politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time for the Tories to pick a candidate for Buckingham

rottenborough said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Probably already posted but:

Tulsi Gabbard: Democrat says she will run for president in 2020

Oh. Iraq vet. Trump would have problems with Gabbard. I suppose he could say she was a coward as she came home alive.

Maybe Putin will make him go easy on her, she seems to be his Plan B...

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

edmundintokyo said:

CD13 said:

Mr Edmund,

The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.

The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.

They did, in 2017, for a vast majority who stood on a platform of leaving the EU.

But didn't personally believe in it.

If they didn’t personally believe in it, they shouldn’t have stood under that manifesto. They are now ignoring the wishes of those who elected them.

You make the false assumption that they voted the way they did purely on Brexit policy. May called a Brexit election, but that was not what happend, Labour went on social care and generational inequality.

In any case political manifestos have never been binding. We elect representatives, not place men and women.

It's all about balance. Yes, we elect representatives not robotic delegates, and yes changes of direction between one election and the next are sometimes warranted.

On the other hand, breaking manifesto commitments (especially on pivotal issues) isn't necessarily without consequence. If you stand on one platform and then switch to another, then why should voters believe that you will deliver for them next time you ask for their support?

edmundintokyo said:

rottenborough said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Probably already posted but:

Tulsi Gabbard: Democrat says she will run for president in 2020

Oh. Iraq vet. Trump would have problems with Gabbard. I suppose he could say she was a coward as she came home alive.

Maybe Putin will make him go easy on her, she seems to be his Plan B...

Eh?

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.

An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.

He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.

He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Bercow in general, last week he did the British people a massive service by allowing an amendment that will at least attempt to stop May wasting another week or two before deciding what to do next.

The can cannot be kicked any more.

It is time for Parliament to make a decision and implement it. Or hold a GE.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that we want to see an end to the can kicking; however, holding a General Election at this late stage is impractical: there's not enough time. Besides, this Parliament should be made to clean up its own mess.

I certainly wouldn't object to a General Election after Parliament has made its mind up, however. Depending on what Parliament decides and how it does it, a GE may become an inevitability anyway.

rottenborough said:

edmundintokyo said:

rottenborough said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Probably already posted but:

Tulsi Gabbard: Democrat says she will run for president in 2020

Oh. Iraq vet. Trump would have problems with Gabbard. I suppose he could say she was a coward as she came home alive.

Maybe Putin will make him go easy on her, she seems to be his Plan B...

Eh?

There's a helpful summary on - um - Russia Today:
https://www.rt.com/usa/448632-tulsi-gabbard-negative-reactions/

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

edmundintokyo said:

CD13 said:

Mr Edmund,

The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.

The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.

They did, in 2017, for a vast majority who stood on a platform of leaving the EU.

But didn't personally believe in it.

If they didn’t personally believe in it, they shouldn’t have stood under that manifesto. They are now ignoring the wishes of those who elected them.

You make the false assumption that they voted the way they did purely on Brexit policy. May called a Brexit election, but that was not what happend, Labour went on social care and generational inequality.

In any case political manifestos have never been binding. We elect representatives, not place men and women.

It's all about balance. Yes, we elect representatives not robotic delegates, and yes changes of direction between one election and the next are sometimes warranted.

On the other hand, breaking manifesto commitments (especially on pivotal issues) isn't necessarily without consequence. If you stand on one platform and then switch to another, then why should voters believe that you will deliver for them next time you ask for their support?

Exactly. And again I repeat that all those channelling Burke and his original quotes about MPs being representatives not delegates should remember that when he put that into practice and voted against the wishes of his constituents the people of Bristol took the opportunity to dump him at the next election.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.

An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.

He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.

He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias

Why can't the Conservative Party and their DUP friends vote him out then ?

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.

An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.

He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.

He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Bercow in general, last week he did the British people a massive service by allowing an amendment that will at least attempt to stop May wasting another week or two before deciding what to do next.

The can cannot be kicked any more.

It is time for Parliament to make a decision and implement it. Or hold a GE.

I do not disagree with you.

Yorkcity said:

bigjohnowls said:

VI Polling all over the place again.

Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.

You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.

WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.

Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.

Certainly a good poll for Labour.
One can see why they would like a GE on those figures.

Yes, as it does seem to be Labour voting Leave voters that have changed to Remain, while the wealthy county set cultural conservative Leave vote remains intact.

Re Tulsi Gabbard. Surely a Hindu is a non-starter? Not that I'm saying it should be, but it is, isn't it?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

edmundintokyo said:

CD13 said:

Mr Edmund,

The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.

The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.

They did, in 2017, for a vast majority who stood on a platform of leaving the EU.

But didn't personally believe in it.

If they didn’t personally believe in it, they shouldn’t have stood under that manifesto. They are now ignoring the wishes of those who elected them.

You make the false assumption that they voted the way they did purely on Brexit policy. May called a Brexit election, but that was not what happend, Labour went on social care and generational inequality.

In any case political manifestos have never been binding. We elect representatives, not place men and women.

It's all about balance. Yes, we elect representatives not robotic delegates, and yes changes of direction between one election and the next are sometimes warranted.

On the other hand, breaking manifesto commitments (especially on pivotal issues) isn't necessarily without consequence. If you stand on one platform and then switch to another, then why should voters believe that you will deliver for them next time you ask for their support?

Exactly. And again I repeat that all those channelling Burke and his original quotes about MPs being representatives not delegates should remember that when he put that into practice and voted against the wishes of his constituents the people of Bristol took the opportunity to dump him at the next election.

All the evidence is that the swing to Remain is bigger in Labour onstituencies that voted Leave. Their MPs merely have better political antennae for their constituencies than you.

http://theconversation.com/brexit-yes-constituencies-have-moved-to-remain-and-heres-why-that-could-matter-101761

Yorkcity said:

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tokyo, the electorate voted for:
a party promising a referendum to have a majority
MPs who backed a referendum
to Leave in said referendum
MPs then backed the result of the referendum
two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU

The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.

Over 50% of voters at the last election backed parties that ruled out a No Deal Brexit. All opinion polls show that voters are opposed to a No Deal Brexit. The will of the people is not to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. Mrs May's deal is not the only way to prevent a No Deal. It is the only way to prevent one based on the prejudices that Mrs May has.

True , however there is only Mays deal or no deal currently on the cards.
Therefore without another deal MPs should vote for it imo.

That's why we need to start again. However, I think we will leave without a deal.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Black_Rook said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

edmundintokyo said:

CD13 said:

Mr Edmund,

The rules change depending on the whim of Parliament, it seems. You might be sanguine about that, but those pesky voters used to believe they were the final arbiter.

The voters are the final arbiter, they can change the MPs.

They did, in 2017, for a vast majority who stood on a platform of leaving the EU.

But didn't personally believe in it.

If they didn’t personally believe in it, they shouldn’t have stood under that manifesto. They are now ignoring the wishes of those who elected them.

You make the false assumption that they voted the way they did purely on Brexit policy. May called a Brexit election, but that was not what happend, Labour went on social care and generational inequality.

In any case political manifestos have never been binding. We elect representatives, not place men and women.

It's all about balance. Yes, we elect representatives not robotic delegates, and yes changes of direction between one election and the next are sometimes warranted.

On the other hand, breaking manifesto commitments (especially on pivotal issues) isn't necessarily without consequence. If you stand on one platform and then switch to another, then why should voters believe that you will deliver for them next time you ask for their support?

Exactly. And again I repeat that all those channelling Burke and his original quotes about MPs being representatives not delegates should remember that when he put that into practice and voted against the wishes of his constituents the people of Bristol took the opportunity to dump him at the next election.

And Burke made his argument when parties hardly existed, manifestos were not produced, and the franchise was limited.

Politicians may be forced to break promises by circumstances. It doesn't mean they should break promises because they think they can get away with it.

SouthamObserver said:

Yorkcity said:

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tokyo, the electorate voted for:
a party promising a referendum to have a majority
MPs who backed a referendum
to Leave in said referendum
MPs then backed the result of the referendum
two main parties in another election, both of whom backed leaving the EU

The idea there's going to be anything other than a severely disgruntled, and understandably disgruntled, electorate if we end up remaining (especially without another referendum) is optimistic beyond the bounds of reason.

Over 50% of voters at the last election backed parties that ruled out a No Deal Brexit. All opinion polls show that voters are opposed to a No Deal Brexit. The will of the people is not to leave the EU on a No Deal basis. Mrs May's deal is not the only way to prevent a No Deal. It is the only way to prevent one based on the prejudices that Mrs May has.

True , however there is only Mays deal or no deal currently on the cards.
Therefore without another deal MPs should vote for it imo.

That's why we need to start again. However, I think we will leave without a deal.

I have long thought that likely, though No Deal is going to be Brexit with a whimper rather than a bang.

SouthamObserver said:

Yorkcity said:

bigjohnowls said:

VI Polling all over the place again.

Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.

You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.

WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.

Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.

Certainly a good poll for Labour.
One can see why they would like a GE on those figures.

Given the state of play in Scotland, the actual election result would almost certainly deliver another hung parliament on those figures - quite possibly with the Tories having most seats.

Lab largest party on 299, Con 267 SNP 40 and LD 19 when I put the figures in Electoral Calculus.

Though I would expect that a forced GE would damage Con prospects further.

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

edmundintokyo said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Probably already posted but:

Tulsi Gabbard: Democrat says she will run for president in 2020

Not much oxygen left for Bernie after Warren grabs the Occupy Wall Street people and Gabbard gets the Tankies.

Gabbard is a non starter IMO, but as everyone apart from @HYFUD knows, both Sanders and Biden are too old to run.

Gabbard: VPOTUS?

No way, the VP candidate's first job is to do no harm.

Unless Trump picked her...

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Help!

Grayling has agreed with me:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169

Is there some sort of counselling hotline available?

And I've just found myself agreeing with Lord Adonis

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1083997763304603648

Perhaps we can form a support group?

On the Justice Select Commitee we did a report on the cost-effectiveness of different kinds of incarceration internationally - probably the best thing I helped do in 13 years - and I recall that one part of the evidence was that sentence under 6 months are actually counter-productive, because:

a) They bring casual criminals into contact with serious criminals, who offer you seemingly attractive serious criminal options when released
b) They are just long enough to make you lose your job, which shatters your chance of getting back on the straight and narrow
c) They don't give time for serious rehab work and prisons therefore just don't bother with you - you'll be out in 3 months, so they just feed you and hope you won't be a nuisance.

Much better to give serious criminals longer sentences with good rehab work, and minor criminals intensive supervision and conselling.

+1
Short prison sentences are a silly idea, for all the mentioned reasons and more. Much better to use community - based penalties for anyone who isn’t violent and doesn’t provide a threat to the public.

I agree, but Community sentances need to be properly supervised by a well funded and run probation service.

There is also the small matter that many short sentences are for repeat offenders on whom community sentencrs have previously failed. It is not comparing like with like.

Additionally, it may just mean that courts give 12 month sentences instead of 6!

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

Yorkcity said:

bigjohnowls said:

VI Polling all over the place again.

Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.

You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.

WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.

Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.

Certainly a good poll for Labour.
One can see why they would like a GE on those figures.

Yes, as it does seem to be Labour voting Leave voters that have changed to Remain, while the wealthy county set cultural conservative Leave vote remains intact.

Interesting article in today's Guardian magazine about the people who are attending Farage's rallies. Seem like Tory voters to me, not the sort of roughs who 'attacked' Soubry.

A lot of people are going to be very, very unhappy if the March 29th deadline isn't met..... and I can't see how it can be...... and if the can's kicked down the road for, say, six months they're going to be even unhappier. However, perversely, if there's a GE and a Remain, or Remain-ish Parliament is elected, I got the feeling that they'd accept it.

There already is a Remain-ish parliament. That's the problem!

Anazina said:

A rare poor piece by David, who is usually spot on.

Why is Johnboy Bercow so special? This failing government has visited several constitutional faux pas on the country, yet apparently that’s okay!

So you’re a supporter of people being allowed to sexually harass their staff with impunity?

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

Yorkcity said:

bigjohnowls said:

VI Polling all over the place again.

Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.

You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.

WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.

Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.

Certainly a good poll for Labour.
One can see why they would like a GE on those figures.

Yes, as it does seem to be Labour voting Leave voters that have changed to Remain, while the wealthy county set cultural conservative Leave vote remains intact.

Interesting article in today's Guardian magazine about the people who are attending Farage's rallies. Seem like Tory voters to me, not the sort of roughs who 'attacked' Soubry.

A lot of people are going to be very, very unhappy if the March 29th deadline isn't met..... and I can't see how it can be...... and if the can's kicked down the road for, say, six months they're going to be even unhappier. However, perversely, if there's a GE and a Remain, or Remain-ish Parliament is elected, I got the feeling that they'd accept it.

There already is a Remain-ish parliament. That's the problem!

For the avoidance of doubt I mean that if a new Parliament has a 'significant proportion' of MP's who were elected on a Remain, or Remain-ish manifesto.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yorkcity said:

bigjohnowls said:

VI Polling all over the place again.

Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.

You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.

WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.

Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.

Certainly a good poll for Labour.
One can see why they would like a GE on those figures.

Given the state of play in Scotland, the actual election result would almost certainly deliver another hung parliament on those figures - quite possibly with the Tories having most seats.

Lab largest party on 299, Con 267 SNP 40 and LD 19 when I put the figures in Electoral Calculus.

Though I would expect that a forced GE would damage Con prospects further.

Your last sentence is entirely predictable

For balance what does electoral calculus say on last you gov poll of

Con 40% Lab 34% Lib 10% UKIP 4%

We can all sight polls to our cause but if we are honest none of us can possibly know the result of the next election

Con 329 Lab 236, SNP 45, LD 18

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&tvcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=34&LIB=10&UKIP=4&Green=4&NewLAB=&TVCON=25&TVLAB=25&TVLIB=25&TVUKIP=25&TVGreen=25&SCOTCON=25&SCOTLAB=21&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTUKIP=1&SCOTGreen=2&SCOTNAT=40&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017

Go ahead and lets see.

Black_Rook said:

Cyclefree said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/canada-comes-to-rescue-of-sauditeenager-who-fled-death-threats-002d6gg3j

Well, good luck to the girl.

Still, why the rush to help an attractive teenager with her pleas for help on Twitter and the embarrassed shuffling of feet and total lack of action when it comes to Asia Bibi, at rather more risk than this teenager and from exactly the same psychotic death cult adherents?

You've answered your own question. Asia Bibi isn't a pretty young girl and neither is she an anti-social media starlet.

(These shouldn't be the governing factors as to who lives and who dies, of course, but that's the world. Ain't it grand?)

Actually the pictures of Asia Bibi do show her to be very pretty. But I take your point.

The Asia Bibi case just shows up the utter lack of principle and vacuousness of most human rights campaigners. Very willing to emote over cute teenagers and children or those rich enough to pay people traffickers. Completely unwilling to stand up for an innocent women, unjustly imprisoned and threatened by the actions of her own government and terrorists.

And it shows the moral cowardice (vicar’s daughter, indeed!) of Mrs May who, reportedly overruled Sajid Javid and Jeremy Hunt who both wanted to give Mrs Bibi refuge here. One of the junior Ministers who resigned before Xmas also resigned over this issue.

As someone once said people like Asia Bibi are too dark-skinned for the right and too Christian for the left.

I set up a petition to help her along with others. Fat good it will do. Perhaps she’d be better off paying people traffickers to smuggle her into Europe.

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yorkcity said:

bigjohnowls said:

VI Polling all over the place again.

Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.

You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.

WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.

Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.

Certainly a good poll for Labour.
One can see why they would like a GE on those figures.

Given the state of play in Scotland, the actual election result would almost certainly deliver another hung parliament on those figures - quite possibly with the Tories having most seats.

Lab largest party on 299, Con 267 SNP 40 and LD 19 when I put the figures in Electoral Calculus.

Though I would expect that a forced GE would damage Con prospects further.

Your last sentence is entirely predictable

For balance what does electoral calculus say on last you gov poll of

Con 40% Lab 34% Lib 10% UKIP 4%

We can all sight polls to our cause but if we are honest none of us can possibly know the result of the next election

Con 329 Lab 236, SNP 45, LD 18

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&tvcontrol=Y&CON=40&LAB=34&LIB=10&UKIP=4&Green=4&NewLAB=&TVCON=25&TVLAB=25&TVLIB=25&TVUKIP=25&TVGreen=25&SCOTCON=25&SCOTLAB=21&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTUKIP=1&SCOTGreen=2&SCOTNAT=40&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017

Go ahead and lets see.

I think we can both agree that the next GE is entirely unpredictable, no matter the numbers in the polls

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

RobD said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

Yorkcity said:

bigjohnowls said:

VI Polling all over the place again.

Survation Lab 41 Con 38 from last GE most accurate pollster.

You Gov has to be an outlier surely Every YG poll is way adrift of all other pollsters.

WTF are they polling Tory Branch meetings.

Have to say after my first bit of canvassing in ages Lab are in a much better position than at start of GE 2017 campaign and probably better than GE 2017 outcome.

Certainly a good poll for Labour.
One can see why they would like a GE on those figures.

Yes, as it does seem to be Labour voting Leave voters that have changed to Remain, while the wealthy county set cultural conservative Leave vote remains intact.

Interesting article in today's Guardian magazine about the people who are attending Farage's rallies. Seem like Tory voters to me, not the sort of roughs who 'attacked' Soubry.

A lot of people are going to be very, very unhappy if the March 29th deadline isn't met..... and I can't see how it can be...... and if the can's kicked down the road for, say, six months they're going to be even unhappier. However, perversely, if there's a GE and a Remain, or Remain-ish Parliament is elected, I got the feeling that they'd accept it.

There already is a Remain-ish parliament. That's the problem!

For the avoidance of doubt I mean that if a new Parliament has a 'significant proportion' of MP's who were elected on a Remain, or Remain-ish manifesto.

And there lies the problem. How does labour state it's position on the EU and indeed, to be fair, the same would apply to the conservatives

Indeed. Drawing up the manifestoes would be a problem for both parties. 'My' local MP, although she seems to have gone to ground on the issue lately, seems to want a Hard Brexit and is, I believe, prepared to vote against her leaders Deal.

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

The fact that the Austrian Freedom party became dominated by former Nazis probably enhances its appeal

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

The fact that the Austrian Freedom party became dominated by former Nazis probably enhances its appeal

Isn't there something about the genius of the Austrians is in persuading the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler German?

It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility

However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.

On topic, it wouldn't matter how many amendments Mr Speaker allowed if the government had a majority in parliament. The fact that the government feels that it should be able to do what it likes against the wishes of the house is the real problem here.

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Beverley_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

How things are selected for discussion is something of consequence . If the will of the commons to pass something were all that mattered the speaker need not have the power to reject anything. And you seem to have missed the Mr Herdson doesn't seem to mind the actual amendment here. Yes a lot of Tories deeply dislike the speaker. But others are using that as an excuse to pretend that is all it could possibly be. It's also a bit of a side issue to whether speakers should have main party challenger, a view many hold well before this incident.

An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.

He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.

He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias

You are a loyalist Big_G I expect you to say no less.... but if he upholds Parliament's rights the he gets my vote.

Not really.

He broke convention and thereby created a new precedent that even he accepts he needs to give consideration to

He is pompous and his alleged bullying of staff and others demeans his office

Indeed Betty Boothroyd was outspoken in her criticsm of him

As an aside, I am content at Dominic Grieve's success in his amendment.

Bercow may well be all these things. But I am puzzled by the enmity he attracts. I met and talked with him at an awards ceremony focused on women. He was not speaking and did not make himself the centre of attention but was very charming, thoughtful and spent time talking with people, me included, in a way which suggested genuine interest rather than simply focusing on the most important people in the room. And my other half has worked with him on various legal cases and has been impressed. And he is not someone who is easily impressed by anyone, let alone MPs.

So I think there is more to him than the caricature that is often presented. That said, he has not responded well to the Cox report.

Set against your anecdote, he's been found to be a horror to women who have worked under him.

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

The fact that the Austrian Freedom party became dominated by former Nazis probably enhances its appeal

Isn't there something about the genius of the Austrians is in persuading the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler German?

Didn't require much genius given Mozart was from Salzburg.

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

The fact that the Austrian Freedom party became dominated by former Nazis probably enhances its appeal

Isn't there something about the genius of the Austrians is in persuading the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler German?

Didn't require much genius given Mozart was from Salzburg.

Was it at the material time? Alternatively have I, as I might have, mistaken the composer quoted?

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

The fact that the Austrian Freedom party became dominated by former Nazis probably enhances its appeal

Isn't there something about the genius of the Austrians is in persuading the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler German?

Mozart was Austrian. You mean Beethoven.

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

The fact that the Austrian Freedom party became dominated by former Nazis probably enhances its appeal

Isn't there something about the genius of the Austrians is in persuading the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler German?

Much like the genius of some French socialists persuading people to forget the times they either flirted with Nazis or were active members of the French equivalent, as in the case of one Francois Mitterand, for instance.

Conveniently forgetting important bits of your own history is the only way most countries manage to get up in the morning and get on with life.

Indeed; I have, I think heard it said that there were more members of the Resistance than Frenchmen. Even allowing for the female members!

MarqueeMark said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Beverley_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.

He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.

He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias

You are a loyalist Big_G I expect you to say no less.... but if he upholds Parliament's rights the he gets my vote.

Not really.

He broke convention and thereby created a new precedent that even he accepts he needs to give consideration to

He is pompous and his alleged bullying of staff and others demeans his office

Indeed Betty Boothroyd was outspoken in her criticsm of him

As an aside, I am content at Dominic Grieve's success in his amendment.

Bercow may well be all these things. But I am puzzled by the enmity he attracts. I met and talked with him at an awards ceremony focused on women. He was not speaking and did not make himself the centre of attention but was very charming, thoughtful and spent time talking with people, me included, in a way which suggested genuine interest rather than simply focusing on the most important people in the room. And my other half has worked with him on various legal cases and has been impressed. And he is not someone who is easily impressed by anyone, let alone MPs.

So I think there is more to him than the caricature that is often presented. That said, he has not responded well to the Cox report.

Set against your anecdote, he's been found to be a horror to women who have worked under him.

I thought the bullying allegations came from men?

But I agree that the main reason for him going is that he is not the right person to help clean up Parliament, given what is revealed in the Cox report. That is a real horror show.

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

The fact that the Austrian Freedom party became dominated by former Nazis probably enhances its appeal

Isn't there something about the genius of the Austrians is in persuading the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler German?

Much like the genius of some French socialists persuading people to forget the times they either flirted with Nazis or were active members of the French equivalent, as in the case of one Francois Mitterand, for instance.

Conveniently forgetting important bits of your own history is the only way most countries manage to get up in the morning and get on with life.

Treason is a matter of dates.

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

NickPalmer said:

Black_Rook said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

O/T I see the Liberals and Centre Party in Sweden have broken with their Conservative allies to back the Social Democrats. I doubt if that will end well for them.

I don't know why the Swedish Democrats simply aren't brought into Government, as they have been in Denmark and Austria, rather than making continual political martyrs of them.

I know next to nothing about the politics of Sweden, but perhaps the political culture there precludes this in a way that that in Austria does not? The Moderates and their allies may be too afraid of taint by association.

Imagine what would happen if, in a future UK Parliament, a Conservative Government was reliant on a bloc of 20 MPs from a widely disliked party further to the Right of it. The various 'progressives' would have a field day.

The CDU/CSU in Germany could ditch the Grand Coalition, if they assembled an alternative alliance with the FDP and AfD. But neither the conservatives nor liberals contemplated doing a deal with the far Right there, either.

One can argue that the DUP is a far-right party, but I think most people in GB see them as odd more than extreme (and on economic policy they are pretty centrist). Image is crucial here - the fact that the Sweden Democrats were launched by a neo-Nazi is very hard to live down, whereas their Danish counterpart was launched by a completely unclassifiable eccentric low-tax anti-immigrant pacifist (his proposal for defence spending was a loudspeaker on a beach saying in Russian "We surrender!"). Similarly, the Front National has struggled to get past Le Pen (father) equivocating on gas chambers.

Farage spotted that UKIP had to eject anyone with a BNP past. I think that people get used to extreme right-wing parties so long as they don't tolerate any flirtation with Nazism.

The fact that the Austrian Freedom party became dominated by former Nazis probably enhances its appeal

Isn't there something about the genius of the Austrians is in persuading the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler German?

Much like the genius of some French socialists persuading people to forget the times they either flirted with Nazis or were active members of the French equivalent, as in the case of one Francois Mitterand, for instance.

Conveniently forgetting important bits of your own history is the only way most countries manage to get up in the morning and get on with life.

Treason is a matter of dates.

As with much else in life, timing is everything.

Have a good day all.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It has become clear that ERG have convinced themselves that by voting down the deal UK will exit with no deal as they have correctly said that by 498 mps voting for A50 the mps have voted for no deal as default. It is clear that the 498 lacked any form of common sense by not predicting this outcome and if it comes about all 498 mps share responsibility

However, I still believe TM will not allow no deal but will continue to keep it on the table until either amendments to the vote or subsequent actions in the HOC give her the space to remove it without ERG being able to accuse her directly.

She did, after all, campaign as enthusiastically as she ever does, for Remain. And her Deal is better than Leaving on 29th March without one.

History will show that TM achieved a Brexit deal with the 27 Countries of Europe and if brexit falls it will be the responsibility, ironically, of the ERG members

My lack of respect for people like Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, and Boris Johnson is boundless.

On Treason: (may have posted it before)

Treason doth never prosper
What's the reason?
If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!

Cyclefree said:

MarqueeMark said:

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Beverley_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

kle4 said:

An underrated factor in politics is personal liking and dislikes. Bercow has a Marmite effect - lots of people (including me) really like him and find him a wonderful change from e.g. Betty Boothroyd, whose public popularity contrasts with what many of us thought was real favouritism for long-standing MPs over newcomers. And he's genuinely witty, which Speakers usually are not. Equally, many people find him really annoying. But I think he'd be gone if it wasn't for the large chunk of MPs who are fond of him, irrespective of whether he's being helpful.

He should have gone over the bullying fiasco.

He is simply unfit for office and is being kept in place by political bias

You are a loyalist Big_G I expect you to say no less.... but if he upholds Parliament's rights the he gets my vote.

Not really.

He broke convention and thereby created a new precedent that even he accepts he needs to give consideration to

He is pompous and his alleged bullying of staff and others demeans his office

Indeed Betty Boothroyd was outspoken in her criticsm of him

As an aside, I am content at Dominic Grieve's success in his amendment.

Bercow may well be all these things. But I am puzzled by the enmity he attracts. I met and talked with him at an awards ceremony focused on women. He was not speaking and did not make himself the centre of attention but was very charming, thoughtful and spent time talking with people, me included, in a way which suggested genuine interest rather than simply focusing on the most important people in the room. And my other half has worked with him on various legal cases and has been impressed. And he is not someone who is easily impressed by anyone, let alone MPs.

So I think there is more to him than the caricature that is often presented. That said, he has not responded well to the Cox report.

Set against your anecdote, he's been found to be a horror to women who have worked under him.

I thought the bullying allegations came from men?

Kate Emms was a former private secretary who has made complaints about Bercow.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/11/john-bercow-bullying-allegations-step-back-until-inquiry-over

OldKingCole said:

On Treason: (may have posted it before)

Treason doth never prosper
What's the reason?
If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!

If the Germans had won WWII, Petain, Laval, Quisling, and the leaders of a pro Nazi British government would be seen as national heroes.

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

On Treason: (may have posted it before)

Treason doth never prosper
What's the reason?
If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!

If the Germans had won WWII, Petain, Laval, Quisling, and the leaders of a pro Nazi British government would be seen as national heroes.

George Washington is a national hero, and has statues galore and even the capital of the USA named after him.

Lee is vilified and was recently part of a direct action campaign to have his statues and name removed from all places as a racist traitor.

What were the differences?

1) Washington kept his slaves units he died - Lee released his in his lifetime, punctiliously observing his father-in-law's will;

2) One was a shite general who was practically incapable of fighting an effective battle, and the other was one of the most daring and inventive generals of them all and a key figure of the Army of the Confederacy;

3) One won. The other lost.

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Voting for the "best German of all time" got off to a shaky start yesterday after the Austrian ambassador to Germany complained that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose name appears on a list of eligible candidates, is Austrian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/07/arts.germany

Well, German history is incredibly complicated in terms of delineating political boundaries. Technically there was no state of 'Germany' until 1871. Although Mozart was Austrian, his father was Bavarian and both were at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire which technically included most of Germany, albeit in a very loose confederation. Even after the dissolution of the Empire in 1806, there was always a widespread belief (and not just in Germany) that Austria was a German state that just didn't happen to be part of Germany.

Therefore at the time Bach was born Eisenach was part of the state that later transformed into the Empire of Austria (sorry @RoyalBlue)!

So I can see how Mozart might be claimed as German, or very cheekily Bach as Austrian. I can also say I think for the time period we're talking about such labels are anachronistic. Nationality mattered less than language in that place and period. From that point of view, both were German.

It was always said jokingly that Austria had the best PR man in history. He managed to convince the world that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler was German.

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Voting for the "best German of all time" got off to a shaky start yesterday after the Austrian ambassador to Germany complained that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose name appears on a list of eligible candidates, is Austrian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/07/arts.germany

Well, German history is incredibly complicated in terms of delineating political boundaries. Technically there was no state of 'Germany' until 1871. Although Mozart was Austrian, his father was Bavarian and both were at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire which technically included most of Germany, albeit in a very loose confederation. Even after the dissolution of the Empire in 1806, there was always a widespread belief (and not just in Germany) that Austria was a German state that just didn't happen to be part of Germany.

Therefore at the time Bach was born Eisenach was part of the state that later transformed into the Empire of Austria (sorry @RoyalBlue)!

So I can see how Mozart might be claimed as German, or very cheekily Bach as Austrian. I can also say I think for the time period we're talking about such labels are anachronistic. Nationality mattered less than language in that place and period. From that point of view, both were German.

Indeed, until the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, most of Europe was composed of multi-cultural states, with peoples that were found in other states also. Allegiance was to monarch rather than to ethnicity, language or even in many countries religion. Then as now people often had multiple overlapping identities.

Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Voting for the "best German of all time" got off to a shaky start yesterday after the Austrian ambassador to Germany complained that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose name appears on a list of eligible candidates, is Austrian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/07/arts.germany

Well, German history is incredibly complicated in terms of delineating political boundaries. Technically there was no state of 'Germany' until 1871. Although Mozart was Austrian, his father was Bavarian and both were at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire which technically included most of Germany, albeit in a very loose confederation. Even after the dissolution of the Empire in 1806, there was always a widespread belief (and not just in Germany) that Austria was a German state that just didn't happen to be part of Germany.

Therefore at the time Bach was born Eisenach was part of the state that later transformed into the Empire of Austria (sorry @RoyalBlue)!

So I can see how Mozart might be claimed as German, or very cheekily Bach as Austrian. I can also say I think for the time period we're talking about such labels are anachronistic. Nationality mattered less than language in that place and period. From that point of view, both were German.

Indeed, until the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, most of Europe was composed of multi-cultural states, with peoples that were found in other states also. Allegiance was to monarch rather than to ethnicity, language or even in many countries religion. Then as now people often had multiple overlapping identities.

Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.

Germans effectively ruled Russia, for much of the 18 th century

https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1084066679037009921

Sean_F said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Voting for the "best German of all time" got off to a shaky start yesterday after the Austrian ambassador to Germany complained that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose name appears on a list of eligible candidates, is Austrian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/07/arts.germany

Well, German history is incredibly complicated in terms of delineating political boundaries. Technically there was no state of 'Germany' until 1871. Although Mozart was Austrian, his father was Bavarian and both were at that time part of the Holy Roman Empire which technically included most of Germany, albeit in a very loose confederation. Even after the dissolution of the Empire in 1806, there was always a widespread belief (and not just in Germany) that Austria was a German state that just didn't happen to be part of Germany.

Therefore at the time Bach was born Eisenach was part of the state that later transformed into the Empire of Austria (sorry @RoyalBlue)!

So I can see how Mozart might be claimed as German, or very cheekily Bach as Austrian. I can also say I think for the time period we're talking about such labels are anachronistic. Nationality mattered less than language in that place and period. From that point of view, both were German.

Indeed, until the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, most of Europe was composed of multi-cultural states, with peoples that were found in other states also. Allegiance was to monarch rather than to ethnicity, language or even in many countries religion. Then as now people often had multiple overlapping identities.

Mozart was a German Austrian, a subject of the Hapsburg monarchy.

Germans effectively ruled Russia, for much of the 18 th century

Indeed. The great Catherine being a German who reinvented herself. Indeed the Germans have done well in reinventing themselves to rule all sorts of countries.

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

On Treason: (may have posted it before)

Treason doth never prosper
What's the reason?
If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!

If the Germans had won WWII, Petain, Laval, Quisling, and the leaders of a pro Nazi British government would be seen as national heroes.

George Washington is a national hero, and has statues galore and even the capital of the USA named after him.

Lee is vilified and was recently part of a direct action campaign to have his statues and name removed from all places as a racist traitor.

What were the differences?

1) Washington kept his slaves units he died - Lee released his in his lifetime, punctiliously observing his father-in-law's will;

2) One was a shite general who was practically incapable of fighting an effective battle, and the other was one of the most daring and inventive generals of them all and a key figure of the Army of the Confederacy;

3) One won. The other lost.

George Macdonald Fraser invented a fictional conversation between Flashman and Lincoln. Flashman tried to tease him by asking what made the rebellion of 1776 right, but that of 1861 wrong.

One succeeded,, the other failed.

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

On Treason: (may have posted it before)

Treason doth never prosper
What's the reason?
If it do prosper, none dare call it treason!

If the Germans had won WWII, Petain, Laval, Quisling, and the leaders of a pro Nazi British government would be seen as national heroes.

George Washington is a national hero, and has statues galore and even the capital of the USA named after him.

Lee is vilified and was recently part of a direct action campaign to have his statues and name removed from all places as a racist traitor.

What were the differences?

1) Washington kept his slaves units he died - Lee released his in his lifetime, punctiliously observing his father-in-law's will;

2) One was a shite general who was practically incapable of fighting an effective battle, and the other was one of the most daring and inventive generals of them all and a key figure of the Army of the Confederacy;

3) One won. The other lost.

The question of whether Washington was a shite General is an interesting one. He did after all win the war! He did it by the method that has been successful in many other insurgencies. He kept his army in the field and substantially intact until the enemy decided the war was unwinnable. His was the prototype independence campaign. Cornwallis won every battle in his southern campaign until his surrender at Yorktown. It is a difference between strategy and tactics that May ignores.

Incidentally, over the holidays I went to see Hamilton (the award winning musical) great fun and deserving of the hype. Who would have thought a biography of an early American politician done substantially in rap by a multi-ethnic cast could be so brilliant and effective?