"Feel bad saying this, but there is something unlikeable about a few of the England cricket team which is making this success less enjoyable than it should be"
My feeling too. Broad is the pantomime villain but he's not the only one
It's probably a good thing there won't be any play tomorrow at Lords. There almost certainly would have been a lot of heatstroke casualties with the temperature forecast to be as high as it is.
Richard Dodd - Yes but hundreds of thousands more could have been killed had his family remained in power, based on the hundreds of thousands he had already killed. Keeping Saddam in power would probably have cost countless more lives!
Richard Dodd - He was perfectly entitled to do so. Most polls at the time supported the invasion and he was re-elected with a clear majority in 2005. If people thought it was such a mistake then the voters could have elected Charlie Kennedy's LDs, or at least given them the balance of power in a hung parliament, but they did not do so!
"Feel bad saying this, but there is something unlikeable about a few of the England cricket team which is making this success less enjoyable than it should be"
My feeling too. Broad is the pantomime villain but he's not the only one
Think it is a combination of the arrogance of a few of the players combined with my dislike of seeing any team or person getting a hiding, especially if they are youngsters.
Feel bad saying this, but there is something unlikeable about a few of the England cricket team which is making this success less enjoyable than it should be
Andy Murray is a class act, I think it's all relative
Feel bad saying this, but there is something unlikeable about a few of the England cricket team which is making this success less enjoyable than it should be
Andy Murray is a class act, I think it's all relative
Can't have him on my mind
He's a class act, the top men in men's tennis are magnificent on and off the court. Big gap between him and the average England football or cricket player. Why is a different matter
Dunno just never warmed to him. Or Henman.
Individual sports transcend nationality for me really, and as I've got older ive tended to want the players and teams I admire to do well rather than necessarily just cheer on the English or British ones.
Betting has a lot to do wiith it probably
Only the Arsenal are sacred
edit! Thought you asked why it was a different matter, blame the heat!
Richard Dodd - Well of course he was, he was elected head of HM's government with the power to deploy the nation's armed forces as he saw fit with parliamentary approval. War is not nice, but sometimes the outcome of a war brings a net benefit in relation to the cost, as it did in my view in Iraq. Otherwise, are you saying Churchill was not entitled to take thousands of lives in WW2 to stop the Holocaust etc? I would never have made the argument on WMD, but that does not mean I did not support the war. As for the Catholic Church, well the less said about its war record the better!
HYUFD ..Soothsaying again..you have no idea what would have happened in Iraq. Seems to me that thousands are still being slaughtered on a monthly basis after our calming intervention...do you live in Cheshire.
HYUFD..Blair lied ..Churchill responded , when given the job,to a massive threat of invasion from the Nazi's and went to war to honor a commitment to the people of Poland, who were invaded by the German armies, but hey why bother with small details if they get in the way..sleep tight.
Lucky Scots. I wish the English could ditch a Tory government as easily and as permanently.
Quite right Roger, what we need is a Labour government because that worked out so well last time.
Oh.
Of course, Roger could always move to Scotland if he hates Tories so much. I wonder why not, then the rest of us can get on with our lives as we wish, not as others wish.
If the Scottish independence referendum is to pass, it will need to do so in conditions of hope. So economic revival is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition.
If it looks like the Tories could win in Westminster, all Salmond has to promise is that Scotland would remain in the EU. I know all the talk of re-application etc. but the EU would allow temporary arrangements.
In any case, there would be a Lab-Lib coalition with cast iron guarantees for the reform of the House of Lords and a stop on large donations, whatever the source.
Churchill responded to a massive threat of invasion from the Nazi's and went to war to honor a commitment to the people of Poland, who were invaded by the German armies, but hey why bother with small details if they get in the way..sleep tight.
A small detail, but Churchill had bugger all to do with it, it was Chamberlain who did the (half-hearted) honouring.
Richard Dodd - He was perfectly entitled to do so. Most polls at the time supported the invasion and he was re-elected with a clear majority in 2005. If people thought it was such a mistake then the voters could have elected Charlie Kennedy's LDs, or at least given them the balance of power in a hung parliament, but they did not do so!
I am sorry that is not correct. People supported the war after the war started. You would expect our people to support their boys , wouldn't you ?
Richard Dodd - Well I can only go on past evidence of Saddam's massacre of hundreds of thousands, I can only assume that would have continued. Indeed, the total civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 has not even reached 150,000, tragic, but far less than Saddam's total killings. As for present Iraq, the death count is barely over 1,000 for this entire year, so hardly thousands a month, not perfect but far better than the immediate post-invasion period http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
I have a strong feeling that the Cambridge's baby is going to be called Victoria but because there is something so naff about betting on anything to do with the Royal child I can't bring myself to do it.
Richard Dodd - Well as I have said I would never have made the WMD commitment, but Saddam had been in breach of many UN resolutions before and refused to comply, so it was hardly as if a legal case could not have been made. But at the end of the day, the only requirement for a UK PM to go to war is to have the support of parliament, Blair got it, and under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty he was thus entitled to go to war. Even if a few more Labor MPs had wavered and voted no had WMD not been an argument, the invasion would still probably have been backed as most Tory MPs did not consider it the only reason to go to war, and therefore even with LD and rebel Labour support the government would have probably won the vote
surbiton - Well hundreds of thousands marched to support foxhunting, that did not mean they had the support of the country, most polls showed voters opposed foxhunting
A March 2003 yougov poll question gave this result
If a majority of the members of the Security Council support a resolution to back the use of force against Iraq, but one or two countries use their power of veto to block the resolution, should Britain contribute troops to a US-led military action? Should 54 Should not 37 Don’t know 10
I have a strong feeling that the front entrance to the Lindo Wing is going to start appearing in London guides as a tourist attraction if Kate doesn't have this baby soon.
I have a strong feeling that the Cambridge's baby is going to be called Victoria but because there is something so naff about betting on anything to do with the Royal child I can't bring myself to do it.
surbiton - Well hundreds of thousands marched to support foxhunting, that did not mean they had the support of the country, most polls showed voters opposed foxhunting
"Of course, Roger could always move to Scotland if he hates Tories so much."
And lets hope the Scots vote in the right way so we can avail ourselves of that option if we choose to.
I'm pretty sure if Cameron looks like he's going to win in '15 the Scots will vote for independence and who can blame them. Once bitten by a Tory government twice shy.
I've always thought the Scots a more thoughtful nation than the Englsh and much more socially enlightened
Neil - Indeed, while there was clear support once the invasion had started there was also clear support pre-invasion if a security council resolution had been sought but vetoed by one or two powers, which is what had effectively happened as France and Russia would have vetoed it
A March 2003 yougov poll question gave this result
If a majority of the members of the Security Council support a resolution to back the use of force against Iraq, but one or two countries use their power of veto to block the resolution, should Britain contribute troops to a US-led military action? Should 54 Should not 37 Don’t know 10
Roger - 'Much more socially enlightened' - I assume you have never been to Glasgow on a Saturday night! Cameron will be kept well away from the Union campaign
I agree with your sentiment that polling didnt matter. Whether a minority or majority supported the war before, during or after it is obvious (both at the time as well as with the benefit of hindsight) that they were seriously wrong.
Neil - 500,000 were killed during Saddam's time in power, many, many more would have died had he and his family stayed in power. Around 125,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the war, and that figure has fallen dramatically, it may now be a minority view, but I remain convinced the war was right. I would not however support intervention in Syria, Assad is no saint but nowhere near as big a murderer as Saddam, not discounting the clear Al-Qaeda presence in the opposition
It's a testament to the feelings the issue arouses (I rarely bother to argue over policies themselves as this isnt that kind of site) that even though the events in question date from before the site was created it's probably one of the issues most debated here over the years.
But at the end of the day, the only requirement for a UK PM to go to war is to have the support of parliament, Blair got it, and under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty he was thus entitled to go to war.
One thing I've noticed about Dave is that hes far more comfortable playing to the centre than playing to the right. Whichever strategist, either the ludicrous Osborne or the hardline Crosby advised him to talk tough on immigration and Europe was a buffoon. Dave will either stand or fall on his "As a father" centrist act or he'll give the right of his party further excuses to remove him by pretending he's Iron Dave, smiter of immigrants, the anvil on which modernity will be broken.
Dave is comfortable playing the centre because he is a genuine wet Tory. The Tories need him because he is their only hope , however small, of winning an election. The alternatives are far worse. The Tories, in their hearts, know that.
But even Dave with all the advantages in 2010 blew it !
Richard Dodd - Well arguably post-Munich Agreement Czechoslovakia was also guaranteed but that was not followed through, it was ultimately Churchill's position as PM and having the confidence of a parliamentary majority for war which gave him the authority to launch the war under our system
Ishmael X - Maybe, but ultimately parliament voted for the war, who knows what reasons each individual MP had for backing it, and with the Tories also backing it WMD or not it would still have probably got through
"But even Dave with all the advantages in 2010 blew it !"
I don't think so. I believe that the Tories from 1979-1997 so poisoned the well that when it came to the voting booths even though Cam seemed like a human being the voters just couldn't bring themselves to believe it so stopped at the half way house and voted for Clegg.
Lucky really because they were right not to believe it
Richard Dodd - That only came about once the war had started, there is evidence Hitler would have allowed GB be spared invasion and to keep the Empire if it stayed neutral, as long as he could have dominated Europe, had Halifax been PM and Edward VIII not abdicated that may even have occurred, but that is a whole different debate
surbiton - Well hundreds of thousands marched to support foxhunting, that did not mean they had the support of the country, most polls showed voters opposed foxhunting
A March 2003 yougov poll question gave this result
If a majority of the members of the Security Council support a resolution to back the use of force against Iraq, but one or two countries use their power of veto to block the resolution, should Britain contribute troops to a US-led military action? Should 54 Should not 37 Don’t know 10
I think the Countryside Alliance definitely had the support of the country.
Would the Tories lose any votes if they ditched Dave? Or would they gain the 5% of the electorate who the Tories ned to shift from UKIP back to the Tories?
The recent poling also shows Theresa May polling 20% better among 2010 LD's than Dave Chum does.
What about your shtick about Cameron's weakness with the female vote? Does a non-Dave leader not automatically regain some or all of that, or is it the right, rather than Dave,.that the totty have problems with?
Richard Dodd - You cannot prove that it would not have gone through, and indeed Blair's closing argument on human rights won over many waverers. Remember, as he had most of the Tory votes he could afford to lose about half the Labour party as well as all the LDs and still have seen it scrape through.
Ironically the main beneficiaries if Scotland left the Union would be the Tories -no Scottish Labour MP,'s to queer their pitch in the Westminster parliament!
Ironically the main beneficiaries if Scotland left the Union would be the Tories -no Scottish Labour MP,'s to queer their pitch in the Westminster parliament!
If the Nats win independence next year, what will happen to all the Westminster MPs based in Scottish constituencies?
Will they immediately vacate their offices? Will there be a handover period, whereby they remain in office for a period of time? Is there a legal duty to remain until the UK2015GE?
And for Labour, will it just be an unfortunate disaster if they lose all their Scottish MPs? Will they have any recourse?
I mean, it's a pretty big deal if overnight Scotland suddenly left the UK and became as foreign to us as New Zealand, or Jamaica. There would be some huge untangling to be done. I'm just interested as to how quickly they'd sever the existing ties.
HYFUD.. In spite of all the bluster, Tony Blair lied to everyone in the country, he took the country to war on the basis of a lie..How many lives were lost because of his lie..as a father
"..he lied to me ,you, and everyone in the country, one day he may be tried as a war criminal."
In which case so did Colin Powell and George Bush. The pressure in the UK was coming from the Tories in particular and the right wing press particularly Murdoch and the ones with US connections. In fact the only opposition came from large sections of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems both of whom were vilified.
If a trial is to take place it'll be difficult to think of anyone without sin to sit in judgement
rogerh - As I posted a few days ago that would not have made much difference, if only England only had voted in elections post WW2 the only results that would have had a different party come first were Feb 1974 and 1964. Most rightwingers would have rather died than have another term of Ted Heath and Douglas Home ironically was Scottish while Wilson was English
Tim - I have seen no evidence in any poll of May raising the Tory vote share in a hypothetical contest against Miliband, there is clear evidence Boris does
If the Nats win independence next year, what will happen to all the Westminster MPs based in Scottish constituencies?
Will they immediately vacate their offices? Will there be a handover period, whereby they remain in office for a period of time? Is there a legal duty to remain until the UK2015GE?
And for Labour, will it just be an unfortunate disaster if they lose all their Scottish MPs? Will they have any recourse?
I mean, it's a pretty big deal if overnight Scotland suddenly left the UK and became as foreign to us as New Zealand, or Jamaica. There would be some huge untangling to be done. I'm just interested as to how quickly they'd sever the existing ties.
Technically we don't know, since the SNP haven't announced their full roadmap to independence. But since a law will need to pass for Scotland to leave the UK legally there will be at least some delay. I suspect (and the SNP haven't said anything to the contrary yet, which I'd imagine they'd have to before the referendum) the full process of separation would take more like months, and since the referendum is nearish to the election I'd imagine the split wouldn't occur until May 2015 at the earliest.
Richard Dodd - This is clearly going in circles, we will have to disagree and let future historians decide, in any case, as I posted below some even dispute that Saddam did not have WMD, but whether he did or did not I never based my support for the war on WMD so do not really want to get into that argument!
If the Nats win independence next year, what will happen to all the Westminster MPs based in Scottish constituencies?
Will they immediately vacate their offices? Will there be a handover period, whereby they remain in office for a period of time? Is there a legal duty to remain until the UK2015GE?
And for Labour, will it just be an unfortunate disaster if they lose all their Scottish MPs? Will they have any recourse?
I mean, it's a pretty big deal if overnight Scotland suddenly left the UK and became as foreign to us as New Zealand, or Jamaica. There would be some huge untangling to be done. I'm just interested as to how quickly they'd sever the existing ties.
Well I doubt it will have been thought about yet but I imagine they will remain in situ until such time as an independence separation settlement and timetable has been agreed first and foremost and then they will wind down their involvement until 'independence Day' when they will no longer have any duties in Westminster.
Seriously? You think they are winging moves to independence? They have published a roadmap to independence. Elections to an independent Scottish parliament in May 2016 if I remember correctly.
Richard Dodd - That only came about once the war had started, there is evidence Hitler would have allowed GB be spared invasion and to keep the Empire if it stayed neutral, as long as he could have dominated Europe, had Halifax been PM and Edward VIII not abdicated that may even have occurred, but that is a whole different debate
So if the UK had abandoned Poland, as it effectively abandoned Czechoslovakia, and left the French to nonour their treaty obligations alone, the German Army would have settled with Vichy France and turned East?
If the law is enacted prior to GE2015 then Labour would lose 41 Mps. The Tories just one.
A political disaster for Cameron would be an electoral triumph.
As for Salmond, TSE makes a very interesting point that it is in his interests for the Tories to do well. No better campaigning tool in Scotland than telling its people that they are to face another five years of Tory rule.
Incidentally, I think Salmond is the best politician in Britain at the moment. Only him, Cameron, Johnson (and possibly Cable) would have the ability to individually influence a campaign, in a big and significant way.
OKC - Well clearly it would have quickly conquered the rest of France, and Spain and Italy were Fascist anyway, and he could have launched an invasion of Russia in 1940 rather than 1941 with the full strength of the Luftwaffe not distracted by the Battle of Britain and the German army not facing British forces in N Africa. But this is all counterfactual history so who knows!
Seriously? You think they are winging moves to independence? They have published a roadmap to independence. Elections to an independent Scottish parliament in May 2016 if I remember correctly.
Neil.
I doubt even Alex Salmond has given the roadmap to independence much serious thought, A bag of a fag packet plan converted to a quick PR statement is the most that can be expected.
What will have been serious and substantive are the discussions between Salmond and Cameron on further devolution post referendum. But we won't know what has been agreed until late September next year.
Salmond is a superb tactician. He knows that he needs to give the impression a roadmap has been developed to hold together the disparate band of supporters that keep him in power.
What else would unite the political range of a James Kelly, a Stuart Dickson, a malcolmg and an Uniondivvie?
Given that we have just won the second test I am now convinced that Southam's accusation that I had cost England the Ashes was a typically left wing, overstated piece of hyperbole that I should just ignore (only joking SO).
The UK economy is clearly picking up but the main effect of this so far has been to further reduce the credibility of the Eds because their "too far, too fast" line simply looks inept and they have yet to find another one. There is not much evidence that the Coalition itself is gaining support and credibility from this yet but it is early days.
So far as Scotland is concerned, a stronger economy will be at least as important as the threat of a tory majority. Pre 2007 there was a great deal of confidence that Scotland could go its own way. That largely disappeared with the twin disasters of RBS and HBOS but it is possible that a growing economy could help it return.
So by 2014 we could be a more self confident country with a better flow of tax revenues and the real threat of a tory majority government south of the border. It has been commonplace to mock Alex Salmond who has not had the best of years but the pieces are falling into place for the result next year to be closer than I would like.
Indeed but Armstrong was notable for being the only cheat the organisers kept away from today's events. They allowed every other Tom, Dick and cheating Harry to parade around the place!
Incidentally, I am still on holiday in Florida. It is summer time and the weather is hot (one for TSE) but I am amazed by the apparent vibrancy of the economy here. Almost every second restaurant or business is actively advertising for staff and there is building work going on everywhere, including new housing which suggests that their housing market has recovered.
The US economy is vast and a visitor gets a small snap shot but this part of the US is moving, big time.
If the law is enacted prior to GE2015 then Labour would lose 41 Mps. The Tories just one.
A political disaster for Cameron would be an electoral triumph.
As for Salmond, TSE makes a very interesting point that it is in his interests for the Tories to do well. No better campaigning tool in Scotland than telling its people that they are to face another five years of Tory rule.
Incidentally, I think Salmond is the best politician in Britain at the moment. Only him, Cameron, Johnson (and possibly Cable) would have the ability to individually influence a campaign, in a big and significant way.
Sturgeon is ahead of Salmond on the approval ratings, Darling is 4 points behind. I think Darling will win enough women voters over to the No cause to ensure Sturgeon takes over from Salmond reasonably soon after the referendum
A relation who visits Scotland frequently and corresponds with all sorts of Scots suggested to me today that East Scotland would vote No and the West Yes.
Two of my relatives who normally vote SNP, and have done so for some time will vote No because they can't stand Salmond. N=1!
I shall be at a family gathering with my Scots LD councillor shortly. "Twill be interesing.
Richard Dodd - That only came about once the war had started, there is evidence Hitler would have allowed GB be spared invasion and to keep the Empire if it stayed neutral, as long as he could have dominated Europe, had Halifax been PM and Edward VIII not abdicated that may even have occurred, but that is a whole different debate
So if the UK had abandoned Poland, as it effectively abandoned Czechoslovakia, and left the French to nonour their treaty obligations alone, the German Army would have settled with Vichy France and turned East?
I was taught in school (and my History teacher may have been wrong) that Hitler really wanted to avoid conflict with Britain, tried before the war to charm us, and that it was to his great chagrin and frustration that Churchill took charge with such a belligerent view toward him.
I also remember reading a book called 'The Duel' and I think it was that book which mentioned Hitler's admiration for Britain and our aristocracy and class system.
If he had conquered Europe amid British neutrality the consequences for us would have been awful anyway, so - despite the protestations of the objectors - Churchill certainly took the right decision in fighting to the death, and then got super-lucky when Japan bombed America and Hitler underestimated and invaded Russia.
I remember also being told that if Hitler had continued the air battle over Britain for another few months we would've been fecked! Churchill certainly won the battle of wits over that episode.
If the law is enacted prior to GE2015 then Labour would lose 41 Mps. The Tories just one.
A political disaster for Cameron would be an electoral triumph.
As for Salmond, TSE makes a very interesting point that it is in his interests for the Tories to do well. No better campaigning tool in Scotland than telling its people that they are to face another five years of Tory rule.
Incidentally, I think Salmond is the best politician in Britain at the moment. Only him, Cameron, Johnson (and possibly Cable) would have the ability to individually influence a campaign, in a big and significant way.
Or could it be the catalyst for a further mass defection to UKIP of disillusioned English Tory unionists?
Seriously though I cannot see that the negotiations would be close to completion by the 2015 election (less than 8 months after the referendum) let alone putting in place the arrangements through which independence would be achieved. My guess is that independence day would take place in the second half of the subsequent Parliament (i.e. sometime between 2017 and 2020). In some ways the 2020 general election would be an obvious changeover point but that may be a bit far off if they do vote for independence.
If the law is enacted prior to GE2015 then Labour would lose 41 Mps. The Tories just one.
A political disaster for Cameron would be an electoral triumph.
As for Salmond, TSE makes a very interesting point that it is in his interests for the Tories to do well. No better campaigning tool in Scotland than telling its people that they are to face another five years of Tory rule.
Incidentally, I think Salmond is the best politician in Britain at the moment. Only him, Cameron, Johnson (and possibly Cable) would have the ability to individually influence a campaign, in a big and significant way.
Sturgeon is ahead of Salmond on the approval ratings, Darling is 4 points behind. I think Darling will win enough women voters over to the No cause to ensure Sturgeon takes over from Salmond reasonably soon after the referendum
I like Sturgeon too - I think she's good and comes across well.
Richard Dodd - That only came about once the war had started, there is evidence Hitler would have allowed GB be spared invasion and to keep the Empire if it stayed neutral, as long as he could have dominated Europe, had Halifax been PM and Edward VIII not abdicated that may even have occurred, but that is a whole different debate
So if the UK had abandoned Poland, as it effectively abandoned Czechoslovakia, and left the French to nonour their treaty obligations alone, the German Army would have settled with Vichy France and turned East?
I was taught in school (and my History teacher may have been wrong) that Hitler really wanted to avoid conflict with Britain, tried before the war to charm us, and that it was to his great chagrin and frustration that Churchill took charge with such a belligerent view toward him.
I also remember reading a book called 'The Duel' and I think it was that book which mentioned Hitler's admiration for Britain and our aristocracy and class system.
If he had conquered Europe amid British neutrality the consequences for us would have been awful anyway, so - despite the protestations of the objectors - Churchill certainly took the right decision in fighting to the death, and then got super-lucky when Japan bombed America and Hitler underestimated and invaded Russia.
I remember also being told that if Hitler had continued the air battle over Britain for another few months we would've been fecked! Churchill certainly won the battle of wits over that episode.
Did not Churchill only take charge after the disastrous Norweigian campaign?
Indeed but Armstrong was notable for being the only cheat the organisers kept away from today's events. They allowed every other Tom, Dick and cheating Harry to parade around the place!
Richard Dodd - That only came about once the war had started, there is evidence Hitler would have allowed GB be spared invasion and to keep the Empire if it stayed neutral, as long as he could have dominated Europe, had Halifax been PM and Edward VIII not abdicated that may even have occurred, but that is a whole different debate
So if the UK had abandoned Poland, as it effectively abandoned Czechoslovakia, and left the French to nonour their treaty obligations alone, the German Army would have settled with Vichy France and turned East?
I was taught in school (and my History teacher may have been wrong) that Hitler really wanted to avoid conflict with Britain, tried before the war to charm us, and that it was to his great chagrin and frustration that Churchill took charge with such a belligerent view toward him.
I also remember reading a book called 'The Duel' and I think it was that book which mentioned Hitler's admiration for Britain and our aristocracy and class system.
If he had conquered Europe amid British neutrality the consequences for us would have been awful anyway, so - despite the protestations of the objectors - Churchill certainly took the right decision in fighting to the death, and then got super-lucky when Japan bombed America and Hitler underestimated and invaded Russia.
I remember also being told that if Hitler had continued the air battle over Britain for another few months we would've been fecked! Churchill certainly won the battle of wits over that episode.
Did not Churchill only take charge after the disastrous Norweigian campaign?
It's generally believed in Switzerland that Germany did come close to invading, but the Swiss mobilisation and prospect of lengthy guerilla war made Hitler decide that it was too much of a distraction from getting on with attacking Russia. I'm not sure if there's German corroboration of this, though - could be one of those patriotic legends.
Presumably if we'd not intervened the war would have stayed continental and ultimately it would have probably led to a Soviet continent. So even those who feel that we could have come to terms with Hitler may have some reason to think that intervention was a good diea.
Richard Dodd - That only came about once the war had started, there is evidence Hitler would have allowed GB be spared invasion and to keep the Empire if it stayed neutral, as long as he could have dominated Europe, had Halifax been PM and Edward VIII not abdicated that may even have occurred, but that is a whole different debate
So if the UK had abandoned Poland, as it effectively abandoned Czechoslovakia, and left the French to nonour their treaty obligations alone, the German Army would have settled with Vichy France and turned East?
I was taught in school (and my History teacher may have been wrong) that Hitler really wanted to avoid conflict with Britain, tried before the war to charm us, and that it was to his great chagrin and frustration that Churchill took charge with such a belligerent view toward him.
I also remember reading a book called 'The Duel' and I think it was that book which mentioned Hitler's admiration for Britain and our aristocracy and class system.
If he had conquered Europe amid British neutrality the consequences for us would have been awful anyway, so - despite the protestations of the objectors - Churchill certainly took the right decision in fighting to the death, and then got super-lucky when Japan bombed America and Hitler underestimated and invaded Russia.
I remember also being told that if Hitler had continued the air battle over Britain for another few months we would've been fecked! Churchill certainly won the battle of wits over that episode.
Did not Churchill only take charge after the disastrous Norweigian campaign?
Yep, but my point was that when Churchill became PM the counter-aggression toward Germany was ratcheted up a lot, and Hitler - being the megalomaniac and firebrand that he was - was more determined to destroy Churchill than he had been Britain.
Under Chamberlain our whole approach to war was largely reluctant, under-prepared (to be fair, everybody, including Churchill, was under-prepaped for the ferocity and brilliance of the German war machine) and disjointed. Didn't we spend months bombing Norway with propaganda leaflets whilst Germany tore through Europe like wildfire?
NP - If we had stayed neutral and Pearl Harbour never happened, could Japan and the Nazis have invaded Russia from opposite sides? Counterfactual history leads in so many directions
I read on Twitter earlier that Wiggo wasn't there either, it can't still be as a result of his spat with Froomey last year can it? Bloody graceless of him if it is.
It's generally believed in Switzerland that Germany did come close to invading, but the Swiss mobilisation and prospect of lengthy guerilla war made Hitler decide that it was too much of a distraction from getting on with attacking Russia. I'm not sure if there's German corroboration of this, though - could be one of those patriotic legends.
Presumably if we'd not intervened the war would have stayed continental and ultimately it would have probably led to a Soviet continent. So even those who feel that we could have come to terms with Hitler may have some reason to think that intervention was a good diea.
I have a couple of those 'What If' history books in the house and one of the most interesting 'what if's' is what would've happened if Hitler had marched his troops on Moscow and not diverted them to Stalingrad.
The Germans almost certainly would've taken Moscow.
It's extraordinary what an impact WW2 had on the geopolitics of almost the whole world. Even today the ramifications are countless and ongoing.
NP - If we had stayed neutral and Pearl Harbour never happened, could Japan and the Nazis have invaded Russia from opposite sides? Counterfactual history leads in so many directions
Although pursuing an alliance based on Realpolitik with Imperial Japan in the battle against the "Western Plutocracies" and Soviet Bolshevism, the Nazi leadership ultimately considered this cooperation only temporary in nature. The racial ideology of Nazism predicted that the fate of human civilization depended on the ultimate triumph of the Germanic-Nordic peoples, and in fact the populous Asian continent was seen as the greatest threat to hegemony of the white race. The Japanese people were characterized as 'culture-bearers', meaning they could make use of the technological and civilizational achievements of the Aryan race and by so doing maintain an advanced society, but could not truly create 'culture' themselves.[106] Gerhard Weinberg asserts that the historical evidence points to the conclusion that Hitler, like he had done with the Soviets in the 1939-1941 period, employed a tactic of conceding to the Japanese whatever they desired until they in turn could be defeated in a subsequent war.[107] In early 1942, Hitler is quoted saying to Ribbentrop: "We have to think in terms of centuries. Sooner or later there will have to be a showdown between the white and the yellow races."[108]
Of course most people accused of a murder don't have a SpAd fall guy. Luckily his wife keeps it all in perspective by describing it as like the Chinese cultural revolution.( estimated death toll millions)
It's generally believed in Switzerland that Germany did come close to invading, but the Swiss mobilisation and prospect of lengthy guerilla war made Hitler decide that it was too much of a distraction from getting on with attacking Russia. I'm not sure if there's German corroboration of this, though - could be one of those patriotic legends.
Presumably if we'd not intervened the war would have stayed continental and ultimately it would have probably led to a Soviet continent. So even those who feel that we could have come to terms with Hitler may have some reason to think that intervention was a good diea.
Two weeks back I stayed a night in Berchtesgaden [ sadly, only 24 hours ], a truly beautiful part of the German Alps. I had to use Salzburg Airport. My taxi driver appeared to be very nostalgic [ without actually saying so ] about the Nazis . Pointing out where Hitlers residence was and Himmler and Goebbels. Thankfully, most have been demolished. One of the hotels today was the Gestapo HQ.
Switzerland is not too far from there. It wouldn't surprise me if the Swiss Germans were quite sympathetic to the Nazis, at least, in the beginning.
Richard Dodd - That only came about once the war had started, there is evidence Hitler would have allowed GB be spared invasion and to keep the Empire if it stayed neutral, as long as he could have dominated Europe, had Halifax been PM and Edward VIII not abdicated that may even have occurred, but that is a whole different debate
So if the UK had abandoned Poland, as it effectively abandoned Czechoslovakia, and left the French to nonour their treaty obligations alone, the German Army would have settled with Vichy France and turned East?
I was taught in school (and my History teacher may have been wrong) that Hitler really wanted to avoid conflict with Britain, tried before the war to charm us, and that it was to his great chagrin and frustration that Churchill took charge with such a belligerent view toward him.
I also remember reading a book called 'The Duel' and I think it was that book which mentioned Hitler's admiration for Britain and our aristocracy and class system.
If he had conquered Europe amid British neutrality the consequences for us would have been awful anyway, so - despite the protestations of the objectors - Churchill certainly took the right decision in fighting to the death, and then got super-lucky when Japan bombed America and Hitler underestimated and invaded Russia.
I remember also being told that if Hitler had continued the air battle over Britain for another few months we would've been fecked! Churchill certainly won the battle of wits over that episode.
Did not Churchill only take charge after the disastrous Norweigian campaign?
Disastrous? The Germans lost a valuable cruiser and about 10 destroyers in Norwegian waters that might have been put to good use during an invasion of the UK...
If the Nats win independence next year, what will happen to all the Westminster MPs based in Scottish constituencies?
Will they immediately vacate their offices? Will there be a handover period, whereby they remain in office for a period of time? Is there a legal duty to remain until the UK2015GE?
And for Labour, will it just be an unfortunate disaster if they lose all their Scottish MPs? Will they have any recourse?
I mean, it's a pretty big deal if overnight Scotland suddenly left the UK and became as foreign to us as New Zealand, or Jamaica. There would be some huge untangling to be done. I'm just interested as to how quickly they'd sever the existing ties.
Well I doubt it will have been thought about yet but I imagine they will remain in situ until such time as an independence separation settlement and timetable has been agreed first and foremost and then they will wind down their involvement until 'independence Day' when they will no longer have any duties in Westminster.
Between a yes vote and full separation it would be very difficuly for Westminster to pass any Scottish legislation. I would imagine that there would either be a simple piece of legislation delegating all powers to Holyrood for the 2 years (say) until separation or, more likely, any material UK legislation affecting Scotland would only be done in discussion with Salmond. I don't believe that the current Westminster MPs from Scotland would have democratic legitimacy to vote on either Scottish or English matters (and I think it would go very hard with Labour if they tried to vote on matters related to either country).
Whether we can expect Labour to abide by a self-denying ordinance when they would lose a political advantage I have my doubts...
Fenseter - Indeed, although Napoleon entered Moscow to find it abandoned. WW2 effected every corner of the world. Europe obviously, Africa with El Alamein etc, Asia with the Japanese invasions of south east Asia, even Darwin in Australia was bombed and Latin America saw the Battle of the River Plate
Fenseter - Indeed, although Napoleon entered Moscow to find it abandoned. WW2 effected every corner of the world. Europe obviously, Africa with El Alamein etc, Asia with the Japanese invasions of south east Asia, even Darwin in Australia was bombed and Latin America saw the Battle of the River Plate
Latin America also saw Brazil involved in both WWs and there were two naval battles in WW1 - Coronel (German triumph) and the Falkland Islands (RN triumph).
NP - If we had stayed neutral and Pearl Harbour never happened, could Japan and the Nazis have invaded Russia from opposite sides? Counterfactual history leads in so many directions
Yes, some fascinating turning points there. The Japanese were very wary after losing a bloody border dispute with the Soviets in 1937, and their main preoccupation was finding new raw material sources, not then particularly available in the Eastern USSR. It's odd that Hitler attacked Russia without first getting Japan to agree to intervene (and in return promising to help vs the USA, an otherwise insane move which made Rossevelt's decision-making much easier), but presumably he was just overconfident.
I doubt if taking Moscow would have ended the war - the Russians had the Napoleonic historical precedent for fighting on, and no good reason not to. It might have led to Stalin's replacement, though.
If the Axis had beaten the Soviets while we stood passively by, presumably they'd have carved up Asia and then eventually turned on America. There are lots of alternative history games on this sort of thing, though none very convincing.
Two weeks back I stayed a night in Berchtesgaden [ sadly, only 24 hours ], a truly beautiful part of the German Alps. I had to use Salzburg Airport. My taxi driver appeared to be very nostalgic [ without actually saying so ] about the Nazis . Pointing out where Hitlers residence was and Himmler and Goebbels. Thankfully, most have been demolished. One of the hotels today was the Gestapo HQ.
Switzerland is not too far from there. It wouldn't surprise me if the Swiss Germans were quite sympathetic to the Nazis, at least, in the beginning.
The Swiss people were seen by Nazi ideologists as a mere off-shoot of the German nation, although one led astray by decadent Western ideals of democracy and materialism.[79] Hitler decried the Swiss as "a misbegotten branch of our Volk" and the Swiss state as "a pimple on the face of Europe" deeming them unsuitable for settling the territories that the Nazis expected to colonize in Eastern Europe.[80]
Himmler discussed plans with his subordinates to integrate at least the German-speaking parts of Switzerland completely with the rest of Germany, and had several persons in mind for the post of a Reichskommissar for the 're-union' of Switzerland with the German Reich (in analogy to the office that Josef Bürckel held after Austria's absorption into Germany during the Anschluss). Later this official was to subsequently become the new Reichsstatthalter of the area after completing its total assimilation.[6][81] In August 1940, Gauleiter of Westfalen-South Josef Wagner and the Minister President of Baden Walter Köhler spoke in favor of the amalgamation of Switzerland to Reichsgau Burgund (see below) and suggested that the seat of government for this new administrative territory should be the dormant Palais des Nations in Geneva.[82]
Operation Tannenbaum, a military offensive intended to occupy all of Switzerland, most likely in co-operation with Italy (which itself desired the Italian-speaking areas of Switzerland), was in the planning stages during 1940-1941. Its implementation was seriously considered by the German military after the armistice with France, but it was definitively shelved after the start of Operation Barbarossa had directed the attention of the Wehrmacht elsewhere.[83]
Comments
"Feel bad saying this, but there is something unlikeable about a few of the England cricket team which is making this success less enjoyable than it should be"
My feeling too. Broad is the pantomime villain but he's not the only one
Uni Lad @UniLadMag 6h
This whole 'Royal baby watch' from the media feels a little bit like the 'Panda watch' scene from Anchorman...
Individual sports transcend nationality for me really, and as I've got older ive tended to want the players and teams I admire to do well rather than necessarily just cheer on the English or British ones.
Betting has a lot to do wiith it probably
Only the Arsenal are sacred
edit! Thought you asked why it was a different matter, blame the heat!
Oh.
Seems to me that thousands are still being slaughtered on a monthly basis after our calming intervention...do you live in Cheshire.
In any case, there would be a Lab-Lib coalition with cast iron guarantees for the reform of the House of Lords and a stop on large donations, whatever the source.
Do you not remember the 2 million march ?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
A March 2003 yougov poll question gave this result
If a majority of the members of the Security Council support a resolution to back the use of force against Iraq, but one or two countries use their power of veto to block the resolution,
should Britain contribute troops to a US-led military action?
Should 54
Should not 37
Don’t know 10
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq
"Of course, Roger could always move to Scotland if he hates Tories so much."
And lets hope the Scots vote in the right way so we can avail ourselves of that option if we choose to.
I'm pretty sure if Cameron looks like he's going to win in '15 the Scots will vote for independence and who can blame them. Once bitten by a Tory government twice shy.
I've always thought the Scots a more thoughtful nation than the Englsh and much more socially enlightened
A March 2003 yougov poll question gave this result
If a majority of the members of the Security Council support a resolution to back the use of force against Iraq, but one or two countries use their power of veto to block the resolution,
should Britain contribute troops to a US-led military action?
Should 54
Should not 37
Don’t know 10
I agree with your sentiment that polling didnt matter. Whether a minority or majority supported the war before, during or after it is obvious (both at the time as well as with the benefit of hindsight) that they were seriously wrong.
It's a testament to the feelings the issue arouses (I rarely bother to argue over policies themselves as this isnt that kind of site) that even though the events in question date from before the site was created it's probably one of the issues most debated here over the years.
Remembering that great achievement in 1969. Full moon tonight. Look up and give Neil Armstrong a wink.
Phony Tony voluntarily sought Parliamentary approval for phony reasons of his own.
But even Dave with all the advantages in 2010 blew it !
"But even Dave with all the advantages in 2010 blew it !"
I don't think so. I believe that the Tories from 1979-1997 so poisoned the well that when it came to the voting booths even though Cam seemed like a human being the voters just couldn't bring themselves to believe it so stopped at the half way house and voted for Clegg.
Lucky really because they were right not to believe it
Just not the 90% of voters that live in towns...
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2013/03/22/news/saddam-hussein-had-wmd-after-all/
Golly.
If the Nats win independence next year, what will happen to all the Westminster MPs based in Scottish constituencies?
Will they immediately vacate their offices? Will there be a handover period, whereby they remain in office for a period of time? Is there a legal duty to remain until the UK2015GE?
And for Labour, will it just be an unfortunate disaster if they lose all their Scottish MPs? Will they have any recourse?
I mean, it's a pretty big deal if overnight Scotland suddenly left the UK and became as foreign to us as New Zealand, or Jamaica. There would be some huge untangling to be done. I'm just interested as to how quickly they'd sever the existing ties.
"..he lied to me ,you, and everyone in the country, one day he may be tried as a war criminal."
In which case so did Colin Powell and George Bush. The pressure in the UK was coming from the Tories in particular and the right wing press particularly Murdoch and the ones with US connections. In fact the only opposition came from large sections of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems both of whom were vilified.
If a trial is to take place it'll be difficult to think of anyone without sin to sit in judgement
If the law is enacted prior to GE2015 then Labour would lose 41 Mps. The Tories just one.
A political disaster for Cameron would be an electoral triumph.
As for Salmond, TSE makes a very interesting point that it is in his interests for the Tories to do well. No better campaigning tool in Scotland than telling its people that they are to face another five years of Tory rule.
Incidentally, I think Salmond is the best politician in Britain at the moment. Only him, Cameron, Johnson (and possibly Cable) would have the ability to individually influence a campaign, in a big and significant way.
I doubt even Alex Salmond has given the roadmap to independence much serious thought, A bag of a fag packet plan converted to a quick PR statement is the most that can be expected.
What will have been serious and substantive are the discussions between Salmond and Cameron on further devolution post referendum. But we won't know what has been agreed until late September next year.
Salmond is a superb tactician. He knows that he needs to give the impression a roadmap has been developed to hold together the disparate band of supporters that keep him in power.
What else would unite the political range of a James Kelly, a Stuart Dickson, a malcolmg and an Uniondivvie?
The UK economy is clearly picking up but the main effect of this so far has been to further reduce the credibility of the Eds because their "too far, too fast" line simply looks inept and they have yet to find another one. There is not much evidence that the Coalition itself is gaining support and credibility from this yet but it is early days.
So far as Scotland is concerned, a stronger economy will be at least as important as the threat of a tory majority. Pre 2007 there was a great deal of confidence that Scotland could go its own way. That largely disappeared with the twin disasters of RBS and HBOS but it is possible that a growing economy could help it return.
So by 2014 we could be a more self confident country with a better flow of tax revenues and the real threat of a tory majority government south of the border. It has been commonplace to mock Alex Salmond who has not had the best of years but the pieces are falling into place for the result next year to be closer than I would like.
Indeed but Armstrong was notable for being the only cheat the organisers kept away from today's events. They allowed every other Tom, Dick and cheating Harry to parade around the place!
The US economy is vast and a visitor gets a small snap shot but this part of the US is moving, big time.
Two of my relatives who normally vote SNP, and have done so for some time will vote No because they can't stand Salmond. N=1!
I shall be at a family gathering with my Scots LD councillor shortly. "Twill be interesing.
I also remember reading a book called 'The Duel' and I think it was that book which mentioned Hitler's admiration for Britain and our aristocracy and class system.
If he had conquered Europe amid British neutrality the consequences for us would have been awful anyway, so - despite the protestations of the objectors - Churchill certainly took the right decision in fighting to the death, and then got super-lucky when Japan bombed America and Hitler underestimated and invaded Russia.
I remember also being told that if Hitler had continued the air battle over Britain for another few months we would've been fecked! Churchill certainly won the battle of wits over that episode.
Seriously though I cannot see that the negotiations would be close to completion by the 2015 election (less than 8 months after the referendum) let alone putting in place the arrangements through which independence would be achieved. My guess is that independence day would take place in the second half of the subsequent Parliament (i.e. sometime between 2017 and 2020). In some ways the 2020 general election would be an obvious changeover point but that may be a bit far off if they do vote for independence.
Possibly they were also missing!
Presumably if we'd not intervened the war would have stayed continental and ultimately it would have probably led to a Soviet continent. So even those who feel that we could have come to terms with Hitler may have some reason to think that intervention was a good diea.
Under Chamberlain our whole approach to war was largely reluctant, under-prepared (to be fair, everybody, including Churchill, was under-prepaped for the ferocity and brilliance of the German war machine) and disjointed. Didn't we spend months bombing Norway with propaganda leaflets whilst Germany tore through Europe like wildfire?
I'm no expert on this..........
Bloody graceless of him if it is.
The Germans almost certainly would've taken Moscow.
It's extraordinary what an impact WW2 had on the geopolitics of almost the whole world. Even today the ramifications are countless and ongoing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Nazism)
Switzerland is not too far from there. It wouldn't surprise me if the Swiss Germans were quite sympathetic to the Nazis, at least, in the beginning.
Whether we can expect Labour to abide by a self-denying ordinance when they would lose a political advantage I have my doubts...
I doubt if taking Moscow would have ended the war - the Russians had the Napoleonic historical precedent for fighting on, and no good reason not to. It might have led to Stalin's replacement, though.
If the Axis had beaten the Soviets while we stood passively by, presumably they'd have carved up Asia and then eventually turned on America. There are lots of alternative history games on this sort of thing, though none very convincing.
The Swiss people were seen by Nazi ideologists as a mere off-shoot of the German nation, although one led astray by decadent Western ideals of democracy and materialism.[79] Hitler decried the Swiss as "a misbegotten branch of our Volk" and the Swiss state as "a pimple on the face of Europe" deeming them unsuitable for settling the territories that the Nazis expected to colonize in Eastern Europe.[80]
Himmler discussed plans with his subordinates to integrate at least the German-speaking parts of Switzerland completely with the rest of Germany, and had several persons in mind for the post of a Reichskommissar for the 're-union' of Switzerland with the German Reich (in analogy to the office that Josef Bürckel held after Austria's absorption into Germany during the Anschluss). Later this official was to subsequently become the new Reichsstatthalter of the area after completing its total assimilation.[6][81] In August 1940, Gauleiter of Westfalen-South Josef Wagner and the Minister President of Baden Walter Köhler spoke in favor of the amalgamation of Switzerland to Reichsgau Burgund (see below) and suggested that the seat of government for this new administrative territory should be the dormant Palais des Nations in Geneva.[82]
Operation Tannenbaum, a military offensive intended to occupy all of Switzerland, most likely in co-operation with Italy (which itself desired the Italian-speaking areas of Switzerland), was in the planning stages during 1940-1941. Its implementation was seriously considered by the German military after the armistice with France, but it was definitively shelved after the start of Operation Barbarossa had directed the attention of the Wehrmacht elsewhere.[83]