Even if Hillary Clinton does win the jackpot, it never lasts. The US Constitution is a thing of remarkable beauty, and is designed to ensure checks and balances. So, 2 years is all she'd get, like Obama.
The Italian system was modelled on it....but unfortunately in a multi party system it all becomes quite messy. That is something Renzi is trying to rectify with his referendum.
The alternate view is that it's a fine antique, rendered archaic by the virtual impossibility of amending it significantly in modern times, and imposes paralysis on government. (My own view is probably somewhere in the middle.)
"Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it."
Tell that to the 'bastards' who destroyed Major's government in the mid-1990s.
It's perfectly possible for it to happen again, and the exact same people who brought down Major and Cameron might do the same for May. If they don't like her version of Brexit, they wouldn't think twice.
Although to be honest, they rarely think once ...
They were patriots. And they've been proved right.
LOL. 13 years of the Blair/Brown governments and all that brought (including further EU integration and the immigration messes). Years when they could do nothing because they were out of power.
Many would call them traitors, both to the party and the country.
And they won't have been proved 'right' or 'wrong' on the EU until many years after Brexit.
You're looking at what happened, which is not the way to judge here. The intention was to derail Maastricht. Without that we still might have a useful customs union that we'd be happy to be part of.
I'm not an arch Leaver - I object to sovereignty being taken away. My views are not uncommon.
The Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992. They continued causing deep trouble afterwards.
What happened was a natural and predictable result of what they did. Major's government was in trouble and tired; their rebellions just added trouble and made it appear more tired. In so doing, they made a massive Labour victory and further EU integration more inevitable.
The bastards were stupidly reassured by Labour's technical opposition to Maastricht, which was far more based in bringing down the government than any philosphical opposition to the EU project.
The word 'traitor' gets thrown around here too much. But in the case of the bastards, it is probably correct.
And after the who-har created, and perhaps more specifically the Danish NO to Maastricht, us falling out of the Eternal Recession Mechanism was the best thing that happened to our constitutional arrangement.
Yep; Patriots.
No, traitors. For the reasons given above.
It's odd that you consider 13 years of Labour government and further EU integration as being any way a success of theirs.
So they should have voted for something they fundamentally didn't believe in, then what? Waited for the next EU Treaty to vote against?
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
A German victory in the Battle of Britain might have lost them the war, or at the very least settled the war more on our terms. There were big arguments between the various branches in the German forces over the invasion: the Luftwaffe were generally cautious because of the loss in the BoB. If they were emboldened, then it might have swung it towards an invasion.
But the Royal Navy were still undefeated, and the British army on the mainland was short of kit but strong in manpower. Even with moderate air superiority, they would have found the mainland a hard egg to crack.
So we reach the question of what would have happened if a German invasion of the UK had been attempted with air superiority but failed. It would have been the first major defeat for the Germans during the war. Would they have tried again, or decided that it would be best to try to get a deal with a battered UK?
Wasn't Barbarossa almost a success? I seem to dimly recall that they were so close to Moscow that Stalin had a train in steam at the station waiting to whisk him away at one point. At last minute he changed his mind and fought on.
The Soviets could have fought on, even if Moscow fell. That's a point that Ivan Stamboulov, the Bulgarian Ambassador, made to Stalin, on one of the rare occasions that the latter's nerve failed, and he contemplated huge territorial concessions to Hitler.
What might have brought victory to the Axis is if Japan had invaded Siberia, rather than South East Asia. But, they'd suffered heavy defeats at Zhukov's hands in the 1930's, so they went South.
''The word 'traitor' gets thrown around here too much. But in the case of the bastards, it is probably correct.''
It was the ERM fiasco that did for the Major government. It destroyed the tories' reputation for economic competence and allowed Blair to park his tanks on the tory lawn.
I don;t think the bast*rds were that important either way.
The tories might have lost by less if Ken Clarke had started to share the fruits of the rapidly reviving economy by slashing taxes in 1996. He didn't. The tories were slaughtered.
It was sleaze which won it.
The sight of processions of Conservative MPs taking "Cash for Questions", and sex exposes did it. Not one offs but an entire procession...
No thinking voter would vote Conservative in 1997. I did not. They deserved to be thrashed..
Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit
The underlying failure of the polls in the EU referendum was that it picked up on a lot of Leave voters, but down-weighted them. The underlyings in the US Presidential election don't look like that at all, they all pick up far more Democrat voters than Republican ones.
Indeed, if anything, they are upweighting Republicans.
Yes, that's becoming the central polling difficulty. It's not that they can't pick up a representative sample, but that people's turnout behaviour varies from election to election. FWIW I think the UK polls are now downweighting Labour too much because of the pattern of young/urban Labour voters not voting or even not registering - both of which have to some extent been addressed by Corbyn enthusiasm among the young and by the serious all-party registration push before the referendm.
In the US, it's easy to imagine a lot of GOP voters staying at home. One factor which David's excellent article doesn't mention is that media coverage is overwhelmingly about the top of the ticket - I have a politics-aware friend who doesn't even know who the candidates are in her House race.
Good Morning Mr Palmer, did you read my post to you last night on the hypocrisy (or not) of politicians educating their children privately or using grammar schools whilst voting to disallow others from doing so?
I see this is your 3rd post - so Welcome aboard Mr Norville Rogers III. Great name.
Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.
I think you're right, the Dems will nominate a centrist but it wasn't a courtesy Bush2 offered when he nominated Alito and Roberts? It always seems to be the Dems who are expected to give ground.
Don't forget Obama has just offered them a Centrist and they have chosen to whine about illegitimacy and generally blow hard.
Bush replaced two conservative judges with two conservative judges. Obama replaced two liberal judges with two liberal judges.
Scalia was a conservative judge, which is why his replacement is contentious.
The judges hold off on dying until their own side is in power?
Only two justices have died in office since the 1950s. Retirements are much more common.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
Mr. B2, what about the war at sea? The battle of the Atlantic in the period before spring 1943 had some very dodgy times. If things had gone a bit more adrift in the period '39-'41 then the UK might have been starved into submission before the Sceptics ever entered the war.
I don't think it was inevitable that the allies would have won the war.
There was a chapter in the book about that, I think, but it's a while since i have read it. I think the conclusion was that Britain could have fought on from the empire and wait for the Americans and Russians,
Anyhow it is a good book. - clear well-written and thoughtful analysis. It's quite high level so glosses over a lot of detail, but that also makes its conclusions easier to follow. Very good reviews on Amazon.
Edit/ I think the inevitability arises from the significant and growing flaws on the German side, which sooner or later would lead to downfall (and, indeed, Downfall).
Besides, as all PB'ers know, a coalition is always best.... ;-)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
An invasion across the Channel was always going to be an enormous ask for the Germans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
Mr. B2, what about the war at sea? The battle of the Atlantic in the period before spring 1943 had some very dodgy times. If things had gone a bit more adrift in the period '39-'41 then the UK might have been starved into submission before the Sceptics ever entered the war.
I don't think it was inevitable that the allies would have won the war.
There was a chapter in the book about that, I think, but it's a while since i have read it. I think the conclusion was that Britain could have fought on from the empire and wait for the Americans and Russians,
Anyhow it is a good book. - clear well-written and thoughtful analysis. It's quite high level so glosses over a lot of detail, but that also makes its conclusions easier to follow. Very good reviews on Amazon.
Edit/ I think the inevitability arises from the significant and growing flaws on the German side, which sooner or later would lead to downfall (and, indeed, Downfall).
Besides, as all PB'ers know, a coalition is always best.... ;-)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
An invasion across the Channel was always going to be an enormous ask for the Germans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
They failed because they could not achieve air superiority let alone supremacy.
Well done and a thank you never big enough to the RAF , the ground crews and the Merchant Navy without all of whom none of that would have been possible.
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
A German victory in the Battle of Britain might have lost them the war, or at the very least settled the war more on our terms. There were big arguments between the various branches in the German forces over the invasion: the Luftwaffe were generally cautious because of the loss in the BoB. If they were emboldened, then it might have swung it towards an invasion.
But the Royal Navy were still undefeated, and the British army on the mainland was short of kit but strong in manpower. Even with moderate air superiority, they would have found the mainland a hard egg to crack.
So we reach the question of what would have happened if a German invasion of the UK had been attempted with air superiority but failed. It would have been the first major defeat for the Germans during the war. Would they have tried again, or decided that it would be best to try to get a deal with a battered UK?
Wasn't Barbarossa almost a success? I seem to dimly recall that they were so close to Moscow that Stalin had a train in steam at the station waiting to whisk him away at one point. At last minute he changed his mind and fought on.
But the Russians had physically shifted their industry away to the east across the Ural Mountains, and were using their vast population as an unlimited supply of expendable troops. Losing Moscow, Leningrad or Stalingrad would have been a psychological blow but not of game-changing military significance. To win the Germans would have had to kill Russians at some unachievably high ratio to their own losses, which never looked achievable despite their stunning success in the first autumn.
You had me until 'I believe the May government will fall'
Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it. May is popular amongst all but the SDP-tendency headbangers.
And the grassroots love her.
"Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it."
Tell that to the 'bastards' who destroyed Major's government in the mid-1990s.
It's perfectly possible for it to happen again, and the exact same people who brought down Major and Cameron might do the same for May. If they don't like her version of Brexit, they wouldn't think twice.
Although to be honest, they rarely think once ...
Major's government was destroyed by its own incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze.
End of story.
All governments have had a few backbenchers rebelling and Major's was no different.
But its not the rebelling backbenchers which bring down governments but the incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze of those governments.
What is different is that some people have an obsession about shifting blame from where it belongs - the incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze of the Major government - to where it doesn't - a few backbenchers who 99% of voters weren't aware of.
Urrm, ISTR there were more rebels than the government's majority. They very nearly brought down the government in 1992 or 1993. That wold have meant another election and a Labour government that was far more pro-EU.
In their one-eyed obsession with the EU, they did not stop to think they were bringing about further EU integration.
Yes, sleaze (real and invented) was a major problem for Major and the party (I acknowledged that above). But the disunity was undoubtedly a massive problem for the government, and contributed heavily to the eventual defeat of the government and years in the wilderness.
The bastards were part of the general "incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze of the Major government" in the public's eyes.
For anyone interested ...... Davis seems to be doing well. The signs to me that his star is rising is reports that attempts by business to lobby the treasury over the terms of EU exit have not met with success, because power is concentrated in the dept for exiting the EU, led by Davis. He has had a lot of experience of government and opposition. He is popular with the grassroots. His leave credentials are unsurpassed. He has also taken a genuinely independent stance on many issues ie human rights/civil liberties and is respected outside of right wing circles.
I believe that the May government will fall. I think they have gone the wrong way about implementing brexit having been bounced in to doing it quickly it by the Leadsom threat. The next conservative leader will need to create a credible response to Brexit. Davis with his current experience is well placed to do that. I was suprised that 100/1 is available on skybet and paddy power. He is 14/5 at betfair which makes me think this kind these odds wont be around for long.
You had me until 'I believe the May government will fall'
Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it. May is popular amongst all but the SDP-tendency headbangers.
And the grassroots love her.
"Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it."
Tell that to the 'bastards' who destroyed Major's government in the mid-1990s.
It's perfectly possible for it to happen again, and the exact same people who brought down Major and Cameron might do the same for May. If they don't like her version of Brexit, they wouldn't think twice.
Although to be honest, they rarely think once ...
They were patriots. And they've been proved right.
One aspect of Brexit that is sad is how some people are becoming very American in how they use the word "patriot" in politics.
Sad to you, maybe.
There is little patriotic in elected representatives giving away the power entrusted to them by the people.
Can you please confirm that, in order to be a patriot, it is first necessary to be a right-winger?
''The word 'traitor' gets thrown around here too much. But in the case of the bastards, it is probably correct.''
It was the ERM fiasco that did for the Major government. It destroyed the tories' reputation for economic competence and allowed Blair to park his tanks on the tory lawn.
I don;t think the bast*rds were that important either way.
The tories might have lost by less if Ken Clarke had started to share the fruits of the rapidly reviving economy by slashing taxes in 1996. He didn't. The tories were slaughtered.
It remains interesting - as well as relevant to current times - that the ERM exit was such a major turning point for the Tories, from which they took years to recover. I remember those times and the short run shock - interest rates briefly going up to 15% and all - was considerable, but relatively short-lived, and the medium term effects were not at all catastrophic.
It is partly why I struggle with the suggestion that the Tories can survive a bad Brexit. To me that seems to be Corbyn's only chance.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.
The House doesn't draw the boundaries. They're drawn at State level.
So presumably, given that the states are divided between the parties and yet there is a very significant republican bias, the republican states must be more cynical and shameless about fiddling their boundaries than the democratic ones?
In fact the Republicans control a big majority of State legislatures. Both parties gerrymander enthusiastically.
For anyone interested ...... Davis seems to be doing well. The signs to me that his star is rising is reports that attempts by business to lobby the treasury over the terms of EU exit have not met with success, because power is concentrated in the dept for exiting the EU, led by Davis. He has had a lot of experience of government and opposition. He is popular with the grassroots. His leave credentials are unsurpassed. He has also taken a genuinely independent stance on many issues ie human rights/civil liberties and is respected outside of right wing circles.
I believe that the May government will fall. I think they have gone the wrong way about implementing brexit having been bounced in to doing it quickly it by the Leadsom threat. The next conservative leader will need to create a credible response to Brexit. Davis with his current experience is well placed to do that. I was suprised that 100/1 is available on skybet and paddy power. He is 14/5 at betfair which makes me think this kind these odds wont be around for long.
You had me until 'I believe the May government will fall'
Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it. May is popular amongst all but the SDP-tendency headbangers.
And the grassroots love her.
"Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it."
Tell that to the 'bastards' who destroyed Major's government in the mid-1990s.
It's perfectly possible for it to happen again, and the exact same people who brought down Major and Cameron might do the same for May. If they don't like her version of Brexit, they wouldn't think twice.
Although to be honest, they rarely think once ...
They were patriots. And they've been proved right.
One aspect of Brexit that is sad is how some people are becoming very American in how they use the word "patriot" in politics.
Sad to you, maybe.
There is little patriotic in elected representatives giving away the power entrusted to them by the people.
Can you please confirm that, in order to be a patriot, it is first necessary to be a right-winger?
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
WW2 was our last great victory. And as with most last great victories, it also set the scene for 50 years of progress and technological change, social upheaval and also the downfall of our overseas empire.
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
A German victory in the Battle of Britain might have lost them the war, or at the very least settled the war more on our terms. There were big arguments between the various branches in the German forces over the invasion: the Luftwaffe were generally cautious because of the loss in the BoB. If they were emboldened, then it might have swung it towards an invasion.
But the Royal Navy were still undefeated, and the British army on the mainland was short of kit but strong in manpower. Even with moderate air superiority, they would have found the mainland a hard egg to crack.
So we reach the question of what would have happened if a German invasion of the UK had been attempted with air superiority but failed. It would have been the first major defeat for the Germans during the war. Would they have tried again, or decided that it would be best to try to get a deal with a battered UK?
Wasn't Barbarossa almost a success? I seem to dimly recall that they were so close to Moscow that Stalin had a train in steam at the station waiting to whisk him away at one point. At last minute he changed his mind and fought on.
I can't remember enough about Stalin's strategy. Certainly I don't think the fall of Moscow would have meant the fall of Russia. IANAE, but from memory they had been moving over 1,500 factories east before the end of 1941. Not all arrived, at all or intact, but it's a sign of how Stalin was wiling to trade space for time. And as they headed east, Germany's lines were getting very long.
And there was more than one precedent for Russia losing Moscow but winning the war.
I think at least two alternate histories (Fatherland & Dominion) have the Eastern Front as long term, suppurating stalemates.
Miss Lass, the problem with the economy line for the SNP is that they want to leave a union with which they conduct 60% of trade for one with which they conduct 15% of trade.
Not only that, they want to leave a Union that contributesto Scotland's public services and join a Union which will expect substantial contributions from Scotland...
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
Mr. B2, what about the war at sea? The battle of the Atlantic in the period before spring 1943 had some very dodgy times. If things had gone a bit more adrift in the period '39-'41 then the UK might have been starved into submission before the Sceptics ever entered the war.
I don't think it was inevitable that the allies would have won the war.
There was a chapter in the book about that, I think, but it's a while since i have read it. I think the conclusion was that Britain could have fought on from the empire and wait for the Americans and Russians,
Edit/ I think the inevitability arises from the significant and growing flaws on the German side, which sooner or later would lead to downfall (and, indeed, Downfall).
Besides, as all PB'ers know, a coalition is always best.... ;-)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
An invasion across the Channel was always going to be an enormous ask for the Germans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
50 or so years ago I reads a counter-factual history in which the Greman Army DID get across the Channel. IIRC they fought up through Kent and Sussex and got close enough to London to make the King and Government move out, but as someone else said, supplies were an issue and eventually, and I clearly remember this bit the General in charge surrendered amid the shattered ruins of Rye.
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
A German victory in the Battle of Britain might have lost them the war, or at the very least settled the war more on our terms. There were big arguments between the various branches in the German forces over the invasion: the Luftwaffe were generally cautious because of the loss in the BoB. If they were emboldened, then it might have swung it towards an invasion.
But the Royal Navy were still undefeated, and the British army on the mainland was short of kit but strong in manpower. Even with moderate air superiority, they would have found the mainland a hard egg to crack.
So we reach the question of what would have happened if a German invasion of the UK had been attempted with air superiority but failed. It would have been the first major defeat for the Germans during the war. Would they have tried again, or decided that it would be best to try to get a deal with a battered UK?
Wasn't Barbarossa almost a success? I seem to dimly recall that they were so close to Moscow that Stalin had a train in steam at the station waiting to whisk him away at one point. At last minute he changed his mind and fought on.
But the Russians had physically shifted their industry away to the east across the Ural Mountains, and were using their vast population as an unlimited supply of expendable troops. Losing Moscow, Leningrad or Stalingrad would have been a psychological blow but not of game-changing military significance. To win the Germans would have had to kill Russians at some unachievably high ratio to their own losses, which never looked achievable despite their stunning success in the first autumn.
Another thing which could have won it for the Germans would have been to restart the Russian civil war. Giving the Ukraine and White Russia independence, and breaking up collective farms, and humane treatment of the population would have given millions a vested interest in fighting Stalin. Their behaviour made Stalin seem preferable.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
WW2 was our last great victory. And as with most last great victories, it also set the scene for 50 years of progress and technological change, social upheaval and also the downfall of our overseas empire.
We'll still be talking about WW2 in 1000 years.
A bit grumpy this morning Mr Jonathan?
Not at all. Just feel Britain is constrained by the shadow of WW2.
So they should have voted for something they fundamentally didn't believe in, then what? Waited for the next EU Treaty to vote against?
They were certainly in a quandary. But they did not have the party leadership, the party itself, or the public behind them at that time. At least IDS abstained (ISTR).
The Conservative party was disunited, and those cracks were exploited by Labour and the media. As we now know, many of the sleaze stories were not quite as initially printed (thanks to Mr Clifford amongst others), and Labour was just as sleazy. But those cracks were easy to exploit against a much more unified Labour.
Even the ERM debacle could have been tempered by the good state of the economy we had by 1997. But a disunited party was perhaps the major plank in the Conservative defeat; it enabled the other negatives to gain more traction.
Off-topic: I think this is the first time this year I've been able to cope with commenting in two separate conversation threads. Woohoo!
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
You are entitled to your view because the people below in this video gave their freedom for your freedom to express that view.
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
ar.
-)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
An invasion across the Channel was always going to be an enormous ask for the Germans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
As I recall (from history rather than memory!) Churchill was at his weakest after the Norway disaster?
You are right that it was the BoB that cemented Churchill's position, particularly with his own party, which until then contained significant elements that remained pro-appeasement/pro-negotiating with Hitler and even some who had some sympathies with the far right.
Even Churchill had to face down a vote of no confidence in him by his local constituency party, for his perceived anti-government 'rebel' stance in opposing appeasement in the late 1930s, which he survived by a single vote.
I sometimes wonder whether Conservatives feel the need to try and claim the flag today in part because their party's record, when it really mattered, was pretty shameful?
Another thing which could have won it for the Germans would have been to restart the Russian civil war. Giving the Ukraine and White Russia independence, and breaking up collective farms, and humane treatment of the population would have given millions a vested interest in fighting Stalin. Their behaviour made Stalin seem preferable.
That's a really good point that I haven't considered before. But as you say, Hitler went the other way. The occupied countries went from one evil lunatic to another.
It would have made sense if Hitler wanted to fight Communism rather than Russia per se. And the 'White Ukraine / Russia' would necessarily have been fairly pro-German.
For anyone interested ...... Davis seems to be doing well. The signs to me that his star is rising is reports that attempts by business to lobby the treasury over the terms of EU exit have not met with success, because power is concentrated in the dept for exiting the EU, led by Davis. He has had a lot of experience of government and opposition. He is popular with the grassroots. His leave credentials are unsurpassed. He has also taken a genuinely independent stance on many issues ie human rights/civil liberties and is respected outside of right wing circles.
I believe that the May government will fall. I think they have gone the wrong way about implementing brexit having been bounced in to doing it quickly it by the Leadsom threat. The next conservative leader will need to create a credible response to Brexit. Davis with his current experience is well placed to do that. I was suprised that 100/1 is available on skybet and paddy power. He is 14/5 at betfair which makes me think this kind these odds wont be around for long.
You had me until 'I believe the May government will fall'
Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it. May is popular amongst all but the SDP-tendency headbangers.
And the grassroots love her.
Although to be honest, they rarely think once ...
They were patriots. And they've been proved right.
One aspect of Brexit that is sad is how some people are becoming very American in how they use the word "patriot" in politics.
Sad to you, maybe.
There is little patriotic in elected representatives giving away the power entrusted to them by the people.
Can you please confirm that, in order to be a patriot, it is first necessary to be a right-winger?
Not at all - this just isn't true.
Michael Foot was a great patriot. As was Clem.
Is there a living leftie you think patriotic?
Plenty - we were the ones proud and admiring of Danny Boyle's amazing opening ceremony, whilst right-wingers were moaning about everything from the NHS segment, the mixed-race family in the music segment and lots of awful music, etc, and asking why we couldn't just redo the Royal Tournament.
You had me until 'I believe the May government will fall'
Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it. May is popular amongst all but the SDP-tendency headbangers.
And the grassroots love her.
"Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it."
Tell that to the 'bastards' who destroyed Major's government in the mid-1990s.
It's perfectly possible for it to happen again, and the exact same people who brought down Major and Cameron might do the same for May. If they don't like her version of Brexit, they wouldn't think twice.
Although to be honest, they rarely think once ...
Major's government was destroyed by its own incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze.
End of story.
All governments have had a few backbenchers rebelling and Major's was no different.
But its not the rebelling backbenchers which bring down governments but the incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze of those governments.
What is different is that some people have an obsession about shifting blame from where it belongs - the incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze of the Major government - to where it doesn't - a few backbenchers who 99% of voters weren't aware of.
Urrm, ISTR there were more rebels than the government's majority. They very nearly brought down the government in 1992 or 1993. That wold have meant another election and a Labour government that was far more pro-EU.
In their one-eyed obsession with the EU, they did not stop to think they were bringing about further EU integration.
Yes, sleaze (real and invented) was a major problem for Major and the party (I acknowledged that above). But the disunity was undoubtedly a massive problem for the government, and contributed heavily to the eventual defeat of the government and years in the wilderness.
The bastards were part of the general "incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze of the Major government" in the public's eyes.
The Conservative rebels had a choice - support a Conservative establishment committed to EverCloseUnion or risk a Labour government committed to EverCloserUnion.
If they had supinely supported the Conservative establishment the ultimate consequence would have been no Leave vote in the EU Referendum.
And what would have been the benefits of a more united Conservative party during the 1990s ? Perhaps Labour's majority would have been ten or twenty smaller in 1997.
The interesting what-if is "what if the Major government had called a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty after the Danish rejection". I suspect it would have set a precedent for referenda on EU treaties and would have brought a stop to EverCloserUnion without having to Leave the EU.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
ar.
-)
...
...
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
As I recall (from history rather than memory!) Churchill was at his weakest after the Norway disaster?
You are right that it was the BoB that cemented Churchill's position, particularly with his own party, which until then contained significant elements that remained pro-appeasement/pro-negotiating with Hitler and even some who had some sympathies with the far right.
Even Churchill had to face down a vote of no confidence in him by his local constituency party, for his perceived anti-government 'rebel' stance in opposing appeasement in the late 1930s, which he survived by a single vote.
I sometimes wonder whether Conservatives feel the need to try and claim the flag today in part because their party's record, when it really mattered, was pretty shameful?
No. It is because we've always been the party for the country. And for the last 100 years the Union. Sometimes in our history this has been at expense of the people, granted, but there is a deep seated confidence within Tory party members that the nation is worthy of support, should not be taken lightly and should definitely not be seen as the enemy.
I can well understand the Liberal mindset - that a community of nations is more valuable than a single nation. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Similarly I can understand the old fashioned Labour mindset - that a community of people is more valuable than the nations that they're in conditions of relative peace (i.e. the Labour party were happy to join the National Govt to fight Germany in 1940 because Fascism was attacking us) . I just think it simplistic and overly idealistic given the frailties of the human condition.
What I simply do not understand is the current Labour party leadership - who see the awful underdogs as always better than the sometimes self interested West. Nor do the people of this country, it seems. Mores the better.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
You are entitled to your view because the people below in this video gave their freedom for your freedom to express that view.
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
Good grief. With a grandfather who was one of the troops that liberated Belsen, like everyone else, I know the significance of WW2. I simply assert that there is more to British history and we should look to the future from the perspective of all our history not just that important event.
Personallty, I gain particular inspiration from C18. How do we rediscover the dynamic spirit of that era?
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
WW2 was our last great victory. And as with most last great victories, it also set the scene for 50 years of progress and technological change, social upheaval and also the downfall of our overseas empire.
We'll still be talking about WW2 in 1000 years.
A bit grumpy this morning Mr Jonathan?
Just as Italians remain proud that their nation produced the Romans and the Renaissance, which influences their psyche to this day despite all the politics and problems that have come along since.
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
A German victory in the Battle of Britain might have lost them the war, or at the very least settled the war more on our terms. There were big arguments between the various branches in the German forces over the invasion: the Luftwaffe were generally cautious because of the loss in the BoB. If they were emboldened, then it might have swung it towards an invasion.
But the Royal Navy were still undefeated, and the British army on the mainland was short of kit but strong in manpower. Even with moderate air superiority, they would have found the mainland a hard egg to crack.
So we reach the question of what would have happened if a German invasion of the UK had been attempted with air superiority but failed. It would have been the first major defeat for the Germans during the war. Would they have tried again, or decided that it would be best to try to get a deal with a battered UK?
Wasn't Barbarossa almost a success? I seem to dimly recall that they were so close to Moscow that Stalin had a train in steam at the station waiting to whisk him away at one point. At last minute he changed his mind and fought on.
I can't remember enough about Stalin's strategy. Certainly I don't think the fall of Moscow would have meant the fall of Russia. IANAE, but from memory they had been moving over 1,500 factories east before the end of 1941. Not all arrived, at all or intact, but it's a sign of how Stalin was wiling to trade space for time. And as they headed east, Germany's lines were getting very long.
And there was more than one precedent for Russia losing Moscow but winning the war.
A hypothetical Russia abandoning Moscow and returning from over the Urals scenario would has meant effectively giving up the Caucasus (as sufficient German troops would be freed up to make an effective drive in the south) which would have secured for Germany the oil they needed to prosecute the war to the fullest extent.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
You are entitled to your view because the people below in this video gave their freedom for your freedom to express that view.
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
Good grief. With a grandfather who was one of the troops that liberated Belsen, like everyone else, I know the significance of WW2. I simply assert that there is more to British history and we should look to the future from the perspective of all our history not just that important event.
Personallty, I gain particular inspiration from C18. How do we rediscover the dynamic spirit of that era?
I'm sure we could bring Gin Alley and high seas privateering back quite quickly, with a TrotLabour administration....
Another thing which could have won it for the Germans would have been to restart the Russian civil war. Giving the Ukraine and White Russia independence, and breaking up collective farms, and humane treatment of the population would have given millions a vested interest in fighting Stalin. Their behaviour made Stalin seem preferable.
That's a really good point that I haven't considered before. But as you say, Hitler went the other way. The occupied countries went from one evil lunatic to another.
It would have made sense if Hitler wanted to fight Communism rather than Russia per se. And the 'White Ukraine / Russia' would necessarily have been fairly pro-German.
That would require Hitler to be something other than he was; a lunatic obsessed with race war. Within the constraints of Nazi ideology, the Germans co-opted what collaborators they could. 'Humane treatment' was never a possibility for people considered as inferior humans.
For anyone interested I've just backed David Davis as next conservative leader. 100/1 on Paddy Power. In my view, Davis is the most credible of the three Brexiteers doing the EU exit. Johnson is a shambles and an embarrassment as foreign secretary. His performance over Russia confirms that. He has been played by May. He cannot shake off his joker persona. He struggles to be taken seriously on Brexit. His actions after the referendum will be played back endlessly, looking awkward at the press conference, the 'have cake and eat it' article in the telegraph, and his mysterious abdication from the leadership campaign. He has no experience of high office, and it is starting to show. Liam Fox is similar odds to Davis, but he has showed colossal misjudgement in his role. He has insulted businesses and appears essentially clueless about what is involved in making trade deals. Davis seems to be doing well. The signs to me that his star is rising is reports that attempts by business to lobby the treasury over the terms of EU exit have not met with success, because power is concentrated in the dept for exiting the EU, led by Davis. He has had a lot of experience of government and opposition. He is popular with the grassroots. His leave credentials are unsurpassed. He has also taken a genuinely independent stance on many issues ie human rights/civil liberties and is respected outside of right wing circles.
I believe that the May government will fall. I think they have gone the wrong way about implementing brexit having been bounced in to doing it quickly it by the Leadsom threat. The next conservative leader will need to create a credible response to Brexit. Davis with his current experience is well placed to do that. I was suprised that 100/1 is available on skybet and paddy power. He is 14/5 at betfair which makes me think this kind these odds wont be around for long.
You had me until 'I believe the May government will fall'
Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it. May is popular amongst all but the SDP-tendency headbangers.
And the grassroots love her.
"Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it."
Tell that to the 'bastards' who destroyed Major's government in the mid-1990s.
It's perfectly possible for it to happen again, and the exact same people who brought down Major and Cameron might do the same for May. If they don't like her version of Brexit, they wouldn't think twice.
Although to be honest, they rarely think once ...
If the EU-obsessives want to bring down Tory leaders and governments then that is an issue for the Tories, now unfortunately they are being put in positions that they can bring down the country as well.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
You are entitled to your view because the people below in this video gave their freedom for your freedom to express that view.
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
As a lefty patriot I've been to plenty of these places too, usually make a point of it every time I drive through northern France.
It doesn't detract from what Jonathan said, that this country at some point needs to move on from 1945; it's defined our history for 70 years now and rightly or wrongly had a huge expression this year.
Churchill was a Conservative. Why should the blues feel bad about their conduct in the war when their leader inspired us to victory?
Supporting someone after the event with the benefit of hindsight is easy. The point is that Churchill, and his anti-Nazi stance from the beginning, were opposed strongly by much of the Conservative Party through the 1930s and even, by some, a year into the war.
Arguably, and aside from his views on empire, Churchill was always a liberal, who jumped back to the Tories because he could see the two-party system coming.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
ar.
-)
...
...
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
As I recall (from history rather than memory!) Churchill was at his weakest after the Norway disaster?
Even Churchill had to face down a vote of no confidence in him by his local constituency party, for his perceived anti-government 'rebel' stance in opposing appeasement in the late 1930s, which he survived by a single vote.
I sometimes wonder whether Conservatives feel the need to try and claim the flag today in part because their party's record, when it really mattered, was pretty shameful?
No. It is because we've always been the party for the country. And for the last 100 years the Union. Sometimes in our history this has been at expense of the people, granted, but there is a deep seated confidence within Tory party members that the nation is worthy of support, should not be taken lightly and should definitely not be seen as the enemy.
I can well understand the Liberal mindset - that a community of nations is more valuable than a single nation. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Similarly I can understand the old fashioned Labour mindset - that a community of people is more valuable than the nations that they're in conditions of relative peace (i.e. the Labour party were happy to join the National Govt to fight Germany in 1940 because Fascism was attacking us) . I just think it simplistic and overly idealistic given the frailties of the human condition.
What I simply do not understand is the current Labour party leadership - who see the awful underdogs as always better than the sometimes self interested West. Nor do the people of this country, it seems. Mores the better.
The point that Mr B2 was making was that in 1939-40 there appear to have been a significant number of prominent Tories who beliieved that it was NOT in the nation’s interest to fight Fascism.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
You are entitled to your view because the people below in this video gave their freedom for your freedom to express that view.
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
As a lefty patriot I've been to plenty of these places too, usually make a point of it every time I drive through northern France.
It doesn't detract from what Jonathan said, that this country at some point needs to move on from 1945; it's defined our history for 70 years now and rightly or wrongly had a huge expression this year.
And one can say much the same about Europe and Russia. Indeed the Russian are arguably more hung up on the war than are we.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
You are entitled to your view because the people below in this video gave their freedom for your freedom to express that view.
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
As a lefty patriot I've been to plenty of these places too, usually make a point of it every time I drive through northern France.
It doesn't detract from what Jonathan said, that this country at some point needs to move on from 1945; it's defined our history for 70 years now and rightly or wrongly had a huge expression this year.
1945 is a v important ref point. We should never forget it.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
You are entitled to your view because the people below in this video gave their freedom for your freedom to express that view.
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
Good grief. With a grandfather who was one of the troops that liberated Belsen, like everyone else, I know the significance of WW2. I simply assert that there is more to British history and we should look to the future from the perspective of all our history not just that important event.
Personallty, I gain particular inspiration from C18. How do we rediscover the dynamic spirit of that era?
I trust you meant 18th Century not Combat 18....
If you go to a model railway exhibition. Most of the British layouts will be 30-s to 50-s steam or (southern) electric layouts.
Model railway sales are still dominated by that eras rolling stock. Elsewhere it ua the reverse, with modern hi tech railways dominating, a feature most prominent in Japan.
There are also over 500 miles of volunteer run real railway runnig 1930s-50s stock in the main with millions visiting every year (far more than ever used those lines when they were normal railways), and when Flying Scotsman ran from Kings Cross to Edinburgh recently, huge crowds lined all 400 miles of the route. Something that certainly wont happen when HS2 opens and the first 200mph train runs.
I think that points to something deep rooted in our culture that you ignore at your peril politically.
So, no extra money for the NHS. Instead, money that could have been spent on the NHS will be spent on ensuring automakers won't leave the country because we are leaving the single market. Not quite what Boris & co, promised is it?
Another thing which could have won it for the Germans would have been to restart the Russian civil war. Giving the Ukraine and White Russia independence, and breaking up collective farms, and humane treatment of the population would have given millions a vested interest in fighting Stalin. Their behaviour made Stalin seem preferable.
That's a really good point that I haven't considered before. But as you say, Hitler went the other way. The occupied countries went from one evil lunatic to another.
It would have made sense if Hitler wanted to fight Communism rather than Russia per se. And the 'White Ukraine / Russia' would necessarily have been fairly pro-German.
Another thing which could have won it for the Germans would have been to restart the Russian civil war. Giving the Ukraine and White Russia independence, and breaking up collective farms, and humane treatment of the population would have given millions a vested interest in fighting Stalin. Their behaviour made Stalin seem preferable.
That's a really good point that I haven't considered before. But as you say, Hitler went the other way. The occupied countries went from one evil lunatic to another.
It would have made sense if Hitler wanted to fight Communism rather than Russia per se. And the 'White Ukraine / Russia' would necessarily have been fairly pro-German.
That would require Hitler to be something other than he was; a lunatic obsessed with race war. Within the constraints of Nazi ideology, the Germans co-opted what collaborators they could. 'Humane treatment' was never a possibility for people considered as inferior humans.
Both correct. Had Hitler been a more orthodox German nationalist, he'd never have launched Blitzkreig against Russia. He would have sought to make Germany dominant in Eastern Europe, and any war with Russia would have had much more limited objectives. He would also have had a healthy respect for the fighting capabilities of the Russians. He wouldn't have been Hitler.
For anyone interested I've just backed David Davis as next conservative leader. 100/1 on Paddy Power. In my view, Davis is the most credible of the three Brexiteers doing the EU exit. Johnson is a shambles and an embarrassment as foreign secretary. His performance over Russia confirms that. He has been played by May. He cannot shake off his joker persona. He struggles to be taken seriously on Brexit. His actions after the referendum will be played back endlessly, looking awkward at the press conference, the 'have cake and eat it' article in the telegraph, and his mysterious abdication from the leadership campaign. He has no experience of high office, and it is starting to show. Liam Fox is similar odds to Davis, but he has showed colossal misjudgement in his role. He has insulted businesses and appears essentially clueless about what is involved in making trade deals. Davis seems to be doing well. The signs to me that his star is rising is reports that attempts by business to lobby the treasury over the terms of EU exit have not met with success, because power is concentrated in the dept for exiting the EU, led by Davis. He has had a lot of experience of government and opposition. He is popular with the grassroots. His leave credentials are unsurpassed. He has also taken a genuinely independent stance on many issues ie human rights/civil liberties and is respected outside of right wing circles.
I believe that the May government will fall. I think they have gone the wrong way about implementing brexit having been bounced in to doing it quickly it by the Leadsom threat. The next conservative leader will need to create a credible response to Brexit. Davis with his current experience is well placed to do that. I was suprised that 100/1 is available on skybet and paddy power. He is 14/5 at betfair which makes me think this kind these odds wont be around for long.
I am surprised it is so low a price , the man is a dumpling
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
ar.
-)
...
...
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
As I recall (from history rather than memory!) Churchill was at his weakest after the Norway disaster?
Even Churchill had to face down a vote of no confidence in him by his local constituency party, for his perceived anti-government 'rebel' stance in opposing appeasement in the late 1930s, which he survived by a single vote.
I sometimes wonder whether Conservatives feel the need to try and claim the flag today in part because their party's record, when it really mattered, was pretty shameful?
No. It is because we've always been the party for the country. And for the last 100 years the Union. Sometimes in our history this has been at expense of the people, granted, but there is a deep seated confidence within Tory party members that the nation is worthy of support, should not be taken lightly and should definitely not be seen as the enemy.
I can well understand the Liberal mindset - that a community of nations is more valuable than a single nation. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Similarly I can understand the old fashioned Labour mindset - that a community of people is more valuable than the nations that they're in conditions of relative peace (i.e. the Labour party were happy to join the National Govt to fight Germany in 1940 because Fascism was attacking us) . I just think it simplistic and overly idealistic given the frailties of the human condition.
What I simply do not understand is the current Labour party leadership - who see the awful underdogs as always better than the sometimes self interested West. Nor do the people of this country, it seems. Mores the better.
The point that Mr B2 was making was that in 1939-40 there appear to have been a significant number of prominent Tories who beliieved that it was NOT in the nation’s interest to fight Fascism.
An interesting point but there may be a crucial difference in the point that matters now.
Sturgeon's advantage is that the Scottish people decided overwhelmingly in the referendum to place economics and prosperity before restricting immigration. That is also Sturgeon's view.
However the English people decided by a narrow majority to place restricting immigration before economics and prosperity. That could be May's view although she was nominally for the opposite in the referendum.
I think Sturgeons's hand is better.
I wasn't making a point about who's hand was technically "better". Although a counter-argument would be that the Scots need more persuading on economic arguments vs "control". Which is a problem for Sturgeon as she still has an obstacle of a referendum to get past (if she really wants independence). A referendum which then, as in the future, is fundamentally about economics vs control. However much "access to the (EU) single market" is talked up as important, it pales into insignificance compared with access to the (UK) single market.
Whereas Brexit has already passed the British people.
If it has passed why is it being talked about 24 hours a day and you do not seem to realise that nothing has happened, they hav enot even begun Brexit. We have had lots of hot air so far , we will see how gung ho all these nutters are when the chickens come home to roost and they find that it is them bending over rather than Europe. The delusion will soon clear.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
ar.
-)
...
...
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
No. It is because we've always been the party for the country. And for the last 100 years the Union. Sometimes in our history this has been at expense of the people, granted, but there is a deep seated confidence within Tory party members that the nation is worthy of support, should not be taken lightly and should definitely not be seen as the enemy.
I can well understand the Liberal mindset - that a community of nations is more valuable than a single nation. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Similarly I can understand the old fashioned Labour mindset - that a community of people is more valuable than the nations that they're in conditions of relative peace (i.e. the Labour party were happy to join the National Govt to fight Germany in 1940 because Fascism was attacking us) . I just think it simplistic and overly idealistic given the frailties of the human condition.
What I simply do not understand is the current Labour party leadership - who see the awful underdogs as always better than the sometimes self interested West. Nor do the people of this country, it seems. Mores the better.
It's a good thing about this site that most of us at least try and think our way around the views of our opponents.
My take on your last point is that Labour was born out of a class struggle back when its supporters were genuinely oppressed and disenfranchised. This informs much of the party's culture and identity, particularly on the left (ties into the birth of communism, before it became discredited). Their attraction to the underdogs in various conflicts around the world is not so much that they are anti-west but that these are situations where their view of politics still 'works'; the problem they face back home is that such a view of politics isn't appropriate anymore: people aren't oppressed in the same way, people value individualism more, the interests of the 'disadvantaged' conflict (ethnic voters v wwc etc) and the dimensions of power and privilege have fragmented rather than simply being along class lines.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
Mr. B2, what about the war at sea? The battle of the Atlantic in the period before spring 1943 had some very dodgy times. If things had gone a bit more adrift in the period '39-'41 then the UK might have been starved into submission before the Sceptics ever entered the war.
I don't think it was inevitable that the allies would have won the war.
There was a chapter in the book about that, I think, but it's a while since i have read it. I think the conclusion was that Britain could have fought on from the empire and wait for the Americans and Russians,
Edit/ I think the inevitability arises from the significant and growing flaws on the German side, which sooner or later would lead to downfall (and, indeed, Downfall).
Besides, as all PB'ers know, a coalition is always best.... ;-)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but rmans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
50 or so years ago I reads a counter-factual history in which the Greman Army DID get across the Channel. IIRC they fought up through Kent and Sussex and got close enough to London to make the King and Government move out, but as someone else said, supplies were an issue and eventually, and I clearly remember this bit the General in charge surrendered amid the shattered ruins of Rye.
That sounds like something I read: Churchill was preparing Mustard-gas and some-such. Was that written by David Irvine?
An interesting point but there may be a crucial difference in the point that matters now.
Sturgeon's advantage is that the Scottish people decided overwhelmingly in the referendum to place economics and prosperity before restricting immigration. That is also Sturgeon's view.
However the English people decided by a narrow majority to place restricting immigration before economics and prosperity. That could be May's view although she was nominally for the opposite in the referendum.
I think Sturgeons's hand is better.
Totally wrong... You showed your petticoat there. Please get this correct once and for all as you sound like the winging moaning Scot we have all come to love
It was the English AND THE WELSH !!!
Odd that the Scots did not vote for independence though when they had the chance. Very sensible the Scots though...... Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Edit - another one who doesn't accept a majority when they don't win and totally wrong on the reason that vote went the way it did.
Hopefully it will be the same lot that are left to it as well. You half witted cretin we more than pay our own way and always have, arsewipes like you certainly do not subsidise us in any way.
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
A German victory in the Battle of Britain might have lost them the war, or at the very least settled the war more on our terms. There were big arguments between the various branches in the German forces over the invasion: the Luftwaffe were generally cautious because of the loss in the BoB. If they were emboldened, then it might have swung it towards an invasion.
But the Royal Navy were still undefeated, and the British army on the mainland was short of kit but strong in manpower. Even with moderate air superiority, they would have found the mainland a hard egg to crack.
So we reach the question of what would have happened if a German invasion of the UK had been attempted with air superiority but failed. It would have been the first major defeat for the Germans during the war. Would they have tried again, or decided that it would be best to try to get a deal with a battered UK?
Wasn't Barbarossa almost a success? I seem to dimly recall that they were so close to Moscow that Stalin had a train in steam at the station waiting to whisk him away at one point. At last minute he changed his mind and fought on.
That is a disturbing piece of television in very many ways. America is breaking apart.
Lord Ashcroft currently has an interesting piece on ConHome, he quotes Charlie Sykes, a prominent right-wing talk show host on conspiracy theories:-
"These theories had become one of the most worrying aspects of the campaign. “You have the dark fever-swamps of the Right. I am a right-wing talk-show host, but there are some serious fever swamps out there, and they traffic in the most bizarre conspiracy theories. And they’re difficult to refute because too many conservative commentators do not want to challenge them. They know that their audiences will believe them.” And the really disturbing thing is that “Donald Trump will see something – some bizarre, unfounded conspiracy theory. And you’re tempted to dismiss it as too far out of the mainstream, and the next thing, Donald Trump, who may be the next president of the United States, is tweeting out links to these kinds of things… How do you deal with somebody who actually doesn’t seem to have a filter, what is true what is false, what is responsible, what is irresponsible?”
A couple of PB posters (unnamed of course!) might like to take a look.
Interesting. Certainly 100 seems a high number. Not sure about May falling though. If there is a danger things aren't going her way I am sure she will U-turn and call a GE.
Precisely, and no matter how unpopular her views are with the Guardian reading classes, an election campaign leavened with some suitably jingoistic brexitisms and facing Jeremy Corbyn will give her a 100 majority and a rock solid mandate for the hardest leave she could wish for.
they need to agree what their position is on brexit in any GE campaign, they are struggling to do that. don't underestimate how spooked businesses are about hard brexit and the anti business vibe of the conference don't believe too much of her rhetoric about brexit. It is only rhetoric.
Despite all the above she is 17 points clear in the polls.
I think there are massive similarities between May and Sturgeon in a political sense at the moment. Both are committed to publicly pursuing a policy which they know is fraught with risk, and probably don't at this time know how they are actually going to achieve it. And their public pronouncements are almost entirely made for political purposes, targeted at the most troublesome elements of their electoral support, and cannot reliably be assumed to be an indicator of what they are actually doing in private.
Difference is Sturgeon was elected whereas May was crowned by her party.
So, no extra money for the NHS. Instead, money that could have been spent on the NHS will be spent on ensuring automakers won't leave the country because we are leaving the single market. Not quite what Boris & co, promised is it?
Isn't this Nissan compensation deal exactly what I posted that Will Hutton had written the other week and I got flamed to bits by Leavers saying Hutton didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
A German victory in the Battle of Britain might have lost them the war, or at the very least settled the war more on our terms. There were big arguments between the various branches in the German forces over the invasion: the Luftwaffe were generally cautious because of the loss in the BoB. If they were emboldened, then it might have swung it towards an invasion.
But the Royal Navy were still undefeated, and the British army on the mainland was short of kit but strong in manpower. Even with moderate air superiority, they would have found the mainland a hard egg to crack.
So we reach the question of what would have happened if a German invasion of the UK had been attempted with air superiority but failed. It would have been the first major defeat for the Germans during the war. Would they have tried again, or decided that it would be best to try to get a deal with a battered UK?
Wasn't Barbarossa almost a success? I seem to dimly recall that they were so close to Moscow that Stalin had a train in steam at the station waiting to whisk him away at one point. At last minute he changed his mind and fought on.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
Mr. B2, what about the war at sea? The battle of the Atlantic in the period before spring 1943 had some very dodgy times. If things had gone a bit more adrift in the period '39-'41 then the UK might have been starved into submission before the Sceptics ever entered the war.
I don't think it was inevitable that the allies would have won the war.
Edit/ I think the inevitability arises from the significant and growing flaws on the German side, which sooner or later would lead to downfall (and, indeed, Downfall).
Besides, as all PB'ers know, a coalition is always best.... ;-)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but rmans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
50 or so years ago I reads a counter-factual history in which the Greman Army DID get across the Channel. IIRC they fought up through Kent and Sussex and got close enough to London to make the King and Government move out, but as someone else said, supplies were an issue and eventually, and I clearly remember this bit the General in charge surrendered amid the shattered ruins of Rye.
That sounds like something I read: Churchill was preparing Mustard-gas and some-such. Was that written by David Irvine?
TBH I can’t remember. I think it was serialised in the Express, which my landlord took. I was a student at the time, living in digs, and couldn’t afford either the Herald or the Guardian.
For anyone interested ...... Davis seems to be doing well. The signs to me that his star is rising is reports that attempts by business to lobby the treasury over the terms of EU exit have not met with success, because power is concentrated in the dept for exiting the EU, led by Davis. He has had a lot of experience of government and opposition. He is popular with the grassroots. His leave credentials are unsurpassed. He has also taken a genuinely independent stance on many issues ie human rights/civil liberties and is respected outside of right wing circles.
I believe that the May government will fall. I think they have gone the wrong way about implementing brexit having been bounced in to doing it quickly it by the Leadsom threat. The next conservative leader will need to create a credible response to Brexit. Davis with his current experience is well placed to do that. I was suprised that 100/1 is available on skybet and paddy power. He is 14/5 at betfair which makes me think this kind these odds wont be around for long.
You had me until 'I believe the May government will fall'
Tories in power do not voluntarily surrender it. May is popular amongst all but the SDP-tendency headbangers.
And the grassroots love her.
Although to be honest, they rarely think once ...
They were patriots. And they've been proved right.
One aspect of Brexit that is sad is how some people are becoming very American in how they use the word "patriot" in politics.
Sad to you, maybe.
There is little patriotic in elected representatives giving away the power entrusted to them by the people.
Can you please confirm that, in order to be a patriot, it is first necessary to be a right-winger?
Not at all - this just isn't true.
Michael Foot was a great patriot. As was Clem.
Is there a living leftie you think patriotic?
Plenty - we were the ones proud and admiring of Danny Boyle's amazing opening ceremony, whilst right-wingers were moaning about everything from the NHS segment, the mixed-race family in the music segment and lots of awful music, etc, and asking why we couldn't just redo the Royal Tournament.
Exactly. Whenever I see a right winger trying to appropriate the Union Jack I always remember that when Doctor Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel he was commenting on scoundrels not patriots.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
I don't think it was inevitable that the allies would have won the war.
There was a chapter in the book about that, I think, but it's a while since i have read it. I think the conclusion was that Britain could have fought on from the empire and wait for the Americans and Russians,
Anyhow it is a good book. - clear well-written and thoughtful analysis. It's quite high level so glosses over a lot of detail, but that also makes its conclusions easier to follow. Very good reviews on Amazon.
Edit/ I think the inevitability arises from the significant and growing flaws on the German side, which sooner or later would lead to downfall (and, indeed, Downfall).
Besides, as all PB'ers know, a coalition is always best.... ;-)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
An invasion across the Channel was always going to be an enormous ask for the Germans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
Goering's ineptitude lost it rather than UK just winning it. He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
I don't think it was inevitable that the allies would have won the war.
There was a chapter in the book about that, I think, but it's a while since i have read it. I think the conclusion was that Britain could have fought on from the empire and wait for the Americans and Russians,
Anyhow it is a good book. - clear well-written and thoughtful analysis. It's quite high level so glosses over a lot of detail, but that also makes its conclusions easier to follow. Very good reviews on Amazon.
)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
An invasion across the Channel was always going to be an enormous ask for the Germans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
Goering's ineptitude lost it rather than UK just winning it. He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Yep, we have all seen the film, it was that one plane that dumped its bombs on London by mistake, without which they would have kept on at the airfields and radar stations.
Interesting. Certainly 100 seems a high number. Not sure about May falling though. If there is a danger things aren't going her way I am sure she will U-turn and call a GE.
Precisely, and no matter how unpopular her views are with the Guardian reading classes, an election campaign leavened with some suitably jingoistic brexitisms and facing Jeremy Corbyn will give her a 100 majority and a rock solid mandate for the hardest leave she could wish for.
they need to agree what their position is on brexit in any GE campaign, they are struggling to do that. don't underestimate how spooked businesses are about hard brexit and the anti business vibe of the conference don't believe too much of her rhetoric about brexit. It is only rhetoric.
Despite all the above she is 17 points clear in the polls.
I think there are massive similarities between May and Sturgeon in a political sense at the moment. Both are committed to publicly pursuing a policy which they know is fraught with risk, and probably don't at this time know how they are actually going to achieve it. And their public pronouncements are almost entirely made for political purposes, targeted at the most troublesome elements of their electoral support, and cannot reliably be assumed to be an indicator of what they are actually doing in private.
Difference is Sturgeon was elected whereas May was crowned by her party.
Sturgeon should be crafty, stop banging on about independence and start demanding that it is an outrage that the Scottish government cannot sign the Statute of Westminster (which would amount to the same thing)
Just catching up on HIGNFY last night - can anyone explain why they opened the show with a scripted piece from the presenter saying that the pound was worth only $1.15? It's not been doing particularly well this week, but it's not been below $1.21.
Miss Lass, the problem with the economy line for the SNP is that they want to leave a union with which they conduct 60% of trade for one with which they conduct 15% of trade.
Not only that, they want to leave a Union that contributesto Scotland's public services and join a Union which will expect substantial contributions from Scotland...
Contributes my erchie, they borrow money , give us a minute share and make us pay the interest on it all. We hav esubsidised eth union for 40 years.
Just catching up on HIGNFY last night - can anyone explain why they opened the show with a scripted piece from the presenter saying that the pound was worth only $1.15? It's not been doing particularly well this week, but it's not been below $1.21.
I think they were using the tourist rates that people actually get
So, no extra money for the NHS. Instead, money that could have been spent on the NHS will be spent on ensuring automakers won't leave the country because we are leaving the single market. Not quite what Boris & co, promised is it?
Isn't this Nissan compensation deal exactly what I posted that Will Hutton had written the other week and I got flamed to bits by Leavers saying Hutton didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
Essentially, the taxpayer will be paying Nissan not to quit. And having seen that, what do you think other CEOs of other companies are going to do? Money that could have been spent elsewhere will instead be spent on mitigating the negative effects of leaving the single market. Boris is Baldrick and I claim my £5. The Tories have abandoned any pretence to be a pro-capitalist, free market party. We no longer have one of those in the UK.
That is a disturbing piece of television in very many ways. America is breaking apart.
I watch about 15+ media clips a day across the stations - it's seriously OTT on both sides.
The very strong feeling that the election is being stolen/fixed/rigged is huge. It's making Brexit Wars look tame. I saw a CNN clip earlier where they discussed Wikileaks and compared it a post-campaign book before the result. And then all five commentators waved away all the leaks as nothing and said it showed how centrist Hillary was/that's a good thing.
I just laughed like a drain. I know it's one of the few free news services here on satellite TV - but anyone taking their word as gospel needs a slap. It's Guardian TV on steroids.
Miss Lass, the problem with the economy line for the SNP is that they want to leave a union with which they conduct 60% of trade for one with which they conduct 15% of trade.
Not only that, they want to leave a Union that contributesto Scotland's public services and join a Union which will expect substantial contributions from Scotland...
Contributes my erchie, they borrow money , give us a minute share and make us pay the interest on it all. We hav esubsidised eth union for 40 years.
It's sad that we are obsessed by WW2. If anything the obsession is getting stronger as time passes. Hitler this, Hitler that.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
You are entitled to your view because the people below in this video gave their freedom for your freedom to express that view.
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
Good grief. With a grandfather who was one of the troops that liberated Belsen, like everyone else, I know the significance of WW2. I simply assert that there is more to British history and we should look to the future from the perspective of all our history not just that important event.
Personallty, I gain particular inspiration from C18. How do we rediscover the dynamic spirit of that era?
Problem is these idiots live on the dream of the empire and winning world wars, it is all the sad sacks have. It is why the country is circling the drain , run by comic singers and donkeys.
However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
I don't think it was inevitable that the allies would have won the war.
There was a chapter in the book about that, I think, but it's a while since i have read it. I think the conclusion was that Britain could have fought on from the empire and wait for the Americans and Russians,
Anyhow it is a good book. - clear well-written and thoughtful analysis. It's quite high level so glosses over a lot of detail, but that also makes its conclusions easier to follow. Very good reviews on Amazon.
Edit/ I think the inevitability arises from the significant and growing flaws on the German side, which sooner or later would lead to downfall (and, indeed, Downfall).
Besides, as all PB'ers know, a coalition is always best.... ;-)
The only possible counter factual which might have led to a German victory would have been our losing the Battle of Britain, I think. Hitler's manic philosophy would have meant the invasion of Russia come what may, but the air battle was a close enough run thing that better German tactics could conceivably have won it, and at that stage of the war a British surrender without a land invasion would not have been impossible. That is the only way I can see that he might have had the resources available - particularly air power - to prevent Barbarossa being a disaster. Unlikely, but not wholly impossible.
An invasion across the Channel was always going to be an enormous ask for the Germans (not just the military crossing - for example where were German tanks going to get fuel from?) - look at how long we had to prepare and how much effort D Day took some years later, with more resources, better technology, and complete domination of the seas and the skies.
A more credible scenario is if the Conservatives who were pressing for a peace deal with Hitler after Dunkirk had won the argument.
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
Goering's ineptitude lost it rather than UK just winning it. He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
More at Dunkirk than the Battle of Britain. In the latter, I'm not sure what the Germans could have done to make much difference bar bomb the radar stations - but their failure there was more of intelligence than of strategy.
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
ar.
-)
...
...
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
As I recall (from history rather than memory!) Churchill was at his weakest after the Norway disaster?
Even Churchill had to face down a vote of no confidence in him by his local constituency party, for his perceived anti-government 'rebel' stance in opposing appeasement in the late 1930s, which he survived by a single vote.
I sometimes wonder whether Conservatives feel the need to try and claim the flag today in part because their party's record, when it really mattered, was pretty shameful?
No. It is because we've always been the party for the country. And for the last 100 years the Union. Sometimes in our history this has been at expense of the people, granted, but there is a deep seated confidence within Tory party members that the nation is worthy of support, should not be taken lightly and should definitely not be seen as the enemy.
I can well understand the Liberal mindset - that a community of nations is more valuable than a single nation. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Similarly I can understand the old fashioned Labour mindset - that a community of people is more valuable than the nations that they're in conditions of relative peace (i.e. the Labour party were happy to join the National Govt to fight Germany in 1940 because Fascism was attacking us) . I just think it simplistic and overly idealistic given the frailties of the human condition.
What I simply do not understand is the current Labour party leadership - who see the awful underdogs as always better than the sometimes self interested West. Nor do the people of this country, it seems. Mores the better.
The point that Mr B2 was making was that in 1939-40 there appear to have been a significant number of prominent Tories who beliieved that it was NOT in the nation’s interest to fight Fascism.
Miss Lass, the problem with the economy line for the SNP is that they want to leave a union with which they conduct 60% of trade for one with which they conduct 15% of trade.
Not only that, they want to leave a Union that contributesto Scotland's public services and join a Union which will expect substantial contributions from Scotland...
Sturgeon's biggest problem is that she's bluffing - and May knows it.
So, no extra money for the NHS. Instead, money that could have been spent on the NHS will be spent on ensuring automakers won't leave the country because we are leaving the single market. Not quite what Boris & co, promised is it?
Isn't this Nissan compensation deal exactly what I posted that Will Hutton had written the other week and I got flamed to bits by Leavers saying Hutton didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
Tories will always line their chums pockets first and foremost, no matter what lies they spout to the contrary.
Just catching up on HIGNFY last night - can anyone explain why they opened the show with a scripted piece from the presenter saying that the pound was worth only $1.15? It's not been doing particularly well this week, but it's not been below $1.21.
I think they were using the tourist rates that people actually get
They mentioned tourist rates later in the same piece - and got the buy and sell rates confused when trying to illustrate that an airport forex agent had a usurious 35% spread on the £/€ rate.
Would have expected them to have at least run the script by someone who understands these things before airing it!
Just catching up on HIGNFY last night - can anyone explain why they opened the show with a scripted piece from the presenter saying that the pound was worth only $1.15? It's not been doing particularly well this week, but it's not been below $1.21.
I think they were using the tourist rates that people actually get
They mentioned tourist rates later in the same piece - and got the buy and sell rates confused when trying to illustrate that an airport forex agent had a usurious 35% spread on the £/€ rate.
Would have expected them to have at least run the script by someone who understands these things before airing it!
Avoiding being done for libel is probably the only fact checking that a television comedy programme feels it needs to do!
On the shadow of World War Two: worth noting the Romans referred to Hannibal Ad Portas (Hannibal at the gates) for decades, perhaps centuries after the Second Punic War. Centuries after the Western Empire fell there were still dreams of rekindling it.
I do agree we should adopt a positive, forward-looking attitude (with an emphasis on technology and freedom of speech) but it's not unusual for massive events to cast a very long shadow.
So, no extra money for the NHS. Instead, money that could have been spent on the NHS will be spent on ensuring automakers won't leave the country because we are leaving the single market. Not quite what Boris & co, promised is it?
Isn't this Nissan compensation deal exactly what I posted that Will Hutton had written the other week and I got flamed to bits by Leavers saying Hutton didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
Essentially, the taxpayer will be paying Nissan not to quit. And having seen that, what do you think other CEOs of other companies are going to do? Money that could have been spent elsewhere will instead be spent on mitigating the negative effects of leaving the single market. Boris is Baldrick and I claim my £5. The Tories have abandoned any pretence to be a pro-capitalist, free market party. We no longer have one of those in the UK.
The New European @TheNewEuropean 15h15 hours ago MPs should stop being so timid, and be prepared to scupper the entire #Brexit project, argues @steverichards14
One to make the Leavers splutter their morning coffee all over the place!
P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.
ar.
-)
...
...
Had we lost the Battle of Britain, they could well have won that argument. Victory did much to cement Churchill's position; defeat might have toppled him. Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
As I recall (from history rather than memory!) Churchill was at his weakest after the Norway disaster?
Even Churchill had to face down a vote of no confidence in him by his local constituency party, for his perceived anti-government 'rebel' stance in opposing appeasement in the late 1930s, which he survived by a single vote.
I sometimes wonder whether Conservatives feel the need to try and claim the flag today in part because their party's record, when it really mattered, was pretty shameful?
I can well understand the Liberal mindset - that a community of nations is more valuable than a single nation. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Similarly I can understand the old fashioned Labour mindset - that a community of people is more valuable than the nations that they're in conditions of relative peace (i.e. the Labour party were happy to join the National Govt to fight Germany in 1940 because Fascism was attacking us) . I just think it simplistic and overly idealistic given the frailties of the human condition.
What I simply do not understand is the current Labour party leadership - who see the awful underdogs as always better than the sometimes self interested West. Nor do the people of this country, it seems. Mores the better.
The point that Mr B2 was making was that in 1939-40 there appear to have been a significant number of prominent Tories who beliieved that it was NOT in the nation’s interest to fight Fascism.
Damned europhiles.
I laughed at your response but it is probably flawed! As I recollect, it was the more right wing Tories back then who were least interested in resisting the Germans. Today it is the more right wing Tories that don't like the EU. After all, Churchill was actually very pro-European after the war.
That is a disturbing piece of television in very many ways. America is breaking apart.
I watch about 15+ media clips a day across the stations - it's seriously OTT on both sides.
The very strong feeling that the election is being stolen/fixed/rigged is huge. It's making Brexit Wars look tame. I saw a CNN clip earlier where they discussed Wikileaks and compared it a post-campaign book before the result. And then all five commentators waved away all the leaks as nothing and said it showed how centrist Hillary was/that's a good thing.
I just laughed like a drain. I know it's one of the few free news services here on satellite TV - but anyone taking their word as gospel needs a slap. It's Guardian TV on steroids.
The US 'news' networks are now completely unwatchable. They all take an absurdly partisan view, present "Fact Check" pieces that are no more than spin and there's way more heat being generated than light.
As others have said, there is something seriously wrong with the USA at the moment, and the election is only making things worse. Much worse.
Just catching up on HIGNFY last night - can anyone explain why they opened the show with a scripted piece from the presenter saying that the pound was worth only $1.15? It's not been doing particularly well this week, but it's not been below $1.21.
I think they were using the tourist rates that people actually get
They mentioned tourist rates later in the same piece - and got the buy and sell rates confused when trying to illustrate that an airport forex agent had a usurious 35% spread on the £/€ rate.
Would have expected them to have at least run the script by someone who understands these things before airing it!
Avoiding being done for libel is probably the only fact checking that a television comedy programme feels it needs to do!
Quick look at M&S rates, which IME are usually quite good and card-holders can get 1.195 USD for a £, and non-card-holders 1.18USD. The rate on my phone app just now is 1.22.
That is a disturbing piece of television in very many ways. America is breaking apart.
I watch about 15+ media clips a day across the stations - it's seriously OTT on both sides.
The very strong feeling that the election is being stolen/fixed/rigged is huge. It's making Brexit Wars look tame. I saw a CNN clip earlier where they discussed Wikileaks and compared it a post-campaign book before the result. And then all five commentators waved away all the leaks as nothing and said it showed how centrist Hillary was/that's a good thing.
I just laughed like a drain. I know it's one of the few free news services here on satellite TV - but anyone taking their word as gospel needs a slap. It's Guardian TV on steroids.
The US 'news' networks are now completely unwatchable. They all take an absurdly partisan view, present "Fact Check" pieces that are no more than spin and there's way more heat being generated than light.
As others have said, there is something seriously wrong with the USA at the moment, and the election is only making things worse. Much worse.
agreed, thank god for u.k broadcasting laws during u.k elections and outside of elections.
''The word 'traitor' gets thrown around here too much. But in the case of the bastards, it is probably correct.''
It was the ERM fiasco that did for the Major government. It destroyed the tories' reputation for economic competence and allowed Blair to park his tanks on the tory lawn.
I don;t think the bast*rds were that important either way.
The tories might have lost by less if Ken Clarke had started to share the fruits of the rapidly reviving economy by slashing taxes in 1996. He didn't. The tories were slaughtered.
It was sleaze which won it.
The sight of processions of Conservative MPs taking "Cash for Questions", and sex exposes did it. Not one offs but an entire procession...
No thinking voter would vote Conservative in 1997. I did not. They deserved to be thrashed..
Looking back given what we know now with expenses scandal, cash for peerages, McBride, etc etc etc, Cash for Questions scandal seems rather twee.
Just catching up on HIGNFY last night - can anyone explain why they opened the show with a scripted piece from the presenter saying that the pound was worth only $1.15? It's not been doing particularly well this week, but it's not been below $1.21.
I think they were using the tourist rates that people actually get
They mentioned tourist rates later in the same piece - and got the buy and sell rates confused when trying to illustrate that an airport forex agent had a usurious 35% spread on the £/€ rate.
Would have expected them to have at least run the script by someone who understands these things before airing it!
Avoiding being done for libel is probably the only fact checking that a television comedy programme feels it needs to do!
Indeed. They did let Ruth Davidson's rather risqué joke about Diane Abbot past the editors though!
That is a disturbing piece of television in very many ways. America is breaking apart.
I watch about 15+ media clips a day across the stations - it's seriously OTT on both sides.
The very strong feeling that the election is being stolen/fixed/rigged is huge. It's making Brexit Wars look tame. I saw a CNN clip earlier where they discussed Wikileaks and compared it a post-campaign book before the result. And then all five commentators waved away all the leaks as nothing and said it showed how centrist Hillary was/that's a good thing.
I just laughed like a drain. I know it's one of the few free news services here on satellite TV - but anyone taking their word as gospel needs a slap. It's Guardian TV on steroids.
The US 'news' networks are now completely unwatchable. They all take an absurdly partisan view, present "Fact Check" pieces that are no more than spin and there's way more heat being generated than light.
As others have said, there is something seriously wrong with the USA at the moment, and the election is only making things worse. Much worse.
The Fact Check stuff really is quite incredible. Both in what they decide to Fact Check and what they decide isn't worth it, and how they then make a "judgement call" on lots of things.
Comments
(My own view is probably somewhere in the middle.)
What might have brought victory to the Axis is if Japan had invaded Siberia, rather than South East Asia. But, they'd suffered heavy defeats at Zhukov's hands in the 1930's, so they went South.
It was sleaze which won it.
The sight of processions of Conservative MPs taking "Cash for Questions", and sex exposes did it. Not one offs but an entire procession...
No thinking voter would vote Conservative in 1997. I did not.
They deserved to be thrashed..
Possible, rather than probable, but I think it the only way Hitler might have won his lunatic race war.
Well done and a thank you never big enough to the RAF , the ground crews and the Merchant Navy without all of whom none of that would have been possible.
https://twitter.com/ViKu1111/status/787045709367406592
In their one-eyed obsession with the EU, they did not stop to think they were bringing about further EU integration.
Yes, sleaze (real and invented) was a major problem for Major and the party (I acknowledged that above). But the disunity was undoubtedly a massive problem for the government, and contributed heavily to the eventual defeat of the government and years in the wilderness.
The bastards were part of the general "incompetence, exhaustion and sleeze of the Major government" in the public's eyes.
Michael Foot was a great patriot. As was Clem.
It is partly why I struggle with the suggestion that the Tories can survive a bad Brexit. To me that seems to be Corbyn's only chance.
Important though it undoubtedly was, Britain needs to move on from it. Arguably there are other parts of our history that are more relevant and as inspirational.
That is a disturbing piece of television in very many ways. America is breaking apart.
Actually thinking about it Trump, is in many ways an American Geoff Boycott.
We'll still be talking about WW2 in 1000 years.
A bit grumpy this morning Mr Jonathan?
Small hands.....
The Conservative party was disunited, and those cracks were exploited by Labour and the media. As we now know, many of the sleaze stories were not quite as initially printed (thanks to Mr Clifford amongst others), and Labour was just as sleazy. But those cracks were easy to exploit against a much more unified Labour.
Even the ERM debacle could have been tempered by the good state of the economy we had by 1997. But a disunited party was perhaps the major plank in the Conservative defeat; it enabled the other negatives to gain more traction.
Off-topic: I think this is the first time this year I've been able to cope with commenting in two separate conversation threads. Woohoo!
"For your tomorrow, we gave our today" ......you would do very, very well to remember that.
(I shall not bother to respond to any reply it will no doubt be bollocks like your initial post.)
Edit- I have been to a number of these places.
http://youtu.be/Omd9_FJnerY
:-)
And we don't need a wall. God put mountains between us and Lancashire.
You are right that it was the BoB that cemented Churchill's position, particularly with his own party, which until then contained significant elements that remained pro-appeasement/pro-negotiating with Hitler and even some who had some sympathies with the far right.
Even Churchill had to face down a vote of no confidence in him by his local constituency party, for his perceived anti-government 'rebel' stance in opposing appeasement in the late 1930s, which he survived by a single vote.
I sometimes wonder whether Conservatives feel the need to try and claim the flag today in part because their party's record, when it really mattered, was pretty shameful?
It would have made sense if Hitler wanted to fight Communism rather than Russia per se. And the 'White Ukraine / Russia' would necessarily have been fairly pro-German.
Churchill was a Conservative. Why should the blues feel bad about their conduct in the war when their leader inspired us to victory?
If they had supinely supported the Conservative establishment the ultimate consequence would have been no Leave vote in the EU Referendum.
And what would have been the benefits of a more united Conservative party during the 1990s ? Perhaps Labour's majority would have been ten or twenty smaller in 1997.
The interesting what-if is "what if the Major government had called a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty after the Danish rejection". I suspect it would have set a precedent for referenda on EU treaties and would have brought a stop to EverCloserUnion without having to Leave the EU.
I can well understand the Liberal mindset - that a community of nations is more valuable than a single nation. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it.
Similarly I can understand the old fashioned Labour mindset - that a community of people is more valuable than the nations that they're in conditions of relative peace (i.e. the Labour party were happy to join the National Govt to fight Germany in 1940 because Fascism was attacking us) . I just think it simplistic and overly idealistic given the frailties of the human condition.
What I simply do not understand is the current Labour party leadership - who see the awful underdogs as always better than the sometimes self interested West. Nor do the people of this country, it seems. Mores the better.
Personallty, I gain particular inspiration from C18. How do we rediscover the dynamic spirit of that era?
It doesn't detract from what Jonathan said, that this country at some point needs to move on from 1945; it's defined our history for 70 years now and rightly or wrongly had a huge expression this year.
Dem landslide nailed on then.A landslide might calm things either way. W close result either way will be poisonous.
Arguably, and aside from his views on empire, Churchill was always a liberal, who jumped back to the Tories because he could see the two-party system coming.
If you go to a model railway exhibition. Most of the British layouts will be 30-s to 50-s steam or (southern) electric layouts.
Model railway sales are still dominated by that eras rolling stock. Elsewhere it ua the reverse, with modern hi tech railways dominating, a feature most prominent in Japan.
There are also over 500 miles of volunteer run real railway runnig 1930s-50s stock in the main with millions visiting every year (far more than ever used those lines when they were normal railways), and when Flying Scotsman ran from Kings Cross to Edinburgh recently, huge crowds lined all 400 miles of the route. Something that certainly wont happen when HS2 opens and the first 200mph train runs.
I think that points to something deep rooted in our culture that you ignore at your peril politically.
My take on your last point is that Labour was born out of a class struggle back when its supporters were genuinely oppressed and disenfranchised. This informs much of the party's culture and identity, particularly on the left (ties into the birth of communism, before it became discredited). Their attraction to the underdogs in various conflicts around the world is not so much that they are anti-west but that these are situations where their view of politics still 'works'; the problem they face back home is that such a view of politics isn't appropriate anymore: people aren't oppressed in the same way, people value individualism more, the interests of the 'disadvantaged' conflict (ethnic voters v wwc etc) and the dimensions of power and privilege have fragmented rather than simply being along class lines.
"These theories had become one of the most worrying aspects of the campaign. “You have the dark fever-swamps of the Right. I am a right-wing talk-show host, but there are some serious fever swamps out there, and they traffic in the most bizarre conspiracy theories. And they’re difficult to refute because too many conservative commentators do not want to challenge them. They know that their audiences will believe them.” And the really disturbing thing is that “Donald Trump will see something – some bizarre, unfounded conspiracy theory. And you’re tempted to dismiss it as too far out of the mainstream, and the next thing, Donald Trump, who may be the next president of the United States, is tweeting out links to these kinds of things… How do you deal with somebody who actually doesn’t seem to have a filter, what is true what is false, what is responsible, what is irresponsible?”
A couple of PB posters (unnamed of course!) might like to take a look.
Very Top Gear over Chris Evans.
http://dcwhispers.com/wow-megyn-kelly-getting-pummeled-ratings-trump-supporters-boycott-program/#JXeCr5REAvMBPWZg.99 I watch about 15+ media clips a day across the stations - it's seriously OTT on both sides.
The very strong feeling that the election is being stolen/fixed/rigged is huge. It's making Brexit Wars look tame. I saw a CNN clip earlier where they discussed Wikileaks and compared it a post-campaign book before the result. And then all five commentators waved away all the leaks as nothing and said it showed how centrist Hillary was/that's a good thing.
I just laughed like a drain. I know it's one of the few free news services here on satellite TV - but anyone taking their word as gospel needs a slap. It's Guardian TV on steroids.
Well done!
Would have expected them to have at least run the script by someone who understands these things before airing it!
I do agree we should adopt a positive, forward-looking attitude (with an emphasis on technology and freedom of speech) but it's not unusual for massive events to cast a very long shadow.
MPs should stop being so timid, and be prepared to scupper the entire #Brexit project, argues @steverichards14
One to make the Leavers splutter their morning coffee all over the place!
As others have said, there is something seriously wrong with the USA at the moment, and the election is only making things worse. Much worse.
Remoaner special
http://tinyurl.com/j5dlygg
(Matthew Parris - Project Fear mk2)