed Balls interview.

Pulpstar

It all makes a leadership challenge – don’t ask me when or how – a virtual certainty.

So.

That sort of certainty then.

Plato_Says

War hero? Seems a bit OTT.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jessop, it's like when people say they want honesty in a relationship.

"Does my bum look big in this?"

"Yes. It's a dress. It can't bend light."

Speedy

My answer is: Forget it.
Labour voters voted Corbyn because he is less crap than others, Dan Jarvis is still crappier somewhere between the level of Liz Kendall and Burnham.

People won't vote for Jarvis simply because he was in the SAS once and went to a gathering of Labour Women.

As they say: "Where's the beef ? "

Dair

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

Speedy

Pulpstar said:

It all makes a leadership challenge – don’t ask me when or how – a virtual certainty.

So.

That sort of certainty then.

The certainty of astrology.

MonikerDiCanio

Jarvis wasn't in the SAS.

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

Second past the post!

Unlike Leicester, I hope.

Mr Sox, I know that we superior folk from Derbyshire look down on you poor unfortunate Leicesterarians, but I still want Leicester to come top this year.

Up the East Midlands!

richardDodd

MAX PB No one is paying for my meagre state pension I whacked huge amounts into that scheme..as a higher rate tax payer often up into the 60% ..and the measly 5k a year in payback is dwarfed beside the benefits that are being dished out to those who have never contributed a penny

ThomasNashe

Don't know about Jarvis. If he's serious, he needs to get himself on TV more often to show that he's capable of engaging middle-England.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, it's like when people say they want honesty in a relationship.

"Does my bum look big in this?"

"Yes. It's a dress. It can't bend light."

Or when they ask you 'Do I look like a total slut in this dress?'

I learned the hard way that you shouldn't answer with 'Well not totally'

Pulpstar

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

Hopping mad and bred like a bunny.

david_herdson

This nails it:

At best the Corbyn performance was naive. His aides should warned him against naively answering every question as if it was a chat around the kitchen table. Just imagaine what a series of such interviews would do to Labour’s campaign during a General Election

Corbyn likes ideas. He likes discussing ideas. He will happily chat with anyone - interviewer, member of the public, IRA, ISIS, whoever - about the best way forward. It's in his nature and the kind of discipline needed to answer six different questions with exactly the same answer, as Ed Miliband once did, is alien to him. (Miliband's example is not necessarily a case of how to do it but it is at least an example of aiming for the goal).

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, so you want Dan Jarvis as leader ?

I don't blame you.

Toms

Personally I think he's a limp cannon.

These are hard times for caring sensible lefties, but one must never give up, although (a new concept for Labour?) action may be needed.

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, it's like when people say they want honesty in a relationship.

"Does my bum look big in this?"

"Yes. It's a dress. It can't bend light."

I just said that joke to Mrs J, and she replied: "If you used that line on me, you'd discover that my fist can bend light, at least when it's travelling at relativistic speed."

That's the sort of conversation that happens when two Geeks get married ...

(I'm not actually sure if it's true: does a small mass moving at near-light speed bend light?)

david_herdson

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

My assumption would be WWI, WWII and Cold War.

However, George III was not a 'ruler', and certainly not by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain was a democracy. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination but certainly much more so than Louis XVI, the Directorate or the Emperor ever allowed.

ThomasNashe

david_herdson said:

This nails it:

At best the Corbyn performance was naive. His aides should warned him against naively answering every question as if it was a chat around the kitchen table. Just imagaine what a series of such interviews would do to Labour’s campaign during a General Election

Corbyn likes ideas. He likes discussing ideas. He will happily chat with anyone - interviewer, member of the public, IRA, ISIS, whoever - about the best way forward. It's in his nature and the kind of discipline needed to answer six different questions with exactly the same answer, as Ed Miliband once did, is alien to him. (Miliband's example is not necessarily a case of how to do it but it is at least an example of aiming for the goal).

Yes, I think an effective leader needs to operate somewhere in between those two extremes!

david_herdson

Pulpstar said:

It all makes a leadership challenge – don’t ask me when or how – a virtual certainty.

So.

That sort of certainty then.

Yes. There will be a challenge. The question is whether it's the sort of challenge that brought down Thatcher, IDS, Kennedy and Ming Campbell, or the sort of challenge that Brown, Major, Hague and many others batted away.

SouthamObserver

Brass monkeys in fragrant harbour. The coldest since 1991 apparently.

On topic, someone like Jarvis gets Labour a hearing. Something the party has not had since around 2008. That is a start, at least.

Fysics_Teacher

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

And one I would defend: Geoge was not the ruler of the country in any meaningful sense and the British were not trying to conquer Europe. Napoleon had many of the same ambitions as Hitler, only without the genocidal racism.

Sean_F

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.

Speedy

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

From the moment Napoleon crowned himself Emperor the distinction between him and his enemies became muted.
That was the moment his defeat was certain, he lost the support of the people who fought for a republic.

From then on the wars became wars between Kings as opposed to wars of liberation from Kings.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jessop, I'd guess yes, only on the basis that dilation of time due to high velocity movement can occur when travelling at sub-light speeds [if the speed is very close to the light barrier].

Also, please remember how much your lady wife enjoyed the line when my comedy comes out (hopefully in a few months)

Pulpstar

david_herdson said:

This nails it:

At best the Corbyn performance was naive. His aides should warned him against naively answering every question as if it was a chat around the kitchen table. Just imagaine what a series of such interviews would do to Labour’s campaign during a General Election

Corbyn likes ideas. He likes discussing ideas. He will happily chat with anyone - interviewer, member of the public, IRA, ISIS, whoever - about the best way forward. It's in his nature and the kind of discipline needed to answer six different questions with exactly the same answer, as Ed Miliband once did, is alien to him. (Miliband's example is not necessarily a case of how to do it but it is at least an example of aiming for the goal).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA Nah that doesn't work either.

What a crock of pots.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Corbyn's style. His issue is his substance. Opening dialogue with Argentina on the Falklands ffsake.

Anyway Labour knew of these views when they elected him leader so no point crying about it now.

taffys

Some excellent anti-Osborne posts on the previous thread, zero response from the Cameroons.

If the dear chancellor delivers a continuity Brown , read the small print, hammer the middle class budget - the conservative party could be in open rebellion.

Events and opinions right now are so volatile, it possible to see politicians' careers and power smashed to bits very quickly.

Pulpstar

Sean_F said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.

Did we civilise Africa too xD ?

Malmesbury

Speedy said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

From the moment Napoleon crowned himself Emperor the distinction between him and his enemies became muted.
That was the moment his defeat was certain, he lost the support of the people who fought for a republic.

From then on the wars became wars between Kings as opposed to wars of liberation from Kings.

Some people like to quote the fact that Napoleon was elected First Consul.

The methodology was interesting - one Marshall assembled his army, and announced he would shoot anyone who voted the wrong way. Public (non-secret) ballot....

Strangely....

Danny565

FPT:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that we will have to assess whether Farron has had positive effect after the May elections. Considering the point that he took over it was never going to be easy to get a decent press profile. It could be worse: Farron has steadied the ship - Corbyn has scuttled his.

That's very debateable. Both Labour and the Lib Dems' standing in the polls is pretty much unchanged from the election -- so far, it's hard to see the evidence that Tim Fallon has "steadied the ship" any more than Corbyn.

That said, I don't think Fallon has done anything particularly wrong, he just had a hellish inheritance. For all the obsessing over the "elections are won in the centre ground" mantra, the Lib Dems under Clegg took it so far that they now have no distinctive USP in the public mind at all. I don't think any other LibDem leader would be doing any better (especially not Norman Lamb) -- it was always going to be the case this parliament that the Lib Dems would have to wait it out until an issue cropped up which they could make capital out of, and Fallon is probably better able than any other Lib Dem to do that if/when the chance arises.

Wanderer

Danny565 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

I think that we will have to assess whether Farron has had positive effect after the May elections. Considering the point that he took over it was never going to be easy to get a decent press profile. It could be worse: Farron has steadied the ship - Corbyn has scuttled his.

That's very debateable. Both Labour and the Lib Dems' standing in the polls is pretty much unchanged from the election -- so far, it's hard to see the evidence that Tim Fallon has "steadied the ship" any more than Corbyn.

That said, I don't think Fallon has done anything particularly wrong, he just had a hellish inheritance. For all the obsessing over the "elections are won in the centre ground" mantra, the Lib Dems under Clegg took it so far that they now have no distinctive USP in the public mind at all. I don't think any other LibDem leader would be doing any better (especially not Norman Lamb) -- it was always going to be the case this parliament that the Lib Dems would have to wait it out until an issue cropped up which they could make capital out of, and Fallon is probably better able than any other Lib Dem to do that if/when the chance arises.

He's certainly failing on the getting people to remember his name test (I do it too.)

ThomasNashe

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

This nails it:

At best the Corbyn performance was naive. His aides should warned him against naively answering every question as if it was a chat around the kitchen table. Just imagaine what a series of such interviews would do to Labour’s campaign during a General Election

Corbyn likes ideas. He likes discussing ideas. He will happily chat with anyone - interviewer, member of the public, IRA, ISIS, whoever - about the best way forward. It's in his nature and the kind of discipline needed to answer six different questions with exactly the same answer, as Ed Miliband once did, is alien to him. (Miliband's example is not necessarily a case of how to do it but it is at least an example of aiming for the goal).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA Nah that doesn't work either.

What a crock of pots.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Corbyn's style. His issue is his substance. Opening dialogue with Argentina on the Falklands ffsake.

Anyway Labour knew of these views when they elected him leader so no point crying about it now.

Actually, a comparison of Miliband to Corbyn comes out in the latter's favour. If you put a monkey behind the wheel of a car, it's going to crash, but you don't blame the monkey - it's the idiot that allowed the monkey to drive the car who's responsible.

SouthamObserver

Given Scotland's obvious superiority surely a great English achievement is its total subjugation of the Dcots and the appropriation of their material and intellectual wealth. Quite how such a primitive, virtue-less rag-tag of ignoramuses managed to so comprehensively browbeat their better in every way neighbours is beyond me. But it happened.

Dair

david_herdson said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

My assumption would be WWI, WWII and Cold War.

However, George III was not a 'ruler', and certainly not by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain was a democracy. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination but certainly much more so than Louis XVI, the Directorate or the Emperor ever allowed.

WWI, WWII and the Cold Wa would only neeed at most 70 years, not the 150 in the original post, so I think it's fairly certain it's Napoleon.

I wan't so much claiming Napoleon was a democrat but that the idea the UK was not tyrannical was mistaken. Before 1832 it is quite hard to accept the claim that Britain was democratic in any meaningful way.

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

Fysics_Teacher

Sean_F said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.

And bankrupt if memory serves. Something about Darien?

Danny565

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

Dair

Pulpstar said:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA Nah that doesn't work either.

It works best with the colour coded words on screen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g4ivIid12o

kle4

A challenge a certainty? Sure, but what good does it do either side of the party to act like it could happen at any time but do nothing about it?

Corbyn is either clueless or provocative in stoking flames of discontent with blunt and Ill formed opinions on subjects he knows are controversial. Trident is a matter of principle and a fight he can take on, but others he should spin even when opponents bring them up. He certainly knows how to, despite what his hagiographers think, and the very fact he is personally agreeable and thought to be straightforward means he would be able to get away with a bit of such spin easier than someone thought to be an emotionless soda party automaton.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

Given Scotland's obvious superiority surely a great English achievement is its total subjugation of the Dcots and the appropriation of their material and intellectual wealth. Quite how such a primitive, virtue-less rag-tag of ignoramuses managed to so comprehensively browbeat their better in every way neighbours is beyond me. But it happened.

The power of barbarous hordes.

ThomasNashe

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

Agreed. So far, I can't see much of a case beyond the desperate projections of anti-Corbynites.

richardDodd

SO Maybe they were all at a Burns night..

SimonStClare

a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership is now a “virtual certainty”


I think we heard the same thing said about Gordon Brown more than once - Ed Miliband too.

Sean_F

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.

Did we civilise Africa too xD ?

Africa was more advanced.

Plato_Says

Do we have any keen Corbynistas left on PB?

The numbers on Twitter are dwindling fast. I keep seeing buyers remorse from Labourites who've changed their minds entirely.

Perhaps that massive mandate will prove his undoing. Ironic if so.

Fysics_Teacher

Dair said:

david_herdson said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

My assumption would be WWI, WWII and Cold War.

However, George III was not a 'ruler', and certainly not by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain was a democracy. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination but certainly much more so than Louis XVI, the Directorate or the Emperor ever allowed.

WWI, WWII and the Cold Wa would only neeed at most 70 years, not the 150 in the original post, so I think it's fairly certain it's Napoleon.

I wan't so much claiming Napoleon was a democrat but that the idea the UK was not tyrannical was mistaken. Before 1832 it is quite hard to accept the claim that Britain was democratic in any meaningful way.

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

logical_song

JosiasJessop said:

Thirst? Again?

It's been a certainty since he was elected IMO.

Edit: and thanks for this, Mr Brind. One thing I would add: we always say we want politicians to state their true views with no spin. It's sad that the only top politician to do so has views which are rather loony ...

Labour now need things to get very bad very quickly, so that they can justify a leadership election and have time to recover. Triggering a leadership election is the easy bit, winning it with the membership they now have will be more difficult.

Malmesbury

kle4 said:

A challenge a certainty? Sure, but what good does it do either side of the party to act like it could happen at any time but do nothing about it?

Corbyn is either clueless or provocative in stoking flames of discontent with blunt and Ill formed opinions on subjects he knows are controversial. Trident is a matter of principle and a fight he can take on, but others he should spin even when opponents bring them up. He certainly knows how to, despite what his hagiographers think, and the very fact he is personally agreeable and thought to be straightforward means he would be able to get away with a bit of such spin easier than someone thought to be an emotionless soda party automaton.

The problem is that Corbyn is a cut price Michael Foot. He has a series of beliefs, but doesn't not understand the intellectual underpinnings of what he believes in. It's all faith. Hence he can't deal with those who aren't of his faith. They are just WRONG.

SouthamObserver

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.

ThreeQuidder

Andrew Rawnsley a good read on a Sunday as usual.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/corbynistas-labour-alibis-for-defeat

While the leader remains liked by most of his party’s members, his parliamentary colleagues have to be careful about how rude they are about him. So it is convenient for internal foes to displace their discontent with him on to his office. Good tsar, bad advisers. Seumas Milne, his director of strategy and communications, is currently the most popular whipping boy. But if a leader’s team is not functioning, the ultimate reason is always the leader.

TheScreamingEagles

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.

Automatically negates any Tory attacks about him and Labour being a risk to national security.

david_herdson

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

Having a leader who doesn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas would be an improvement on the present.

SouthamObserver

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.

Automatically negates any Tory attacks about him and Labour being a risk to national security.

Yep, he gets Labour a hearing.

Jarvis on immigration, say, is very different to Corbyn or Miliband on the subject. And that's even the case uf the message is basically the same.

Fysics_Teacher

For Mr Dair: did you have any objection to my other two examples of something positive that Britain has done?

Dair

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

david_herdson

Dair said:

david_herdson said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Dair said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Dair said:

the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.

Physician, heal thyself.

Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.

I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.

At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.

Theres football, and democracy, and railways...

But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.

If that's the best you can come up with...

OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.

You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.

That is certainly an... interesting take on history.

My assumption would be WWI, WWII and Cold War.

However, George III was not a 'ruler', and certainly not by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain was a democracy. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination but certainly much more so than Louis XVI, the Directorate or the Emperor ever allowed.

WWI, WWII and the Cold Wa would only neeed at most 70 years, not the 150 in the original post, so I think it's fairly certain it's Napoleon.

I wan't so much claiming Napoleon was a democrat but that the idea the UK was not tyrannical was mistaken. Before 1832 it is quite hard to accept the claim that Britain was democratic in any meaningful way.

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

Spain and Portugal in that era suggests otherwise.

I suspect you're channelling your own views rather than engaging in proper history here.

Fysics_Teacher

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.

Automatically negates any Tory attacks about him and Labour being a risk to national security.

Yep, he gets Labour a hearing.

Jarvis on immigration, say, is very different to Corbyn or Miliband on the subject. And that's even the case uf the message is basically the same.

I think anyone but Corbyn makes the Conservative attack harder, but can Labour get rid of him without civil war?

ThreeQuidder

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.

Automatically negates any Tory attacks about him and Labour being a risk to national security.

Yep, he gets Labour a hearing.

And it's so rare for a political party to recognise how important that is. Certainly Tory MPs don't, or else the succession to Cameron would be a walkover for Britain's only current Heineken politician.

williamglenn

The BBC explains the Trump phenomenon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35382599

Apparently it's just the latest incarnation of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism...

Dair

david_herdson said:

Dair said:

WWI, WWII and the Cold Wa would only neeed at most 70 years, not the 150 in the original post, so I think it's fairly certain it's Napoleon.

I wan't so much claiming Napoleon was a democrat but that the idea the UK was not tyrannical was mistaken. Before 1832 it is quite hard to accept the claim that Britain was democratic in any meaningful way.

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

Spain and Portugal in that era suggests otherwise.

I suspect you're channelling your own views rather than engaging in proper history here.

Britain occupied Portugal at her governments request and attempted to conquer Spain.

France occupieed Spain at her governments request and attempted to conquer Portugal.

Potayto, Potahto.

ydoethur

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

The kingdom of Hanover was not a British possession, the United Netherlands was held before we lost Calais for the last time - after that it was expeditionary forces only- the others are islands and therefore by definition not part of continental Europe.

A more valid example would be North-western Germany 1945-49.

EDIT - or are you thinking of William and Mary, unaware that they ran Holland and England (and Ireland and Scotland) as separate countries?

ThreeQuidder

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

The last four of those are not "continental Europe". Hannover was a personal union of the crowns rather than a British possession.

kle4

ThreeQuidder said:

Andrew Rawnsley a good read on a Sunday as usual.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/corbynistas-labour-alibis-for-defeat

While the leader remains liked by most of his party’s members, his parliamentary colleagues have to be careful about how rude they are about him. So it is convenient for internal foes to displace their discontent with him on to his office. Good tsar, bad advisers. Seumas Milne, his director of strategy and communications, is currently the most popular whipping boy. But if a leader’s team is not functioning, the ultimate reason is always the leader.

Yes, it's a tactic as old as time. Sometimes, rarely, the advisers really are the cause (but then who appointed them?), or at least make it worse, but if the leader is bad, truly bad, eventually one has to go after them directly if one is to take care of the problem. The Parliamentarians fought a war against their king and still thought they could make it work with him afterwards (notably in the run up to the war they had gone after his advisers and his wife) but the fact was Charles I was simply not ever going to work with them in the way they wanted, as they discovered.

Fysics_Teacher

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

kle4

williamglenn said:

The BBC explains the Trump phenomenon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35382599

Apparently it's just the latest incarnation of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism...

It would actually be kind of hilarious if he wins and is a decent president, who just happens to say some stupidly offensive things from time to time.

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.

Jarvis is a Tory.

ThreeQuidder

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy

That was 30 years after we lost Calais.

rcs1000

@dair
Continental!

Pulpstar

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

The BBC explains the Trump phenomenon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35382599

Apparently it's just the latest incarnation of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism...

It would actually be kind of hilarious if he wins and is a decent president, who just happens to say some stupidly offensive things from time to time.

Trump reminds me of Corbyn in many ways actually. I mean obviously they're different, but y'know.

Dair

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.

The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".

Plato_Says

Corbynistas very stroppy under Andrew Rawnsley piece, most amusing http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/corbynistas-labour-alibis-for-defeat

kle4

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.

I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.

He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.

Jarvis is a Tory.

A lot of people are without realising it, even if they hate Tories. It's remarkable.

Fysics_Teacher

ThreeQuidder said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy

That was 30 years after we lost Calais.

Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?

Fysics_Teacher

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.

The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".

Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).

Dair

Fysics_Teacher said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy

That was 30 years after we lost Calais.

Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?

But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.

As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.

As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.

Dair

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.

The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".

Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).

Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.

MikeSmithson

The real Tories are the Corbynistas - everything they do makes a 2nd CON win more likely.

Fysics_Teacher

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy

That was 30 years after we lost Calais.

Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?

But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.

As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.

As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.

He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...

Fysics_Teacher

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.

The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".

Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).

Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.

Did it have its own foreign policy?

Dair

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.

As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.

As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.

He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...

I believe that the invasion of Russia was to remove the threat of Russia to the HRE which was his buffer.

[Deleted User]

If someone is to challenge Corbyn for leadership of the Labour party they're going to have to find a way to get the very Corbynite membership of Labour to vote for them. If Corbyn is dethroned he can always compete for the ensuing leadership election - which he would win. Labour is a lost cause to the moderates. If they want to lead something they're going to have to start a new party.

Fysics_Teacher

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.

As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.

As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.

He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...

I believe that the invasion of Russia was to remove the threat of Russia to the HRE which was his buffer.

I assume HRE is Holy Roman Empire, or what is now basically Germany?

kle4

MikeSmithson said:

The real Tories are the Corbynistas - everything they do makes a 2nd CON win more likely.

If they ever come to see that, I fear their heads will explode.

Personally, for all their vitriol against Tories, if someone is a Corbynista and doesn't think Labour can win under him (or at least set up the circumstance where someone else with the same views could), then they clearly don't hate Tories as much as they say they do, as they regard non-Corbyn Labour governments as just as bad or worse, and therefore being run by Tories is not the worst thing in the world as they would no doubt claim. In other words, their Tory hate speech is just that of a poseur.

If they think Corbyn can win, well, I think they are wrong, but at least they are being honest with themselves.

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

C

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy

That was 30 years after we lost Calais.

Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?

But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.

As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.

As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.

It's not my area of expertise, but if that was the intention, it seems to have drifted after his initial successes to something more.

Dair

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.

The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".

Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).

Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.

Did it have its own foreign policy?

Yes. Because the implied deal with United Netherlands and Hannover "follow our foreign policy and do what you want" was not what happened with Scotland which was still expected and wanted to be come incorporated fully into the Kingdom of England and got a "follow our foreign policy and do what you're told".

Plus of course, England wasn't particularly stable during the period anyway, culminating in it not even being a Kingdom (and outside Personal Union) for 11 years during which Scotland was occupied. Or "being assisted by invited guests". Or completely independent. Depending on your point of view and interpretation.

kle4

I do appreciate Don is not having any truck with Prescott's distraction attack on the BBC for what questions they were asking (the implications of the attack being 'you should only ask about the things we want you to ask about')

kle4

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.

As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.

As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.

He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...

I believe that the invasion of Russia was to remove the threat of Russia to the HRE which was his buffer.

A never ending cycle, it would seem.

Sean_F

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.

You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.

The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.

I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy

That was 30 years after we lost Calais.

Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?

But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.

As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.

As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.

There was a widespread view that France was entitled to expand as far as its natural frontiers, including the Rhineland and Belgium. Metternich still offered that deal to Napoleon as late as May 1813. But, Napoleon wanted far more.

Fysics_Teacher

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.

The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".

Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).

Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.

Did it have its own foreign policy?

Yes. Because the implied deal with United Netherlands and Hannover "follow our foreign policy and do what you want" was not what happened with Scotland which was still expected and wanted to be come incorporated fully into the Kingdom of England and got a "follow our foreign policy and do what you're told".

Plus of course, England wasn't particularly stable during the period anyway, culminating in it not even being a Kingdom (and outside Personal Union) for 11 years during which Scotland was occupied. Or "being assisted by invited guests". Or completely independent. Depending on your point of view and interpretation.

How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.

ThreeQuidder

MikeSmithson said:

The real Tories are the Corbynistas - everything they do makes a 2nd CON win more likely.

Third. The second already happened.

Dair

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.

The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".

Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).

Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.

Did it have its own foreign policy?

Yes. Because the implied deal with United Netherlands and Hannover "follow our foreign policy and do what you want" was not what happened with Scotland which was still expected and wanted to be come incorporated fully into the Kingdom of England and got a "follow our foreign policy and do what you're told".

Plus of course, England wasn't particularly stable during the period anyway, culminating in it not even being a Kingdom (and outside Personal Union) for 11 years during which Scotland was occupied. Or "being assisted by invited guests". Or completely independent. Depending on your point of view and interpretation.

How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.

I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.

The War of the Three Kingdoms was never really covered in history when I was at school. There would have been mention of the "English Civil War" on TV and such but the context would never have been realised due to the incorrect naming (which still continues to some extent today).

williamglenn

ThreeQuidder said:

MikeSmithson said:

The real Tories are the Corbynistas - everything they do makes a 2nd CON win more likely.

Third. The second already happened.

[Momentum]

The third is essential in order to expose the true evil nature of the Tories. The first was in coalition, the second with a slender majority. Only once people have experienced the horrors of a landslide Cameron/Osborne/Johnson administration will they rise up and ensure that Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott becomes Prime Minster. And if they don't, then frankly the people are a bunch of Tories too and deserve all they get.

[/Momentum]

Speedy

New CBS/yougov polls:

Iowa

Trump 39 +8
Cruz 34 -6
Rubio 13 +1

N.H.

Trump 34 +2
Cruz 16 +2
Rubio 14 +1

S.Carolina

Trump 40 +2
Cruz 21 +3
Rubio 13 +1

Second post Palin poll that shows big movement to Trump in Iowa, Fox earlier had Trump going up 11 points.

Plato_Says

CBS
Poll: @realDonaldTrump retakes Iowa lead over @TedCruz just before #iacaucus https://t.co/MuXmg2gS1u https://t.co/BP1k6x5bLs

Plato_Says

Given all the property discussions here.

Particularly proud of this one. Finally got around to doing it properly. https://t.co/Pkukerknjk

Speedy

Only the last GOP debate on Thursday stands between Trump and the nomination right now.

On the DNC side, no one knows what's going on.

flightpath01

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Dair said:

But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.

As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.

As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.

He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...

I believe that the invasion of Russia was to remove the threat of Russia to the HRE which was his buffer.

I assume HRE is Holy Roman Empire, or what is now basically Germany?

France and Russia were allies in 1807. Treaty of Tilsit. Napoleon even wanted to marry the Tsars sister.
It was Napoleons desire to impose the continental system (a product of the loss at the Battle of Trafalgar) in an attempt to subdue Britain that caused splits. Also Russia had fears of aggression from what we know as Poland today and Napoleon would not guarantee to preserve current borders. So Russia became a less reliable ally and so a threat.
We can always delve deeper into other causes, the complexities and events are almost endless, but maybe he just did it because he thought he could.