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.
The only way I can see him blowing it is if he has another ill-advised spat with Megyn Kelly that leads to him saying something outrageous. He tweeted this today:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - Based on @MegynKelly's conflict of interest and bias she should not be allowed to be a moderator of the next debate.
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.
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.
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.
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?
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".
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).
Astrophysics. What do you think of this supposed new planet then? Or have we already done that to death. Seems to me it would push the solar system out in what is really interstellar space.
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".
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).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
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".
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.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
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).
Apparently it's just the latest incarnation of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism...
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.
I have to admit, I agree with embarrassingly much of what he says. Not the idiocy about banning Muslims entering the country, but I don't get the outrage about him saying he'd "build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out" (after all, even if one believed in high levels of legal immigration, that is not incompatible with having measures which stop people coming in illegally).
He also speaks much sense on trade rather than this mantra of how "globalisation" means we just have to accept the status quo, and he actually opposes the kind of government spending cuts that all the other Republicans, even the so-called "moderates", are proposing (although he opposes them on the dubious grounds that "President Trump would make the US so rich that no cuts would be necessary").
I have to confess I quite like Jeremy Corbyn - he has put forward arguments and made proposals which have been "unsayable" for a generation or more and in a plural system we should be open to such arguments.
His view on the Falklands is interesting to say the least - in many ways, the islands are totemic for the Thatcher generation but it's nothing to do with that. The islanders, at the moment, wish to remain British - whether that wish is greater than their wish not to be Argentine would be interesting to find out. As you catch more flies with honey than with flypaper. a more astute approach might have been to bribe the islanders but the Argentineans have nothing to offer.
As the song says "don't go back, you can never go back" and successful parties of Opposition win on offering a better future than by turning the clock back to a romanticised past. Jarvis (and it's interesting to see how quickly the Conservative partisans are trying to put the boot in on him already) might be the future and he could always the line to Cameron at PMQs that Cameron once used to Blair.
The problem for Jarvis will be to drag a recalacitrant party back to the centre and offer that alternative to austerity. For the former, poll leads and success will silence the critics pretty quickly - it worked for both Cameron and Blair and for many others before them. As for the latter, Jarvis bumps up against the problem - what would a future Labour Government look like ? It may mean accepting chunks of the Osborne/Cameron agenda and seeking to do things better/fairer (delete as appropriate).
Labour's leftward move was an interesting idea and under a telegenic media-savvy operator, it might have been much more convincing. We imagine left-wing policies cannot win in modern Britain - I'm less convinced. In the modern political environment, how it's said and who is saying it are more important than the content in some respects.
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.
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.
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.
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.
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?
And why pray does any of this matter since Scotland has been an integral part of the UK (with Scottish Kings) since before the colonies of America changed into the USA.
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.
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.
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.
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?
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".
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).
Astrophysics. What do you think of this supposed new planet then? Or have we already done that to death. Seems to me it would push the solar system out in what is really interstellar space.
It looks interesting. The group involved know what they are doing and it is similar to the method that was used to find Neptune (look for anomalies in the orbits of known bodies - for Neptune Le Verrier (and Adams, but he got there too late) used Uranus which had just about completed one orbit since Herschel discovered it.
That is the bit that surprises me: none of the object they are using have gone through much of their orbits. Having looked very briefly at the abstract of the paper, it seems they are using the predicted perihelions (i.e. point of closest approach to the Sun) rather than the full orbits though.
At the moment it is an interesting hypothesis which may well be true: now they need to point a telescope at the right patch of sky and find something...
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.
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.
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.
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.
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?
And why pray does any of this matter since Scotland has been an integral part of the UK (with Scottish Kings) since before the colonies of America changed into the USA.
It started with a comment about not being able to think of anything positive that Britain or England had done and sort of wandered badly off course from there.
I have lessons like that sometimes. I found myself talking about the Opium Wars on Friday...
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.
Having a leader who doesn't put forward any interesting political arguments or ideas would be an improvement on the present.
But beyond looking (arguably) pretty, a bit like Clegg (and there is a warning) what other skill set does he offer. In any event Labour are locked into leftwingery now, like it or lump it.
No big surprise that the GOP Senate caucus is ABC (anyone but Cruz), given how badly relations between him and his erstwhile colleagues have become, with not one person offering to yield him the floor so he could filibuster O'Connell's budget deal.
More of a surprise that the GOP Senators think they have a better chance of holding their seats and the majority with Trump rather than Cruz.
For those betting, I think this increases Trump's chances of getting the nomination - with defeating Cruz now being more important to the Establishment than defeating The Donald.
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".
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).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
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).
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
But beyond looking (arguably) pretty, a bit like Clegg (and there is a warning) what other skill set does he offer. In any event Labour are locked into leftwingery now, like it or lump it.
The first isn't unimportant and arguably one of the things that counts against Osborne. The second, well, we'll see.
I don't agree on Labour being "locked into left-wingery" whatever that means. It's whether Labour are still in a mentality of Opposition starting from the premise that everything the Government does or says is wrong and must be opposed.
The evolution to a more nuanced view recognising some of the positive aspects of the Government's agenda but coming up with ways these might be improved is the challenge and that will show a Party wanting to go back into power. That will combine with the war weariness of a decade in office and problems/crises/blunders/gaffes that the Conservatives will have to deal with in the coming months or years quite apart from the EU Referendum and the succession to Cameron.
A telegenic, coherent Labour leader esposuing a positive non-threatening narrative would be a real threat to the group of selling platers lining up to take over from Dave.
No big surprise that the GOP Senate caucus is ABC (anyone but Cruz), given how badly relations between him and his erstwhile colleagues have become, with not one person offering to yield him the floor so he could filibuster O'Connell's budget deal.
More of a surprise that the GOP Senators think they have a better chance of holding their seats and the majority with Trump rather than Cruz.
For those betting, I think this increases Trump's chances of getting the nomination - with defeating Cruz now being more important to the Establishment than defeating The Donald.
Apparently it's just the latest incarnation of the Salem witch trials and McCarthyism...
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.
I have to admit, I agree with embarrassingly much of what he says. Not the idiocy about banning Muslims entering the country, but I don't get the outrage about him saying he'd "build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out" (after all, even if one believed in high levels of legal immigration, that is not incompatible with having measures which stop people coming in illegally).
He also speaks much sense on trade rather than this mantra of how "globalisation" means we just have to accept the status quo, and he actually opposes the kind of government spending cuts that all the other Republicans, even the so-called "moderates", are proposing (although he opposes them on the dubious grounds that "President Trump would make the US so rich that no cuts would be necessary").
A big problem with assessing Trump is that his candidacy probably started as a joke/ego/marketing lark but was too successful so became real. At the same time, Trump found he could get away with saying anything, and the more outrageous it was, the more he appealed to the zeitgeist of anger against the system. Yesterday, he joked that he could shoot people and still not suffer in the polls.
With a guy with his chutzpah and brand savvy, it is next to impossible to know what of what he says he truly believes or would act upon, if he became President.
You're behind the curve. I made that observation when Branstad came out publicly against Cruz.
So if Trump wins Iowa convincingly, how soon will the field thin out ? My guess is Rubio and Cruz will hang in there for a while and possibly Carson too but the likes of Fiorina, Christie and Bush could all drop out after Iowa.
IF Trump fails in Iowa, presumably momentum moves to whoever wins in the hope that will carry them to New Hampshire.
On the Democratic side, even if Hillary loses both Iowa and NH to Sanders, can we seriously envisage her failing in the south, New York, California or Illinois ?
No big surprise that the GOP Senate caucus is ABC (anyone but Cruz), given how badly relations between him and his erstwhile colleagues have become, with not one person offering to yield him the floor so he could filibuster O'Connell's budget deal.
More of a surprise that the GOP Senators think they have a better chance of holding their seats and the majority with Trump rather than Cruz.
For those betting, I think this increases Trump's chances of getting the nomination - with defeating Cruz now being more important to the Establishment than defeating The Donald.
the usual "we're the best" attitude which is the gut response of any criticism has kicked in.
Physician, heal thyself.
Scotland invented Universal Public Education. For that alone, there is a certain moral high ground.
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.
Theres football, and democracy, and railways...
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Those claims seem somewhat tenuous.
If that's the best you can come up with...
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.
You seem to be implying that Napoleon was the tyrant and George III the benevolent ruler.
That is certainly an... interesting take on history.
The English civilised the Scots. Pre-Union Scotland was a pretty barbarous country.
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.
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.
The United Netherlands, the Kingdom of Hannover, Malta, Cyprus, the Faroes and Iceland.
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.
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?
And why pray does any of this matter since Scotland has been an integral part of the UK (with Scottish Kings) since before the colonies of America changed into the USA.
I have lessons like that sometimes. I found myself talking about the Opium Wars on Friday...
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
You're behind the curve. I made that observation when Branstad came out publicly against Cruz.
So if Trump wins Iowa convincingly, how soon will the field thin out ? My guess is Rubio and Cruz will hang in there for a while and possibly Carson too but the likes of Fiorina, Christie and Bush could all drop out after Iowa.
IF Trump fails in Iowa, presumably momentum moves to whoever wins in the hope that will carry them to New Hampshire.
On the Democratic side, even if Hillary loses both Iowa and NH to Sanders, can we seriously envisage her failing in the south, New York, California or Illinois ?
My guess is that Kasich and Christie will do well enough in NH to stay in with Rubio. I have to believe that that will force Bush out. Other than Trump and Cruz, the others become irrelevant - either in or out of the race.
After that, I don't see much more winnowing until mid-March when the primaries shift from proportional allocation of delegates to winner takes all.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
I still think Martin O'Malley has to take the prize of "least successful presidential campaign ever". He's in a race with 3 candidates, both of the others have flaws in their different ways, he's got (undeservedly) joint exposure with them in all the debates - and yet he's an asterisk in the polls.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
Yes, that is a bit wide in the wandering perhaps. Eh, they can pick that stuff later on their own time.
My guess is that Kasich and Christie will do well enough in NH to stay in with Rubio. I have to believe that that will force Bush out. Other than Trump and Cruz, the others become irrelevant - either in or out of the race.
After that, I don't see much more winnowing until mid-March when the primaries shift from proportional allocation of delegates to winner takes all.
Do you think some of the proportional thresholds in use by some of the states might effectively force others out as well ? A number of the states polling on Feb 23rd have 15-20% levels which are required to get anything at all and some will award all delegates to any candidate getting 50%+1. It's not all proportional so being on 10% is a guarantee of getting nothing in many states.
"Most of the people in the room – including me would probably prefer Labour’s next leader to be a woman – but a feminist and a war hero wouldn’t be a bad combination. I agree with Henry G Manson about Lisa Nandy’s chances."
And here we have the nub of the problem for Labour. The organisation and its members are utterly wrapped up in identity issues.
A person's candidature is based on some asinine diversity tickbox, and these are the measures used as to whether to choose that person or not.
Lets take Jarvis for example. It's all, oh look we have a really big problem with security and defence, but he was in the forces, and quite senior as well, he'll be good. People are already wrapped up with his back story and his identity rather than if he is any good. I've heard a few speeches. Doesnt seem anything above run of the mill junior minister style politician. Relatively articulate, fairly pleasing on the eye. But there isnt anything more.
The Tories occasionally sneak into this as well, with people like Sajid Javid, who have a great backstory, but in reality come across as utterly dull and uninspiring, who if it wasnt for him ticking a diversity box would not be considered leadership material.
That doesnt mean people like Jarvis and Javid are not good at what they do, but their identity holds too much sway and muddles judgement for some.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
It's brilliant, and there's a massive back catalogue. Sadly he only carries the latest podcasts on his site, so I set Juice up to snaffle them every week.
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
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).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
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".
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).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
The War of the Three Kingdoms was never really .
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
Cromwell did command the New Model Army at the decisive battle of Dunbar, smashing the Scottish army. I am surprised that Dair knows little of him.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One was particularly memorable, as we had to do this session on friendship, which required us to, in class, use a sheet with concentric circles to list your friends and family in essentially circles of closeness to you, which seemed designed to cause upset. It also included a questionnaire which seemed to be about seeing how good a friend you were, and you lost points if you put, for instance, that you thought you were a better footballer than your other friends, even if that was perfectly true.
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
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).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked thed.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
The Three Kingdoms bit may be a new name, but the Scots were very involved through the whole series of connected conflicts, so I'm surprised it was not a bigger deal, particularly given the domination of England by force over the others.
"Most of the people in the room – including me would probably prefer Labour’s next leader to be a woman – but a feminist and a war hero wouldn’t be a bad combination. I agree with Henry G Manson about Lisa Nandy’s chances."
And here we have the nub of the problem for Labour. The organisation and its members are utterly wrapped up in identity issues.
A person's candidature is based on some asinine diversity tickbox, and these are the measures used as to whether to choose that person or not.
Lets take Jarvis for example. It's all, oh look we have a really big problem with security and defence, but he was in the forces, and quite senior as well, he'll be good. People are already wrapped up with his back story and his identity rather than if he is any good. I've heard a few speeches. Doesnt seem anything above run of the mill junior minister style politician. Relatively articulate, fairly pleasing on the eye. But there isnt anything more.
The Tories occasionally sneak into this as well, with people like Sajid Javid, who have a great backstory, but in reality come across as utterly dull and uninspiring, who if it wasnt for him ticking a diversity box would not be considered leadership material.
That doesnt mean people like Jarvis and Javid are not good at what they do, but their identity holds too much sway and muddles judgement for some.
I agree with you about Javid coming across as dull, but I think he is at least quite smart and clever. Is current brief is quite boring and the whole department unnecessary, so perhaps he is wise not to be spouting and coming across as a leadership candidate at the moment.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
It's brilliant, and there's a massive back catalogue. Sadly he only carries the latest podcasts on his site, so I set Juice up to snaffle them every week.
Splendid, much obliged.
To reciprocate https:/www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5Aq7g4bil7bnGi0A8gTsawu Extra History Playlist
To be fair I did take your meaning by continental but felt like stretching things a little.
....
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).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
....
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
Given that the Scots sided with Parliament in the outset and that the Scots handed Charles I (a Stuart King, King of Scotland ...) over to Parliament so that we can say that it was as an English King he was executed, then its not surprising really that its all known as The English Civil War. Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms comprised much more than the three English Civil Wars...
You're behind the curve. I made that observation when Branstad came out publicly against Cruz.
So if Trump wins Iowa convincingly, how soon will the field thin out ? My guess is Rubio and Cruz will hang in there for a while and possibly Carson too but the likes of Fiorina, Christie and Bush could all drop out after Iowa.
IF Trump fails in Iowa, presumably momentum moves to whoever wins in the hope that will carry them to New Hampshire.
On the Democratic side, even if Hillary loses both Iowa and NH to Sanders, can we seriously envisage her failing in the south, New York, California or Illinois ?
If Trump wins Iowa he gets the nomination, it won't matter if the others stay after N.H.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she also loses Nevada and the DNC race becomes a sequel of 2008, with the question being will african-americans be enough for Hillary to win. Hillary did win N.Y and California in 2008, that didn't stop her from losing, I have doubts that she can win N.Y this time because she is relying exclusively on the black vote and that's not enough outside of the black belt states (Maryland, Virginia, N.C, S.C, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana)
I suspect that the map will look inverted from 2008, with Sanders winning all the white states and Hillary winning all the black states, Obama won by winning all the black states plus the mountain states plus Illinois:
"Most of the people in the room – including me would probably prefer Labour’s next leader to be a woman – but a feminist and a war hero wouldn’t be a bad combination. I agree with Henry G Manson about Lisa Nandy’s chances."
And here we have the nub of the problem for Labour. The organisation and its members are utterly wrapped up in identity issues.
A person's candidature is based on some asinine diversity tickbox, and these are the measures used as to whether to choose that person or not.
Lets take Jarvis for example. It's all, oh look we have a really big problem with security and defence, but he was in the forces, and quite senior as well, he'll be good. People are already wrapped up with his back story and his identity rather than if he is any good. I've heard a few speeches. Doesnt seem anything above run of the mill junior minister style politician. Relatively articulate, fairly pleasing on the eye. But there isnt anything more.
The Tories occasionally sneak into this as well, with people like Sajid Javid, who have a great backstory, but in reality come across as utterly dull and uninspiring, who if it wasnt for him ticking a diversity box would not be considered leadership material.
That doesnt mean people like Jarvis and Javid are not good at what they do, but their identity holds too much sway and muddles judgement for some.
I agree with you about Javid coming across as dull, but I think he is at least quite smart and clever. Is current brief is quite boring and the whole department unnecessary, so perhaps he is wise not to be spouting and coming across as a leadership candidate at the moment.
I listened to his conference speech.... Utterly terrible. Yes, i agree he is very smart.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One was particularly memorable, as we had to do this session on friendship, which required us to, in class, use a sheet with concentric circles to list your friends and family in essentially circles of closeness to you, which seemed designed to cause upset. It also included a questionnaire which seemed to be about seeing how good a friend you were, and you lost points if you put, for instance, that you thought you were a better footballer than your other friends, even if that was perfectly true.
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
The C stands for Citizenship, which is what I was teaching. We were talking about British values I think.
"Most of the people in the room – including me would probably prefer Labour’s next leader to be a woman – but a feminist and a war hero wouldn’t be a bad combination. I agree with Henry G Manson about Lisa Nandy’s chances."
And here we have the nub of the problem for Labour. The organisation and its members are utterly wrapped up in identity issues.
A person's candidature is based on some asinine diversity tickbox, and these are the measures used as to whether to choose that person or not.
Lets take Jarvis for example. It's all, oh look we have a really big problem with security and defence, but he was in the forces, and quite senior as well, he'll be good. People are already wrapped up with his back story and his identity rather than if he is any good. I've heard a few speeches. Doesnt seem anything above run of the mill junior minister style politician. Relatively articulate, fairly pleasing on the eye. But there isnt anything more.
The Tories occasionally sneak into this as well, with people like Sajid Javid, who have a great backstory, but in reality come across as utterly dull and uninspiring, who if it wasnt for him ticking a diversity box would not be considered leadership material.
That doesnt mean people like Jarvis and Javid are not good at what they do, but their identity holds too much sway and muddles judgement for some.
This is absurd - all parties do this all the time. Why did the Conservatives pick David Cameron as their leader in 2005 ? His record of years of Ministerial and Shadow Ministerial experience - he had only been an MP for four years.
Cameron was picked because, in contrast to Howard, IDS and Hague, he was telegenic, modern, easy going and just the sort of man to woo back Lib Dems and Conservatives who quite liked Tony Blair.
The LDs did the same - we chose Clegg to replace Menzies Campbell for much the same reasons though Campbell was an articulate leader with years of Parliamentary experience, he was pushed aside for a young man to out-Cameron Cameron in terms of youth, televisual appeal and the like and you saw this in 2010.
The next Labour leader will be the antithesis of Corbyn - the next Conservative leader won't be the antithesis of Cameron but he or she will be very different. Stodge's sixth law of politics states "if a Party wants to win it must choose the leader the electorate is going to like not the leader the Party likes". Labour chose Blair because Mandelson (and others) knew Blair could reach deep into the Conservative core - he was young, articulate and if you didn't know better, you could call him a Tory. One thing he wasn't was a socialist and if he wasn't a socialist, his party wouldn't be either and they were "safe" to support.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One was particularly memorable, as we had to do this session on friendship, which required us to, in class, use a sheet with concentric circles to list your friends and family in essentially circles of closeness to you, which seemed designed to cause upset. It also included a questionnaire which seemed to be about seeing how good a friend you were, and you lost points if you put, for instance, that you thought you were a better footballer than your other friends, even if that was perfectly true.
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
And yet many kids don't reach the required standards in arithmetic and literacy.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One was particularly memorable, as we had to do this session on friendship, which required us to, in class, use a sheet with concentric circles to list your friends and family in essentially circles of closeness to you, which seemed designed to cause upset. It also included a questionnaire which seemed to be about seeing how good a friend you were, and you lost points if you put, for instance, that you thought you were a better footballer than your other friends, even if that was perfectly true.
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
And yet many kids don't reach the required standards in arithmetic and literacy.
I'm not opposed to focusing on broader types of education, including arts and things like social values or something (though how you define that IDK) - but I don't see why you cannot do that and make sure absolutely everyone can reach basic standards of the core academic subjects.
I still think Martin O'Malley has to take the prize of "least successful presidential campaign ever". He's in a race with 3 candidates, both of the others have flaws in their different ways, he's got (undeservedly) joint exposure with them in all the debates - and yet he's an asterisk in the polls.
A Liz Kendall-sized mess.
There seem to be hardly any debates on that side. I was betting it was a stitch-up by the party to protect Clinton.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One was particularly memorable, as we had to do this session on friendship, which required us to, in class, use a sheet with concentric circles to list your friends and family in essentially circles of closeness to you, which seemed designed to cause upset. It also included a questionnaire which seemed to be about seeing how good a friend you were, and you lost points if you put, for instance, that you thought you were a better footballer than your other friends, even if that was perfectly true.
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
And yet many kids don't reach the required standards in arithmetic and literacy.
I'm not opposed to focusing on broader types of education, including arts and things like social values or something (though how you define that IDK) - but I don't see why you cannot do that and make sure absolutely everyone can reach basic standards of the core academic subjects.
I got no problem with doing that either, but it should be breadth with merit not the asinine stuff you mentioned.
The next Labour leader will be the antithesis of Corbyn - the next Conservative leader won't be the antithesis of Cameron but he or she will be very different. Stodge's sixth law of politics states "if a Party wants to win it must choose the leader the electorate is going to like not the leader the Party likes". Labour chose Blair because Mandelson (and others) knew Blair could reach deep into the Conservative core - he was young, articulate and if you didn't know better, you could call him a Tory. One thing he wasn't was a socialist and if he wasn't a socialist, his party wouldn't be either and they were "safe" to support.
I mostly agree with this, but I do think that a great leader is just that: someone who leads, makes others come round to their point of view. Perhaps they are the most dangerous as well.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One w
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
And yet many kids don't reach the required standards in arithmetic and literacy.
I'm not opposed to focusing on broader types of education, including arts and things like social values or something (though how you define that IDK) - but I don't see why you cannot do that and make sure absolutely everyone can reach basic standards of the core academic subjects.
I got no problem with doing that either, but it should be breadth with merit not the asinine stuff you mentioned.
Yes indeed. I think things may be different now, ours were half morning sessions 4 times a year, so at least not much time was wasted.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she also loses Nevada and the DNC race becomes a sequel of 2008, with the question being will african-americans be enough for Hillary to win. Hillary did win N.Y and California in 2008, that didn't stop her from losing, I have doubts that she can win N.Y this time because she is relying exclusively on the black vote and that's not enough outside of the black belt states (Maryland, Virginia, N.C, S.C, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana)
I suspect that the map will look inverted from 2008, with Sanders winning all the white states and Hillary winning all the black states, Obama won by winning all the black states plus the mountain states plus Illinois:
I have severe doubts that Hillary is going to win the mountain states.
Would Hillary really fight down to the wire in a contest with Sanders? Surely at some point she needs the equivalent of Thatcher's Cabinet to tell her she can't win and it would be better to stand aside to make way for someone else.
I got no problem with doing that either, but it should be breadth with merit not the asinine stuff you mentioned.
PSHCE is normally taught by teachers of other subjects to fill in gaps in their timetables, so it can be a bit hit and miss. Most of the content is stuff that a committee or minister thought would be a good idea, often without thinking about what it should replace.
I still think Martin O'Malley has to take the prize of "least successful presidential campaign ever". He's in a race with 3 candidates, both of the others have flaws in their different ways, he's got (undeservedly) joint exposure with them in all the debates - and yet he's an asterisk in the polls.
A Liz Kendall-sized mess.
There seem to be hardly any debates on that side. I was betting it was a stitch-up by the party to protect Clinton.
It was a stitch up, by DWS the DNC chair and ferocious Hillary ally.
But the strategy backfired, the though was that by not having debates will protect Hillary from exposure to the voters, but instead it allowed for the internet to fill the void and create the Sanders myth.
But they are right, Hillary does suck at debates, in the last one she tried to convince people that Obamacare is better than Universal Health Care (the N.H.S type) simply because Obama signed it. While Sanders nailed her as corrupt.
Sanders came out of the debate looking strong and passionate, Hillary came out as cold and out of touch.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One w
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
And yet many kids don't reach the required standards in arithmetic and literacy.
I'm not opposed to focusing on broader types of education, including arts and things like social values or something (though how you define that IDK) - but I don't see why you cannot do that and make sure absolutely everyone can reach basic standards of the core academic subjects.
I got no problem with doing that either, but it should be breadth with merit not the asinine stuff you mentioned.
Yes indeed. I think things may be different now, ours were half morning sessions 4 times a year, so at least not much time was wasted.
Another reason I like history - the wandering off course to other interesting topics and areas, endless diversity. I've mentioned before a history series online I like (in particular because after each series they do a 'Lies' episode to cover what they got wrong, different interpretations, exaggerations and so on) called Extra History, which has done, in order
The Second Punic War The run up to WW1 The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan) The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England) The Zulu Empire Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines) The First Crusade Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war) The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement) Justinian and Theodora (Part 2) With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
Thing is, I'm a Physics teacher (although the Opium Wars discussion was in PSHCE. If you don't know what that means count yourself lucky).
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One w
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
And yet many kids don't reach the required standards in arithmetic and literacy.
I'm not opposed to focusing on broader types of education, including arts and things like social values or something (though how you define that IDK) - but I don't see why you cannot do that and make sure absolutely everyone can reach basic standards of the core academic subjects.
I got no problem with doing that either, but it should be breadth with merit not the asinine stuff you mentioned.
Yes indeed. I think things may be different now, ours were half morning sessions 4 times a year, so at least not much time was wasted.
How long ago was that may I ask?
13 years ago. They seemed to be random 'socially relevant' topics, like family, friendship and, once, drugs.
@Stodge. The next Labour leader will be the antithesis of Corbyn - the next Conservative leader won't be the antithesis of Cameron but he or she will be very different. Stodge's sixth law of politics states "if a Party wants to win it must choose the leader the electorate is going to like not the leader the Party likes". Labour chose Blair because Mandelson (and others) knew Blair could reach deep into the Conservative core - he was young, articulate and if you didn't know better, you could call him a Tory. One thing he wasn't was a socialist and if he wasn't a socialist, his party wouldn't be either and they were "safe" to support.
So Stodge is admitting that Socialism is anathema to the majority of voters. Even the word "socialism" mustn't be mentioned if the Labour party wants to be elected. So who needs the Socialist Labour Party? Only about 200K labour supporters.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she also loses Nevada and the DNC race becomes a sequel of 2008, with the question being will african-americans be enough for Hillary to win. Hillary did win N.Y and California in 2008, that didn't stop her from losing, I have doubts that she can win N.Y this time because she is relying exclusively on the black vote and that's not enough outside of the black belt states (Maryland, Virginia, N.C, S.C, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana)
I suspect that the map will look inverted from 2008, with Sanders winning all the white states and Hillary winning all the black states, Obama won by winning all the black states plus the mountain states plus Illinois:
I have severe doubts that Hillary is going to win the mountain states.
Would Hillary really fight down to the wire in a contest with Sanders? Surely at some point she needs the equivalent of Thatcher's Cabinet to tell her she can't win and it would be better to stand aside to make way for someone else.
Of course she will fight to the end, the only thing she wants is to become the first woman president and will do anything to achieve it. But people don't like her style "of anything, even if it's the devil"
It's the Yvette Cooper campaign: "my policies may suck, I may come off as a bad person, but I'm a woman so vote for me"
Hillary will stand aside only if she is forced at gun point by the police.
I have yet to see a Journo ask anyone in Calais why they don't register with the French authorities..nor have I ever seen a Journo ask Corbyn the same question..why does he assume they are the UKs problem
If Hillary loses Iowa, she also loses Nevada and the DNC race becomes a sequel of 2008, with the question being will african-americans be enough for Hillary to win. Hillary did win N.Y and California in 2008, that didn't stop her from losing, I have doubts that she can win N.Y this time because she is relying exclusively on the black vote and that's not enough outside of the black belt states (Maryland, Virginia, N.C, S.C, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana)
I suspect that the map will look inverted from 2008, with Sanders winning all the white states and Hillary winning all the black states, Obama won by winning all the black states plus the mountain states plus Illinois:
I have severe doubts that Hillary is going to win the mountain states.
Would Hillary really fight down to the wire in a contest with Sanders? Surely at some point she needs the equivalent of Thatcher's Cabinet to tell her she can't win and it would be better to stand aside to make way for someone else.
Of course she will fight to the end, the only thing she wants is to become the first woman president and will do anything to achieve it. But people don't like her style "of anything, even if it's the devil"
It's the Yvette Cooper campaign: "my policies may suck, I may come off as a bad person, but I'm a woman so vote for me"
Hillary will stand aside only if she is forced at gun point by the police.
Also Thatcher had already been Prime Minister for ten years and nothing could take that away. Hillary has only this last chance.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Agree in all you say, but Cameron is also of the "C" kind and will swamp us endless migrants and endless rules from Brussels.
From Telegraph The Labour leader said "everyone who wants to come to Britain and has a connection" should be free to submit an application for processing by UK officials. He added that "we're talking 3,000 people... it's not very many"
The Conservatives have a really difficult job selecting amongst all the stupid statements that emanate from Corbyn.
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".
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).
Yes, Personal Union. Although it was one of the more... difficult Personal Unions.
Did it have its own foreign policy?
Yes. Bn.
How is Cromwell regarded in Scotland? Not as badly as he is in Ireland I suppose.
I don't think he is really considered at all. He's not particularly relevant.
The War of the Three Kingdoms was never really .
That's curious, given how central Scotland was to the War, given the religious factors which stoked the catalyzing conflict and which prompted the recall of Parliament in the form of the Short Parliament was very much to do with Scotland, and then of course the impact of Scottish troops on the Parliamentary side through the Solemn League and Covenant, and particularly their switch in support to the Royalists side which caused the second English part of the Civil War.
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
Cromwell did command the New Model Army at the decisive battle of Dunbar, smashing the Scottish army. I am surprised that Dair knows little of him.
I gather there are protests and calls to remove Cromwell's statue from the town square in Balamoray.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Another Sunday another certifiable lunacy from Corbyn ( was it last Sunday or the one before we had "let's spend the money on knowingly useless submarines", or was that hand the Falklands to Argentina - or is that particular gem every Sunday? It barely matters). Look at Germany FFS, many of us pointed out Merkel's idiocy of sending out the "roll up, roll up, you'll all be let in" message and look at the mess they are in now, but Jezza just ploughs on doesn't he like some ghastly political charge of the light brigade.
Surely the other parties must be considering reducing research and campaign staff because none of them are as good as Corbyn for the cause.
So Stodge is admitting that Socialism is anathema to the majority of voters. Even the word "socialism" mustn't be mentioned if the Labour party wants to be elected. So who needs the Socialist Labour Party? Only about 200K labour supporters.
Thank you for referring to me in the "third person" - very kind. I'm not sure I'm admitting to anything at all. The truth is the intrepretation of "socialism" by the media for fifty years or more has been largely negative or perjorative. Interestingly, the Conservatives of the 1940s and early 1950s called Labour "the Socialists" and I suspect that wasn't a term of endearment.
There was the conotation of the Party being directed by the USSR and of its leaders' loyalties lying elsewhere. After 1989, the word has become intertwined with "federalism" as part of the anti-European language.
Tony Blair was able to refute all the imagery and terminology with which Labour had become associated - pro-unions, anti-business, anti-aspiration and the like. He was able to portray the Labour Party he led as a modern social democratic party of the centre or centre-left. The British are happy to vote for social democracy - we've basicially enjoyed or endured it since the fall of Margaret Thatcher (apart from the Brown years).
Cameron's "liberal conservatism" isn't that far opposed from Blair's "Third Way"or social democracy in general. The SDP didn't die, it went elsewhere and took over first Labour and then the Conservatives.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Great post Sean,I think the numbers will start going up with Corbyn's stupid stunt yesterday.
These people seeing and hearing corbyn ,leader of Britains main opposition saying everyone's welcome will get round the world,no worries about that.
So Stodge is admitting that Socialism is anathema to the majority of voters. Even the word "socialism" mustn't be mentioned if the Labour party wants to be elected. So who needs the Socialist Labour Party? Only about 200K labour supporters.
Thank you for referring to me in the "third person" - very kind. I'm not sure I'm admitting to anything at all. The truth is the intrepretation of "socialism" by the media for fifty years or more has been largely negative or perjorative. Interestingly, the Conservatives of the 1940s and early 1950s called Labour "the Socialists" and I suspect that wasn't a term of endearment.
There was the conotation of the Party being directed by the USSR and of its leaders' loyalties lying elsewhere. After 1989, the word has become intertwined with "federalism" as part of the anti-European language.
Tony Blair was able to refute all the imagery and terminology with which Labour had become associated - pro-unions, anti-business, anti-aspiration and the like. He was able to portray the Labour Party he led as a modern social democratic party of the centre or centre-left. The British are happy to vote for social democracy - we've basicially enjoyed or endured it since the fall of Margaret Thatcher (apart from the Brown years).
Cameron's "liberal conservatism" isn't that far opposed from Blair's "Third Way"or social democracy in general. The SDP didn't die, it went elsewhere and took over first Labour and then the Conservatives.
Oh quite. The modern Conservative party, the modern Labour party - until quite recently, and the modern Liberal party are all social democratic in essence. Hardly a hair between them, and thats way the modern voting public are totally fed up with the situation.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Great post Sean,I think the numbers will start going up with Corbyn's stupid stunt yesterday.
These people seeing and hearing corbyn ,leader of Britains main opposition saying everyone's welcome will get round the world,no worries about that.
Like you say,he's a cnut.
And like all Cnuts he can't stop the tide coming in when it starts coming.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Agree in all you say, but Cameron is also of the "C" kind and will swamp us endless migrants and endless rules from Brussels.
Had drinks in Bangkok tonight with a very old friend, who now lives in Australia. He used to be a mild lefty, then a soft centrist, which he remained, as far as I knew until today (we meet v rarely, once a year at most)
Out of the blue, he told me would vote for Trump tomorrow, if he was American, and that he would happily see every single Muslim expelled from "Western" lands. He meant it. And this was entirely unprompted. And my pal is very highly educated.
Yes yes I know middle aged people swing right, but it was still fairly shocking. Western politics is polarising, left and right, but I suspect many more are secretly or openly swinging right, than left.
The issue around islamic immigration cuts across left and right I think. I dismiss concerns that, in general, society is on the verge of widespread oppression of muslim citizens, but also speaking anecdotally, I have had an acquaintence who recently spoke of wishing there was an open season to hunt Tories (granted, this was in reference to badger culling and retaliating that), and who days after Corbyn was elected circulated an astoundingly stupid petition calling on the Queen to dismiss Cameron due to the desire for a new politics clearly shown 'at things like recent PMQs', nevertheless say to me 'I believe in human rights, just not for muslims'.
As I say, i don't agree with those constantly avoiding talking about issues around migration, particular muslim immigration, on the basis that the public will overreact, but there are some, on left and right, who have gotten pretty extreme on it, in rhetoric at least.
So Stodge is admitting that Socialism is anathema to the majority of voters. Even the word "socialism" mustn't be mentioned if the Labour party wants to be elected. So who needs the Socialist Labour Party? Only about 200K labour supporters.
Thank you for referring to me in the "third person" - very kind. I'm not sure I'm admitting to anything at all. The truth is the intrepretation of "socialism" by the media for fifty years or more has been largely negative or perjorative. Interestingly, the Conservatives of the 1940s and early 1950s called Labour "the Socialists" and I suspect that wasn't a term of endearment.
There was the conotation of the Party being directed by the USSR and of its leaders' loyalties lying elsewhere. After 1989, the word has become intertwined with "federalism" as part of the anti-European language.
Tony Blair was able to refute all the imagery and terminology with which Labour had become associated - pro-unions, anti-business, anti-aspiration and the like. He was able to portray the Labour Party he led as a modern social democratic party of the centre or centre-left. The British are happy to vote for social democracy - we've basicially enjoyed or endured it since the fall of Margaret Thatcher (apart from the Brown years).
Cameron's "liberal conservatism" isn't that far opposed from Blair's "Third Way"or social democracy in general. The SDP didn't die, it went elsewhere and took over first Labour and then the Conservatives.
Oh quite. The modern Conservative party, the modern Labour party - until quite recently, and the modern Liberal party are all social democratic in essence. Hardly a hair between them, and thats way the modern voting public are totally fed up with the situation.
So totally fed up with it they continue to vote for the big two just as before, and the retreat from the LDs had nothing to do with disliking that homogeneous nature.
Don't get me wrong, there's a market out there unserved by our main parties and that's why I want smaller parties to do well, but I think they oversell just how fed up with our current political class and parties people are. That, made worse by our voting system, is why the public usually disappoints.
For the context to Corbyn's remarks, here is a video of a mob of migrants (apparently urged on by British anarchists) menacing the home of some Calais residents, yesterday. The locals react quite wildly. But, you know, who wouldn't?
And Jeremy Corbyn wants to let all these people in, and no doubt the next three million, too.
How much coordination was there between Corbyn's team and the British anarchists who coincidentally turned up at the same time? For a British man to shout 'Nazi scum' at local Calais residents is utterly disgraceful.
If Hillary loses Iowa, she also loses Nevada and the DNC race becomes a sequel of 2008, with the question being will african-americans be enough for Hillary to win. Hillary did win N.Y and California in 2008, that didn't stop her from losing, I have doubts that she can win N.Y this time because she is relying exclusively on the black vote and that's not enough outside of the black belt states (Maryland, Virginia, N.C, S.C, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana)
I suspect that the map will look inverted from 2008, with Sanders winning all the white states and Hillary winning all the black states, Obama won by winning all the black states plus the mountain states plus Illinois:
I have severe doubts that Hillary is going to win the mountain states.
Would Hillary really fight down to the wire in a contest with Sanders? Surely at some point she needs the equivalent of Thatcher's Cabinet to tell her she can't win and it would be better to stand aside to make way for someone else.
Of course she will fight to the end, the only thing she wants is to become the first woman president and will do anything to achieve it. But people don't like her style "of anything, even if it's the devil"
It's the Yvette Cooper campaign: "my policies may suck, I may come off as a bad person, but I'm a woman so vote for me"
Hillary will stand aside only if she is forced at gun point by the police.
For the context to Corbyn's remarks, here is a video of a mob of migrants (apparently urged on by British anarchists) menacing the home of some Calais residents, yesterday. The locals react quite wildly. But, you know, who wouldn't?
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
Yes, I thought that was quite special. Basically, if you make it to Calais and look a bit desperate and punchy, we'll let you in and screw the migrant laws- and screw all those people who are queueing in an orderly way for a visa.
So that's 3,000 in. And what then of the next 3,000, or 30,000, or 300,000, who then show up in Calais - as they will, having been told that all you have to do get into the UK is turn up at Calais and sleep in a cold tent for half a day?
Corbyn is a cunt. Perhaps a well-meaning, decent sort of cunt. But a cunt, nonetheless. A seriously malign presence in British politics. He needs to be expunged.
Agree in all you say, but Cameron is also of the "C" kind and will swamp us endless migrants and endless rules from Brussels.
Had drinks in Bangkok tonight with a very old friend, who now lives in Australia. He used to be a mild lefty, then a soft centrist, which he remained, as far as I knew until today (we meet v rarely, once a year at most)
Out of the blue, he told me would vote for Trump tomorrow, if he was American, and that he would happily see every single Muslim expelled from "Western" lands. He meant it. And this was entirely unprompted. And my pal is very highly educated.
Yes yes I know middle aged people swing right, but it was still fairly shocking. Western politics is polarising, left and right, but I suspect many more are secretly or openly swinging right, than left.
I think that's exactly where it's heading because so few Western mainstream politicians or parties will do anything substantive about it.
For the context to Corbyn's remarks, here is a video of a mob of migrants (apparently urged on by British anarchists) menacing the home of some Calais residents, yesterday. The locals react quite wildly. But, you know, who wouldn't?
And Jeremy Corbyn wants to let all these people in, and no doubt the next three million, too.
How much coordination was there between Corbyn's team and the British anarchists who coincidentally turned up at the same time? For a British man to shout 'Nazi scum' at local Calais residents is utterly disgraceful.
That video has now gone viral all over France. There are reports (unverified) that the family have been taken into custody/told to leave Calais, by the mayor - NOT the migrants. The family.
This could just be shit stirring. Cav empt. But the video is damning enough.
Ca suffit.
If true, that is utterly stupid. It merely pours fuel on the flames.
The wheels are in motion - I think union leaders who thought they'd back Corbyn to transform the party are beginning to realise what that means - that it won't necessarily be to their benefit if the party becomes a larger version of the SWP. The question is how to beat Corbyn, which to do you have to peel of soft left members who voted Corbyn because of what he wasn't rather than what he is. For that the party's right has to offer a compromise candidate who'll keep the 'anti-austerity' rhetoric but drop the most egregious Corbynista nonsense. Effectively offer a deal to the Corbynistas who aren't delusional tin foil hatters and pointing out that even if you are on the left of the party Corbyn is possibly the worst advocate for those views you could chose. For that reason I think it will be Nandy over Jarvis as it isn't about who can win the country, it's about who can stop the Labour Party falling to bits.
If the Tories fed a supercomputer data about their opponents, and the likes and dislikes of the public, it couldn't design a better leader for the Labour Party than Jeremy Corbyn.
As I see it Trump has to be at least a 75% shot for NH, so I've swept up anything at that price.
75% on the basis he is a 50% shot for Iowa and a 50% chance losing Iowa loses him NH.
I honestly think the chance of him winning Iowa but losing NH is minimal, as it will largely vindicate his polling position v the reality on the ground.
The when and how questions are critical to address. He doesn't look as if he will go quietly and he has the support of the members for now. A challenge is only worth making if it stands a decent chance of success.
So he either won't be challenged or there will be signs he's losing support among the membership. How patient will the Labour right be? Will they simply decamp elsewhere first?
So Stodge is admitting that Socialism is anathema to the majority of voters. Even the word "socialism" mustn't be mentioned if the Labour party wants to be elected. So who needs the Socialist Labour Party? Only about 200K labour supporters.
Thank you for referring to me in the "third person" - very kind. I'm not sure I'm admitting to anything at all. The truth is the intrepretation of "socialism" by the media for fifty years or more has been largely negative or perjorative. Interestingly, the Conservatives of the 1940s and early 1950s called Labour "the Socialists" and I suspect that wasn't a term of endearment.
There was the conotation of the Party being directed by the USSR and of its leaders' loyalties lying elsewhere. After 1989, the word has become intertwined with "federalism" as part of the anti-European language.
Tony Blair was able to refute all the imagery and terminology with which Labour had become associated - pro-unions, anti-business, anti-aspiration and the like. He was able to portray the Labour Party he led as a modern social democratic party of the centre or centre-left. The British are happy to vote for social democracy - we've basicially enjoyed or endured it since the fall of Margaret Thatcher (apart from the Brown years).
Cameron's "liberal conservatism" isn't that far opposed from Blair's "Third Way"or social democracy in general. The SDP didn't die, it went elsewhere and took over first Labour and then the Conservatives.
Oh quite. The modern Conservative party, the modern Labour party - until quite recently, and the modern Liberal party are all social democratic in essence. Hardly a hair between them, and thats way the modern voting public are totally fed up with the situation.
Technically, 14% of the population is fed up with it
For the context to Corbyn's remarks, here is a video of a mob of migrants (apparently urged on by British anarchists) menacing the home of some Calais residents, yesterday. The locals react quite wildly. But, you know, who wouldn't?
If the Tories fed a supercomputer data about their opponents, and the likes and dislikes of the public, it couldn't design a better leader for the Labour Party than Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe they did and it has?
Are there any buyer's remorse Corbyn voters out there prepared to admit the mistake?
It's all a good laugh now because he's not allowed at present near sharp objects, like power, but even a 1% chance of these buffoons being in charge scares me shitless. It's a world view that seems to presuppose that your own people are the enemy.
And all the while the Govt of the day is not rely being scrutinised in any meaningful way which is never great.
''I think that's exactly where it's heading because so few Western mainstream politicians or parties will do anything substantive about it.''
Its more rabbits in the headlights, I think. They see Europe about to be shattered into tiny pieces, largely as a result of their policies, and they are just dumbstruck.
My guess is that Kasich and Christie will do well enough in NH to stay in with Rubio. I have to believe that that will force Bush out. Other than Trump and Cruz, the others become irrelevant - either in or out of the race.
After that, I don't see much more winnowing until mid-March when the primaries shift from proportional allocation of delegates to winner takes all.
Do you think some of the proportional thresholds in use by some of the states might effectively force others out as well ? A number of the states polling on Feb 23rd have 15-20% levels which are required to get anything at all and some will award all delegates to any candidate getting 50%+1. It's not all proportional so being on 10% is a guarantee of getting nothing in many states.
Sorry, was out shoveling snow to free up the garage and to make a pathway from the barn to one of the paddocks.
The point isn't so much that the likes of Christie and Kasich will get delegates in the proportional states, but that no-one will get too far ahead, given that the leader is still only getting 30%.
I still think Martin O'Malley has to take the prize of "least successful presidential campaign ever". He's in a race with 3 candidates, both of the others have flaws in their different ways, he's got (undeservedly) joint exposure with them in all the debates - and yet he's an asterisk in the polls.
A Liz Kendall-sized mess.
I think Giuliani wins the most dollars spent campaigning per delegate stakes.
I still think Martin O'Malley has to take the prize of "least successful presidential campaign ever". He's in a race with 3 candidates, both of the others have flaws in their different ways, he's got (undeservedly) joint exposure with them in all the debates - and yet he's an asterisk in the polls.
A Liz Kendall-sized mess.
I think Giuliani wins the most dollars spent campaigning per delegate stakes.
Jeb Bush is about to set an unassailable record in that game.
I appreciate it is meant in jest, but the point at which people start openly supporting the nazis is the point that it really gets worrying.
Indeed, so don't make them feel like they have no alternative by ensuring mainstream political parties robustly address these issues.
Calling people Nazi Scum who feel threatened and overwhelmed by migration on their own doorstep - in this case, quite literally - and meanwhile doing nothing about it, except covering it up, only furthers the chances of eventual election of a far-right government.
I appreciate it is meant in jest, but the point at which people start openly supporting the nazis is the point that it really gets worrying.
The only people being called Nazis, right now, are that little family in Calais, called "Nazi scum" my migrants and anarchists, for daring to defend their street. Watch the vid.
So what exactly does your statement mean?
It was in reply to MD. With fascist movements getting stronger in Europe both Nationalist as in Jobbik or Golden Dawn and Islamofacist, it all starts getting dangerous.
I am no apologist for Islamism, indeed I have been forthright in condemning it here, but Nazis are not the answer. I want a government that is not afraid to stand up for liberal democracy. We must not be a Weimar type country that gets polarised.
Comments
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - Based on @MegynKelly's conflict of interest and bias she should not be allowed to be a moderator of the next debate.
What do you think of this supposed new planet then? Or have we already done that to death.
Seems to me it would push the solar system out in what is really interstellar space.
He also speaks much sense on trade rather than this mantra of how "globalisation" means we just have to accept the status quo, and he actually opposes the kind of government spending cuts that all the other Republicans, even the so-called "moderates", are proposing (although he opposes them on the dubious grounds that "President Trump would make the US so rich that no cuts would be necessary").
I have to confess I quite like Jeremy Corbyn - he has put forward arguments and made proposals which have been "unsayable" for a generation or more and in a plural system we should be open to such arguments.
His view on the Falklands is interesting to say the least - in many ways, the islands are totemic for the Thatcher generation but it's nothing to do with that. The islanders, at the moment, wish to remain British - whether that wish is greater than their wish not to be Argentine would be interesting to find out. As you catch more flies with honey than with flypaper. a more astute approach might have been to bribe the islanders but the Argentineans have nothing to offer.
As the song says "don't go back, you can never go back" and successful parties of Opposition win on offering a better future than by turning the clock back to a romanticised past. Jarvis (and it's interesting to see how quickly the Conservative partisans are trying to put the boot in on him already) might be the future and he could always the line to Cameron at PMQs that Cameron once used to Blair.
The problem for Jarvis will be to drag a recalacitrant party back to the centre and offer that alternative to austerity. For the former, poll leads and success will silence the critics pretty quickly - it worked for both Cameron and Blair and for many others before them. As for the latter, Jarvis bumps up against the problem - what would a future Labour Government look like ? It may mean accepting chunks of the Osborne/Cameron agenda and seeking to do things better/fairer (delete as appropriate).
Labour's leftward move was an interesting idea and under a telegenic media-savvy operator, it might have been much more convincing. We imagine left-wing policies cannot win in modern Britain - I'm less convinced. In the modern political environment, how it's said and who is saying it are more important than the content in some respects.
That is the bit that surprises me: none of the object they are using have gone through much of their orbits. Having looked very briefly at the abstract of the paper, it seems they are using the predicted perihelions (i.e. point of closest approach to the Sun) rather than the full orbits though.
At the moment it is an interesting hypothesis which may well be true: now they need to point a telescope at the right patch of sky and find something...
Michael Foot closing the Special Conference: https://t.co/3Kvz1rs9w5
I have lessons like that sometimes. I found myself talking about the Opium Wars on Friday...
Iowa
Sanders 47 +2
Hillary 46 -4
O'Malley 5 +1
N.H.
Sanders 57 +1
Hillary 38 -4
O'Malley 5 +4
S.Carolina
Hillary 60 -7
Sanders 38 +7
O'Malley 0 -2
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-sanders-catches-clinton-in-iowa-leads-big-in-new-hampshire/
In any event Labour are locked into leftwingery now, like it or lump it.
More of a surprise that the GOP Senators think they have a better chance of holding their seats and the majority with Trump rather than Cruz.
For those betting, I think this increases Trump's chances of getting the nomination - with defeating Cruz now being more important to the Establishment than defeating The Donald.
Oops - forgot the link:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/266777-gop-senators-anyone-but-cruz
But then I never learned about the War of Three Kingdoms in school either, which I think is bloody ridiculous. Some even trace the beginnings of a kind of political party system back to the New Model Army purges of reps, and the Protectorate Parliaments (I think that would be going too far personally, although the forming of looser political interest groupings is a fascinating aspect of the time).
Cromwell's reputation in Ireland is, while not excusing the kind of brutal crackdown we in modern times condemn, exaggerated to demonic levels that I personally don't feel helps historic analysis. Which is also not to say that Ireland did not suffer horribly, even more than the others, in the chaotic period, as it did.
Florida
Trump 41
Cruz 22
Rubio 18
Carson 8
Bush 4
Rest 2 or less
Georgia
Trump 39
Cruz 29
Rubio 13
Carson 6
Rest 2 or less
Texas
Cruz 45
Trump 30
Rubio 8
Carson 5
Bush 4
Rest 2 or less
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-trump-retakes-iowa-lead-keeps-big-edge-in-new-hampshire-and-south-carolina/
I don't agree on Labour being "locked into left-wingery" whatever that means. It's whether Labour are still in a mentality of Opposition starting from the premise that everything the Government does or says is wrong and must be opposed.
The evolution to a more nuanced view recognising some of the positive aspects of the Government's agenda but coming up with ways these might be improved is the challenge and that will show a Party wanting to go back into power. That will combine with the war weariness of a decade in office and problems/crises/blunders/gaffes that the Conservatives will have to deal with in the coming months or years quite apart from the EU Referendum and the succession to Cameron.
A telegenic, coherent Labour leader esposuing a positive non-threatening narrative would be a real threat to the group of selling platers lining up to take over from Dave.
I made that observation when Branstad came out publicly against Cruz.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35395892
No Christmas bonus this year for Hyacinth Bucket.
With a guy with his chutzpah and brand savvy, it is next to impossible to know what of what he says he truly believes or would act upon, if he became President.
IF Trump fails in Iowa, presumably momentum moves to whoever wins in the hope that will carry them to New Hampshire.
On the Democratic side, even if Hillary loses both Iowa and NH to Sanders, can we seriously envisage her failing in the south, New York, California or Illinois ?
The Second Punic War
The run up to WW1
The Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period of Japan)
The South Seas Bubble (Financial Chicanery in 18th Century England)
The Zulu Empire
Justianian and Theodora (Byzantines)
The First Crusade
Admiral Yi (Korean-Japan war)
The Broad Street Pump (Cholera and the sanitary movement)
Justinian and Theodora (Part 2)
With single or two part series on Odenathus (Pamyria) and Mary Seacole
And to come: Suleiman the Great, Early Christian Heresies and...The first Opium War
Even with a focus on war, as it is more exciting, it's still a pretty wide range compared to a lot of school taught history.
But back on topic, if all Jarvis can offer is the opportunity to be heard by more people, that's not nothing, but someone really needs to demonstrate some other skills to take proper advantage, otherwise it's back to the old problem of relying on the Tories messing up.
After that, I don't see much more winnowing until mid-March when the primaries shift from proportional allocation of delegates to winner takes all.
A Liz Kendall-sized mess.
Do you think some of the proportional thresholds in use by some of the states might effectively force others out as well ? A number of the states polling on Feb 23rd have 15-20% levels which are required to get anything at all and some will award all delegates to any candidate getting 50%+1. It's not all proportional so being on 10% is a guarantee of getting nothing in many states.
And here we have the nub of the problem for Labour. The organisation and its members are utterly wrapped up in identity issues.
A person's candidature is based on some asinine diversity tickbox, and these are the measures used as to whether to choose that person or not.
Lets take Jarvis for example. It's all, oh look we have a really big problem with security and defence, but he was in the forces, and quite senior as well, he'll be good. People are already wrapped up with his back story and his identity rather than if he is any good. I've heard a few speeches. Doesnt seem anything above run of the mill junior minister style politician. Relatively articulate, fairly pleasing on the eye. But there isnt anything more.
The Tories occasionally sneak into this as well, with people like Sajid Javid, who have a great backstory, but in reality come across as utterly dull and uninspiring, who if it wasnt for him ticking a diversity box would not be considered leadership material.
That doesnt mean people like Jarvis and Javid are not good at what they do, but their identity holds too much sway and muddles judgement for some.
http://www.summahistorica.com/podcast-archive.htm
It's brilliant, and there's a massive back catalogue. Sadly he only carries the latest podcasts on his site, so I set Juice up to snaffle them every week.
Its maybe not surprising it was not known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms at school since this is a relatively new suggestion.
Perhaps it was a race memory of the Third English Civil War that spooked voters so in the west country...!
It was just called PSHE in my day. We always regarded them as a massive waste of our time.
One was particularly memorable, as we had to do this session on friendship, which required us to, in class, use a sheet with concentric circles to list your friends and family in essentially circles of closeness to you, which seemed designed to cause upset. It also included a questionnaire which seemed to be about seeing how good a friend you were, and you lost points if you put, for instance, that you thought you were a better footballer than your other friends, even if that was perfectly true.
Quite what the point was supposed to be, I do not know.
I shall have to test out your race memory theory!
To reciprocate https:/www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5Aq7g4bil7bnGi0A8gTsawu Extra History Playlist
If Hillary loses Iowa, she also loses Nevada and the DNC race becomes a sequel of 2008, with the question being will african-americans be enough for Hillary to win.
Hillary did win N.Y and California in 2008, that didn't stop her from losing, I have doubts that she can win N.Y this time because she is relying exclusively on the black vote and that's not enough outside of the black belt states (Maryland, Virginia, N.C, S.C, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana)
I suspect that the map will look inverted from 2008, with Sanders winning all the white states and Hillary winning all the black states, Obama won by winning all the black states plus the mountain states plus Illinois:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
I have severe doubts that Hillary is going to win the mountain states.
Cameron was picked because, in contrast to Howard, IDS and Hague, he was telegenic, modern, easy going and just the sort of man to woo back Lib Dems and Conservatives who quite liked Tony Blair.
The LDs did the same - we chose Clegg to replace Menzies Campbell for much the same reasons though Campbell was an articulate leader with years of Parliamentary experience, he was pushed aside for a young man to out-Cameron Cameron in terms of youth, televisual appeal and the like and you saw this in 2010.
The next Labour leader will be the antithesis of Corbyn - the next Conservative leader won't be the antithesis of Cameron but he or she will be very different. Stodge's sixth law of politics states "if a Party wants to win it must choose the leader the electorate is going to like not the leader the Party likes". Labour chose Blair because Mandelson (and others) knew Blair could reach deep into the Conservative core - he was young, articulate and if you didn't know better, you could call him a Tory. One thing he wasn't was a socialist and if he wasn't a socialist, his party wouldn't be either and they were "safe" to support.
Labour intent on writing an even longer suicide note than in 1983...
But the strategy backfired, the though was that by not having debates will protect Hillary from exposure to the voters, but instead it allowed for the internet to fill the void and create the Sanders myth.
But they are right, Hillary does suck at debates, in the last one she tried to convince people that Obamacare is better than Universal Health Care (the N.H.S type) simply because Obama signed it. While Sanders nailed her as corrupt.
Sanders came out of the debate looking strong and passionate, Hillary came out as cold and out of touch.
The next Labour leader will be the antithesis of Corbyn - the next Conservative leader won't be the antithesis of Cameron but he or she will be very different. Stodge's sixth law of politics states "if a Party wants to win it must choose the leader the electorate is going to like not the leader the Party likes". Labour chose Blair because Mandelson (and others) knew Blair could reach deep into the Conservative core - he was young, articulate and if you didn't know better, you could call him a Tory. One thing he wasn't was a socialist and if he wasn't a socialist, his party wouldn't be either and they were "safe" to support.
So Stodge is admitting that Socialism is anathema to the majority of voters. Even the word "socialism" mustn't be mentioned if the Labour party wants to be elected. So who needs the Socialist Labour Party? Only about 200K labour supporters.
But people don't like her style "of anything, even if it's the devil"
It's the Yvette Cooper campaign: "my policies may suck, I may come off as a bad person, but I'm a woman so vote for me"
Hillary will stand aside only if she is forced at gun point by the police.
The Labour leader said "everyone who wants to come to Britain and has a connection" should be free to submit an application for processing by UK officials. He added that "we're talking 3,000 people... it's not very many"
The Conservatives have a really difficult job selecting amongst all the stupid statements that emanate from Corbyn.
Surely the other parties must be considering reducing research and campaign staff because none of them are as good as Corbyn for the cause.
There was the conotation of the Party being directed by the USSR and of its leaders' loyalties lying elsewhere. After 1989, the word has become intertwined with "federalism" as part of the anti-European language.
Tony Blair was able to refute all the imagery and terminology with which Labour had become associated - pro-unions, anti-business, anti-aspiration and the like. He was able to portray the Labour Party he led as a modern social democratic party of the centre or centre-left. The British are happy to vote for social democracy - we've basicially enjoyed or endured it since the fall of Margaret Thatcher (apart from the Brown years).
Cameron's "liberal conservatism" isn't that far opposed from Blair's "Third Way"or social democracy in general. The SDP didn't die, it went elsewhere and took over first Labour and then the Conservatives.
Still 10.5 on Leicester winning the league at Betfair.
These people seeing and hearing corbyn ,leader of Britains main opposition saying everyone's welcome will get round the world,no worries about that.
Like you say,he's a cnut.
As I say, i don't agree with those constantly avoiding talking about issues around migration, particular muslim immigration, on the basis that the public will overreact, but there are some, on left and right, who have gotten pretty extreme on it, in rhetoric at least.
Don't get me wrong, there's a market out there unserved by our main parties and that's why I want smaller parties to do well, but I think they oversell just how fed up with our current political class and parties people are. That, made worse by our voting system, is why the public usually disappoints.
Here is his latest master plan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12118575/Jeremy-Corbyn-All-Calais-migrants-who-want-to-come-to-Britain-should-be-allowed-entry.html
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/01/21/judge-napolitano-case-against-hillary-overwhelming-damning-and-from-her-perspective-grave/2/
As I see it Trump has to be at least a 75% shot for NH, so I've swept up anything at that price.
75% on the basis he is a 50% shot for Iowa and a 50% chance losing Iowa loses him NH.
I honestly think the chance of him winning Iowa but losing NH is minimal, as it will largely vindicate his polling position v the reality on the ground.
So he either won't be challenged or there will be signs he's losing support among the membership. How patient will the Labour right be? Will they simply decamp elsewhere first?
Are there any buyer's remorse Corbyn voters out there prepared to admit the mistake?
It's all a good laugh now because he's not allowed at present near sharp objects, like power, but even a 1% chance of these buffoons being in charge scares me shitless. It's a world view that seems to presuppose that your own people are the enemy.
And all the while the Govt of the day is not rely being scrutinised in any meaningful way which is never great.
Its more rabbits in the headlights, I think. They see Europe about to be shattered into tiny pieces, largely as a result of their policies, and they are just dumbstruck.
The point isn't so much that the likes of Christie and Kasich will get delegates in the proportional states, but that no-one will get too far ahead, given that the leader is still only getting 30%.
I think Giuliani wins the most dollars spent campaigning per delegate stakes.
@George_Osborne Corbyn is a gooner. Waiting for you outside the ground on his bike.
Calling people Nazi Scum who feel threatened and overwhelmed by migration on their own doorstep - in this case, quite literally - and meanwhile doing nothing about it, except covering it up, only furthers the chances of eventual election of a far-right government.
I am no apologist for Islamism, indeed I have been forthright in condemning it here, but Nazis are not the answer. I want a government that is not afraid to stand up for liberal democracy. We must not be a Weimar type country that gets polarised.