politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Donald Brind says a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership is now
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Donald Brind says a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership is now a “virtual certainty”
“If you want them to eat chicken, don’t lay out a buffet”. That’s a favourite piece of advice from a Lefty friend who I work with offering training in media skills to progressive folk in the Labour movement and charities. The point of the advice is — focus on your key message and don’t get drawn into highways and byways which will provide the media with negative stories.
Comments
-
Thirst? Again?
It's been a certainty since he was elected IMO.
Edit: and thanks for this, Mr Brind. One thing I would add: we always say we want politicians to state their true views with no spin. It's sad that the only top politician to do so has views which are rather loony ...0 -
Second past the post!0
-
Test0
-
The abolition of Slavery..0
-
That headline will be reusable every week until Corbyn goes.0
-
Hand of God.
https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/dot-commons-diary/so-why-did-you-leave-parliament-ed-balls-gets-grilling
Ed Balls interview.0 -
It all makes a leadership challenge – don’t ask me when or how – a virtual certainty.
So.
That sort of certainty then.
0 -
War hero? Seems a bit OTT.0
-
Mr. Jessop, it's like when people say they want honesty in a relationship.
"Does my bum look big in this?"
"Yes. It's a dress. It can't bend light."0 -
My answer is: Forget it.
Labour voters voted Corbyn because he is less crap than others, Dan Jarvis is still crappier somewhere between the level of Liz Kendall and Burnham.
People won't vote for Jarvis simply because he was in the SAS once and went to a gathering of Labour Women.
As they say: "Where's the beef ? "0 -
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.0 -
Jarvis wasn't in the SAS.0
-
Unlike Leicester, I hope.foxinsoxuk said:Second past the post!
Mr Sox, I know that we superior folk from Derbyshire look down on you poor unfortunate Leicesterarians, but I still want Leicester to come top this year.
Up the East Midlands!
0 -
MAX PB No one is paying for my meagre state pension I whacked huge amounts into that scheme..as a higher rate tax payer often up into the 60% ..and the measly 5k a year in payback is dwarfed beside the benefits that are being dished out to those who have never contributed a penny0
-
Don't know about Jarvis. If he's serious, he needs to get himself on TV more often to show that he's capable of engaging middle-England.0
-
Or when they ask you 'Do I look like a total slut in this dress?'Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, it's like when people say they want honesty in a relationship.
"Does my bum look big in this?"
"Yes. It's a dress. It can't bend light."
I learned the hard way that you shouldn't answer with 'Well not totally'0 -
Hopping mad and bred like a bunny.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.0 -
This nails it:
At best the Corbyn performance was naive. His aides should warned him against naively answering every question as if it was a chat around the kitchen table. Just imagaine what a series of such interviews would do to Labour’s campaign during a General Election
Corbyn likes ideas. He likes discussing ideas. He will happily chat with anyone - interviewer, member of the public, IRA, ISIS, whoever - about the best way forward. It's in his nature and the kind of discipline needed to answer six different questions with exactly the same answer, as Ed Miliband once did, is alien to him. (Miliband's example is not necessarily a case of how to do it but it is at least an example of aiming for the goal).0 -
On topic, so you want Dan Jarvis as leader ?
I don't blame you.0 -
Personally I think he's a limp cannon.
These are hard times for caring sensible lefties, but one must never give up, although (a new concept for Labour?) action may be needed.0 -
I just said that joke to Mrs J, and she replied: "If you used that line on me, you'd discover that my fist can bend light, at least when it's travelling at relativistic speed."Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, it's like when people say they want honesty in a relationship.
"Does my bum look big in this?"
"Yes. It's a dress. It can't bend light."
That's the sort of conversation that happens when two Geeks get married ...
(I'm not actually sure if it's true: does a small mass moving at near-light speed bend light?)0 -
My assumption would be WWI, WWII and Cold War.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
However, George III was not a 'ruler', and certainly not by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain was a democracy. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination but certainly much more so than Louis XVI, the Directorate or the Emperor ever allowed.0 -
Yes, I think an effective leader needs to operate somewhere in between those two extremes!david_herdson said:This nails it:
At best the Corbyn performance was naive. His aides should warned him against naively answering every question as if it was a chat around the kitchen table. Just imagaine what a series of such interviews would do to Labour’s campaign during a General Election
Corbyn likes ideas. He likes discussing ideas. He will happily chat with anyone - interviewer, member of the public, IRA, ISIS, whoever - about the best way forward. It's in his nature and the kind of discipline needed to answer six different questions with exactly the same answer, as Ed Miliband once did, is alien to him. (Miliband's example is not necessarily a case of how to do it but it is at least an example of aiming for the goal).0 -
Yes. There will be a challenge. The question is whether it's the sort of challenge that brought down Thatcher, IDS, Kennedy and Ming Campbell, or the sort of challenge that Brown, Major, Hague and many others batted away.Pulpstar said:It all makes a leadership challenge – don’t ask me when or how – a virtual certainty.
So.
That sort of certainty then.0 -
Brass monkeys in fragrant harbour. The coldest since 1991 apparently.
On topic, someone like Jarvis gets Labour a hearing. Something the party has not had since around 2008. That is a start, at least.0 -
And one I would defend: Geoge was not the ruler of the country in any meaningful sense and the British were not trying to conquer Europe. Napoleon had many of the same ambitions as Hitler, only without the genocidal racism.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
0 -
The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.0 -
From the moment Napoleon crowned himself Emperor the distinction between him and his enemies became muted.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
That was the moment his defeat was certain, he lost the support of the people who fought for a republic.
From then on the wars became wars between Kings as opposed to wars of liberation from Kings.0 -
Mr. Jessop, I'd guess yes, only on the basis that dilation of time due to high velocity movement can occur when travelling at sub-light speeds [if the speed is very close to the light barrier].
Also, please remember how much your lady wife enjoyed the line when my comedy comes out (hopefully in a few months) 0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA Nah that doesn't work either.david_herdson said:This nails it:
At best the Corbyn performance was naive. His aides should warned him against naively answering every question as if it was a chat around the kitchen table. Just imagaine what a series of such interviews would do to Labour’s campaign during a General Election
Corbyn likes ideas. He likes discussing ideas. He will happily chat with anyone - interviewer, member of the public, IRA, ISIS, whoever - about the best way forward. It's in his nature and the kind of discipline needed to answer six different questions with exactly the same answer, as Ed Miliband once did, is alien to him. (Miliband's example is not necessarily a case of how to do it but it is at least an example of aiming for the goal).
What a crock of pots.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Corbyn's style. His issue is his substance. Opening dialogue with Argentina on the Falklands ffsake.
Anyway Labour knew of these views when they elected him leader so no point crying about it now.0 -
Some excellent anti-Osborne posts on the previous thread, zero response from the Cameroons.
If the dear chancellor delivers a continuity Brown , read the small print, hammer the middle class budget - the conservative party could be in open rebellion.
Events and opinions right now are so volatile, it possible to see politicians' careers and power smashed to bits very quickly.
0 -
Did we civilise Africa too xD ?Sean_F said:
The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.0 -
Some people like to quote the fact that Napoleon was elected First Consul.Speedy said:
From the moment Napoleon crowned himself Emperor the distinction between him and his enemies became muted.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
That was the moment his defeat was certain, he lost the support of the people who fought for a republic.
From then on the wars became wars between Kings as opposed to wars of liberation from Kings.
The methodology was interesting - one Marshall assembled his army, and announced he would shoot anyone who voted the wrong way. Public (non-secret) ballot....
Strangely....0 -
FPT:
That's very debateable. Both Labour and the Lib Dems' standing in the polls is pretty much unchanged from the election -- so far, it's hard to see the evidence that Tim Fallon has "steadied the ship" any more than Corbyn.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we will have to assess whether Farron has had positive effect after the May elections. Considering the point that he took over it was never going to be easy to get a decent press profile. It could be worse: Farron has steadied the ship - Corbyn has scuttled his.
That said, I don't think Fallon has done anything particularly wrong, he just had a hellish inheritance. For all the obsessing over the "elections are won in the centre ground" mantra, the Lib Dems under Clegg took it so far that they now have no distinctive USP in the public mind at all. I don't think any other LibDem leader would be doing any better (especially not Norman Lamb) -- it was always going to be the case this parliament that the Lib Dems would have to wait it out until an issue cropped up which they could make capital out of, and Fallon is probably better able than any other Lib Dem to do that if/when the chance arises.0 -
He's certainly failing on the getting people to remember his name testDanny565 said:
That's very debateable. Both Labour and the Lib Dems' standing in the polls is pretty much unchanged from the election -- so far, it's hard to see the evidence that Tim Fallon has "steadied the ship" any more than Corbyn.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that we will have to assess whether Farron has had positive effect after the May elections. Considering the point that he took over it was never going to be easy to get a decent press profile. It could be worse: Farron has steadied the ship - Corbyn has scuttled his.
That said, I don't think Fallon has done anything particularly wrong, he just had a hellish inheritance. For all the obsessing over the "elections are won in the centre ground" mantra, the Lib Dems under Clegg took it so far that they now have no distinctive USP in the public mind at all. I don't think any other LibDem leader would be doing any better (especially not Norman Lamb) -- it was always going to be the case this parliament that the Lib Dems would have to wait it out until an issue cropped up which they could make capital out of, and Fallon is probably better able than any other Lib Dem to do that if/when the chance arises. (I do it too.) 0 -
Actually, a comparison of Miliband to Corbyn comes out in the latter's favour. If you put a monkey behind the wheel of a car, it's going to crash, but you don't blame the monkey - it's the idiot that allowed the monkey to drive the car who's responsible.Pulpstar said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA Nah that doesn't work either.david_herdson said:This nails it:
At best the Corbyn performance was naive. His aides should warned him against naively answering every question as if it was a chat around the kitchen table. Just imagaine what a series of such interviews would do to Labour’s campaign during a General Election
Corbyn likes ideas. He likes discussing ideas. He will happily chat with anyone - interviewer, member of the public, IRA, ISIS, whoever - about the best way forward. It's in his nature and the kind of discipline needed to answer six different questions with exactly the same answer, as Ed Miliband once did, is alien to him. (Miliband's example is not necessarily a case of how to do it but it is at least an example of aiming for the goal).
What a crock of pots.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Corbyn's style. His issue is his substance. Opening dialogue with Argentina on the Falklands ffsake.
Anyway Labour knew of these views when they elected him leader so no point crying about it now.0 -
Given Scotland's obvious superiority surely a great English achievement is its total subjugation of the Dcots and the appropriation of their material and intellectual wealth. Quite how such a primitive, virtue-less rag-tag of ignoramuses managed to so comprehensively browbeat their better in every way neighbours is beyond me. But it happened.0
-
WWI, WWII and the Cold Wa would only neeed at most 70 years, not the 150 in the original post, so I think it's fairly certain it's Napoleon.david_herdson said:
My assumption would be WWI, WWII and Cold War.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
However, George III was not a 'ruler', and certainly not by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain was a democracy. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination but certainly much more so than Louis XVI, the Directorate or the Emperor ever allowed.
I wan't so much claiming Napoleon was a democrat but that the idea the UK was not tyrannical was mistaken. Before 1832 it is quite hard to accept the claim that Britain was democratic in any meaningful way.
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.0 -
And bankrupt if memory serves. Something about Darien?Sean_F said:
The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
0 -
I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.0 -
It works best with the colour coded words on screenPulpstar said:www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA Nah that doesn't work either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g4ivIid12o0 -
A challenge a certainty? Sure, but what good does it do either side of the party to act like it could happen at any time but do nothing about it?
Corbyn is either clueless or provocative in stoking flames of discontent with blunt and Ill formed opinions on subjects he knows are controversial. Trident is a matter of principle and a fight he can take on, but others he should spin even when opponents bring them up. He certainly knows how to, despite what his hagiographers think, and the very fact he is personally agreeable and thought to be straightforward means he would be able to get away with a bit of such spin easier than someone thought to be an emotionless soda party automaton.0 -
The power of barbarous hordes.SouthamObserver said:Given Scotland's obvious superiority surely a great English achievement is its total subjugation of the Dcots and the appropriation of their material and intellectual wealth. Quite how such a primitive, virtue-less rag-tag of ignoramuses managed to so comprehensively browbeat their better in every way neighbours is beyond me. But it happened.
0 -
Agreed. So far, I can't see much of a case beyond the desperate projections of anti-Corbynites.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
0 -
SO Maybe they were all at a Burns night..0
-
a challenge to Corbyn’s leadership is now a “virtual certainty”
I think we heard the same thing said about Gordon Brown more than once - Ed Miliband too.
0 -
Africa was more advanced.Pulpstar said:
Did we civilise Africa too xD ?Sean_F said:
The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.0 -
Do we have any keen Corbynistas left on PB?
The numbers on Twitter are dwindling fast. I keep seeing buyers remorse from Labourites who've changed their minds entirely.
Perhaps that massive mandate will prove his undoing. Ironic if so.0 -
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
WWI, WWII and the Cold Wa would only neeed at most 70 years, not the 150 in the original post, so I think it's fairly certain it's Napoleon.david_herdson said:
My assumption would be WWI, WWII and Cold War.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
However, George III was not a 'ruler', and certainly not by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain was a democracy. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination but certainly much more so than Louis XVI, the Directorate or the Emperor ever allowed.
I wan't so much claiming Napoleon was a democrat but that the idea the UK was not tyrannical was mistaken. Before 1832 it is quite hard to accept the claim that Britain was democratic in any meaningful way.
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
0 -
Labour now need things to get very bad very quickly, so that they can justify a leadership election and have time to recover. Triggering a leadership election is the easy bit, winning it with the membership they now have will be more difficult.JosiasJessop said:Thirst? Again?
It's been a certainty since he was elected IMO.
Edit: and thanks for this, Mr Brind. One thing I would add: we always say we want politicians to state their true views with no spin. It's sad that the only top politician to do so has views which are rather loony ...0 -
The problem is that Corbyn is a cut price Michael Foot. He has a series of beliefs, but doesn't not understand the intellectual underpinnings of what he believes in. It's all faith. Hence he can't deal with those who aren't of his faith. They are just WRONG.kle4 said:A challenge a certainty? Sure, but what good does it do either side of the party to act like it could happen at any time but do nothing about it?
Corbyn is either clueless or provocative in stoking flames of discontent with blunt and Ill formed opinions on subjects he knows are controversial. Trident is a matter of principle and a fight he can take on, but others he should spin even when opponents bring them up. He certainly knows how to, despite what his hagiographers think, and the very fact he is personally agreeable and thought to be straightforward means he would be able to get away with a bit of such spin easier than someone thought to be an emotionless soda party automaton.0 -
He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.
0 -
Andrew Rawnsley a good read on a Sunday as usual.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/corbynistas-labour-alibis-for-defeat
While the leader remains liked by most of his party’s members, his parliamentary colleagues have to be careful about how rude they are about him. So it is convenient for internal foes to displace their discontent with him on to his office. Good tsar, bad advisers. Seumas Milne, his director of strategy and communications, is currently the most popular whipping boy. But if a leader’s team is not functioning, the ultimate reason is always the leader.0 -
Automatically negates any Tory attacks about him and Labour being a risk to national security.SouthamObserver said:
He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.0 -
Having a leader who doesn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas would be an improvement on the present.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.0 -
Yep, he gets Labour a hearing.TheScreamingEagles said:
Automatically negates any Tory attacks about him and Labour being a risk to national security.SouthamObserver said:
He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.
Jarvis on immigration, say, is very different to Corbyn or Miliband on the subject. And that's even the case uf the message is basically the same.
0 -
For Mr Dair: did you have any objection to my other two examples of something positive that Britain has done?0
-
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.0 -
Spain and Portugal in that era suggests otherwise.Dair said:
WWI, WWII and the Cold Wa would only neeed at most 70 years, not the 150 in the original post, so I think it's fairly certain it's Napoleon.david_herdson said:
My assumption would be WWI, WWII and Cold War.Dair said:
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.Fysics_Teacher said:
OK, how about rescuing Europe from tyranny three times in 150 years? I know we needed help each time, but if we had given up or not got involved Europe would have been a very different and much worse place.Dair said:
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.foxinsoxuk said:
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...Dair said:
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.ThreeQuidder said:
Physician, heal thyself.Dair said:the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
I'm struggling to think of anything that England, the British Empire or the vetigial UK has done for the world which is remotely positive.
At best a good argument could be made for the European Convention on Human Rights and the ECHR which Churchill can claim responsibility for. But sadly it seems the UK wants to turn her back on this outstanding, ground-breaking legacy.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
If that's the best you can come up with...
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
However, George III was not a 'ruler', and certainly not by the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain was a democracy. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination but certainly much more so than Louis XVI, the Directorate or the Emperor ever allowed.
I wan't so much claiming Napoleon was a democrat but that the idea the UK was not tyrannical was mistaken. Before 1832 it is quite hard to accept the claim that Britain was democratic in any meaningful way.
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
I suspect you're channelling your own views rather than engaging in proper history here.0 -
I think anyone but Corbyn makes the Conservative attack harder, but can Labour get rid of him without civil war?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, he gets Labour a hearing.TheScreamingEagles said:
Automatically negates any Tory attacks about him and Labour being a risk to national security.SouthamObserver said:
He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.
Jarvis on immigration, say, is very different to Corbyn or Miliband on the subject. And that's even the case uf the message is basically the same.
0 -
And it's so rare for a political party to recognise how important that is. Certainly Tory MPs don't, or else the succession to Cameron would be a walkover for Britain's only current Heineken politician.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, he gets Labour a hearing.TheScreamingEagles said:
Automatically negates any Tory attacks about him and Labour being a risk to national security.SouthamObserver said:
He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.
0 -
The BBC explains the Trump phenomenon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35382599
Apparently it's just the latest incarnation of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism...0 -
Britain occupied Portugal at her governments request and attempted to conquer Spain.david_herdson said:
Spain and Portugal in that era suggests otherwise.Dair said:
WWI, WWII and the Cold Wa would only neeed at most 70 years, not the 150 in the original post, so I think it's fairly certain it's Napoleon.
I wan't so much claiming Napoleon was a democrat but that the idea the UK was not tyrannical was mistaken. Before 1832 it is quite hard to accept the claim that Britain was democratic in any meaningful way.
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
I suspect you're channelling your own views rather than engaging in proper history here.
France occupieed Spain at her governments request and attempted to conquer Portugal.
Potayto, Potahto.0 -
The kingdom of Hanover was not a British possession, the United Netherlands was held before we lost Calais for the last time - after that it was expeditionary forces only- the others are islands and therefore by definition not part of continental Europe.Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
A more valid example would be North-western Germany 1945-49.
EDIT - or are you thinking of William and Mary, unaware that they ran Holland and England (and Ireland and Scotland) as separate countries?0 -
The last four of those are not "continental Europe". Hannover was a personal union of the crowns rather than a British possession.Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.0 -
Yes, it's a tactic as old as time. Sometimes, rarely, the advisers really are the cause (but then who appointed them?), or at least make it worse, but if the leader is bad, truly bad, eventually one has to go after them directly if one is to take care of the problem. The Parliamentarians fought a war against their king and still thought they could make it work with him afterwards (notably in the run up to the war they had gone after his advisers and his wife) but the fact was Charles I was simply not ever going to work with them in the way they wanted, as they discovered.ThreeQuidder said:Andrew Rawnsley a good read on a Sunday as usual.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/corbynistas-labour-alibis-for-defeat
While the leader remains liked by most of his party’s members, his parliamentary colleagues have to be careful about how rude they are about him. So it is convenient for internal foes to displace their discontent with him on to his office. Good tsar, bad advisers. Seumas Milne, his director of strategy and communications, is currently the most popular whipping boy. But if a leader’s team is not functioning, the ultimate reason is always the leader.
0 -
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
0 -
It would actually be kind of hilarious if he wins and is a decent president, who just happens to say some stupidly offensive things from time to time.williamglenn said:The BBC explains the Trump phenomenon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35382599
Apparently it's just the latest incarnation of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism...0 -
Jarvis is a Tory.SouthamObserver said:
He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_RepublicFysics_Teacher said:
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy
That was 30 years after we lost Calais.0 -
Trump reminds me of Corbyn in many ways actually. I mean obviously they're different, but y'know.kle4 said:
It would actually be kind of hilarious if he wins and is a decent president, who just happens to say some stupidly offensive things from time to time.williamglenn said:The BBC explains the Trump phenomenon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35382599
Apparently it's just the latest incarnation of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism...0 -
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.Fysics_Teacher said:
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".0 -
Corbynistas very stroppy under Andrew Rawnsley piece, most amusing http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/corbynistas-labour-alibis-for-defeat0
-
A lot of people are without realising it, even if they hate Tories. It's remarkable.Sean_F said:
Jarvis is a Tory.SouthamObserver said:
He can't do any worse than the last three in charge. Before we get onto "interesting" ideas, let's have a bit of competence. Jarvis represents a traditional working class Labour seat. You should read his stuff on UKIP. He gets it. The art of good leadership is to recognise the strengths and abilities of others, and to delegate to them. I suspect Jarvis also gets that.Danny565 said:I'm still yet to see what makes Dan Jarvis a good leadership candidate, apart from his apparent personal desire to be leader.
I've read atleast 3 interviews with him in the last few weeks, and he hasn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas in any of them.0 -
Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?ThreeQuidder said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_RepublicFysics_Teacher said:
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy
That was 30 years after we lost Calais.
0 -
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).Dair said:
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.Fysics_Teacher said:
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".
0 -
But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.Fysics_Teacher said:
Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?ThreeQuidder said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_RepublicFysics_Teacher said:
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy
That was 30 years after we lost Calais.
As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.
As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.0 -
The real Tories are the Corbynistas - everything they do makes a 2nd CON win more likely.0
-
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.Fysics_Teacher said:
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).Dair said:To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".0 -
He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...Dair said:
But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.Fysics_Teacher said:
Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?ThreeQuidder said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_RepublicFysics_Teacher said:
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy
That was 30 years after we lost Calais.
As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.
As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.0 -
Did it have its own foreign policy?Dair said:
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.Fysics_Teacher said:
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).Dair said:To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".
0 -
I believe that the invasion of Russia was to remove the threat of Russia to the HRE which was his buffer.Fysics_Teacher said:
He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...Dair said:
But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.
As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.
As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.0 -
If someone is to challenge Corbyn for leadership of the Labour party they're going to have to find a way to get the very Corbynite membership of Labour to vote for them. If Corbyn is dethroned he can always compete for the ensuing leadership election - which he would win. Labour is a lost cause to the moderates. If they want to lead something they're going to have to start a new party.0
-
I assume HRE is Holy Roman Empire, or what is now basically Germany?Dair said:
I believe that the invasion of Russia was to remove the threat of Russia to the HRE which was his buffer.Fysics_Teacher said:
He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...Dair said:
But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.
As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.
As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.
0 -
If they ever come to see that, I fear their heads will explode.MikeSmithson said:The real Tories are the Corbynistas - everything they do makes a 2nd CON win more likely.
Personally, for all their vitriol against Tories, if someone is a Corbynista and doesn't think Labour can win under him (or at least set up the circumstance where someone else with the same views could), then they clearly don't hate Tories as much as they say they do, as they regard non-Corbyn Labour governments as just as bad or worse, and therefore being run by Tories is not the worst thing in the world as they would no doubt claim. In other words, their Tory hate speech is just that of a poseur.
If they think Corbyn can win, well, I think they are wrong, but at least they are being honest with themselves.Dair said:
It's not my area of expertise, but if that was the intention, it seems to have drifted after his initial successes to something more.Fysics_Teacher said:
But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.ThreeQuidder said:
Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?Fysics_Teacher said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_RepublicDair said:
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Fysics_Teacher said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Dair said:
C
Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy
That was 30 years after we lost Calais.
As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.
As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.0 -
Yes. Because the implied deal with United Netherlands and Hannover "follow our foreign policy and do what you want" was not what happened with Scotland which was still expected and wanted to be come incorporated fully into the Kingdom of England and got a "follow our foreign policy and do what you're told".Fysics_Teacher said:
Did it have its own foreign policy?Dair said:
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.Fysics_Teacher said:
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).Dair said:To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".
Plus of course, England wasn't particularly stable during the period anyway, culminating in it not even being a Kingdom (and outside Personal Union) for 11 years during which Scotland was occupied. Or "being assisted by invited guests". Or completely independent. Depending on your point of view and interpretation.0 -
I do appreciate Don is not having any truck with Prescott's distraction attack on the BBC for what questions they were asking (the implications of the attack being 'you should only ask about the things we want you to ask about')0
-
A never ending cycle, it would seem.Dair said:
I believe that the invasion of Russia was to remove the threat of Russia to the HRE which was his buffer.Fysics_Teacher said:
He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...Dair said:
But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.
As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.
As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.0 -
There was a widespread view that France was entitled to expand as far as its natural frontiers, including the Rhineland and Belgium. Metternich still offered that deal to Napoleon as late as May 1813. But, Napoleon wanted far more.Dair said:
But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.Fysics_Teacher said:
Thanks for that. Would it be fair to say then that for the last four centuries or so Britsh territorial ambitions in Europe have been based on securing decent naval bases rather than anything much more substantial?ThreeQuidder said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_RepublicFysics_Teacher said:
I phrased myself poorly: by continental I ment mainland, not islands (I think you missed Corfu and the Baliaric (sp?) islands). Were the first two actually British or was it just that we shared a monarch?Dair said:
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.Fysics_Teacher said:
You are correct that I ment the Napolionic wars and I agree that Britain was not the democratic state it is now, but my point is that Napoleon was trying to conquer most of Europe and we were trying to stop him, not replace him. Other than Gibraltar I can't think of a part of continental Europe that has been a British possession since we got chucked out of Calais.Dair said:
Certainly for any conquered nation or province, I suspect the average man in the street would have been more favourable to Napoleonic rule than that of the British Empire.
Elizabeth I [...] agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy
That was 30 years after we lost Calais.
As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.
As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.0 -
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.Dair said:
Yes. Because the implied deal with United Netherlands and Hannover "follow our foreign policy and do what you want" was not what happened with Scotland which was still expected and wanted to be come incorporated fully into the Kingdom of England and got a "follow our foreign policy and do what you're told".Fysics_Teacher said:
Did it have its own foreign policy?Dair said:
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.Fysics_Teacher said:
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).Dair said:To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".
Plus of course, England wasn't particularly stable during the period anyway, culminating in it not even being a Kingdom (and outside Personal Union) for 11 years during which Scotland was occupied. Or "being assisted by invited guests". Or completely independent. Depending on your point of view and interpretation.
0 -
Third. The second already happened.MikeSmithson said:The real Tories are the Corbynistas - everything they do makes a 2nd CON win more likely.
0 -
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.Fysics_Teacher said:
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.Dair said:
Yes. Because the implied deal with United Netherlands and Hannover "follow our foreign policy and do what you want" was not what happened with Scotland which was still expected and wanted to be come incorporated fully into the Kingdom of England and got a "follow our foreign policy and do what you're told".Fysics_Teacher said:
Did it have its own foreign policy?Dair said:
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.Fysics_Teacher said:
Did Scotland have a similar relationship with England after the James I/VI? Genuine question as we are getting widely away from my area of expertise (astrophysics).Dair said:To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
The differences between Personal Unions, Possessions, Occupations can be dramatic or moot, my core point would be that none of those territories had a distinct foreign policy over the period of Union/Possession/Occupation which is no different to the Continental System which was not so much one of conquest but more of the present day Russian policy of "friendly influence".
Plus of course, England wasn't particularly stable during the period anyway, culminating in it not even being a Kingdom (and outside Personal Union) for 11 years during which Scotland was occupied. Or "being assisted by invited guests". Or completely independent. Depending on your point of view and interpretation.
The War of the Three Kingdoms was never really covered in history when I was at school. There would have been mention of the "English Civil War" on TV and such but the context would never have been realised due to the incorrect naming (which still continues to some extent today).0 -
[Momentum]ThreeQuidder said:
Third. The second already happened.MikeSmithson said:The real Tories are the Corbynistas - everything they do makes a 2nd CON win more likely.
The third is essential in order to expose the true evil nature of the Tories. The first was in coalition, the second with a slender majority. Only once people have experienced the horrors of a landslide Cameron/Osborne/Johnson administration will they rise up and ensure that Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott becomes Prime Minster. And if they don't, then frankly the people are a bunch of Tories too and deserve all they get.
[/Momentum]0 -
New CBS/yougov polls:
Iowa
Trump 39 +8
Cruz 34 -6
Rubio 13 +1
N.H.
Trump 34 +2
Cruz 16 +2
Rubio 14 +1
S.Carolina
Trump 40 +2
Cruz 21 +3
Rubio 13 +1
Second post Palin poll that shows big movement to Trump in Iowa, Fox earlier had Trump going up 11 points.0 -
CBS
Poll: @realDonaldTrump retakes Iowa lead over @TedCruz just before #iacaucus https://t.co/MuXmg2gS1u https://t.co/BP1k6x5bLs0 -
Given all the property discussions here.
Particularly proud of this one. Finally got around to doing it properly. https://t.co/Pkukerknjk0 -
Only the last GOP debate on Thursday stands between Trump and the nomination right now.
On the DNC side, no one knows what's going on.0 -
France and Russia were allies in 1807. Treaty of Tilsit. Napoleon even wanted to marry the Tsars sister.Fysics_Teacher said:
I assume HRE is Holy Roman Empire, or what is now basically Germany?Dair said:
I believe that the invasion of Russia was to remove the threat of Russia to the HRE which was his buffer.Fysics_Teacher said:
He did install various relatives as Kings in some of those 'nominally independent states' though Don't didn't he? And 1812 was the year he invaded Russia: Paris to Moscow is one hell of a buffer...Dair said:
But that is no different to what Napoleon wanted.
As an Island, all Britain needed was naval superiority. As a continental country with substantial land borders, what France needed (and sought) was a buffer of friendly countries, not colonies but nominally independent states which were likely to follow the French lead on foreign policy.
As far as I am aware, the French border in 1812 was pretty much the same as it had been in 1799. It was not territorial expansion he was seeking but territorial security.
It was Napoleons desire to impose the continental system (a product of the loss at the Battle of Trafalgar) in an attempt to subdue Britain that caused splits. Also Russia had fears of aggression from what we know as Poland today and Napoleon would not guarantee to preserve current borders. So Russia became a less reliable ally and so a threat.
We can always delve deeper into other causes, the complexities and events are almost endless, but maybe he just did it because he thought he could.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
