I was in Waterstones on Saturday, buying "The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History" (David Edgerton, ISBN: 9780141975979) when I noticed "The Cold War" by John Lewis Gaddis. I had a look at his Waterstone's page[1] and he looks interesting. Has anybody read Gaddis and if so, what did you think?
I have. A few years ago but recall finding it interesting. Note it does not pretend to be a comprehensive account of the Cold War. More an analysis of key aspects of it.
Hello everyone, my name is JBriskinindref2 - and I am now officially a PB Tory
The only Tory in the village
Tories are third in my constituency, LDs lost, or came close to, losing their deposit.
I might have a flutter.
So you have decided to surrender your humanity?
It is a shame. But I'm a policy focused kinda guy. And 10 fifty was just what the doctor ordered.
Apparently Labour is already committed to £10 an hour from 2020 - thereafter increased with inflation. Likely to imply £11 by 2024.
I'd rather have the Tories in control of national finances. Labour seem to struggle with a calculator nowadays (or under Brown, basic Keynsian economics)
Despite having found their own Magic Moneytree? The Tories left the country facing economic crisis in both October 1964 and March 1974.
I was born 79 - my first political memories were of Major and despising Tony Blair for his tory lite agenda (my dad was a labour man)
I despised Blair - more than Thatcher - and left Labour at end of 1996 having been a member for 27 years.
Coincidences happen all the time: doesn’t mean a thing. Byronic was simply plagiarising an above average insight from Sean Thomas. I agree he should have acknowledged the reference but it’s hardly a capital offence.
As Byron himself would have known, bad poets borrow, great poets steal.
If Bryonic plagiarised SeanT, Bryonic has a time machine - he posted it 12 minutes before SeanT did.
Has there ever been a Prime Minister less fit for the role than Boris Johnson?
You could name a few because of the disasters that they unleashed on the country but very few have been shown up so quickly.
I suppose that’s progress. We’re getting better at exposing the duds. I begin to wonder if the job is doable in the Internet age. It would be a massive shock to the country if we ended up with a really decent, effective, competent PM. Hard to remember what that feels like.
I sincerely wonder if democracy itself is doable in the internet age, amidst the whirling madness of social media. China has it right, in some ways. Tragically,
China has concentration camps for Muslims. That's not quite Conservative policy. Yet.
I'm all for a Federal UK. As has been hinted at already on this thread, the break-up of these islands is now on the cards.
++++
Far too pessimistic
There has been ONE lead for YES in over two years of polling. And that was a narrow lead of 3 points. Margin of error stuff.
You have to go back to 2016 to see regular YES leads, and even then they were unconvincing.
It is unremarked on here, just how bad the Brexit shitshow is for Scottish independence. Brexit proves how difficult, painful, and costly it is to break a 50 year old union of quasi sovereign nations. So: how awful, traumatic and dystopian might it be to break up a 300 year union?
Brexit is the WORST advert for indy, even if, paradoxically, it makes indy more emotionally desirable.
Clever YES people, like Sturgeon herself, recognise this, however reluctantly. An indy vote now would likely be lost, killing the cause for a generation or two.
In ten years, then yes, but by then we may all be dead of overheating.
Coincidences happen all the time: doesn’t mean a thing. Byronic was simply plagiarising an above average insight from Sean Thomas. I agree he should have acknowledged the reference but it’s hardly a capital offence.
As Byron himself would have known, bad poets borrow, great poets steal.
If Bryonic plagiarised SeanT, Bryonic has a time machine - he posted it 12 minutes before SeanT did.
Coincidences happen all the time: doesn’t mean a thing. Byronic was simply plagiarising an above average insight from Sean Thomas. I agree he should have acknowledged the reference but it’s hardly a capital offence.
As Byron himself would have known, bad poets borrow, great poets steal.
If Bryonic plagiarised SeanT, Bryonic has a time machine - he posted it 12 minutes before SeanT did.
Chicken or egg?
Exactly! Thankyou. That poshboy Primrose Hill wanker clearly came over and ripped off my memes. Tosser.
Has there ever been a Prime Minister less fit for the role than Boris Johnson?
You could name a few because of the disasters that they unleashed on the country but very few have been shown up so quickly.
I suppose that’s progress. We’re getting better at exposing the duds. I begin to wonder if the job is doable in the Internet age. It would be a massive shock to the country if we ended up with a really decent, effective, competent PM. Hard to remember what that feels like.
I sincerely wonder if democracy itself is doable in the internet age, amidst the whirling madness of social media. China has it right, in some ways. Tragically,
China has concentration camps for Muslims. That's not quite Conservative policy. Yet.
I know. One country strip-mines the population for resources whilst pursuing populist policies to retain support and ensuring cohesion by encouraging external hatreds and restricting access to the Internet. That could never happen here. Lucky us.
(1) ask for (and secure) an extension (2) No Confidence itself
That could happen over the length of a Kenneth Clarke lunch.
That is what I was thinking, but then who is in charge for the subsequent election?
There still needs to be politicians in charge of certain ministries for politial decisions during the election. you need a PM, Chancellor, Foreign Sec, Home Sec, Transport Sec, Health Sec, Attourney General (probably others). these could in theory be filled by Lords but realistically they need to be elected politicians.
Coincidences happen all the time: doesn’t mean a thing. Byronic was simply plagiarising an above average insight from Sean Thomas. I agree he should have acknowledged the reference but it’s hardly a capital offence.
As Byron himself would have known, bad poets borrow, great poets steal.
If Bryonic plagiarised SeanT, Bryonic has a time machine - he posted it 12 minutes before SeanT did.
Has there ever been a Prime Minister less fit for the role than Boris Johnson?
You could name a few because of the disasters that they unleashed on the country but very few have been shown up so quickly.
Boris hasn't been shown up, he is just willing to fight the diehard Remainers in the Commons and they can't stand being talked back to rather than having a PM they ignored and walked all over like May
Am I right in thinking he has only done one PMQ so far!?? And sending Raab in to bat for him this week? Are we talking about the same man?
Someone (Edmund?) suggested that the Ministers could be the chairs of the relevant Select Committees. That has several advantages - it's neat and tidy (because every department is shadowed by an SC), it's all-party, and the chairs are generally quite bright but not very contentious. A drawback is that some might refuse to serve if the GNU was unpopular, but then you move on to another senior figure on the committee.
The answer to parliament being essential to hold the government to account is not to suddenly leave all select committees without their chair
I'm all for a Federal UK. As has been hinted at already on this thread, the break-up of these islands is now on the cards.
++++
Far too pessimistic
There has been ONE lead for YES in over two years of polling. And that was a narrow lead of 3 points. Margin of error stuff.
You have to go back to 2016 to see regular YES leads, and even then they were unconvincing.
It is unremarked on here, just how bad the Brexit shitshow is for Scottish independence. Brexit proves how difficult, painful, and costly it is to break a 50 year old union of quasi sovereign nations. So: how awful, traumatic and dystopian might it be to break up a 300 year union?
Brexit is the WORST advert for indy, even if, paradoxically, it makes indy more emotionally desirable.
Clever YES people, like Sturgeon herself, recognise this, however reluctantly. An indy vote now would likely be lost, killing the cause for a generation or two.
In ten years, then yes, but by then we may all be dead of overheating.
People vote with their hearts, not their heads. I take no view on Scottish independence, living as I do in England, other than the opinion that there is a mandate for one since Holyrood voted for it and it /must/ be granted. But for good or for ill, I'm really certain Scotland will vote for it next time. I do believe there is a Scottish character that is a little different from that in England. And all this Brexit nonsense is being watched in large parts with a tight mouth and a set chin. Scotland isn't going to rise up in righteous fury. It's just going to coldly and decisively snip the rope. And it will be done because of a heartsore disappointment in us. With the heart but not hotbloodedly.
Has there ever been a Prime Minister less fit for the role than Boris Johnson?
You could name a few because of the disasters that they unleashed on the country but very few have been shown up so quickly.
I suppose that’s progress. We’re getting better at exposing the duds. I begin to wonder if the job is doable in the Internet age. It would be a massive shock to the country if we ended up with a really decent, effective, competent PM. Hard to remember what that feels like.
I sincerely wonder if democracy itself is doable in the internet age, amidst the whirling madness of social media. China has it right, in some ways. Tragically,
China has concentration camps for Muslims. That's not quite Conservative policy. Yet.
I know. One country strip-mines the population for resources whilst pursuing populist policies to retain support and ensuring cohesion by encouraging external hatreds and restricting access to the Internet. That could never happen here. Lucky us.
Indeed. Given I think most people agree with Richard that this would be an administration with three jobs (extension, call an election, mind the shop until polling day), I don't see this as insuperable. I certainly wouldn't appoint below SoS level, and I might even not bother with some of those (eg Foreign Sec can look after DFID for a month or two.. and most big decisions would be taken Quad-style).
I shouldn't be surprised, but am a bit, that the tectonic plates haven't budged much on who might be PM. I get both sides of the argument, but with such a limited programme for government, and a HoC with a permanently twitchy finger on the VONC button, it really shouldn't matter.
There are two different kinds of temporary government, one that's just designed to get a non-maniac PM to request an extension and call an election, and one that's going to try to actually negotiate and pass a deal, presumably subject to a referendum.
The former is much easier because it just needs to exist as a plan to actually happen: Once you switch PM, it doesn't matter if it subsequently collapses. The new PM is PM until the election, even if they never win a vote of confidence.
The latter is quite hard, but if it can succeed it has a huge payoff: while the Tories are yelling GET BREXIT DONE, on their third prime minister who failed to do that, the rest of the parties would actually... get brexit done. That cleaves off the voters who are seriously hard-line about brexit, who will cry betrayal and demand years more drama, from the people who just want it settled. Electorally this would be a very powerful move, IMHO.
However, you can do the first (change the PM) then just see if it's practical to do the second. I wonder if an explicit plan to just insert a caretaker to call an election might not be capable of sabotaged by Boris, who could reasonably say: The opposition parties have no intention of actually forming a government with the support of the House, and since they admit they want an election anyway they will simply VONC this person at the earliest opportunity.
So basically the way forward is: 1) VONC + humble address requesting Sylvia Hermon 2) ??? 3) Profit
This is the way to go. Johnson needs to be allowed to fail to get a Deal. The Deal that he has promised is a virtual certainty. In fact IMO the Benn Act was premature because it gives him an effective soundbite ('Surrender Act') and a semblance of an excuse for the failure. That parliament ruined his leverage by taking No Deal away. Bollox, of course, but nevertheless it would IMO have been better to have humoured him, played along, held off on all the resistance activity until after the summit. Then jugular.
I was in Waterstones on Saturday, buying "The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History" (David Edgerton, ISBN: 9780141975979) when I noticed "The Cold War" by John Lewis Gaddis. I had a look at his Waterstone's page[1] and he looks interesting. Has anybody read Gaddis and if so, what did you think?
@Richard_Nabavi : I've been beating an occasional drum on another potential pitfall, namely the Labour party rulebook.
So my reading is that Corbyn cannot just let someone else be PM if Labour joins the government. His only way is resigning, and then Watson would automatically assume the primacy for PM candidate.
To my mind Labour's conference shenanigans were less panic at future succession, but a more immediate need to be able to put forward somebody else if .Corbyn could not command confidence after a VoNC, and wanted to push a lefty successor.
On the other hand Corbyn has said he would do everything necessary to prevent No Deal, his clarity on that must surely include considering compromise candidates, else he might choke on those words.
I think the way round might be this. Labour stay in opposition, performing a DUP type role, but release the whip temporarily from some of the preferred succession and unthreatening grandees. A few should suffice. If they can get a Long Bailey or some such in as PM candidate, fantastic.
Hmmm.
My understanding is that if there is a Labour government the PM has to be the Labour leader. But is a GNU a Labour government? It's hard to see how that can be the case. If Corbyn accepts someone else as leader of a GNU, then in practical terms nothing is going to happen - it's up to the Queen to choose. The real killer for a GNU is that Corbyn will not accept one. What he wants is a Labour minority government. And there is no way MPs will vote for that.
The specific wording introducing the relevant rules is 'When the party is in government...', and is not caveated. Would the normal meaning of 'in government' cover coalition or not?
I'd say it is loosely enough worded for it not to be a problem if the leadership is on board.
Sorry, vacated this discussion yesterday, so helicoptering back in to finish off.
Thanks, @SouthamObserver . I'm not wedded to being right on this, I've just spotted something that could be betting relevant and have been trying to get it out there. Sometimes you get tumbleweed and it turfs up next week in a thread header, sometimes the discussion moves on elsewhere.
I'm happy we've done this topic now.
The one thing I would say - it's really not beyond the realms that Momentum launched a needless unprovoked attack on Watson at conference to seize a bit of power just for general reasons, but I still think the leadership were worried enough about the rules and what they might mean in a VoNC and that formed part of their thinking. Both abolishing the deputy and having two deputies would work well as solutions, if the Corbynites do fear they are bound by these rules.
Comments
... with about half the population.
++++
I'm all for a Federal UK. As has been hinted at already on this thread, the break-up of these islands is now on the cards.
++++
Far too pessimistic
There has been ONE lead for YES in over two years of polling. And that was a narrow lead of 3 points. Margin of error stuff.
You have to go back to 2016 to see regular YES leads, and even then they were unconvincing.
It is unremarked on here, just how bad the Brexit shitshow is for Scottish independence. Brexit proves how difficult, painful, and costly it is to break a 50 year old union of quasi sovereign nations. So: how awful, traumatic and dystopian might it be to break up a 300 year union?
Brexit is the WORST advert for indy, even if, paradoxically, it makes indy more emotionally desirable.
Clever YES people, like Sturgeon herself, recognise this, however reluctantly. An indy vote now would likely be lost, killing the cause for a generation or two.
In ten years, then yes, but by then we may all be dead of overheating.
Dead Fred
Incidentally, did anybody see this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/china-is-harvesting-organs-from-detainees-uk-tribunal-concludes
I take no view on Scottish independence, living as I do in England, other than the opinion that there is a mandate for one since Holyrood voted for it and it /must/ be granted. But for good or for ill, I'm really certain Scotland will vote for it next time.
I do believe there is a Scottish character that is a little different from that in England. And all this Brexit nonsense is being watched in large parts with a tight mouth and a set chin. Scotland isn't going to rise up in righteous fury. It's just going to coldly and decisively snip the rope. And it will be done because of a heartsore disappointment in us. With the heart but not hotbloodedly.
The former is much easier because it just needs to exist as a plan to actually happen: Once you switch PM, it doesn't matter if it subsequently collapses. The new PM is PM until the election, even if they never win a vote of confidence.
The latter is quite hard, but if it can succeed it has a huge payoff: while the Tories are yelling GET BREXIT DONE, on their third prime minister who failed to do that, the rest of the parties would actually... get brexit done. That cleaves off the voters who are seriously hard-line about brexit, who will cry betrayal and demand years more drama, from the people who just want it settled. Electorally this would be a very powerful move, IMHO.
However, you can do the first (change the PM) then just see if it's practical to do the second. I wonder if an explicit plan to just insert a caretaker to call an election might not be capable of sabotaged by Boris, who could reasonably say: The opposition parties have no intention of actually forming a government with the support of the House, and since they admit they want an election anyway they will simply VONC this person at the earliest opportunity.
So basically the way forward is:
1) VONC + humble address requesting Sylvia Hermon
2) ???
3) Profit
Thanks, @SouthamObserver . I'm not wedded to being right on this, I've just spotted something that could be betting relevant and have been trying to get it out there. Sometimes you get tumbleweed and it turfs up next week in a thread header, sometimes the discussion moves on elsewhere.
I'm happy we've done this topic now.
The one thing I would say - it's really not beyond the realms that Momentum launched a needless unprovoked attack on Watson at conference to seize a bit of power just for general reasons, but I still think the leadership were worried enough about the rules and what they might mean in a VoNC and that formed part of their thinking. Both abolishing the deputy and having two deputies would work well as solutions, if the Corbynites do fear they are bound by these rules.