politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big Democratic party WH2016 question remans – “Is Joe B
Comments
-
Burnham's comments on Miliband
But Mr Burnham said he would “of course” approach Mr Miliband about a possible return by next year. “I’m somebody who respects him greatly. I’d certainly talk to him about it [a shadow Cabinet post].”
Does that really merit a front page story?0 -
You still remembered Boothroyd?TheScreamingEagles said:Betty Boothroyd joins the Ed is crap gang
@ShippersUnbound: Betty Boothroyd says Ed Miliband's "decision to abandon the leadership...started the rot” and was an “act of self-indulgence”.
She retired 15 years ago.0 -
We laughed at the Americans and their "hanging chad" but Labour seems hell-bent on proving that Brits can cock up an election as badly.TheScreamingEagles said:Sunday Times has a senior Labour figure saying 50,000 voters who signed up to vote in the leadership election will not be vetted
0 -
Five years ago, Johnson decided that he wasn't up to the job of Shadow Chancellor. Why would he now be up to the job of Shadow PM?HYUFD said:
Alan Johnson or David Miliband or Dan Jarvis would have done better than all 4, but none are running so you have to go with what there is. Chuka Umunna also might have been good, but clearly his personal life seems to be too much of a concern for him which is why he pulled outglw said:
It is hard to believe that there were people who seriously rated Burnham. He has been behaving almost like a caricature of himself.TheScreamingEagles said:
Even IDS would defeat him in a general election. That's how bad Burnham's been.glw said:
Yep the Tories have nothing to fear from Burnham, judging him by his campaign he seems to be an even bigger berk than Miliband.oxfordsimon said:
The man is more deluded than we ever imagined.TheScreamingEagles said:This is why I will not be disappointed were Labour to elect Andy Burnham
INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY: I will bring Miliband in says Burnham
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNCrpqsW8AAQK8P.jpg
How on Earth did these four end up as the candidates?
1. A man who makes Ken Livingstone look like a moderate.
2. A woman who appears competent, but charisma-less, and frankly looks like she wishes she wasn't running.
3. A man who manages to say nothing, but simultaneously will say almost anything to curry favour.
4. A woman who has made the terrible mistake of articulating some of the reasons Labour may have lost the general election, and as a result is likely to end up in last place.
I think Labour can do better than this, and I really deeply hate the Labour Party.0 -
108,000 Labour supporters have yet to be vetted senior party source tells the Sunday Timesglw said:
We laughed at the Americans and their "hanging chad" but Labour seems hell-bent on proving that Brits can cock up an election as badly.TheScreamingEagles said:Sunday Times has a senior Labour figure saying 50,000 voters who signed up to vote in the leadership election will not be vetted
0 -
Excuse me, Tunbridge Wells has many ex Colonels and Majors and would have been filled with Dad's Army recruits, it may not have been the Red Army but they certainly would have foughttyson said:I think that quote is very clever. But I cannot think of any country in the history of mankind putting up the kind of fierce resistance that the Soviets did in WW2 against all the odds. It is beyond imagination what they were prepared to do to resist the Nazis.
The UK's only real experience of Nazi occupation was Jersey and Guernsey and the less said the better. The Guerns celebrate liberation day (or a better fit collaboration day)- I'm sure there are plenty of blonde headed Guerns still roaming the Island- a legacy of the war. Jersey was quite helpful in deporting its small population of Jews too. That is how resistant our kindred folk were to the Nazis.
The Soviets would think nothing of sacrificing an entire village for a Nazi officer. I doubt we would have had quite the same fight in Tunbridge Wells if push came to shove.JosiasJessop said:
There's an old saying which, whilst a massive broad brush, seems as reasonable summation as you can have of the respective countries roles:tyson said:Perhaps the 30 million or so of Soviets who were killed in WW2 might have had some small effect on the outcome of the war.
Have you read Stalingrad? The bravery of the Russians in the second world war was astonishing. No country in the history of the world has paid such a price for winning a war. And the Russians did win the war- not the British pilots, or the Americans (who played a bit part), but the tens of millions of Russians that perished.
This was the reason that we ceded the East European countries to them.Moses_ said:
To a point the Uk and the few brave pilots of fighter command withstood the aerial onslaught and the British Merchant Navy U boat attacks for quite a while. I agree though without the industrial might of the U.S. It may have been considerably different.notme said:
I dont know, it took most of the world to beat them last time. Was there any single nation alone other than the US, comforted by a blanket of oceans either side, that could have withstood their might?Moses_ said:Let's be honest.
The Germans are good at football and making cars. They are totally crap at world wars.
We were touch and go, and Germany was fighting a nasty war on its other front.
"The Americans provided the money, the Russians provided the blood, and the British provided the time."0 -
A spiffing book indeed, Doc. I gave it to Mr Dancer for Christmas last year and was thinking of it only today - the passage where he bemoans the use of bad language by kittens but accepts that older cats swearing is just a part of life.foxinsoxuk said:
I have indeed read the little known sequel to the more famous "Three Men in a Boat". I can also recommend Jerome's "Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow".HurstLlama said:
The infamous Schwelsig-Holstein question of which Plamestton is supposed to have said,foxinsoxuk said:
I have been reading this interesting book recently that makes a convincing case that Britain and Germany fell out in 1864 over Schwelsig-Holstein, and that the seeds of war were planted then:HurstLlama said:
Have you been on the mango juice again, Mr. Eagles? Without a completely different European history in the second half of the 19th century there is no way we could have been on the side of Germany during their first crack at the world title.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Germans were unlucky, had fate been different, we might have been on the same side as them as World War One.Moses_ said:Let's be honest.
The Germans are good at football and making cars. They are totally crap at world wars.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/0857205293/R1Z1MT9MIY6SBG/ref=cm_cr_dp_aw_rw1?cursor=1&qid=&sort=rd&sr=
“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
Thanks for the link, Doc, it does look a very interesting book and one which I would very much like to read. Alas, it is about the 19th century and I really am up to my armpits in the 14th, with Atlee's administration as light relief. So I shall add the book to my christmas list and hopefully get to it next year.
P.S. As an aside, Have you ever read "Three men on a Bummel" by Jerome? It is, as you would expect, a light comedy but valuable I think for the insight it gives into how the Victorian English middle class thought about the Germans.
Going back to the Bummel. I didn't detect any hostility to the germans. Some admiration and some piss-taking (on issues that we have long adopted in the UK), but no animosity. He does, of course, make some very prescient remarks about what would happen if Germany fell under a bad ruler.
0 -
Russia was also helped by having the largest landmass on Earth and by the Russian winter. It made it almost impossible for the Nazis to conquer, as Napoleon had also failed to do over 100 years earlier. To be fair we were also helped by being an island which meant we had to be conquered by sea or land not just by blitzkrieg. It was no coincidence that Britain and Russia provided the greatest resistance to both Hitler and Napoleon and ultimately provided their downfalltyson said:I think that quote is very clever. But I cannot think of any country in the history of mankind putting up the kind of fierce resistance that the Soviets did in WW2 against all the odds. It is beyond imagination what they were prepared to do to resist the Nazis.
The UK's only real experience of Nazi occupation was Jersey and Guernsey and the less said the better. The Guerns celebrate liberation day (or a better fit collaboration day)- I'm sure there are plenty of blonde headed Guerns still roaming the Island- a legacy of the war. Jersey was quite helpful in deporting its small population of Jews too. That is how resistant our kindred folk were to the Nazis.
The Soviets would think nothing of sacrificing an entire village for a Nazi officer. I doubt we would have had quite the same fight in Tunbridge Wells if push came to shove.JosiasJessop said:tyson said:Perhaps the 30 million or so of Soviets who were killed in WW2 might have had some small effect on the outcome of the war.
Have you read Stalingrad? The bravery of the Russians in the second world war was astonishing. No country in the history of the world has paid such a price for winning a war. And the Russians did win the war- not the British pilots, or the Americans (who played a bit part), but the tens of millions of Russians that perished.
This was the reason that we ceded the East European countries to them.Moses_ said:
To a point the Uk and the few brave pilots of fighter command withstood the aerial onslaught and the British Merchant Navy U boat attacks for quite a while. I agree though without the industrial might of the U.S. It may have been considerably different.notme said:
I dont know, it took most of the world to beat them last time. Was there any single nation alone other than the US, comforted by a blanket of oceans either side, that could have withstood their might?Moses_ said:Let's be honest.
The Germans are good at football and making cars. They are totally crap at world wars.
We were touch and go, and Germany was fighting a nasty war on its other front.
"The Americans provided the money, the Russians provided the blood, and the British provided the time."0 -
Well it has to be done, Labour needs to win over some voters who voted SNP or Green as well as those who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 but Labour in 2005glw said:
It is more than difficult, much of it is contradictory. I genuinely can not fathom how anyone thinks they can appeal to both Corbynistas and centre-left voters, never mind floating voters. Not that Burnham seems to care, he seems desperate to sweep up votes no matter how silly his pronouncements will get.HYUFD said:Corbyn's rise cannot be ignored, and if he does not win clearly a significant proportion of the Labour Party backed him and you need to keep them onboard while also winning floating voters, it is a difficult balancing act
0 -
-
Moses- I'm not glorifying the Stalin regime which included an early collaboration with the Nazis and was horribly vile.
But, I was brought up on all that world war crap that your post brought up- the British tommies, the good old Yanks that won the war. All those stupid jingoistic movies.
Give me one movie that provides a realistic depiction of how the second world war was actually won? How can you put in a movie the loss of 30 million Soviets? How can you even begin to put into any kind of image (film, book, anything) that sort of sacrifice? I cannot image how a country could pay such a price for winning a war. Our nearest efforts with occupation were Guernsey and Jersey- and we really didn't do ourselves proud there.
The worst thing is, even now, we have folk like you popping up and suggesting that the war was won between a combination of British pilots and American money without even mentioning the role of the Soviets. You are a throwback to the movies of the 60's.
You seem to forget the non- aggression pact with the Third reich and the partition of Poland in an unprovoked attack. The unprovoked attack on Finland and the succession of the Baltic States by force etc etc..... Given all of that that it's Interesting that they do not receive your criticism for all that aggression and raping and killing civilians.
Given your earlier post I guess your anger is specifically reserved only for the Brits and Americans then heh?
I am fully aware of Stalingrad. A single battle . The Germans lost due to poor preparation and bad timing.
Perhaps you should also read up on another Stalingrad known as "little Stalingrad" . Smaller but no less bravery was shown The cemetery is full of the young allied soldiers and is particularly moving. Lovely monument in the village square. It's in your neck of the woods
0 -
Lots of Labour figures are saying this but I can't for the life of me understand why Ed not quitting immediately would've made any difference. It wouldn't've changed the problems with the candidates, it wouldn't've changed the leadership election system.TheScreamingEagles said:Betty Boothroyd joins the Ed is crap gang
@ShippersUnbound: Betty Boothroyd says Ed Miliband's "decision to abandon the leadership...started the rot” and was an “act of self-indulgence”.0 -
Technically he did not, he resigned for personal reasons to do with his wife, however being PM is not the same as being Chancellor eg Blair would have been a rubbish Chancellor, as probably would Cameron, but they did the role of PM pretty well.david_herdson said:
Five years ago, Johnson decided that he wasn't up to the job of Shadow Chancellor. Why would he now be up to the job of Shadow PM?HYUFD said:
Alan Johnson or David Miliband or Dan Jarvis would have done better than all 4, but none are running so you have to go with what there is. Chuka Umunna also might have been good, but clearly his personal life seems to be too much of a concern for him which is why he pulled outglw said:
It is hard to believe that there were people who seriously rated Burnham. He has been behaving almost like a caricature of himself.TheScreamingEagles said:
Even IDS would defeat him in a general election. That's how bad Burnham's been.glw said:
Yep the Tories have nothing to fear from Burnham, judging him by his campaign he seems to be an even bigger berk than Miliband.oxfordsimon said:
The man is more deluded than we ever imagined.TheScreamingEagles said:This is why I will not be disappointed were Labour to elect Andy Burnham
INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY: I will bring Miliband in says Burnham
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNCrpqsW8AAQK8P.jpg
How on Earth did these four end up as the candidates?
1. A man who makes Ken Livingstone look like a moderate.
2. A woman who appears competent, but charisma-less, and frankly looks like she wishes she wasn't running.
3. A man who manages to say nothing, but simultaneously will say almost anything to curry favour.
4. A woman who has made the terrible mistake of articulating some of the reasons Labour may have lost the general election, and as a result is likely to end up in last place.
I think Labour can do better than this, and I really deeply hate the Labour Party.0 -
The brutality of the War in the East, staggers belief. However, so does the incompetence of and brutality of the Soviet leaders towards their own people.HYUFD said:
Russia was also helped by having the largest landmass on Earth and by the Russian winter. It made it almost impossible for the Nazis to conquer, as Napoleon had also failed to do over 100 years earlier. To be fair we were also helped by being an island which meant we had to be conquered by sea or land not just by blitzkrieg. It was no coincidence that Britain and Russia provided the greatest resistance to both Hitler and Napoleon and ultimately provided their downfall
I read the other week that of the 18 year olds in the USSR that were alive in 1939 only a small percentage were still alive at the war's end. Never mind the battle casualties that would have happened in any war, the sheer reckless disregard for their own troops lives by the Soviet machine almost defies belief. In the battle for Berlin, at a point remember when the war was effectively won, the Sovs lost more men actually getting to the city than the allies lost from Normandy onwards. Much of that was due to Stalin starting a race between his generals, who each knew the price of failure. The accepted Russian figure for killed used to be 20 million, I would think half of that was, in effect, self-inflicted.0 -
So many different opinions on the multiple factors that led to the cataclysm of the first world war. None seemed to make it inevitable, just more likely. The lesson to learn is that it could have been prevented.HurstLlama said:
A spiffing book indeed, Doc. I gave it to Mr Dancer for Christmas last year and was thinking of it only today - the passage where he bemoans the use of bad language by kittens but accepts that older cats swearing is just a part of life.foxinsoxuk said:
I have indeed read the little known sequel to the more famous "Three Men in a Boat". I can also recommend Jerome's "Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow".HurstLlama said:
The infamous Schwelsig-Holstein question of which Plamestton is supposed to have said,foxinsoxuk said:
I have been reading this interesting book recently that makes a convincing case that Britain and Germany fell out in 1864 over Schwelsig-Holstein, and that the seeds of war were planted then:HurstLlama said:
Have you been on the mango juice again, Mr. Eagles? Without a completely different European history in the second half of the 19th century there is no way we could have been on the side of Germany during their first crack at the world title.TheScreamingEagles said:
The Germans were unlucky, had fate been different, we might have been on the same side as them as World War One.Moses_ said:Let's be honest.
The Germans are good at football and making cars. They are totally crap at world wars.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/0857205293/R1Z1MT9MIY6SBG/ref=cm_cr_dp_aw_rw1?cursor=1&qid=&sort=rd&sr=
“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”
Thanks for the link, Doc, it does look a very interesting book and one which I would very much like to read. Alas, it is about the 19th century and I really am up to my armpits in the 14th, with Atlee's administration as light relief. So I shall add the book to my christmas list and hopefully get to it next year.
P.S. As an aside, Have you ever read "Three men on a Bummel" by Jerome? It is, as you would expect, a light comedy but valuable I think for the insight it gives into how the Victorian English middle class thought about the Germans.
Going back to the Bummel. I didn't detect any hostility to the germans. Some admiration and some piss-taking (on issues that we have long adopted in the UK), but no animosity. He does, of course, make some very prescient remarks about what would happen if Germany fell under a bad ruler.0 -
It would have elevated the candidates as they'd all be compared favourably to him.Danny565 said:
Lots of Labour figures are saying this but I can't for the life of me understand why Ed not quitting immediately would've made any difference. It wouldn't've changed the problems with the candidates, it wouldn't've changed the leadership election system.TheScreamingEagles said:Betty Boothroyd joins the Ed is crap gang
@ShippersUnbound: Betty Boothroyd says Ed Miliband's "decision to abandon the leadership...started the rot” and was an “act of self-indulgence”.
The welfare bill mistake probably wouldn't have happened either.
0 -
It wouldn't have changed the system - but I reckon it might have changed the candidates.Danny565 said:
Lots of Labour figures are saying this but I can't for the life of me understand why Ed not quitting immediately would've made any difference. It wouldn't've changed the problems with the candidates, it wouldn't've changed the leadership election system.TheScreamingEagles said:Betty Boothroyd joins the Ed is crap gang
@ShippersUnbound: Betty Boothroyd says Ed Miliband's "decision to abandon the leadership...started the rot” and was an “act of self-indulgence”.
A few months pause for reflection might have allowed time for a proper analysis of the election defeat and for new ideas to start to emerge.
As it is, that necessary process has not even been properly started.
Only one of the current candidates is attempting to provide a forward-looking set of solutions - and she hasn't been able to articulate it clearly enough.
Two of them are offering variations on a theme of the past 5 years. And one is offering a return to the 70s.
Miliband's decision to walk quickly (and his original design of the new electoral system) are very much to blame for the current mess.0 -
Sky news -
:: The Observer
More than 40 economists have signed a letter of support for Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
0 -
@Tyson
"Give me one movie that provides a realistic depiction of how the second world war was actually won?"
You are now entering the realms of drivel. Movies are made to make a profit or as an instrument of propaganda not to be an accurate mirror on the real world.
As for how WW2 was actually won, I am afraid your simplistic "it was the Sovs" line is just as invalid as any other goodies versus baddies interpretation.0 -
Indeed, Stalin treated his people as cannon fodder in keeping with his being one of the greatest butchers in historyHurstLlama said:
The brutality of the War in the East, staggers belief. However, so does the incompetence of and brutality of the Soviet leaders towards their own people.HYUFD said:
Russia was also helped by having the largest landmass on Earth and by the Russian winter. It made it almost impossible for the Nazis to conquer, as Napoleon had also failed to do over 100 years earlier. To be fair we were also helped by being an island which meant we had to be conquered by sea or land not just by blitzkrieg. It was no coincidence that Britain and Russia provided the greatest resistance to both Hitler and Napoleon and ultimately provided their downfall
I read the other week that of the 18 year olds in the USSR that were alive in 1939 only a small percentage were still alive at the war's end. Never mind the battle casualties that would have happened in any war, the sheer reckless disregard for their own troops lives by the Soviet machine almost defies belief. In the battle for Berlin, at a point remember when the war was effectively won, the Sovs lost more men actually getting to the city than the allies lost from Normandy onwards. Much of that was due to Stalin starting a race between his generals, who each knew the price of failure. The accepted Russian figure for killed used to be 20 million, I would think half of that was, in effect, self-inflicted.0 -
Sure, but Miliband's resignation didn't close off the option of "a few months pause for reflection". I remember it being mooted that Harman could stay leader for about a year to oversee a "review", then have a leadership election in 2016.oxfordsimon said:
It wouldn't have changed the system - but I reckon it might have changed the candidates.Danny565 said:
Lots of Labour figures are saying this but I can't for the life of me understand why Ed not quitting immediately would've made any difference. It wouldn't've changed the problems with the candidates, it wouldn't've changed the leadership election system.TheScreamingEagles said:Betty Boothroyd joins the Ed is crap gang
@ShippersUnbound: Betty Boothroyd says Ed Miliband's "decision to abandon the leadership...started the rot” and was an “act of self-indulgence”.
A few months pause for reflection might have allowed time for a proper analysis of the election defeat and for new ideas to start to emerge.
As it is, that necessary process has not even been properly started.
But the option was rejected on the grounds that they needed to start preparing for the 2020 election immediately, with a new leader. That may or may not have been the right decision, but the arguments for and against a delayed leadership election would not have been any different if Miliband had been the "lame duck" leader in the interim rather than Harman. He would not have had any more authority to steer the party than Harman has if he'd announced his resignation was coming.0 -
seanT- you are a neolithic, simplistic, Millwall fan throwback to a Carry on Movie. Ingerland, Ingerland, Ingerland with a bit of Guns of Navarone thrown in for good measure.
I don't think you have to go much further than Guernsey and Jersey, or the mass retreat to Dunkirk (leaving all our equipment behind) to show quite how we dealt with a realistic threat from a Nazi blitzkrieg- although I think it only took one plane to conquer Guernsey. Mainland Europe fared no better either to be honest.
But the Russians- their sacrifice was greater than anything anyone could possibly have expected. Especially the Nazis- and for some reason the Soviet contribution is airbrushed from history in favour of David Niven and Richard Burton.SeanT said:tyson said:I think that quote is very clever. But I cannot think of any country in the history of mankind putting up the kind of fierce resistance that the Soviets did in WW2 against all the odds. It is beyond imagination what they were prepared to do to resist the Nazis.
JosiasJessop said:tyson said:Perhaps the 30 million or so of Soviets who were killed in WW2 might have had some small effect on the outcome of the war.
This was the reason that we ceded the East European countries to them.Moses_ said:
Fuck off, tyson. The Brits were, quite clearly, prepared to go down to the last man to defend Our Island. What do you think the Blitz was? The Battle of Britain? The weapons given to women so they could take out a Nazi as they were raped?notme said:
I dont know, it took most of the world to beat them last time. Was there any single nation alone other than the US, comforted by a blanket of oceans either side, that could have withstood their might?Moses_ said:Let's be honest.
The Germans are good at football and making cars. They are totally crap at world wars.
The only evidence we have for the likely evolution of a German invasion of Britain is the one time the Nazis tried to invade: which is, yes, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain. Such was the bloody nose the Nazis received, despite overwhelming odds in their favour, they called off the attack.
Endex.
The self-hatred of British lefties is a DISEASE.0 -
And to build up a broad coalition of voters Labour need to retain the left leaning Lib Dem switchers and tactical Greens which made up a large chunk of their election vote. That's why choosing Kendall would have been risky as she would have had to have won over a hell of a lot of Tories to make a net gain of votersHYUFD said:
Well it has to be done, Labour needs to win over some voters who voted SNP or Green as well as those who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 but Labour in 2005glw said:
It is more than difficult, much of it is contradictory. I genuinely can not fathom how anyone thinks they can appeal to both Corbynistas and centre-left voters, never mind floating voters. Not that Burnham seems to care, he seems desperate to sweep up votes no matter how silly his pronouncements will get.HYUFD said:Corbyn's rise cannot be ignored, and if he does not win clearly a significant proportion of the Labour Party backed him and you need to keep them onboard while also winning floating voters, it is a difficult balancing act
0 -
@ tyson
I would commend "Come and See" for its unflinching depiction of partisan warfare and counter operations in Belarus. Not easy viewing.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/
I would also recommend "Fortress of War" dealing with the battle for Brest-Litovsk in 1941.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1343703/
Of course Brest-Litovsk was part of Poland rather than Belarus until occupied by the Soviets and a large part of the population deported to the gulags of Siberia.
0 -
Exactly right and why, despite it all, Burnham still remains the best of the 4Artist said:
And to build up a broad coalition of voters Labour need to retain the left leaning Lib Dem switchers and tactical Greens which made up a large chunk of their election vote. That's why choosing Kendall would have been risky as she would have had to have won over a hell of a lot of Tories to make a net gain of votersHYUFD said:
Well it has to be done, Labour needs to win over some voters who voted SNP or Green as well as those who voted Tory in 2010 and 2015 but Labour in 2005glw said:
It is more than difficult, much of it is contradictory. I genuinely can not fathom how anyone thinks they can appeal to both Corbynistas and centre-left voters, never mind floating voters. Not that Burnham seems to care, he seems desperate to sweep up votes no matter how silly his pronouncements will get.HYUFD said:Corbyn's rise cannot be ignored, and if he does not win clearly a significant proportion of the Labour Party backed him and you need to keep them onboard while also winning floating voters, it is a difficult balancing act
0 -
Didnt the government collapse Railtrack by playing games and then create Network Rail? Was there any fallout from that?Malmesbury said:
Nationalisation without full compensation is specifically banned under EU law. playing games to crash the price of a business before the country buys it is also banned. Similar protection for individuals assets.flightpath01 said:
Danny Blanchflower's signature tells you all we need to know.alex. said:Sounds like Corbyn is going to solve the problem of how to pay for re-nationalisation by simply not paying anything...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-economists-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics
The Greeks fell afoul of the last one a few years back when the family of the last King of Greece got a ruling that the Greeks had to give *everything* back they had taken.
IIRC they played nice and only asked for a relatively small amount of property back.
It does seem that Railtrack operated like a bunch of spivs, but the collapse was engineered by HMG.
0 -
tyson said:
seanT- you are a neolithic, simplistic, Millwall fan throwback to a Carry on Movie. Ingerland, Ingerland, Ingerland with a bit of Guns of Navarone thrown in for good measure.
I don't think you have to go much further than Guernsey and Jersey, or the mass retreat to Dunkirk (leaving all our equipment behind) to show quite how we dealt with a realistic threat from a Nazi blitzkrieg- although I think it only took one plane to conquer Guernsey. Mainland Europe fared no better either to be honest.
But the Russians- their sacrifice was greater than anything anyone could possibly have expected. Especially the Nazis- and for some reason the Soviet contribution is airbrushed from history in favour of David Niven and Richard Burton.SeanT said:tyson said:I think that quote is very clever. But I cannot think of any country in the history of mankind putting up the kind of fierce resistance that the Soviets did in WW2 against all the odds. It is beyond imagination what they were prepared to do to resist the Nazis.
JosiasJessop said:
The Soviets had a bigger population, a far bigger landmass and the Russian winter for the Nazis to contend with. We were helped by being an island but nonetheless we still held off the Nazis through the Battle of Britain for long enough to avoid invasiontyson said:Perhaps the 30 million or so of Soviets who were killed in WW2 might have had some small effect on the outcome of the war.
This was the reason that we ceded the East European countries to them.Moses_ said:
Fuck off, tyson. The Brits were, quite clearly, prepared to go down to the last man to defend Our Island. What do you think the Blitz was? The Battle of Britain? The weapons given to women so they could take out a Nazi as they were raped?notme said:
I dont know, it took most of the world to beat them last time. Was there any single nation alone other than the US, comforted by a blanket of oceans either side, that could have withstood their might?Moses_ said:Let's be honest.
The Germans are good at football and making cars. They are totally crap at world wars.
The only evidence we have for the likely evolution of a German invasion of Britain is the one time the Nazis tried to invade: which is, yes, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain. Such was the bloody nose the Nazis received, despite overwhelming odds in their favour, they called off the attack.
Endex.
The self-hatred of British lefties is a DISEASE.0 -
But this is merely the leadership process of what is in effect a private club, so it's not as concerning.glw said:
We laughed at the Americans and their "hanging chad" but Labour seems hell-bent on proving that Brits can cock up an election as badly.TheScreamingEagles said:Sunday Times has a senior Labour figure saying 50,000 voters who signed up to vote in the leadership election will not be vetted
0 -
Well, thats me done for the night. Thanks to all for some interesting conversation.
God bless.0 -
The decision to have such a long process is probably the worst they could have taken.Danny565 said:
Sure, but Miliband's resignation didn't close off the option of "a few months pause for reflection". I remember it being mooted that Harman could stay leader for about a year to oversee a "review", then have a leadership election in 2016.oxfordsimon said:
It wouldn't have changed the system - but I reckon it might have changed the candidates.Danny565 said:
Lots of Labour figures are saying this but I can't for the life of me understand why Ed not quitting immediately would've made any difference. It wouldn't've changed the problems with the candidates, it wouldn't've changed the leadership election system.TheScreamingEagles said:Betty Boothroyd joins the Ed is crap gang
@ShippersUnbound: Betty Boothroyd says Ed Miliband's "decision to abandon the leadership...started the rot” and was an “act of self-indulgence”.
A few months pause for reflection might have allowed time for a proper analysis of the election defeat and for new ideas to start to emerge.
As it is, that necessary process has not even been properly started.
But the option was rejected on the grounds that they needed to start preparing for the 2020 election immediately, with a new leader. That may or may not have been the right decision, but the arguments for and against a delayed leadership election would not have been any different if Miliband had been the "lame duck" leader in the interim rather than Harman. He would not have had any more authority to steer the party than Harman has if he'd announced his resignation was coming.
A month long voting period is utterly ridiculous in the modern world. The nomination process was too extended. And the campaign period lacking in real focus.
It has been an utter mess. And I agree that Harman has done her reputation harm by recent events.
0 -
But I grew up thinking that we (England) beat the Germans. All my childhood was based on this view. Education, friends etc...
I don't think SeanT has quite grown out of it mind but there you go.
But when you actually read about the horror that the Soviet Unions endured- unimaginable terror and horror inflicted by an invading country, and how they withstood it- the women, the old people- without anything- you realise just what kind of price they paid. Maybe thirty million dead, maybe more, No one knows. And only after the Nazis got entrenched in the east did the war turn.HurstLlama said:@Tyson
"Give me one movie that provides a realistic depiction of how the second world war was actually won?"
You are now entering the realms of drivel. Movies are made to make a profit or as an instrument of propaganda not to be an accurate mirror on the real world.
As for how WW2 was actually won, I am afraid your simplistic "it was the Sovs" line is just as invalid as any other goodies versus baddies interpretation.0 -
But if they can't run that fairly and efficiently, how can they be trusted to run anything.kle4 said:
But this is merely the leadership process of what is in effect a private club, so it's not as concerning.glw said:
We laughed at the Americans and their "hanging chad" but Labour seems hell-bent on proving that Brits can cock up an election as badly.TheScreamingEagles said:Sunday Times has a senior Labour figure saying 50,000 voters who signed up to vote in the leadership election will not be vetted
0 -
But canvassing results do offer an insight into trends, and August’s results could be significant, Burnham’s camp claims. According to data seen by this newspaper, Corbyn saw a steady increase in his support between the second half of June and the end of July – but it appears that this has gone into reverse in recent weeks. And, additionally, his backers think as much as a third of the potential 610,000 electorate is now undecided. Those around Burnham believe that if they can limit Corbyn to 40% of first preferences there should be enough second preferences from Liz Kendall’s and Yvette Cooper’s supporters for their man to push himself ahead of the MP for Islington North to take the crown.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/andy-burnham-labour-leadership-whistlestop-tour0 -
Enemy at the Gates starred Jude Law as a Russian soldier fighting in Stalingradtyson said:But I grew up thinking that we (England) beat the Germans. All my childhood was based on this view. Education, friends etc...
I don't think SeanT has quite grown out of it mind but there you go.
But when you actually read about the horror that the Soviet Unions endured- unimaginable terror and horror inflicted by an invading country, and how they withstood it- the women, the old people- without anything- you realise just what kind of price they paid. Maybe thirty million dead, maybe more, No one knows. And only after the Nazis got entrenched in the east did the war turn.HurstLlama said:@Tyson
"Give me one movie that provides a realistic depiction of how the second world war was actually won?"
You are now entering the realms of drivel. Movies are made to make a profit or as an instrument of propaganda not to be an accurate mirror on the real world.
As for how WW2 was actually won, I am afraid your simplistic "it was the Sovs" line is just as invalid as any other goodies versus baddies interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_at_the_Gates0 -
@tyson
Also airbrushed are the large numbers of soviet citizens who actively collaborated with the Germans, whether guards at Sobibor and Treblinka or the estimated 800 000 Hiwis fighting in the Wehmacht and Police units by 1943.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?416692-Hilfswillige-aka-quot-Hiwi-quot-in-the-German-Eastern-Army-1941-1945
No nation has a perfect history of resistance to the Nazis. All countries had their collaborators and opportunists.0 -
Fox
You've already given me PBC for music, whom I've seen in Florence a few months ago, and now, you give me "Come and See" which is absolutely head and shoulders the most sublime film about war ever made. Possibly Malick's "A Thin Red Line" comes close, but not that much. Another lesser known, but brilliant war movie is Tavistock- the Winter War which depicts the 1940 conflict versus the Fins and Russians.
I will look out for Fortress of War.
I re-watched A Bridge Too Far quite recently, and surprisingly it is rather good.foxinsoxuk said:@ tyson
I would commend "Come and See" for its unflinching depiction of partisan warfare and counter operations in Belarus. Not easy viewing.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/
I would also recommend "Fortress of War" dealing with the battle for Brest-Litovsk in 1941.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1343703/
Of course Brest-Litovsk was part of Poland rather than Belarus until occupied by the Soviets and a large part of the population deported to the gulags of Siberia.0 -
I mean it's not as concerning for our democratic processes. Certainly it is an issue for labour specifically though.oxfordsimon said:
But if they can't run that fairly and efficiently, how can they be trusted to run anything.kle4 said:
But this is merely the leadership process of what is in effect a private club, so it's not as concerning.glw said:
We laughed at the Americans and their "hanging chad" but Labour seems hell-bent on proving that Brits can cock up an election as badly.TheScreamingEagles said:Sunday Times has a senior Labour figure saying 50,000 voters who signed up to vote in the leadership election will not be vetted
Good night.
0 -
@Fox
I've just looked at the Fortress of War on IMDB. I've seen it and know it as the Brest Fortress- an excellent movie which I have seen a couple of times.
For writing- Beevors "Stalingrad" gets into your head the scale of the horror that happened.
But in terms of poignancy, Sebastian Faulks "Charlotte Gray" for me captures the horror or war, more than anything that I've seen or read. Faulks describes a scene that I don't think I could ever tell anyone without bursting in to tears.0 -
"9th Company" is also interesting. Imagine a US film about the Vietnam war but about Soviet Marines in Aghanistan:tyson said:Fox
You've already given me PBC for music, whom I've seen in Florence a few months ago, and now, you give me "Come and See" which is absolutely head and shoulders the most sublime film about war ever made. Possibly Malick's "A Thin Red Line" comes close, but not that much. Another lesser known, but brilliant war movie is Tavistock- the Winter War which depicts the 1940 conflict versus the Fins and Russians.
I will look out for Fortress of War.
I re-watched A Bridge Too Far quite recently, and surprisingly it is rather good.foxinsoxuk said:@ tyson
I would commend "Come and See" for its unflinching depiction of partisan warfare and counter operations in Belarus. Not easy viewing.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/
I would also recommend "Fortress of War" dealing with the battle for Brest-Litovsk in 1941.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1343703/
Of course Brest-Litovsk was part of Poland rather than Belarus until occupied by the Soviets and a large part of the population deported to the gulags of Siberia.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0417397/
A bit more mainstream rather than art house, but fascinating nonetheless.
0 -
Britain did not, of itself, defeat Germany. For a start there was the Commonwealth and Empire. On the other hand, Britain (in the wider sense) stood alone for acritical year. Without Britain, the US would have found it far harder to commit to Europe, and without both the Soviets would probably have lost. In addition, although the war ended conventionally in May 1945, had it gone on much longer, it would have ended with mushroom clouds over Berlin and beyond, no matter how far into the Steppes the wehrmacht had pushed.tyson said:But I grew up thinking that we (England) beat the Germans. All my childhood was based on this view. Education, friends etc...
I don't think SeanT has quite grown out of it mind but there you go.
But when you actually read about the horror that the Soviet Unions endured- unimaginable terror and horror inflicted by an invading country, and how they withstood it- the women, the old people- without anything- you realise just what kind of price they paid. Maybe thirty million dead, maybe more, No one knows. And only after the Nazis got entrenched in the east did the war turn.HurstLlama said:@Tyson
"Give me one movie that provides a realistic depiction of how the second world war was actually won?"
You are now entering the realms of drivel. Movies are made to make a profit or as an instrument of propaganda not to be an accurate mirror on the real world.
As for how WW2 was actually won, I am afraid your simplistic "it was the Sovs" line is just as invalid as any other goodies versus baddies interpretation.0 -
tyson said:
I think that quote is very clever. But I cannot think of any country in the history of mankind putting up the kind of fierce resistance that the Soviets did in WW2 against all the odds. It is beyond imagination what they were prepared to do to resist the Nazis.
The UK's only real experience of Nazi occupation was Jersey and Guernsey and the less said the better. The Guerns celebrate liberation day (or a better fit collaboration day)- I'm sure there are plenty of blonde headed Guerns still roaming the Island- a legacy of the war. Jersey was quite helpful in deporting its small population of Jews too. That is how resistant our kindred folk were to the Nazis.
The Soviets would think nothing of sacrificing an entire village for a Nazi officer. I doubt we would have had quite the same fight in Tunbridge Wells if push came to shove.
In Russian eyes the choice was between death with honour or with dishonour and humiliation. The choice for Brits was less stark (eg Channel Isles). This is not to devalue the Russian contribution, more to distinguish between motivations. The Nazis judged Russians as sub human - their valuation of Brits was far less severe. We probably had a choice of some kind of settlement - the Russians had none.0 -
"The opposition Labour Party is about to inflict grave damage on Britain. If it picks Jeremy Corbyn, a veteran far-left MP, as leader on September 12th, Labour will consign itself to the wilderness. Worse, by wrecking opposition to the governing Tories, Mr Corbyn will leave Britain open to bad government."
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661662-victory-hard-left-candidate-would-be-bad-labourbut-also-tories0 -
We should know who they are and who decided that they are economists. They plainly lack credibility and are driven by a desire to self promotion, ITV4 style.Moses_ said:Sky news -
:: The Observer
More than 40 economists have signed a letter of support for Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn.0 -
It makes a refreshing change to see the word honour being used in the traditional western sense. The programme sounds interesting, I'll watch it as soon as convenient.RodCrosby said:just a note to anyone who missed one of the best dramas of recent years.
The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies
is repeated on ITV at 9pm.0 -
The unedited version (from "Dan Tube") shows that the crash itself was far more horrendous than a viewer would infer from the sanitised version shown on the TV news yesterday. The bit they showed on TV implied that it was straight-down into the ground, but it was actually a very elongated impact and fireburst.AndyJS said:Just heard about the air crash on BBC news, (been walking in the Peak Distrct). I see they showed the plane just before and after the crash but not the actual crash. Seems a bit ridiculous and nannyish.
0 -
The title is presumably a reference to Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum by Heinrich Böll.AndyJS said:
It makes a refreshing change to see the word honour being used in the traditional western sense. The programme sounds interesting, I'll watch it as soon as convenient.RodCrosby said:just a note to anyone who missed one of the best dramas of recent years.
The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies
is repeated on ITV at 9pm.
0 -
Where to start?
Point of pedantry - Guernsey and Jersey are not 'part of the UK' - never have been.
Both were DEMILITARISED and ORDERED not to resist. Not a lot of point in fighting on an island that can be shelled from Occupied France.
In an island of 24 sq miles where exactly do you retreat to after a counter attack? A bit different if you've got 8,600,000 square miles to play with.
'Liberation Day' is celebrated on the 9th of May - two days after VE day - when the British finally got round to Liberating the Channel Islands - after Operation Overlord the Channel Islands and their German garrisons were cut off from Europe and supplies and left to starve.tyson said:
The UK's only real experience of Nazi occupation was Jersey and Guernsey and the less said the better. The Guerns celebrate liberation day (or a better fit collaboration day)- I'm sure there are plenty of blonde headed Guerns still roaming the Island- a legacy of the war. Jersey was quite helpful in deporting its small population of Jews too. That is how resistant our kindred folk were to the Nazis.JosiasJessop said:
There's an old saying which, whilst a massive broad brush, seems as reasonable summation as you can have of the respective countries roles:tyson said:Perhaps the 30 million or so of Soviets who were killed in WW2 might have had some small effect on the outcome of the war.
Have you read Stalingrad? The bravery of the Russians in the second world war was astonishing. No country in the history of the world has paid such a price for winning a war. And the Russians did win the war- not the British pilots, or the Americans (who played a bit part), but the tens of millions of Russians that perished.
This was the reason that we ceded the East European countries to them.Moses_ said:
To a point the Uk and the few brave pilots of fighter command withstood the aerial onslaught and the British Merchant Navy U boat attacks for quite a while. I agree though without the industrial might of the U.S. It may have been considerably different.notme said:
I dont know, it took most of the world to beat them last time. Was there any single nation alone other than the US, comforted by a blanket of oceans either side, that could have withstood their might?Moses_ said:Let's be honest.
The Germans are good at football and making cars. They are totally crap at world wars.
We were touch and go, and Germany was fighting a nasty war on its other front.
"The Americans provided the money, the Russians provided the blood, and the British provided the time."0 -
What an utter gobshite tyson isCarlottaVance said:Where to start?
Point of pedantry - Guernsey and Jersey are not 'part of the UK' - never have been.
Both were DEMILITARISED and ORDERED not to resist. Not a lot of point in fighting on an island that can be shelled from Occupied France.
In an island of 24 sq miles where exactly do you retreat to after a counter attack? A bit different if you've got 8,600,000 square miles to play with.
'Liberation Day' is celebrated on the 9th of May - two days after VE day - when the British finally got round to Liberating the Channel Islands - after Operation Overlord the Channel Islands and their German garrisons were cut off from Europe and supplies and left to starve.tyson said:
The UK's only real experience of Nazi occupation was Jersey and Guernsey and the less said the better. The Guerns celebrate liberation day (or a better fit collaboration day)- I'm sure there are plenty of blonde headed Guerns still roaming the Island- a legacy of the war. Jersey was quite helpful in deporting its small population of Jews too. That is how resistant our kindred folk were to the Nazis.JosiasJessop said:
There's an old saying which, whilst a massive broad brush, seems as reasonable summation as you can have of the respective countries roles:tyson said:Perhaps the 30 million or so of Soviets who were killed in WW2 might have had some small effect on the outcome of the war.
Have you read Stalingrad? The bravery of the Russians in the second world war was astonishing. No country in the history of the world has paid such a price for winning a war. And the Russians did win the war- not the British pilots, or the Americans (who played a bit part), but the tens of millions of Russians that perished.
This was the reason that we ceded the East European countries to them.Moses_ said:
To a point the Uk and the few brave pilots of fighter command withstood the aerial onslaught and the British Merchant Navy U boat attacks for quite a while. I agree though without the industrial might of the U.S. It may have been considerably different.notme said:
I dont know, it took most of the world to beat them last time. Was there any single nation alone other than the US, comforted by a blanket of oceans either side, that could have withstood their might?Moses_ said:Let's be honest.
The Germans are good at football and making cars. They are totally crap at world wars.
We were touch and go, and Germany was fighting a nasty war on its other front.
"The Americans provided the money, the Russians provided the blood, and the British provided the time."0
