@DavidLWhy do teachers think it is ok to tolerate useless teachers in their schools damaging the children for whom they are responsible? Why are they not professionally offended by the incompetents undermining their hard work and effort? Is it just for a quiet life or because it is easier? Is there not a collective sense of responsibility in the majority of our schools? If not what do we do about it?
Why do bankers think it is ok to tolerate useless bankers in their banks damaging the world's economy for which they are responsible?
Why are they not professionally offended by the incompetents undermining their hard work and effort?
Is it just for a quiet life or because it is easier? Is there not a collective sense of responsibility in the majority of our banks ? If not what do we do about it?
So you believe that teachers should have the same level of public service ethos as bankers? I suppose in reality they do but it is surprising and a little refreshing to find a left leaning poster making that connection.
@corporeal They'd have some conception of the importance of a business generating revenue and keeping overheads under control when not supported by a safety net.
Interesting point. Applies not only to business.
Too many of our political leaders have never had to operate without a substantial personal safety net beneath them.
It's much easier to take career risks or be entrepreneurial if the bank of Mum and Dad is there to fund projects at non-commercial rates, subsidise mortgages/education/political careers or bail you out when things go wrong.
@Hugh The public sector regulates the private sector. But those with no experience of the private sector have no real conception of the very different pressures that private sector enterprises face.
There are four times as many private sector workers as public sector workers. You'd have thought that the political parties could seek to get themselves more first hand experience of the private sector accordingly.
@DavidLWhy do teachers think it is ok to tolerate useless teachers in their schools damaging the children for whom they are responsible? Why are they not professionally offended by the incompetents undermining their hard work and effort? Is it just for a quiet life or because it is easier? Is there not a collective sense of responsibility in the majority of our schools? If not what do we do about it?
Why do bankers think it is ok to tolerate useless bankers in their banks damaging the world's economy for which they are responsible?
Why are they not professionally offended by the incompetents undermining their hard work and effort?
Is it just for a quiet life or because it is easier? Is there not a collective sense of responsibility in the majority of our banks ? If not what do we do about it?
Where they are employed by state owned companies like RBS we should sack them Hugh and take away their pensions. Where they are not employed by the state we don't have the right to hold them individually to account but we should certainly hold the institutions that employ them to account where they have acted improperly. Where they have defrauded people or acted fraudulently they should go to jail.
I am frankly appalled that bankers have not gone to jail in this country for what they did (unlike in the US). It is really shocking and worrying.
If you are making a more general point then I am certainly not suggesting that there is something uniquely wicked or weak about the teaching profession. My sister, a primary school teacher, would have my guts for garters if I was. But their performance as a profession, like bankers, has been sub optimal. They have the potential to cost us even more than bankers in the long run.
It's a pity that such a high proportion of the teaching profession in Western countries is so remorselessly left-wing.
I imagine if anything, the ideological pressure being put on public services at the moment will only galvanize support for the Left among public sector workers - and discourage conservatives from working there in future. In much the same way as I doubt many Labour supporters are queuing up to work for the banks
like Blair?
Don't be ridiculous.
Blair does nothing to support the Labour party these days
he's not a party member any more then?
I didn't say anything about membership, just support
Arguably he has done more to undermine than support in the last two years
Given that the UK public sector is possibly the the most evil thing in all of Christendom, what do you want to do about it? Maybe you've all got shares in G4S, Falck, AssetCo?
I'm more concerned that politicians as a whole have so little private sector experience, yet they enthusiastically seek to regulate it despite having almost no knowledge of what they're dealing with.
The shadow Cabinet is an extreme example of this: only Rachel Reeves has any significant private sector experience. But the same criticism could be levelled at both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems.
My favourable impression of Owen Paterson is based almost entirely on an interview he gave to The Spectator:
"Regulation, he says, is not just a headache but the thief of time. ‘Government can wreck a business by confiscating its money by taxation. But confiscating its time is absolutely critical too, and I think, sadly, not enough people in government have tried to run a small business. Time that small businesses devote to regulation is time they are not ringing up a customer, not looking at the product or visiting a supplier. And that I think that is not understood.’"
Why does Gove behave as he does? Ultimately he's a Newspaper columnist by trade. A bit of contention probably comes naturally.
Indeed but moonlighting as a clickbaiter columnist is also amusingly at odds with his main motivation which is that he (like Cammie and Osbrowne) seem to have somehow convinced themselves that they are formidable PR master strategists following in Blair's footsteps.
Tony Blair's misleading lesson
They call Tony Blair the master and quote from his book. But Tories should beware the ex-PM's own hype
It's love. "I love A Journey," Michael Gove has confessed to this newspaper. Tony Blair's memoirs are like no other book he has ever read, he declared. And Gove's passion is shared by many in the cabinet. David Cameron has admitted how much he enjoyed the book; George Osborne is said to have an audio version, which allows him to hear the author telling his story in his own voice. At No 10 and No 11 Blair is known as "The Master".
Health secretary Andrew Lansley is another fan. "If you read Tony Blair's memoirs, he makes it clear that he regrets the fact that they did not pursue ... reform much more strongly in the early days of the Labour government," he told the PoliticsHome website (paywall). Gove has drawn a similar conclusion. "One of the ... lessons of A Journey – there are many lessons in it – is don't hang around," he said.
The truth is Blair was an accomplished actor and slick PR frontman yet was still political enough to know he had to take his party at least part of the way. Blair courted his MPs in the commons and made them feel as if he was listening. It was of course to ensure he could get his votes through but it still mostly worked. Contrast that with Gove, Cammie and the chumocracy who are not only toecurlingly bad at the PR ("we're all in this togther" "The Big Society") but are woefully out of touch with their own backbenchers and tory activists.
Gove had an epic hissy fit when the incompetent fop lost the Syria vote and the chumocracy's views on tory activists as "swivel-eyed loons" are hardly a very well kept secret.
Ultimately Cammie is not the only twit who is a second rate Blair impersonator in the chumocracy as Gove proves.
@corporeal They'd have some conception of the importance of a business generating revenue and keeping overheads under control when not supported by a safety net.
Interesting point. Applies not only to business.
Too many of our political leaders have never had to operate without a substantial personal safety net beneath them.
It's much easier to take career risks or be entrepreneurial if the bank of Mum and Dad is there to fund projects at non-commercial rates, subsidise mortgages/education/political careers or bail you out when things go wrong.
Given that the UK public sector is possibly the the most evil thing in all of Christendom, what do you want to do about it? Maybe you've all got shares in G4S, Falck, AssetCo?
There is nothing evil about the public sector but at the same time there is nothing particularly special about it either. In its current form it is a huge and bloated burden on the country and in dire need of reform and reduction.
The idea that most people go into the public sector out of some sort of public service ethos is a myth. Whilst there may be rare exceptions most people go into most jobs in both public and private sectors because they provide an income and a way to get on in life. I suspect very few people are in the occupation they expected to be in when they were 16 and most people ended up in their current position through a combination of factors many of which were outside their immediate control.
The idea of public service for most public sector workers is just something they cling on to to try and justify whatever special privileges or beneficial terms and conditions that might be attached to their occupation.
It's a pity that such a high proportion of the teaching profession in Western countries is so remorselessly left-wing.
I imagine if anything, the ideological pressure being put on public services at the moment will only galvanize support for the Left among public sector workers - and discourage conservatives from working there in future. In much the same way as I doubt many Labour supporters are queuing up to work for the banks
like Blair?
Don't be ridiculous.
Blair does nothing to support the Labour party these days
he's not a party member any more then?
I didn't say anything about membership, just support
Arguably he has done more to undermine than support in the last two years
Given that the UK public sector is possibly the the most evil thing in all of Christendom, what do you want to do about it? Maybe you've all got shares in G4S, Falck, AssetCo?
There is nothing evil about the public sector but at the same time there is nothing particularly special about it either. In its current form it is a huge and bloated burden on the country and in dire need of reform and reduction.
The idea that most people go into the public sector out of some sort of public service ethos is a myth. Whilst there may be rare exceptions most people go into most jobs in both public and private sectors because they provide an income and a way to get on in life. I suspect very few people are in the occupation they expected to be in when they were 16 and most people ended up in their current position through a combination of factors many of which were outside their immediate control.
The idea of public service for most public sector workers is just something they cling on to to try and justify whatever special privileges or beneficial terms and conditions that might be attached to their occupation.
I agree that the idea that people are motivated by the idea of "public service" is a bit of a myth in most cases, although I do think this actually applies to quite lot of politicians - more than many people would give them credit for.
But the idea that reducing the size of the public sector is a desirable end in itself seems barmy to me - would the UK be a better place if all schools and hospitals were private profit-making organisations? Should we get rid of the police and army and employ G4S instead? Why bother with an ambulance service - taxis would serve the purpose just as well in most cases?
It's a pity that such a high proportion of the teaching profession in Western countries is so remorselessly left-wing.
Chicken and Egg.
Somewhere between the 1960s and today, the right lost the knack of talking to people with public service motivation.
Yes. Chicken and egg.
Somewhere between the 1960s and today, the public sector ethos (outside the armed forces) became very hostile towards the right.
Which came first, and why, are the questions.
Yes, it's the stupid electorate's fault that they've stopped voting Conservative and nothing to do with the actions and rhetoric of that party at all. A telling insight in to why the Conservative Party no longer wins parliamentary majorities. Oh wait, that's the fault of everyone else too....the BBC, the "liberal elite", etc etc.
You're being very defensive.
Why the public sector shifted Left over 50 years (by no means confined to the UK) is surely an interesting question.
It's odd, I would say that a career in the public sector is quite a conservative choice.
That ought to be the case. Somehow, it's ceased to be. There was no big public/private divide in the 1950s. Now, there is.
Given that the UK public sector is possibly the the most evil thing in all of Christendom, what do you want to do about it? Maybe you've all got shares in G4S, Falck, AssetCo?
There is nothing evil about the public sector but at the same time there is nothing particularly special about it either. In its current form it is a huge and bloated burden on the country and in dire need of reform and reduction.
The idea that most people go into the public sector out of some sort of public service ethos is a myth. Whilst there may be rare exceptions most people go into most jobs in both public and private sectors because they provide an income and a way to get on in life. I suspect very few people are in the occupation they expected to be in when they were 16 and most people ended up in their current position through a combination of factors many of which were outside their immediate control.
The idea of public service for most public sector workers is just something they cling on to to try and justify whatever special privileges or beneficial terms and conditions that might be attached to their occupation.
I dunno about other public sector jobs, but I'm in it for the money, the pension, and the women- being a fireman has always helped me punch above my weight with the ladies.
I do feel a genuine connection with the community on our patch. Might not be truly public service, but there's a certain satisfaction.
I wouldn't want to risk my life for the shareholders of G4S or Falck, though.
I would place teachers second only to trade union leaders who are the group most likely to vote Labour. If 16% of them intend to vote Conservative then I reckon Ed Miliband has got one big problem.
Given that the UK public sector is possibly the the most evil thing in all of Christendom, what do you want to do about it? Maybe you've all got shares in G4S, Falck, AssetCo?
There is nothing evil about the public sector but at the same time there is nothing particularly special about it either. In its current form it is a huge and bloated burden on the country and in dire need of reform and reduction.
The idea that most people go into the public sector out of some sort of public service ethos is a myth. Whilst there may be rare exceptions most people go into most jobs in both public and private sectors because they provide an income and a way to get on in life. I suspect very few people are in the occupation they expected to be in when they were 16 and most people ended up in their current position through a combination of factors many of which were outside their immediate control.
The idea of public service for most public sector workers is just something they cling on to to try and justify whatever special privileges or beneficial terms and conditions that might be attached to their occupation.
I dunno about other public sector jobs, but I'm in it for the money, the pension, and the women- being a fireman has always helped me punch above my weight with the ladies.
I do feel a genuine connection with the community on our patch. Might not be truly public service, but there's a certain satisfaction.
I wouldn't want to risk my life for the shareholders of G4S or Falck, though.
Why does the identity of the person writing the cheque make a difference to your motivation?
I thought you were risking your life for the person in danger of death? (for which I thank you sincerely)
It's weird. Most people are small c conservative but politics is all left-wing cultural radicals vs right-wing economic radicals.
I think political change over the past 50 years has left most people profoundly unhappy. Left wingers are unhappy about economic liberalisation. Right wingers are unhappy about social and cultural changes. Nationalists are unhappy about power shifting from national legislatures to supranational bodies. Democrats are unhappy about the shift of power from elected to unelected bodies. Libertarians are unhappy about the way that modern governments love to boss us around.
The only people who could be happy about all of these developments are the editorial team of the Economist.
"It's a bit of a stretch to claim Iraq is the primary motivation for most lost lib dem voters."
There's a bit more to it. In areas where a large enough bloc switched to lib-dem over Iraq to give Labour no chance then all the tactical voting guardianista types switched as well. If the bloc vote switches back then the tactical voters do as well.
That effect (such as it was) was almost certainly most pronounced at the time of Iraq, which, lest we forget was quite some time before the current Con Dem coalition. The truth is the Clegg lost almost all of those lib dems after the formation of the coalition so it's a pretty safe bet they aren't responding to Iraq but a coalition with the tories.
Iraq cost labour a great many voters and not all of them went back but let's not pretend why the huge numbers of lib dem switchers has taken place since 2010 and what is self-evidently driving them.
I think you misunderstood my original shorthand. In my view the LD10 are Labour historically (often public sector) who left Labour over Iraq and then returned to them post the formation of the coalition (essentially they had assumed the Lib Dems were a guilt free Labour vote to an independent party that might choose to do a deal with someone other than Labour)
Just remembering some of the comments on here about the England Cricket team when they were last winning against the Aussies, now who was it that said that winning wasn't everything?
'I would place teachers second only to trade union leaders who are the group most likely to vote Labour. If 16% of them intend to vote Conservative then I reckon Ed Miliband has got one big problem.'
Surprised it's as high as 16%,being a Leftie is a badge of honor for most state school teachers.
Cook out second ball, Bell dropped the ball afterwards.
Carnage. It's going to be carnage.
Did you see how close we were to 25 more quid today ?
I thought for a few hours that Smith might get me that double ton in the series that I've still got an open slip for. I think Borthwick is my last realistic hope for that (joke - almost) because the Aussies won't bother slogging 200 between them in their 2nd innings.
I did have a rather good day at Southwell though, as I hope you did.
I am looking at this very positively. Every time we lose we get closer to getting a manager that knows how to win. In the long term the Spurs debacle was a good thing.
Cook out second ball, Bell dropped the ball afterwards.
Carnage. It's going to be carnage.
Did you see how close we were to 25 more quid today ?
I thought for a few hours that Smith might get me that double ton in the series that I've still got an open slip for. I think Borthwick is my last realistic hope for that (joke - almost) because the Aussies won't bother slogging 200 between them in their 2nd innings.
I did have a rather good day at Southwell though, as I hope you did.
Yep - But the 4-1 shot missed out by the flare of his nostril !
I am looking at this very positively. Every time we lose we get closer to getting a manager that knows how to win. In the long term the Spurs debacle was a good thing.
I shall reassure you the way I've reassured Scrapheap.
@Hugh The public sector regulates the private sector. But those with no experience of the private sector have no real conception of the very different pressures that private sector enterprises face.
There are four times as many private sector workers as public sector workers. You'd have thought that the political parties could seek to get themselves more first hand experience of the private sector accordingly.
I think it is time to make Kim Jong-Un head of England cricket
The uncle of North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un was executed by being eaten alive by 120 starving dogs along with his five closest aides, according to a report.
I think it is time to make Kim Jong-Un head of England cricket
The uncle of North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un was executed by being eaten alive by 120 starving dogs along with his five closest aides, according to a report.
I think it is time to make Kim Jong-Un head of England cricket
The uncle of North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un was executed by being eaten alive by 120 starving dogs along with his five closest aides, according to a report.
I think it is time to make Kim Jong-Un head of England cricket
The uncle of North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un was executed by being eaten alive by 120 starving dogs along with his five closest aides, according to a report.
Could we all chip in and send England home on the first plane back tomorrow and give the Ashes the series whitewash before they humiliate themselves further, not to mention the one dayers?
It's weird. Most people are small c conservative but politics is all left-wing cultural radicals vs right-wing economic radicals.
I think political change over the past 50 years has left most people profoundly unhappy. Left wingers are unhappy about economic liberalisation. Right wingers are unhappy about social and cultural changes. Nationalists are unhappy about power shifting from national legislatures to supranational bodies. Democrats are unhappy about the shift of power from elected to unelected bodies. Libertarians are unhappy about the way that modern governments love to boss us around.
The only people who could be happy about all of these developments are the editorial team of the Economist.
Yes, a perceptive analysis. And it's odd when you think about, because most past generations would happily swap with us. Nearly 70 years of peace and no reason to expect there won't be another 70, huge technological advances that people genuinely like, from washing machines to laptops, crime falling, healthy life expectancy advancing. People from the 1930s would think we're all spoiled brats.
Nick Palmer '70 years of peace'? Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Korea to name a few and the biggest economic crash since the thirties five years ago. Not to mention house prices well multiple times that paid a generation ago and tuition fees. It is clearly better than the Middle Ages for most, but not perfect by any means.
TSE On North Korea the scary thing is Kim Jong Un is not even 30, by the time he is 50 if he is still going he will make Saddam Hussein look a model of compassion and enlightened government!
Nick Palmer '70 years of peace'? Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Korea to name a few and the biggest economic crash since the thirties five years ago. Not to mention house prices well multiple times that paid a generation ago and tuition fees. It is clearly better than the Middle Ages for most, but not perfect by any means.
I thought of the wars you mention as I wrote, but I was referring to peace in Britain - unless one voluntarily joined the armed forces, the risk of being killed by enemy action was microscopic in the last 70 years. Not perfect, I agree, but is there a period of the past you'd happily go back to?
Nick Palmer '70 years of peace'? Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Korea to name a few and the biggest economic crash since the thirties five years ago. Not to mention house prices well multiple times that paid a generation ago and tuition fees. It is clearly better than the Middle Ages for most, but not perfect by any means.
I thought of the wars you mention as I wrote, but I was referring to peace in Britain - unless one voluntarily joined the armed forces, the risk of being killed by enemy action was microscopic in the last 70 years. Not perfect, I agree, but is there a period of the past you'd happily go back to?
On the basis of peace in Britain you could have said the same for the whole of the 19th century. If that is the criteria then it becomes pretty meaningless.
Nick I would not mind going back to 1960 (although if I was part of the elite Georgian England would be fun). Of course, we have had terrorist atrocities too from 7/7 to the IRA even if we did not join up. But with the exception of WW2 and the Blitz and bombings of Coventry etc as an island nation Britain's civilian population has largely been unaffected by its wars. With the exception of some internal wars with the Scots and Welsh (and that was mainly on the borders) you have to go back to 1066 when the UK was last successfully invaded.
Nick Palmer '70 years of peace'? Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falklands, Northern Ireland, Korea to name a few and the biggest economic crash since the thirties five years ago. Not to mention house prices well multiple times that paid a generation ago and tuition fees. It is clearly better than the Middle Ages for most, but not perfect by any means.
I thought of the wars you mention as I wrote, but I was referring to peace in Britain - unless one voluntarily joined the armed forces, the risk of being killed by enemy action was microscopic in the last 70 years. Not perfect, I agree, but is there a period of the past you'd happily go back to?
Nick I would not mind going back to 1960 (although if I was part of the elite Georgian England would be fun). Of course, we have had terrorist atrocities too from 7/7 to the IRA even if we did not join up. But with the exception of WW2 and the Blitz and bombings of Coventry etc as an island nation Britain's civilian population has largely been unaffected by its wars. With the exception of some internal wars with the Scots and Welsh (and that was mainly on the borders) you have to go back to 1066 when the UK was last successfully invaded.
That is not actually true. There were a whole series of invasions in the Middle Ages including during the Barons Wars. One could also reasonably claim that 1688 was an invasion although under unusual circumstances.
It's a pity that such a high proportion of the teaching profession in Western countries is so remorselessly left-wing.
Chicken and Egg.
Somewhere between the 1960s and today, the right lost the knack of talking to people with public service motivation.
Yes. Chicken and egg.
Somewhere between the 1960s and today, the public sector ethos (outside the armed forces) became very hostile towards the right.
Which came first, and why, are the questions.
Yes, it's the stupid electorate's fault that they've stopped voting Conservative and nothing to do with the actions and rhetoric of that party at all. A telling insight in to why the Conservative Party no longer wins parliamentary majorities. Oh wait, that's the fault of everyone else too....the BBC, the "liberal elite", etc etc.
You're being very defensive.
Why the public sector shifted Left over 50 years (by no means confined to the UK) is surely an interesting question.
Perhaps you should consider what the public sector used to include 50 years ago:
Shipbuilding Steel Coal mining British Leyland Telecoms Gas Water Electricity
Now, all these produced something, but had to sell into a free-ish market with private and foreign competition. The customer has a great disciplining effect on producers.
Much of the remaining public sector has little or no competiton nowadays, but look at the hostility towards, say, Faith Schools or Free Schools by the unions. Where you have a comparison the public sector feels under threat.
I think that if the Government is the only employer in your sector, you look to it for increases in pay/conditions and lobby it to crush any nascent competition, as opposed to success in business by your own efforts. The BBC and pirate radio springs to mind. This 'state worshipping' is a Left-wing thing IMO.
Nick I would not mind going back to 1960 (although if I was part of the elite Georgian England would be fun). Of course, we have had terrorist atrocities too from 7/7 to the IRA even if we did not join up. But with the exception of WW2 and the Blitz and bombings of Coventry etc as an island nation Britain's civilian population has largely been unaffected by its wars. With the exception of some internal wars with the Scots and Welsh (and that was mainly on the borders) you have to go back to 1066 when the UK was last successfully invaded.
That is not actually true. There were a whole series of invasions in the Middle Ages including during the Barons Wars. One could also reasonably claim that 1688 was an invasion although under unusual circumstances.
I'd suggest you could equally makes cases comings of Henrys II, IV, and VII.
Richard Tyndall The 1688 invasion was largely peaceful and posed no threat to civilians. None of the Middle Ages invasions were successful in installing a new regime after the Norman Conquest. I am not including civil wars so Henry Tudor does not count
Richard Tyndall The 1688 invasion was largely peaceful and posed no threat to civilians. None of the Middle Ages invasions were successful in installing a new regime after the Norman Conquest. I am not including civil wars so Henry Tudor does not count
That the battles were fought in Ireland rather than in Great Britain doesn't make it peaceful (and the main reason battles weren't fought in England was that the invasion was in such overwhelming force of arms).
Given the way that royal blood was spread around at the time you quickly start getting into hair-splitting when it comes to what is a civil war and what isn't. The competing Yorkish-Lancastrians claims fought over in the Wars of the Roses are essentially similar to the claims made by each side through the Hundred Years War(s).
Corporeal The 1688 invasion which put William and Mary on the throne was accepted peacefully by the population on the mainland and James fled (and Mary was his daughter anyway). The Irish battles were a precursor to the Northern Ireland conflict I mentioned in my original post to Nick.
The Wars of the Roses were internal wars amongst competing English families and at no stage in the Hundred Years War did a French army successfully invade England. Henry II and IV also did not come to the throne through a foreign invasion. (Henry II was Henry Ist's grandson and Henry IV Edward III's grandson).
Yes, a perceptive analysis. And it's odd when you think about, because most past generations would happily swap with us. Nearly 70 years of peace and no reason to expect there won't be another 70, huge technological advances that people genuinely like, from washing machines to laptops, crime falling, healthy life expectancy advancing. People from the 1930s would think we're all spoiled brats.
My uncle, born 1930, swears his generation had it best.
Too late for WW1 Too young for WW2 Adulthood in the 1950s, jobs for all, the beginnings of consumerism. Free University education Young enough to enjoy the swinging 60s. (double) MIRAS House price booms (he bought a house for £12k in 1972, sold it for £365k just 18 years later!) Generous Index-linked pensions. Significant rise in life-expectancy.
Corporeal The 1688 invasion which put William and Mary on the throne was accepted peacefully by the population on the mainland and James fled (and Mary was his daughter anyway). The Irish battles were a precursor to the Northern Ireland conflict I mentioned in my original post to Nick.
The Wars of the Roses were internal wars amongst competing English families and at no stage in the Hundred Years War did a French army successfully invade England. Henry II and IV also did not come to the throne through a foreign invasion. (Henry II was Henry Ist's grandson and Henry IV Edward III's grandson).
Populations can be quite peaceful when faced with a massive invasion force. As for the Irish battles, a precursor sure, but equally directly connected to the 1688 invasion.
Sure descended, but so what. Henry II was as French as he was English and won the throne on the back of the wealth/power/troops, from his father Geoffrey of Anjou.
Likewise Henry IV had royal blood but it was through force of arms that he became king. Royal blood doesn't equate with peaceable take-overs or a lack of invasion.
But if you want a proper Frenchman as king I give you Louis. He lost it again a year or so later, but successfully invaded.
Corporeal It was not an invasion force anyway as William III was invited over and his future queen was the departing King's daughter.
The fact that Henry II had a few paid mercenaries does not mean he led a French invasion by any means and Henry IV also took power during the Wars of the Roses, ie a civil war and not a foreign invasion. Louis also does not really count, he was invited over too by the barons and then kicked out by Henry III and forced to admit he had never been legitimate English King. Even if he were to count I think the fact the last vaguely foreign invasion was about 800 years ago does not really dispute the point!
It was an invasion force in 1688, that it was such a large one there was no immediate resistance on the mainland (with the battles instead in Ireland) doesn't change the fact that he was prepared to do so and landed in large military force. The winners and their ideological descendants declared it a Glorious Revolution and de-emphasised the foreign invasion angle
Henry II was at least as French as he was English, the lands he ruled certainly wouldn't have been viewed as an English empire. I think a few mercenaries undersells it.
Your dismissal of civil war is putting a rather anachronistic spin on things in terms of nation-states. Blood was both spread around through that period and also little guarantee of succession. Henry IV became king because of force of arms rather than blood. Likewise William III's accession had more to do with politics than bloodlines.
The 100yrs war was as much a war between competing dynastic families as between countries. England was part of the lands controlled by the Angevins/Plantaganets/etc. The competing claims were ostensibly based around whether a male could inherit through the female line (same as in the case of Henry II among other cases in England).
The Spanish Armada was launched by a former co-ruler of England in support of Mary Queen of Scots who was of royal blood and high up in line to the throne. Equally there were certainly English catholic nobles who wanted MQoS on the throne and encouraged and supported her. What's the distinction between the attempt to put MQoS on the throne and William III, apart from success/failure (and the size of the forces they brought, William bringing a much larger force).
As you've pointed out, nobles inviting foreigners over is not exactly rare through English history (and English history is far from alone in that, many times noble families in one country or another have supported 'invaders'. By your definition most of the wars going on in Europe were all civil wars given how most of the ruling competing families were related one way or another). Is it simply a case of if they win then we rightfully invited them, if they lose we defeated the foreign invasion (the inviters being given honours or executions in each respective case).
A year later he was defeated and then in return for money he said he'd never been a 'legitimate' king (which is pure retrospective pageantry, no doubt if he'd invaded another time that'd have been re-written again, Charles II having his reign backdated was equally meaningless. Legitimacy was a gloss on might).
Surely the reason NI is in the UK and say Normandy is not is that one was successfully invaded and the other not. So 'foreigners' didn't successfully invade any of our land, apart from the bits they did.
The point, whatever it might be, is in realistic historical terms is that all foreign invasions failed, once we re-define any that succeeded as something else.
Corporeal In the Hundred Years War and the Spanish Armada though the enemy was the French King and Spanish King no matter what the motivations were, ie a foreign power. Normandy was always an English acquisition through the lands of the only genuinely successful foreign invasion of this country by William of Normandy against the English King. NI was largely conquered by settlement than invasion. In none of the Civil Wars we have had has a foreign King or President been leading an invasion of the nation. And of course in the likes of the Battle of the Boyne James had French allies which were defeated by the forces of William and Mary, so arguably that was another foreign invasion defeated. But quibbling aside, you only have to compare the UK to say mainland Europe, where the Russians, Germans, French, Austrians, Spanish have all made successful invasions of one another's territory to see the general point.
Comments
Well done.
Too many of our political leaders have never had to operate without a substantial personal safety net beneath them.
It's much easier to take career risks or be entrepreneurial if the bank of Mum and Dad is there to fund projects at non-commercial rates, subsidise mortgages/education/political careers or bail you out when things go wrong.
There are four times as many private sector workers as public sector workers. You'd have thought that the political parties could seek to get themselves more first hand experience of the private sector accordingly.
I am frankly appalled that bankers have not gone to jail in this country for what they did (unlike in the US). It is really shocking and worrying.
If you are making a more general point then I am certainly not suggesting that there is something uniquely wicked or weak about the teaching profession. My sister, a primary school teacher, would have my guts for garters if I was. But their performance as a profession, like bankers, has been sub optimal. They have the potential to cost us even more than bankers in the long run.
Arguably he has done more to undermine than support in the last two years
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/03/nhs-overwhelmed-long-term-medical-conditions
Maybe you've all got shares in G4S, Falck, AssetCo?
"Regulation, he says, is not just a headache but the thief of time. ‘Government can wreck a business by confiscating its money by taxation. But confiscating its time is absolutely critical too, and I think, sadly, not enough people in government have tried to run a small business. Time that small businesses devote to regulation is time they are not ringing up a customer, not looking at the product or visiting a supplier. And that I think that is not understood.’"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2011/12/extended-version-our-interview-with-owen-paterson/
Gove had an epic hissy fit when the incompetent fop lost the Syria vote and the chumocracy's views on tory activists as "swivel-eyed loons" are hardly a very well kept secret.
Ultimately Cammie is not the only twit who is a second rate Blair impersonator in the chumocracy as Gove proves.
The idea that most people go into the public sector out of some sort of public service ethos is a myth. Whilst there may be rare exceptions most people go into most jobs in both public and private sectors because they provide an income and a way to get on in life. I suspect very few people are in the occupation they expected to be in when they were 16 and most people ended up in their current position through a combination of factors many of which were outside their immediate control.
The idea of public service for most public sector workers is just something they cling on to to try and justify whatever special privileges or beneficial terms and conditions that might be attached to their occupation.
But the idea that reducing the size of the public sector is a desirable end in itself seems barmy to me - would the UK be a better place if all schools and hospitals were private profit-making organisations? Should we get rid of the police and army and employ G4S instead? Why bother with an ambulance service - taxis would serve the purpose just as well in most cases?
I do feel a genuine connection with the community on our patch. Might not be truly public service, but there's a certain satisfaction.
I wouldn't want to risk my life for the shareholders of G4S or Falck, though.
Edit. That will be a no then. What was he doing?
I thought you were risking your life for the person in danger of death? (for which I thank you sincerely)
The only people who could be happy about all of these developments are the editorial team of the Economist.
Carnage. It's going to be carnage.
WTF was Cook thinking? Was he thinking?
It's not bad, I was just expecting more.
Jimmy is just going to get hurt. 90mph, hard new ball, can't bat for toffee. He's a brave man.
'I would place teachers second only to trade union leaders who are the group most likely to vote Labour. If 16% of them intend to vote Conservative then I reckon Ed Miliband has got one big problem.'
Surprised it's as high as 16%,being a Leftie is a badge of honor for most state school teachers.
Seeing 11 arseholes getting pounded is more apt for the playboy channel.
Manchester United manager David Moyes sees tenure marked by £220m being wiped off stock market valuation
Manchester United manager David Moyes' failure to chase down Premier League's top four has seen the club's worth tumble by £220m in a month
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/10550179/Manchester-United-manager-David-Moyes-sees-tenure-marked-by-220m-being-wiped-off-stock-market-valuation.html
Or not.
I did have a rather good day at Southwell though, as I hope you did.
Hoping the Windies can take some wickets atm ;p
England's lowest score against Australia is 45. Just saying.
This is car crash TV.
England doing their best to make sure nobody is late for the big return to work on Monday. Doing their bit for GNP
and
Jackart @VeryBritishDude 17s
Let's give Geoffrey Boycott some pads, get him out there.
That's even worse than 30-3.
*innocent face*
:lewisham-hick:
The uncle of North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un was executed by being eaten alive by 120 starving dogs along with his five closest aides, according to a report.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/north-korea-kim-jong-uns-uncle-eaten-by-120-starving-dogs-1430879
Now just need the first Boyd and Scott to do the same
Shipbuilding
Steel
Coal mining
British Leyland
Telecoms
Gas
Water
Electricity
Now, all these produced something, but had to sell into a free-ish market with private and foreign competition. The customer has a great disciplining effect on producers.
Much of the remaining public sector has little or no competiton nowadays, but look at the hostility towards, say, Faith Schools or Free Schools by the unions. Where you have a comparison the public sector feels under threat.
I think that if the Government is the only employer in your sector, you look to it for increases in pay/conditions and lobby it to crush any nascent competition, as opposed to success in business by your own efforts. The BBC and pirate radio springs to mind. This 'state worshipping' is a Left-wing thing IMO.
Richard Tyndall The 1688 invasion was largely peaceful and posed no threat to civilians. None of the Middle Ages invasions were successful in installing a new regime after the Norman Conquest. I am not including civil wars so Henry Tudor does not count
It's too late for this!
Given the way that royal blood was spread around at the time you quickly start getting into hair-splitting when it comes to what is a civil war and what isn't. The competing Yorkish-Lancastrians claims fought over in the Wars of the Roses are essentially similar to the claims made by each side through the Hundred Years War(s).
(That also leaves Henrys II and IV)
since you are, presumably a Unionist, why are you only concerned about "peace in Britain" as opposed to "peace in the UK"?
You could say Gary lineker got into double figures for England! I'm surprised no one did !
Lets hope Ballance is not out on three figures when I wake up
"the sub can't bat or bowl"
So are all the English team subs?
The Wars of the Roses were internal wars amongst competing English families and at no stage in the Hundred Years War did a French army successfully invade England. Henry II and IV also did not come to the throne through a foreign invasion. (Henry II was Henry Ist's grandson and Henry IV Edward III's grandson).
Too late for WW1
Too young for WW2
Adulthood in the 1950s, jobs for all, the beginnings of consumerism.
Free University education
Young enough to enjoy the swinging 60s.
(double) MIRAS
House price booms (he bought a house for £12k in 1972, sold it for £365k just 18 years later!)
Generous Index-linked pensions.
Significant rise in life-expectancy.
Sure descended, but so what. Henry II was as French as he was English and won the throne on the back of the wealth/power/troops, from his father Geoffrey of Anjou.
Likewise Henry IV had royal blood but it was through force of arms that he became king. Royal blood doesn't equate with peaceable take-overs or a lack of invasion.
But if you want a proper Frenchman as king I give you Louis. He lost it again a year or so later, but successfully invaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_VIII_of_France
The fact that Henry II had a few paid mercenaries does not mean he led a French invasion by any means and Henry IV also took power during the Wars of the Roses, ie a civil war and not a foreign invasion. Louis also does not really count, he was invited over too by the barons and then kicked out by Henry III and forced to admit he had never been legitimate English King. Even if he were to count I think the fact the last vaguely foreign invasion was about 800 years ago does not really dispute the point!
Henry II was at least as French as he was English, the lands he ruled certainly wouldn't have been viewed as an English empire. I think a few mercenaries undersells it.
Your dismissal of civil war is putting a rather anachronistic spin on things in terms of nation-states. Blood was both spread around through that period and also little guarantee of succession. Henry IV became king because of force of arms rather than blood. Likewise William III's accession had more to do with politics than bloodlines.
The 100yrs war was as much a war between competing dynastic families as between countries. England was part of the lands controlled by the Angevins/Plantaganets/etc. The competing claims were ostensibly based around whether a male could inherit through the female line (same as in the case of Henry II among other cases in England).
The Spanish Armada was launched by a former co-ruler of England in support of Mary Queen of Scots who was of royal blood and high up in line to the throne. Equally there were certainly English catholic nobles who wanted MQoS on the throne and encouraged and supported her. What's the distinction between the attempt to put MQoS on the throne and William III, apart from success/failure (and the size of the forces they brought, William bringing a much larger force).
As you've pointed out, nobles inviting foreigners over is not exactly rare through English history (and English history is far from alone in that, many times noble families in one country or another have supported 'invaders'. By your definition most of the wars going on in Europe were all civil wars given how most of the ruling competing families were related one way or another). Is it simply a case of if they win then we rightfully invited them, if they lose we defeated the foreign invasion (the inviters being given honours or executions in each respective case).
A year later he was defeated and then in return for money he said he'd never been a 'legitimate' king (which is pure retrospective pageantry, no doubt if he'd invaded another time that'd have been re-written again, Charles II having his reign backdated was equally meaningless. Legitimacy was a gloss on might).
Surely the reason NI is in the UK and say Normandy is not is that one was successfully invaded and the other not. So 'foreigners' didn't successfully invade any of our land, apart from the bits they did.
The point, whatever it might be, is in realistic historical terms is that all foreign invasions failed, once we re-define any that succeeded as something else.