I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
supply chains, decent research, skilled machinist and machine making capability will be more important
So let's break the supply chains, pull out of shared research, and make it harder to hire skilled machinists.
Oh, wait...
Brexit makes everything you say harder.
Only in your head
But we do know the track record of our time in the EU has hollowed out our industrial base and given us a huge BoP deficit
How are you going to change that by staying in ?
How has the EU done this to us and not to other EU member states?
we.ve done it to ourselves whilst in the EU
the UK has tried to follow an anglo saxon model whilst working in a Franco\German social structure.
If we had adopted the Franco German social economic model ourselves it may have turned out better, but we didnt and bar some TUs Ive never seen an appetitie for it among british management
British management was failing a long time before we joined the EU, but I agree that things have not got any better. I just struggle to see how they are now going to improve. We'll still fail to invest in R&D, investors will still insist on the sell-off and break-up of successful start-ups, the dividend will still rule and cutting corners to cut costs will still be the favoured option. And we'll still be competing with others who do it all differently. Only now our home market will be a whole lot smaller.
it's where a shock to the system may pay off
Germany has 10 times more robots than the UK The UK has 10 times more accountants than Germany
and we wonder about productivity
We have a robot for PM - so we beat the Germans on that one
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
A collapse of the Venezeulan economy before our next election is likely to do him more damage than those past links to the IRA. The notion of the dead going unburied sank late-seventies Labour - because it was such a visceral, easy-to-grasp representation of an economy that was dysfunctional. Corbyn holding up Venezeula as a model for praise, while its basic elements of society break down, will bring home to people just how bonkers it would be to let him get anywhere near power.
I doubt Venezuela will cost him many votes. The Tories need a new leader and a sense of clearly articulated common purpose. Those plus a forensic attack on the idiocies that will doubtless form a large part of the Corbyn Labour manifesto would very likely see them win most seats whenever the next election takes place. Whether they are capable of any of them is another question entirely.
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
It's a cul de sac. All those who care that Jeremy Corbyn spent 35 years backing causes that openly advocated the murder of British soldiers and citizens will already be voting for parties other than Labour.
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
A collapse of the Venezeulan economy before our next election is likely to do him more damage than those past links to the IRA. The notion of the dead going unburied sank late-seventies Labour - because it was such a visceral, easy-to-grasp representation of an economy that was dysfunctional. Corbyn holding up Venezeula as a model for praise, while its basic elements of society break down, will bring home to people just how bonkers it would be to let him get anywhere near power.
Point 3: as I pointed out, there are some things we just can't do in the UK: we have no uranium nor cobalt, for example.
thats just nonsense businesses deal with a changi
Why you have jumped from encouraging import substitution to autarky you will have to expalin
Addressing your points as follows:
* "thats just nonsense businesses deal with a changing environemt every day and adapt,".
I wasn't saying that business could not adapt. I was explaining why the one-to-one substitution you advocate wouldn't work
* "Manufacturing production costs are falling the world over, The UK just isnt encouraging investment in up to date technology. To a large extent we have abandoned the goal of a high skill highly paid workforce and fallen back on cheap labour. We see it in productivity figures."
I agree with you. But Brexit will not cure this problem, which is a function of UK short-termism rather than EU membership.
Am I correct in thinking (one of) the reasons why you voted Leave was to encourage the growth of UK manufacturing? If so I hope it works out in the way you hoped, but my thoughts are that the focus on Brexit and the costs it entails in terms of more expensive imports and the opportunity cost of spending so much time on it, will discourage the investment and innovation you seek, not encourage it.
I'm not advocating one to one subs.
I decided to jump out of the pot rather than be a boiled frog
But you will continue to be an EU citizen and so part of the superstate when all of us cease to be. Go figure.
chortle
I've had my Irish passport for over 20 years, and for totally different reasons than Brexit
Sure, but that makes you a part of the superstate that so repels you. On the upside, though, there is no downside to Brexit for you. So that's good.
SO since this so clearly annoys you Ill make you an offer
divorce your wife, Ill ditch mine too
we can have a gay wedding In Dubln
then you can get a passport too
March is looking good calendar wise
A gay wedding in Dublin? You'll get lynched!
Roger they had a referendum on it and a massive win for yes (62-38 I think). You are thinking of Belfast, perhaps?
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
A collapse of the Venezeulan economy before our next election is likely to do him more damage than those past links to the IRA. The notion of the dead going unburied sank late-seventies Labour - because it was such a visceral, easy-to-grasp representation of an economy that was dysfunctional. Corbyn holding up Venezeula as a model for praise, while its basic elements of society break down, will bring home to people just how bonkers it would be to let him get anywhere near power.
Venezuela doesn't register with most voters.
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
If you are going to enforce a border it is better to do it at the Irish Sea where the crossings are major events and vehicles get checked anyway, than swooping on a white van crossing the Inchfinbar Ditch that might be smuggling quantities of goods or might just be visiting his mum a mile away. I can see why it would be a non-starter however. Of course those Irish Sea checks could also apply to goods leaving and entering the Republic of Ireland from the rEU.
If the whole of the UK stayed in the Customs Union, which is the sensible thing to do if we are not going to remain in the EU, that would be a win/win as far as the Ulster Unionists are concerned. However, England won't be sensible just because the Northern Irish unusually are pushing them to be.
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
It could equally well be twinned with "This is what Brexit will do to the UK"
I'm sure Mr Meeks will try it anyway.
But by the next election, we will know what terrors Brexit holds. And if it does hurt the economy, then who is going to want to double down with Brexit + Venezeula? And if turns out Brexit is managed OK, who is going to want to dodge one bullet, just to stand in front of another?
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
A collapse of the Venezeulan economy before our next election is likely to do him more damage than those past links to the IRA. The notion of the dead going unburied sank late-seventies Labour - because it was such a visceral, easy-to-grasp representation of an economy that was dysfunctional. Corbyn holding up Venezeula as a model for praise, while its basic elements of society break down, will bring home to people just how bonkers it would be to let him get anywhere near power.
Venezuela doesn't register with most voters.
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
Before Brexit, the Conservatives might have got traction. The electorate will compare actual Tory shambles with potential Labour risks and weigh more on the actuality. Also if you are going to do fantasy make it attractive. Labour fantasy is more money, more services, more jobs. Conservative fantasy is No to the EU. Which fantasy do you want to sign up to?
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
A collapse of the Venezeulan economy before our next election is likely to do him more damage than those past links to the IRA. The notion of the dead going unburied sank late-seventies Labour - because it was such a visceral, easy-to-grasp representation of an economy that was dysfunctional. Corbyn holding up Venezeula as a model for praise, while its basic elements of society break down, will bring home to people just how bonkers it would be to let him get anywhere near power.
Venezuela doesn't register with most voters.
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
Before Brexit, the Conservatives might have got traction. The electorate will compare actual Tory shambles with potential Labour risks and weigh more on the actuality. Also if you are going to do fantasy make it attractive. Labour fantasy is more money, more services, more jobs. Conservative fantasy is No to the EU. Which fantasy do you want to sign up to?
But Labour's fantasy is not just a Magic Money Tree, but a whole forest of them.
When they have shown in the past that they can't even grow a single sapling.
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
It could equally well be twinned with "This is what Brexit will do to the UK"
I'm sure Mr Meeks will try it anyway.
But by the next election, we will know what terrors Brexit holds. And if it does hurt the economy, then who is going to want to double down with Brexit + Venezeula? And if turns out Brexit is managed OK, who is going to want to dodge one bullet, just to stand in front of another?
It's not going to fly, for the simple and obvious reason that Labour will not be running on a Marxist manifesto.
Tories really have nothing positive to offer the people of Britain.
Before Brexit, the Conservatives might have got traction. The electorate will compare actual Tory shambles with potential Labour risks and weigh more on the actuality. Also if you are going to do fantasy make it attractive. Labour fantasy is more money, more services, more jobs. Conservative fantasy is No to the EU. Which fantasy do you want to sign up to?
But Labour's fantasy is not just a Magic Money Tree, but a whole forest of them.
When they have shown in the past that they can't even grow a single sapling.
I don't disagree. I am just saying that the Conservatives have fallen into a trap. They are no longer sensible but don't project a fantasy that appeals. When the public trades off what it sees against what it hears, it will go with what it sees.
Sorry. (Genuinely sorry. Both parties could be a lot better than they are).
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
A collapse of the Venezeulan economy before our next election is likely to do him more damage than those past links to the IRA. The notion of the dead going unburied sank late-seventies Labour - because it was such a visceral, easy-to-grasp representation of an economy that was dysfunctional. Corbyn holding up Venezeula as a model for praise, while its basic elements of society break down, will bring home to people just how bonkers it would be to let him get anywhere near power.
Venezuela doesn't register with most voters.
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
Before Brexit, the Conservatives might have got traction. The electorate will compare actual Tory shambles with potential Labour risks and weigh more on the actuality. Also if you are going to do fantasy make it attractive. Labour fantasy is more money, more services, more jobs. Conservative fantasy is No to the EU. Which fantasy do you want to sign up to?
But Labour's fantasy is not just a Magic Money Tree, but a whole forest of them.
When they have shown in the past that they can't even grow a single sapling.
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
A collapse of the Venezeulan economy before our next election is likely to do him more damage than those past links to the IRA. The notion of the dead going unburied sank late-seventies Labour - because it was such a visceral, easy-to-grasp representation of an economy that was dysfunctional. Corbyn holding up Venezeula as a model for praise, while its basic elements of society break down, will bring home to people just how bonkers it would be to let him get anywhere near power.
Venezuela doesn't register with most voters.
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
Before Brexit, the Conservatives might have got traction. The electorate will compare actual Tory shambles with potential Labour risks and weigh more on the actuality. Also if you are going to do fantasy make it attractive. Labour fantasy is more money, more services, more jobs. Conservative fantasy is No to the EU. Which fantasy do you want to sign up to?
But Labour's fantasy is not just a Magic Money Tree, but a whole forest of them.
When they have shown in the past that they can't even grow a single sapling.
You seem to be envisioning a campaign targeted at people who already agree with you.
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
You seem to be envisioning a campaign targeted at people who already agree with you.
The Tories got a huge vote in June. But there were still people who thought they could be very relaxed about their vote (or non-vote) because, well Corbyn ain't ever gonna win.
The message that Corbyn would actually be a monstrous risk that could now actually happen only needs to resonate with 1 voter in 50 and for them to change their vote/non-vote for the Tories to get their majority back.
You seem to be envisioning a campaign targeted at people who already agree with you.
The Tories got a huge vote in June. But there were still people who thought they could be very relaxed about their vote (or non-vote) because, well Corbyn ain't ever gonna win. The message that Corbyn would actually be a monstrous risk that could now actually happen only needs to resonate with 1 voter in 50 and for them to change their vote/non-vote for the Tories to get their majority back.
Most people do not want to get the Tories back with an absolute majority. They are bad enough as they are.
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
Unfortunately the only terrorists that Corbyn met which matter are the IRA because they attacked the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement took the sting out of that tail. The Kneecappers in Chief became respected members of the NI government and a national treasure. Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn met them.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
@foxinsoxuk - fascinating - thank you. A lot of lazy generalisations are thrown around. One thing (tangentially) struck me - Labour's poshest voters have Jared O'Mara as their MP!
Thanks.
I did some lazy generalisation too in my young vs old argument!
The deprived places in England which went Remain are interesting. Liverpool is particularly anomolous, perhaps the Irish connection.
Merseyside is different. Our own @Pulpstar will tell you that it's the only place in the country that supports Labour like it supports one of its football teams.
That has not been the case historically.Until 1964 most Liverpool seats were Tory -held. Wallasey remained Tory until 1992.
I don't believe Corbyn's trysts with terrorists will lose him a single vote. His problem is that there is no appetite to move backwards. Too many people remember the nationalised industries and the closed shop and don't want to see them again.
The next election will be fought on whether we want to return to the 70's. The Lynton Crosby campaign almost writes itself. They could with minor adjustments run my PPB for Paddy's Lib Dems "Maggies Broken Britain". A dystopian view of Thatcher's Britain........
But the extraordinary thing is that the Tory alternative is almost exactly the same. A party united in a desire to turn the clock back to 1973 and so idologically driven they're content to destroy our childrens future to achieve it.
So which past is the least attractive? That I suspect will be the battle ground for the next election and if either party want a director with experience they'll find my rates remarkably competitive!
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
A collapse of the Venezeulan economy before our next election is likely to do him more damage than those past links to the IRA. The notion of the dead going unburied sank late-seventies Labour - because it was such a visceral, easy-to-grasp representation of an economy that was dysfunctional. Corbyn holding up Venezeula as a model for praise, while its basic elements of society break down, will bring home to people just how bonkers it would be to let him get anywhere near power.
Venezuela doesn't register with most voters.
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
Before Brexit, the Conservatives might have got traction. The electorate will compare actual Tory shambles with potential Labour risks and weigh more on the actuality. Also if you are going to do fantasy make it attractive. Labour fantasy is more money, more services, more jobs. Conservative fantasy is No to the EU. Which fantasy do you want to sign up to?
But Labour's fantasy is not just a Magic Money Tree, but a whole forest of them.
When they have shown in the past that they can't even grow a single sapling.
Remind me the last time the Tories ran a surplus?
After seven years there’s still 1/3 of Gordon Broon’s big mess left to clear up.
You seem to be envisioning a campaign targeted at people who already agree with you.
The Tories got a huge vote in June. But there were still people who thought they could be very relaxed about their vote (or non-vote) because, well Corbyn ain't ever gonna win.
The message that Corbyn would actually be a monstrous risk that could now actually happen only needs to resonate with 1 voter in 50 and for them to change their vote/non-vote for the Tories to get their majority back.
I don't think a con majority at the next election is out of the question - with a (refined) fear campaign like GE17, consolidating their over 50's property-owning client vote, showering the less well off oldies with goodies (paid for by the under 50's, obviously).
They could also rig the electoral system even more in their favour (eg, require registration in advance, with 3 forms of ID, in person at an understaffed council office - for anyone who hasn't been registered at an address for 2 years, or whatever) I'm sure if they put their minds to it they can come up with a vote repression scheme that will work effectively.
What they really need, though, is the Lib Dem's to stop dicking about. Either that or a new, viable, centrist party to splinter labour's vote.
A majority is possible. Even a stronger and stabler TM campaign could potentially win 325+
Not yet. But night after night news coverage of a large country in collapse will soon get twinned with "And this is what Corbyn wants for the UK...".
Before Brexit, the Conservatives might have got traction. The electorate will compare actual Tory shambles with potential Labour risks and weigh more on the actuality. Also if you are going to do fantasy make it attractive. Labour fantasy is more money, more services, more jobs. Conservative fantasy is No to the EU. Which fantasy do you want to sign up to?
But Labour's fantasy is not just a Magic Money Tree, but a whole forest of them.
When they have shown in the past that they can't even grow a single sapling.
You seem to be envisioning a campaign targeted at people who already agree with you.
The Tories got a huge vote in June. But there were still people who thought they could be very relaxed about their vote (or non-vote) because, well Corbyn ain't ever gonna win.
The message that Corbyn would actually be a monstrous risk that could now actually happen only needs to resonate with 1 voter in 50 and for them to change their vote/non-vote for the Tories to get their majority back.
And yet I personally swung to vote Labour when I saw them rising in the polls and so thought there was a chance they might win. Any choice has a risk associated with it, but as risks go Brexit is so off the scale that nothing else seems much of an issue in comparison.
F1: Betfair Sportsbook has Bottas at 4.5 for pole and Raikkonen at 17. Raikkonen was third in third practice but just 0.04s off the fastest time. Seventeen is a ridiculous price. I've backed both.
Edited extra bit: will wait a bit to see what Ladbrokes throws up, but if they have Raikkonen longer than 17 I'll be surprised.
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
Unfortunately the only terrorists that Corbyn met which matter are the IRA because they attacked the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement took the sting out of that tail. The Kneecappers in Chief became respected members of the NI government and a national treasure. Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn met them.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
And our Foreign Secretary gets our citizens an extra 10 years in jail in Tehran because that's the kind of great big lovable air-headed buffoon he is.
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
Unfortunately the only terrorists that Corbyn met which matter are the IRA because they attacked the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement took the sting out of that tail. The Kneecappers in Chief became respected members of the NI government and a national treasure. Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn met them.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
And our Foreign Secretary gets our citizens an extra 10 years in jail in Tehran because that's the kind of great big lovable air-headed buffoon he is.
I read that as 'great big lovable hot-air buffoon' which I thought was brilliant!
The findings, taken from the latest Future of England survey – the findings of which will be presented tomorrow at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Manchester – also found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that destabilising the Northern Ireland peace process would be worthwhile to see the UK exit the European Union.
As I said yesterday the fact that we have not achieved 6 consecutive months growth in industrial production for 23 years is truly shocking and condemns the whole of the Blair/Brown government as well as the Coalition. It is also the clearest indication that we could have that the growth of the Brown years was completely unsustainable.
We have been and are a major source of demand for the EU throughout that period creating industrial employment elsewhere. I do think those who go on and on about the wonders of the single market should reflect on how disastrous membership has proven to be for this country. Our industry has been hollowed out, we have been left with a completely unsustainable trade deficit and we have sustained this with borrowing that will impede our progress going forward. During most of that time our trade with those outwith the single market has been broadly in balance.
This raises a broader point relevant to David's article. In the 18th -20th centuries free trade was very good for us. It was good because we had significant competitive advantages and we were able to enforce our rules on our customers. Since the growth of China (and earlier Japan) I think it is highly questionable whether free trade has worked to our advantage. Without the ability to impose rules the terms of trade have been extremely disadvantageous creating enormous trade deficits and destroying the employment of millions of westerners. Our somewhat simplistic analysis of comparative advantage really does not bear any relation to the modern world. I think it has become a shibboleth that we unthinkingly hold onto which does us very little good and a great deal of harm.
Blaming the EU for the UK’s own inadequacies has worked and we’re leaving. But it will not make any diiference to our long-term issues with mediocre management and quarter to quarter strategic planning. Historically, the UK has failed to invest in R&D and has missed countless opportunities to take leadership positions. Our handing over the development of graphene technology - invented here - being but the latest example. Protectionism is not going to help us. It will just raise prices.
Sorry to have plonked this down and then run away but I got dragged downtown. Whilst I do not dispute that our own inadequacies have not helped the reality is that the single market has not worked to our advantage. Whilst the City has gained we have never been able to obtain the same access for our services that manufacturers of goods have. Our weaknesses have been reinforced with major adverse consequences for those living outside London. Should we have done better? Undoubtedly, but we are where we are.
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
Unfortunately the only terrorists that Corbyn met which matter are the IRA because they attacked the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement took the sting out of that tail. The Kneecappers in Chief became respected members of the NI government and a national treasure. Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn met them.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
And our Foreign Secretary gets our citizens an extra 10 years in jail in Tehran because that's the kind of great big lovable air-headed buffoon he is.
I read that as 'great big lovable hot-air buffoon' which I thought was brilliant!
The findings, taken from the latest Future of England survey – the findings of which will be presented tomorrow at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Manchester – also found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that destabilising the Northern Ireland peace process would be worthwhile to see the UK exit the European Union.
Except the Scots clearly do not feel Brexit is worth threatening the Union, see SNP losses in June
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context.
I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945.
All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
I also saw my first white 'peace' poppy on the tube last week.
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context.
I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945.
All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
I also saw my first white 'peace' poppy on the tube last week.
I suppose the white poppy commemorates the concientious objectors who died whilst serving in the red cross.
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
Unfortunately the only terrorists that Corbyn met which matter are the IRA because they attacked the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement took the sting out of that tail. The Kneecappers in Chief became respected members of the NI government and a national treasure. Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn met them.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
And our Foreign Secretary gets our citizens an extra 10 years in jail in Tehran because that's the kind of great big lovable air-headed buffoon he is.
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
Unfortunately the only terrorists that Corbyn met which matter are the IRA because they attacked the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement took the sting out of that tail. The Kneecappers in Chief became respected members of the NI government and a national treasure. Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn met them.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
And our Foreign Secretary gets our citizens an extra 10 years in jail in Tehran because that's the kind of great big lovable air-headed buffoon he is.
Foreign Secretary tells the truth shock?
I don't want to be rude, but isn't that a slightly stupid question? What are the odds that what he said was neither false, nor true but classified? And if it was neither, do you really therefore think that it must have been ok to say it simply because it was true?
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context.
I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945.
All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
I also saw my first white 'peace' poppy on the tube last week.
I suppose the white poppy commemorates the concientious objectors who died whilst serving in the red cross.
The white poppy represents a commitment to peace and to avoid glamorising war apparently and to remember both civilian casualties of war as well as casualties from the armed services. http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/index.html
On topic, blistering good piece David, one of your best.
I've been saying this for a while (and that Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 did to the Liberals)
It was not WW1 but universal suffrage in 1918 which led to Labour replacing the Liberals as the main party of the Left.
The only comparison would be if the Tories abandoned Brexit and that led to UKIP replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right.
How would we tell?
As on the hypothesis I have laid out the Tories would have abandoned Brexit and Article 50 and decided to keep the UK in the EU hence giving UKIP the opportunity to win enough Tory Leavers to overtake the Tories as the main party of the Right.
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
Unfortunately the only terrorists that Corbyn met which matter are the IRA because they attacked the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement took the sting out of that tail. The Kneecappers in Chief became respected members of the NI government and a national treasure. Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn met them.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
And our Foreign Secretary gets our citizens an extra 10 years in jail in Tehran because that's the kind of great big lovable air-headed buffoon he is.
Foreign Secretary tells the truth shock?
I don't want to be rude, but isn't that a slightly stupid question? What are the odds that what he said was neither false, nor true but classified? And if it was neither, do you really therefore think that it must have been ok to say it simply because it was true?
On topic, blistering good piece David, one of your best.
I've been saying this for a while (and that Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 did to the Liberals)
It was not WW1 but universal suffrage in 1918 which led to Labour replacing the Liberals as the main party of the Left.
The only comparison would be if the Tories abandoned Brexit and that led to UKIP replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right.
That's not really true. The Liberals could easily have moved left to fill the gap that the expanded franchise offered. Up until 1917, Labour was effectively a junior, if autonomous, partner within the Liberal movement. With Lloyd George's prestige and his own radical instincts, there would have been little space for Labour on the centre-left. Indeed, a ruthless Liberal Party could have crushed Labour forever beyond the far left fringe on a twin message of pacifism and the Russian revolution (yes, there were Labour members of the government but there were other senior figures who'd advocated a pacifist stance and in the heat of an election - particularly one fought in circumstances like that of 1918 - nuances might not have counted for much.
On topic, blistering good piece David, one of your best.
I've been saying this for a while (and that Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 did to the Liberals)
It was not WW1 but universal suffrage in 1918 which led to Labour replacing the Liberals as the main party of the Left.
The only comparison would be if the Tories abandoned Brexit and that led to UKIP replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right.
That's not really true. The Liberals could easily have moved left to fill the gap that the expanded franchise offered. Up until 1917, Labour was effectively a junior, if autonomous, partner within the Liberal movement. With Lloyd George's prestige and his own radical instincts, there would have been little space for Labour on the centre-left. Indeed, a ruthless Liberal Party could have crushed Labour forever beyond the far left fringe on a twin message of pacifism and the Russian revolution (yes, there were Labour members of the government but there were other senior figures who'd advocated a pacifist stance and in the heat of an election - particularly one fought in circumstances like that of 1918 - nuances might not have counted for much.
It was the working class being able to vote in full in 1918 which was key as Labour was a working class party and the Liberals a middle class party. It is also highly unlikely the Liberals could have outflanked Labour as the party of socialism and the trade unions and working class without compromising their core principles as a party of free trade.
In 1918 the Labour Party won a higher voteshare than either the Lloyd George or Asquith Liberals and by 1922 more seats than the Liberals combined and they never looked back forming the first Labour government in 1924.
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context.
I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945.
All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
I also saw my first white 'peace' poppy on the tube last week.
I suppose the white poppy commemorates the concientious objectors who died whilst serving in the red cross.
The White poppy is in memory of all victims of war, civilian and military and on all sides.
Corbyn's trysts with terrorists have lost him all the votes they are going to lose him and probably explain to a large extent why the Tories still have every chance of winning most seats at the next general election.
Let's look at people who talk to terrorists, Douglas Hurd for example? In face to face talks with the Provos in the 1970's before Corbyn had been elected to Westminster, and didn't he later become a minister of state or something. Or Blair bringing Bashar al-Assad on a State visit to the UK before Cameron decided he was beyond the pale and needed the shit bombed out of him, and incidentally killing, wounding or displacing 100's of thousands. Or Blair meeting and greeting Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, again bombed by Cameron, who went to visit later to his own self description of Saviour of Libya with all those nice friendly terrorists who helped him, even while all those refugees were going to flood Europe. Even Anthony Eden mixing with the Israelis 9 years after having the British authorities blown to smithereens in Jerusalem's King David Hotel... The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
The difference is perhaps enthusiasm and compromises of government vs true believer. Has Corbyn ever met a terrorist or revolutionary he doesn’t like or empathise with?
Unfortunately the only terrorists that Corbyn met which matter are the IRA because they attacked the United Kingdom. The Good Friday Agreement took the sting out of that tail. The Kneecappers in Chief became respected members of the NI government and a national treasure. Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn met them.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
And our Foreign Secretary gets our citizens an extra 10 years in jail in Tehran because that's the kind of great big lovable air-headed buffoon he is.
Foreign Secretary tells the truth shock?
I don't want to be rude, but isn't that a slightly stupid question? What are the odds that what he said was neither false, nor true but classified? And if it was neither, do you really therefore think that it must have been ok to say it simply because it was true?
Ah! So you admit it.
Admit what? How the fuck would I know what the truth of the matter is?
On topic, blistering good piece David, one of your best.
I've been saying this for a while (and that Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 did to the Liberals)
It was not WW1 but universal suffrage in 1918 which led to Labour replacing the Liberals as the main party of the Left.
The only comparison would be if the Tories abandoned Brexit and that led to UKIP replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right.
That's not really true. The Liberals could easily have moved left to fill the gap that the expanded franchise offered. Up until 1917, Labour was effectively a junior, if autonomous, partner within the Liberal movement. With Lloyd George's prestige and his own radical instincts, there would have been little space for Labour on the centre-left. Indeed, a ruthless Liberal Party could have crushed Labour forever beyond the far left fringe on a twin message of pacifism and the Russian revolution (yes, there were Labour members of the government but there were other senior figures who'd advocated a pacifist stance and in the heat of an election - particularly one fought in circumstances like that of 1918 - nuances might not have counted for much.
It was the working class being able to vote in full in 1918 which was key as Labour was a working class party and the Liberals a middle class party. It is also highly unlikely the Liberals could have outflanked Labour as the party of socialism and the trade unions and working class without compromising their core principles as a party of free trade.
In 1918 the Labour Party won a higher voteshare than either the Lloyd George or Asquith Liberals and by 1922 more seats than the Liberals combined and they never looked back forming the first Labour government in 1924.
Or the first Labour government in 1923 I should say.
On topic, blistering good piece David, one of your best.
I've been saying this for a while (and that Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 did to the Liberals)
It was not WW1 but universal suffrage in 1918 which led to Labour replacing the Liberals as the main party of the Left.
The only comparison would be if the Tories abandoned Brexit and that led to UKIP replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right.
That's not really true. The Liberals could easily have moved left to fill the gap that the expanded franchise offered. Up until 1917, Labour was effectively a junior, if autonomous, partner within the Liberal movement. With Lloyd George's prestige and his own radical instincts, there would have been little space for Labour on the centre-left. Indeed, a ruthless Liberal Party could have crushed Labour forever beyond the far left fringe on a twin message of pacifism and the Russian revolution (yes, there were Labour members of the government but there were other senior figures who'd advocated a pacifist stance and in the heat of an election - particularly one fought in circumstances like that of 1918 - nuances might not have counted for much.
It was the working class being able to vote in full in 1918 which was key as Labour was a working class party and the Liberals a middle class party. It is also highly unlikely the Liberals could have outflanked Labour as the party of socialism and the trade unions and working class without compromising their core principles as a party of free trade.
In 1918 the Labour Party won a higher voteshare than either the Lloyd George or Asquith Liberals and by 1922 more seats than the Liberals combined and they never looked back forming the first Labour government in 1924.
The Liberals didn't need to outflank Labour; they just needed to provide a more viable mechanism of implementing centre-left policies. FPTP, innit? (on which note, the 1918 numbers aren't really all that meaningful given the coupon: Labour only stood about 40 fewer candidates than both Liberal factions combined, and in many seats, the coupon and 'absent party' effect would have boosted the share of the third party ie. Labour.
On policy, what LG did re pensions before the war could easily have been extended. Look at his manifesto in 1929, for example. There was ample scope to appeal to the working class (as indeed the Tories did, in their own way).
On topic, blistering good piece David, one of your best.
I've been saying this for a while (and that Brexit could do to the Tories what WW1 did to the Liberals)
It was not WW1 but universal suffrage in 1918 which led to Labour replacing the Liberals as the main party of the Left.
The only comparison would be if the Tories abandoned Brexit and that led to UKIP replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right.
That's not really true. The Liberals could easily have moved left to fill the gap that the expanded franchise offered. Up until 1917, Labour was effectively a junior, if autonomous, partner within the Liberal movement. With Lloyd George's prestige and his own radical instincts, there would have been little space for Labour on the centre-left. Indeed, a ruthless Liberal Party could have crushed Labour forever beyond the far left fringe on a twin message of pacifism and the Russian revolution (yes, there were Labour members of the government but there were other senior figures who'd advocated a pacifist stance and in the heat of an election - particularly one fought in circumstances like that of 1918 - nuances might not have counted for much.
It was the working class being able to vote in full in 1918 which was key as Labour was a working class party and the Liberals a middle class party. It is also highly unlikely the Liberals could have outflanked Labour as the party of socialism and the trade unions and working class without compromising their core principles as a party of free trade.
In 1918 the Labour Party won a higher voteshare than either the Lloyd George or Asquith Liberals and by 1922 more seats than the Liberals combined and they never looked back forming the first Labour government in 1924.
The Liberals didn't need to outflank Labour; they just needed to provide a more viable mechanism of implementing centre-left policies. FPTP, innit? (on which note, the 1918 numbers aren't really all that meaningful given the coupon: Labour only stood about 40 fewer candidates than both Liberal factions combined, and in many seats, the coupon and 'absent party' effect would have boosted the share of the third party ie. Labour.
On policy, what LG did re pensions before the war could easily have been extended. Look at his manifesto in 1929, for example. There was ample scope to appeal to the working class (as indeed the Tories did, in their own way).
Extending rights to pensions through National Insurance is not the same as the Liberals becoming the party of the trade unions and working class and socialism and being able to challenge Labour on those grounds.
The findings, taken from the latest Future of England survey – the findings of which will be presented tomorrow at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Manchester – also found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that destabilising the Northern Ireland peace process would be worthwhile to see the UK exit the European Union.
Wow! If you think that shows we're dealing with a cult of nutters look at this from the article.....
"Nearly 90% of England's Leave voters would sacrifice the Union to ensure Brexit happens"
The findings, taken from the latest Future of England survey – the findings of which will be presented tomorrow at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Manchester – also found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that destabilising the Northern Ireland peace process would be worthwhile to see the UK exit the European Union.
Wow! If you think that shows we're dealing with a cult of nutters look at this from the article.....
"Nearly 90% of England's Leave voters would sacrifice the Union to ensure Brexit happens"
Sid and Doris ....
Except the Scots gave Unionist parties 63% of their votes in June despite Brexit anyway
Entirely OT, because I feel the need to vent this everywhere now, I hated the ending of Murder on the Orient Express so much it ruined the entire movie for me. I have no idea if it is how the book ends, or other movie versions do, but if it is the way it is 'supposed' to end they either missed some crucial way of presenting it, or changed something critical, as while the movie is well acted and directed, I haven't left a movie so annoyed for quite some time. Ugh.
The findings, taken from the latest Future of England survey – the findings of which will be presented tomorrow at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Manchester – also found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that destabilising the Northern Ireland peace process would be worthwhile to see the UK exit the European Union.
Wow! If you think that shows we're dealing with a cult of nutters look at this from the article.....
"Nearly 90% of England's Leave voters would sacrifice the Union to ensure Brexit happens"
Sid and Doris ....
An alarming statistic. Given there is not anywhere near such high support for an independent England, I find it hard to believe that figure. Personally, if I had thought the UK Union could have been guaranteed, I would have voted Remain.
That's not really true. The Liberals could easily have moved left to fill the gap that the expanded franchise offered. Up until 1917, Labour was effectively a junior, if autonomous, partner within the Liberal movement. With Lloyd George's prestige and his own radical instincts, there would have been little space for Labour on the centre-left. Indeed, a ruthless Liberal Party could have crushed Labour forever beyond the far left fringe on a twin message of pacifism and the Russian revolution (yes, there were Labour members of the government but there were other senior figures who'd advocated a pacifist stance and in the heat of an election - particularly one fought in circumstances like that of 1918 - nuances might not have counted for much.
It was the working class being able to vote in full in 1918 which was key as Labour was a working class party and the Liberals a middle class party. It is also highly unlikely the Liberals could have outflanked Labour as the party of socialism and the trade unions and working class without compromising their core principles as a party of free trade.
In 1918 the Labour Party won a higher voteshare than either the Lloyd George or Asquith Liberals and by 1922 more seats than the Liberals combined and they never looked back forming the first Labour government in 1924.
The Liberals didn't need to outflank Labour; they just needed to provide a more viable mechanism of implementing centre-left policies. FPTP, innit? (on which note, the 1918 numbers aren't really all that meaningful given the coupon: Labour only stood about 40 fewer candidates than both Liberal factions combined, and in many seats, the coupon and 'absent party' effect would have boosted the share of the third party ie. Labour.
On policy, what LG did re pensions before the war could easily have been extended. Look at his manifesto in 1929, for example. There was ample scope to appeal to the working class (as indeed the Tories did, in their own way).
Extending rights to pensions through National Insurance is not the same as the Liberals becoming the party of the trade unions and working class and socialism and being able to challenge Labour on those grounds.
They didn't need to challenge Labour on those grounds; Labour needed to challenge the Liberals. However, as the Liberals were divided and infighting pretty much to the death, that turned out to be quite easy. But it would be a mistake to believe that being the party of the trade unions was the same as being the party of the working class.
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context.
I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945.
All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
I also saw my first white 'peace' poppy on the tube last week.
I suppose the white poppy commemorates the concientious objectors who died whilst serving in the red cross.
The White poppy is in memory of all victims of war, civilian and military and on all sides.
Seems a little unnecessary since I'd assume most people wearing a red poppy believe the red already means that too (any nationalistic or militaristic connotations it may have held are long since gone, as you don't find anything but maudlin, sombre reflections on WW1 in particular anymore), certainly it's what I always thought growing up, but whatever, it's a free country.
That's not really true. The Liberals could easily have moved left to fill the gap that the expanded franchise offered. Up until 1917, Labour was effectively a junior, if autonomous, partner within the Liberal movement. With Lloyd George's prestige and his own radical instincts, there would have been little space for Labour on the centre-left. Indeed, a ruthless Liberal Party could have crushed Labour forever beyond the far left fringe on a twin message of pacifism and the Russian revolution (yes, there were Labour members of the government but there were other senior figures who'd advocated a pacifist stance and in the heat of an election - particularly one fought in circumstances like that of 1918 - nuances might not have counted for much.
It was the working class being able to vote in full in 1918 which was key as Labour was a working class party and the Liberals a middle class party. It is also highly unlikely the Liberals could have outflanked Labour as the party of socialism and the trade unions and working class without compromising their core principles as a party of free trade.
In 1918 the Labour Party won a higher voteshare than either the Lloyd George or Asquith Liberals and by 1922 more seats than the Liberals combined and they never looked back forming the first Labour government in 1924.
The Liberals didn't need to outflank Labour; they just needed to provide a more viable mechanism of implementing centre-left policies. FPTP, innit? (on which note, the 1918 numbers aren't really all that meaningful given the coupon: Labour only stood about 40 fewer candidates than both Liberal factions combined, and in many seats, the coupon and 'absent party' effect would have boosted the share of the third party ie. Labour.
On policy, what LG did re pensions before the war could easily have been extended. Look at his manifesto in 1929, for example. There was ample scope to appeal to the working class (as indeed the Tories did, in their own way).
Extending rights to pensions through National Insurance is not the same as the Liberals becoming the party of the trade unions and working class and socialism and being able to challenge Labour on those grounds.
They didn't need to challenge Labour on those grounds; Labour needed to challenge the Liberals. However, as the Liberals were divided and infighting pretty much to the death, that turned out to be quite easy. But it would be a mistake to believe that being the party of the trade unions was the same as being the party of the working class.
At the time it enabled Labour to be the party of working class rights against the capitalists
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context.
I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945.
All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
I also saw my first white 'peace' poppy on the tube last week.
I suppose the white poppy commemorates the concientious objectors who died whilst serving in the red cross.
The White poppy is in memory of all victims of war, civilian and military and on all sides.
Seems a little unnecessary since I'd assume most people wearing a red poppy believe the red already means that too (any nationalistic or militaristic connotations it may have held are long since gone, as you don't find anything but maudlin, sombre reflections on WW1 in particular anymore), certainly it's what I always thought growing up, but whatever, it's a free country.
Really? I'd got the impression that the poppy is being jingoised. This sort of thing makes my skin crawl.
The findings, taken from the latest Future of England survey – the findings of which will be presented tomorrow at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Manchester – also found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that destabilising the Northern Ireland peace process would be worthwhile to see the UK exit the European Union.
Wow! If you think that shows we're dealing with a cult of nutters look at this from the article.....
"Nearly 90% of England's Leave voters would sacrifice the Union to ensure Brexit happens"
Sid and Doris ....
Not at all. Wanting the UK out of the EU and Scotland able to leave the UK are perfectly logical and compatible views. Many of the same arguments apply to both.
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context.
I popped to the shortt's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945.
All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
I also saw my first white 'peace' poppy on the tube last week.
I suppose the white poppy commemorates the concientious objectors who died whilst serving in the red cross.
The White poppy is in memory of all victims of war, civilian and military and on all sides.
Seems a little unnecessary since I'd assume most people wearing a red poppy believe the red already means that too (any nationalistic or militaristic connotations it may have held are long since gone, as you don't find anything but maudlin, sombre reflections on WW1 in particular anymore), certainly it's what I always thought growing up, but whatever, it's a free country.
Really? I'd got the impression that the poppy is being jingoised. This sort of thing makes my skin crawl.
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
It was the working class being able to vote in full in 1918 which was key as Labour was a working class party and the Liberals a middle class party. It is also highly unlikely the Liberals could have outflanked Labour as the party of socialism and the trade unions and working class without compromising their core principles as a party of free trade.
In 1918 the Labour Party won a higher voteshare than either the Lloyd George or Asquith Liberals and by 1922 more seats than the Liberals combined and they never looked back forming the first Labour government in 1924.
The Liberals didn't need to outflank Labour; they just needed to provide a more viable mechanism of implementing centre-left policies. FPTP, innit? (on which note, the 1918 numbers aren't really all that meaningful given the coupon: Labour only stood about 40 fewer candidates than both Liberal factions combined, and in many seats, the coupon and 'absent party' effect would have boosted the share of the third party ie. Labour.
On policy, what LG did re pensions before the war could easily have been extended. Look at his manifesto in 1929, for example. There was ample scope to appeal to the working class (as indeed the Tories did, in their own way).
Extending rights to pensions through National Insurance is not the same as the Liberals becoming the party of the trade unions and working class and socialism and being able to challenge Labour on those grounds.
They didn't need to challenge Labour on those grounds; Labour needed to challenge the Liberals. However, as the Liberals were divided and infighting pretty much to the death, that turned out to be quite easy. But it would be a mistake to believe that being the party of the trade unions was the same as being the party of the working class.
At the time it enabled Labour to be the party of working class rights against the capitalists
It enabled Labour to claim to be. There was nothing to stop other parties from angling for the same votes. Homes for heroes and all that .
Entirely OT, because I feel the need to vent this everywhere now, I hated the ending of Murder on the Orient Express so much it ruined the entire movie for me. I have no idea if it is how the book ends, or other movie versions do, but if it is the way it is 'supposed' to end they either missed some crucial way of presenting it, or changed something critical, as while the movie is well acted and directed, I haven't left a movie so annoyed for quite some time. Ugh.
Welcome to the era of the franchise....
You were generally much more charitable about the movie than I was. I think Dame Judi's performance must nearly all be on the cutting room floor. A fate which should have better befallen some of the others of this "all-star cast". *snigger*
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
Entirely OT, because I feel the need to vent this everywhere now, I hated the ending of Murder on the Orient Express so much it ruined the entire movie for me. I have no idea if it is how the book ends, or other movie versions do, but if it is the way it is 'supposed' to end they either missed some crucial way of presenting it, or changed something critical, as while the movie is well acted and directed, I haven't left a movie so annoyed for quite some time. Ugh.
Not seen the film but I have seen a summary of the plot and yes, as far as the whodunit and the reveal are concerned that is exactly the way the book goes.
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context. I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945. All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
The First World War and the Second World War were national wars, where almost everybody was on the same side.
The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were very much partisan wars, which a lot of the population was opposed to. It may be that a lot of people nowadays do not want to be associated with remembrance of those.
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context. I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945. All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
The First World War and the Second World War were national wars, where almost everybody was on the same side.
The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were very much partisan wars, which a lot of the population was opposed to. It may be that a lot of people nowadays do not want to be associated with remembrance of those.
I would certainly agree with regard to the 2003 Iraq war. Many British people do share my view that our Armed Forces were used as instruments of aggression - indeed instruments of evil.
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context. I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945. All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
The First World War and the Second World War were national wars, where almost everybody was on the same side.
The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were very much partisan wars, which a lot of the population was opposed to. It may be that a lot of people nowadays do not want to be associated with remembrance of those.
I would certainly agree with regard to the 2003 Iraq war. Many British people do share my view that our Armed Forces were used as instruments of aggression - indeed instruments of evil.
A lot of young Conservatives burst out into whoops of joy when the news came through about the sinking of the Belgrano.. Others of us just felt sick.
The findings, taken from the latest Future of England survey – the findings of which will be presented tomorrow at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Manchester – also found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that destabilising the Northern Ireland peace process would be worthwhile to see the UK exit the European Union.
Wow! If you think that shows we're dealing with a cult of nutters look at this from the article.....
"Nearly 90% of England's Leave voters would sacrifice the Union to ensure Brexit happens"
Sid and Doris ....
Not at all. Wanting the UK out of the EU and Scotland able to leave the UK are perfectly logical and compatible views. Many of the same arguments apply to both.
I'm prepared to "accept" Scotland leaving the UK, if that's what most Scots vote for.
I would certainly agree with regard to the 2003 Iraq war. Many British people do share my view that our Armed Forces were used as instruments of aggression - indeed instruments of evil.
It would be a disgrace to associate the valour and bravery of our fighting men with the questionable decisions of their political masters. By all means put Blair on trial, not the squaddie being commemorated for dying in a dugout because he was doing his job, honouring his oath and got unlucky.
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
I don't know anyone who would say the former.
In my experience (informed by living in Glasgow), there's a whole nexus of Help For Heroes, Armed Forces Day, poppifed Britishness, exemplified by this kind of thing.
Personally what I find most objectionable is the crass, virtue signalling, attention seeking vulgarity of it. The original concept of a modest, dignified commemoration for & by people who had been blasted (sometimes literally) by the experience of WWI seems to have been lost. I wouldn't be surprised if the white poppy is a reaction to that.
Entirely OT, because I feel the need to vent this everywhere now, I hated the ending of Murder on the Orient Express so much it ruined the entire movie for me. I have no idea if it is how the book ends, or other movie versions do, but if it is the way it is 'supposed' to end they either missed some crucial way of presenting it, or changed something critical, as while the movie is well acted and directed, I haven't left a movie so annoyed for quite some time. Ugh.
Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context. I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945. All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
The First World War and the Second World War were national wars, where almost everybody was on the same side.
The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were very much partisan wars, which a lot of the population was opposed to. It may be that a lot of people nowadays do not want to be associated with remembrance of those.
The commemorations today and tomorrow have nothing to do with discussions about the political rights and wrongs of any specific conflict, rather it’s remembering those who have given their lives for our country.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
Comments
The PBtories obsession with Corbyn's meetings can very easily be turned on it's head, and become very embarrassing.....
https://twitter.com/Oldfirmfacts1/status/929324992986255360
If the whole of the UK stayed in the Customs Union, which is the sensible thing to do if we are not going to remain in the EU, that would be a win/win as far as the Ulster Unionists are concerned. However, England won't be sensible just because the Northern Irish unusually are pushing them to be.
But by the next election, we will know what terrors Brexit holds. And if it does hurt the economy, then who is going to want to double down with Brexit + Venezeula? And if turns out Brexit is managed OK, who is going to want to dodge one bullet, just to stand in front of another?
When they have shown in the past that they can't even grow a single sapling.
Tories really have nothing positive to offer the people of Britain.
Sorry. (Genuinely sorry. Both parties could be a lot better than they are).
The message that Corbyn would actually be a monstrous risk that could now actually happen only needs to resonate with 1 voter in 50 and for them to change their vote/non-vote for the Tories to get their majority back.
And now our Trade Secretary says a foreign leader, who is happiest killing drug users on the street, shares UK values. I am sorry, not mine.
They could also rig the electoral system even more in their favour (eg, require registration in advance, with 3 forms of ID, in person at an understaffed council office - for anyone who hasn't been registered at an address for 2 years, or whatever) I'm sure if they put their minds to it they can come up with a vote repression scheme that will work effectively.
What they really need, though, is the Lib Dem's to stop dicking about. Either that or a new, viable, centrist party to splinter labour's vote.
A majority is possible. Even a stronger and stabler TM campaign could potentially win 325+
Insurance bet.
F1: very close amongst the top four, surprised Red Bull looking so weak.
Mr. Sandpit, indeed, be even better for qualifying. Him and Raikkonen may have nice odds, which I'll check shortly.
Betting PostF1: Betfair Sportsbook has Bottas at 4.5 for pole and Raikkonen at 17. Raikkonen was third in third practice but just 0.04s off the fastest time. Seventeen is a ridiculous price. I've backed both.
Edited extra bit: will wait a bit to see what Ladbrokes throws up, but if they have Raikkonen longer than 17 I'll be surprised.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15567727.Nearly_90__of_England_s_Leave_voters_would_sacrifice_the_Union_to_ensure_Brexit_happens/
The findings, taken from the latest Future of England survey – the findings of which will be presented tomorrow at a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party's Annual Conference in Manchester – also found that 81 per cent of respondents felt that destabilising the Northern Ireland peace process would be worthwhile to see the UK exit the European Union.
Ladbrokes has Raikkonen at 21. Annoyingly, and unusually, there's no each way option.
Edited extra bit: 23 with boost.
And he's layable on Ladbrokes Exchange at 19.
Phone poll 10k to 20k depending on the number of supplementaries
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/brazil-pre-qualifying-2017.html
Genuinely surprised by the Finnish odds. Am I missing something? Four chaps covered by half a tenth, and two of them are 4.5 and 17.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41952976/tony-blair-labour-should-be-20-points-ahead-in-polls
All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
I also saw my first white 'peace' poppy on the tube last week.
https://twitter.com/SkySportsF1/status/929333134151299072
http://www.ppu.org.uk/whitepoppy/index.html
I'll do my Brexit is for the Tories what WW1 was for the Liberals piece in the next fortnight.
I'm also going to do a civil war piece, @Kle4 was the inspiration for that.
The only comparison would be if the Tories abandoned Brexit and that led to UKIP replacing the Tories as the main party of the Right.
Samoa Rugby is broke so the players are not getting paid to play. So it's amateurs vesus professionals.
In 1918 the Labour Party won a higher voteshare than either the Lloyd George or Asquith Liberals and by 1922 more seats than the Liberals combined and they never looked back forming the first Labour government in 1924.
How about waiting until I publish the piece before assuming what you think (wrongly) I'm going to talk about.
Do you know what’s the odds on Alonso each way for the title next year, or for a top 3/4/5 finish?
On policy, what LG did re pensions before the war could easily have been extended. Look at his manifesto in 1929, for example. There was ample scope to appeal to the working class (as indeed the Tories did, in their own way).
"Nearly 90% of England's Leave voters would sacrifice the Union to ensure Brexit happens"
Sid and Doris ....
https://twitter.com/Frank_Monkey/status/928618462804692993
I don't know anyone who would say the former.
You were generally much more charitable about the movie than I was. I think Dame Judi's performance must nearly all be on the cutting room floor. A fate which should have better befallen some of the others of this "all-star cast". *snigger*
I mean, where did the balletic kung-fu come from?
Best thing on twitter since Angry Salmond.
The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were very much partisan wars, which a lot of the population was opposed to. It may be that a lot of people nowadays do not want to be associated with remembrance of those.
Perhaps not the best engine supplier for Alonso next year, then.....
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.
In my experience (informed by living in Glasgow), there's a whole nexus of Help For Heroes, Armed Forces Day, poppifed Britishness, exemplified by this kind of thing.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-remembrance-day-parade-branded-1558062
Personally what I find most objectionable is the crass, virtue signalling, attention seeking vulgarity of it. The original concept of a modest, dignified commemoration for & by people who had been blasted (sometimes literally) by the experience of WWI seems to have been lost. I wouldn't be surprised if the white poppy is a reaction to that.
May they rest in peace.