Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?
Theresa May.
The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
At the very least it buys her some time: She can let them faff around and argue with each other for a couple of years, then dramatically fire them for failing to deliver Brexit. Then she can bring Gove and Priti Patel in and repeat the whole procedure.
At what point does 'the buck stops here' principle apply though? Voters already think 'the government' is doing a bad job of Brexit 50-16, how long before rage-filled, Brexity eyes turn to the employer of these grade A doofuses?
She's up against Corbyn so the voters don't matter. From now until 2015 all politics is internal Tory politics.
As a negotiating strategy, I'd hold off on telling the EU what we want that is negotiable until as late as possible. Let them tell us some of what they want first. But clearly, we have to make a first move.
This means starting off by saying 'These are the non-negotiable things we must have. Given these, and our (EU/UK) mutual interests, how do you (EU) suggest we proceed to do least damage to these mutual interests?' while making it clear that we are prepared to walk without a deal if the EU says no deal without negotiating the non-negotiables.
Whilst I don't disagree, the big complication is that we are not negotiating with 'the EU' as a coherent body with power to cut a deal. Instead we are engaged in a complex multi-lateral and multi-faceted dance with a hotchpotch of 27 countries, the Commission, and eventually the EU parliament. They don't know what they want, if they did know they wouldn't all want the same thing, and it's unclear what the mechanism for them to reach an agreed position will be.
That is all true. But it really doesn't mean that we should meekly accept the negotiating structure that they would foist upon us. The only way to prevent that is to be prepared to walk.
An implication of my proposed strategy and your observations as to the nature of our counterparty, is that the early stages of the negotiation might be very slow indeed, with long periods between rounds.
If negotiations are successful, I'd see a coalescing around some heads of agreement in the 9-15 months timeframe, and then agreement on how to conclude an agreement within 2 years while allowing discussions of how to implement the heads of agreement in detail to continue well past that deadline.
Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?
Theresa May.
The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
At the very least it buys her some time: She can let them faff around and argue with each other for a couple of years, then dramatically fire them for failing to deliver Brexit. Then she can bring Gove and Priti Patel in and repeat the whole procedure.
At what point does 'the buck stops here' principle apply though? Voters already think 'the government' is doing a bad job of Brexit 50-16, how long before rage-filled, Brexity eyes turn to the employer of these grade A doofuses?
She's up against Corbyn so the voters don't matter. From now until 2015 all politics is internal Tory politics.
2015?
Haven't you heard? We're turning back the clock to the 70s.
Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?
Theresa May.
The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
Quite clever if true!
This YouGov poll shows the country thinks Davis and Fox are crap.
No it didn't.
Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.
Well over half the country were 'Don't Know' while True Conservatives and not embittered Osbornites thought they were good.....
Yes I agree but...just as we don't know what the EU would say to an immigration red line, neither do we know whether Tezza will actually make immigration a red line.
As you say, we have to make the first move so hence, I would like these negotiations to be conducted in as much public as possible.
I think it would be good for us all if our negotiators walk into the room with a clear idea of what the country wants and hence argue tooth and nail for it.
I like the transparency idea, but you do need to allow some privacy for the real negotiations. Perhaps the UK delegation should publish its talking points after each round?
An implication of my proposed strategy and your observations as to the nature of our counterparty, is that the early stages of the negotiation might be very slow indeed, with long periods between rounds.
Yes, I think that is right. From a domestic political point of view, however, that is a big problem. Even if the May government and UK civil servants do a brilliant job in those early stages, there probably won't be much to show for it in public for quite a long time. That was one reason behind my earlier point that the PM needs to crack on with making decisions in other areas, to avoid a sense of political drift.
Mr. T, cheers. To clarify, this is for a 'serious' book, so todger jokes are few and far between (although I do have a cross-dressing knight who has possibly the most amusing line I've ever written early in book 2).
Mr. Rentool, nice idea, but I don't have any prizes... and I gather making them up is frowned upon.
Text, because that's what books are. An idea expressed in a line or two that captures my imagination (the book's worth reading!) and is intruiging (I do actually need to read the book to find out more)
House Equity + Pension pot value + Savings - Mortgages - Loans - Credit cards ?
House prices mainly. No wonder so many people are starting to vote for cranks like Trump when this is the sort of thing is happening. (I assume it's also true in other countries like the US).
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
You do know where the phrase 'airbrushing from history' originated ? And Katyn, for example, was an interesting choice to make if 'buying time' was the motive.
(Incidentally, 'buying time' is precisely the defence made for Munich.)
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
Maybe so, but the Russia that is today tweeting a moan that the UK appeased Hitler in thirty-eight did have a non-aggression pact with Germany and did invade Poland.
The UK was also nowhere near ready for war in 1938 (it barely was by 1940), so you could equally argue that Chamberlain's moves were also playing for time.
House Equity + Pension pot value + Savings - Mortgages - Loans - Credit cards ?
I suspect largely the first two; very few of my generation that I know have the credit card debt prevalent in earlier generations. We started work in the shadow of 2008.
And no-one in there 30s will yet have significant student loans. Mine were the last cohort at 1k tuition fees.
Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fiscal stance, etc). So far, I think it's fair to say that voters, our EU friends, and business have accepted that as being sensible in the circumstances, but obviously there is a limit to how long that stance is credible. Murmurs of 'dithering' have been heard, although not loudly yet.
Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.
Anything she says she wants immediately becomes a hostage to fortune and as you say is anyway outwith her power to deliver.
We all assume border controls (or, as @Casino_Royale would have it, a letter from your employer) are the first non-negotiable but she can't even acknowledge this, given so many other balls are in the air. .
How can she negotiate with Europe when at her back are Tory party split several different ways on the EU and willing to knife her at the first opportunity?
We are at risk of getting a negotiation that is not in the best interest of the country but in the best interest of May surviving as PM.
For the best interest of the country I think we need a splitting of all the parties and subsequent re-alignment that better matches the choices we need to make.
Leaving aside that the mechanics of that mean it's simply not going to happen, what does "a splitting of all the parties and subsequent re-alignment that better matches the choices we need to make" mean in practice?
Mainly that I don't think 'left' and 'right' really work when talking about international relations and that if Brexit is to be the main source of discussion for the next 10 years, it would be good to have groupings of MPs that are coherent in their view on it.
[snip].
It won't be. Brexit is largely a secondary issue which comes out of the economy and identity, which are the main dividing issues of our day.
House Equity + Pension pot value + Savings - Mortgages - Loans - Credit cards ?
I suspect largely the first two; very few of my generation that I know have the credit card debt prevalent in earlier generations. We started work in the shadow of 2008.
And no-one in there 30s will yet have significant student loans. Mine were the last cohort at 1k tuition fees.
My student debt is coming off about a grand a year at a time (Was on very soft terms). I think the terms subsequent to me myself and I were horrendous - a big gap on student debt between those in their 30s and 20s awaits in the future...
When the telegraph run this article in 10 years time, the median 20x year old (Future 30x) will be poorer again.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
There might well have been good reason for it (though if you accept the premise that Hitler was always going to attack the USSR, then it might have been wise for Stalin to declare war in 1939), but the original prompt to the discussion was the Russian embassy's tweet about Munich, which given their own actions was at best hypocritical.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
You do know where the phrase 'airbrushing from history' originated ? And Katyn, for example, was an interesting choice to make if 'buying time' was the motive.
(Incidentally, 'buying time' is precisely the defence made for Munich.)
"Buying time" included murdering or deporting about 20% of Latvia's population, along with thousands of inhabitants of Eastern Poland.
Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?
Theresa May.
The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
At the very least it buys her some time: She can let them faff around and argue with each other for a couple of years, then dramatically fire them for failing to deliver Brexit. Then she can bring Gove and Priti Patel in and repeat the whole procedure.
At what point does 'the buck stops here' principle apply though? Voters already think 'the government' is doing a bad job of Brexit 50-16, how long before rage-filled, Brexity eyes turn to the employer of these grade A doofuses?
She's up against Corbyn so the voters don't matter. From now until 2015 all politics is internal Tory politics.
2015?
Edited to 2020. The discussion obviously isn't relevant ahead of 2015, because Ed Miliband is going to win that election with the votes of 2010 LibDems and he won't call the referendum in the first place.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
Such difficulty choices that they had operated secret joint military academies and testing facilities during the inter war years?
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
Killing off private renting won't increase the supply of housing. It will make it impossible for people to take up new jobs in different parts of the country, and for people to go to university far from home.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
To be brutally honest, all the Corbynites I know are either rich enough to be able to afford dalliance with socialism or have parents that have significant wealth.
Or, as I like to think of them, Quinoa and gazpacho eating anti-capitalists....
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
There might well have been good reason for it (though if you accept the premise that Hitler was always going to attack the USSR, then it might have been wise for Stalin to declare war in 1939), but the original prompt to the discussion was the Russian embassy's tweet about Munich, which given their own actions was at best hypocritical.
One of the reasons why Stalin could not have declared war in 1939 was that he was too busy murdering his own army officers. Just about anyone with initiative, flair or original thinking was either shot or sent to the gulag.
Damn it, in 1941 Stalin was told, not least by the UK, not only that the Germans were going to attack Russia but the date and main battle plan. He refused to listen or allow his army to prepare.
The man was insane and the manner of his death - on the floor in his own filth unable to call for help, but his staff too frightened to go in unbidden - was no more than his just desserts.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
Killing off private renting won't increase the supply of housing. It will make it impossible for people to take up new jobs in different parts of the country, and for people to go to university far from home.
Lots of JC on the telly, and Labour didn't go down in the polls.
An omen for the general election.
Yes, Labour within 9 points at the peak of the Theresa May bubble suggests that it's all to play for in the next election.
Indeed, Gordon Brown was leading by 11% with YouGov during after his conference speech in 2007.
Theresa May = Pound Shop Gordon Brown
Would you rather see a Conservative government that isn't led by Cameron or Osborne succeed or fail?
Quite, There is no comprison between the dynamic of Brown vs Cameron and the May vs Corbyn. Corbyn is irredeemably unelectable and would be destroyed in a a real General Election.
Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?
Theresa May.
The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
Quite clever if true!
This YouGov poll shows the country thinks Davis and Fox are crap.
On the other hand, it could be that she was appeasing the EU headbangers in the party, in the full knowledge that they would get the reputation of being utterly useless long before any real damage was done.
Then they get the flick, which no-one can argue with at that point in time. Someone with an iota of competence can step into the role and salvage matters (to the degree that was ever possible). Where is Michael Gove these days, anyway?
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
Killing off private renting won't increase the supply of housing. It will make it impossible for people to take up new jobs in different parts of the country, and for people to go to university far from home.
Someone has to buy the houses.
If say, I'm offered a new job in Harrogate, I don't want to have to wait until I've sold my existing house, and bought a new one in Harrogate. A private rented sector is absolutely essential for labour mobility.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
Maybe so, but the Russia that is today tweeting a moan that the UK appeased Hitler in thirty-eight did have a non-aggression pact with Germany and did invade Poland.
The UK was also nowhere near ready for war in 1938 (it barely was by 1940), so you could equally argue that Chamberlain's moves were also playing for time.
Though they weren't; they were less hard-headed than that. Chamberlain was motivated partly by domestic opinion (in France as well as the UK, where anti-war feeling was still running strongly) and partly by a sense that Germany did at least have an arguable case on the principle of self-determination.
''Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge. ''
Mate, their policy is driving investors to the property market. Say you have 100 grand, what else is there to do with it? stocks are fully valued, Bank interest is zero and half of Europe's banks are bust anyway.
Right now, buying a flat in a Northern City and renting it looks like a pretty good idea to me.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
Killing off private renting won't increase the supply of housing. It will make it impossible for people to take up new jobs in different parts of the country, and for people to go to university far from home.
Someone has to buy the houses.
If say, I'm offered a new job in Harrogate, I don't want to have to wait until I've sold my existing house, and bought a new one in Harrogate. A private rented sector is absolutely essential for labour mobility.
You mean the new employer doesn't offer you a relocation package?
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
Killing off private renting won't increase the supply of housing. It will make it impossible for people to take up new jobs in different parts of the country, and for people to go to university far from home.
Someone has to buy the houses.
If say, I'm offered a new job in Harrogate, I don't want to have to wait until I've sold my existing house, and bought a new one in Harrogate. A private rented sector is absolutely essential for labour mobility.
You mean the new employer doesn't offer you a relocation package?
Perhaps at my current level, but certainly not when I was a junior solicitor.
Pretty awful numbers for the three clowns on Brexit.
To be fair, that's a poll that falls squarely in the dog bites man category.
I would think that much of that 50% badly is made up of Remainers, who let's face it got the hump on June 24th and still haven't gotten over it. I don't expect such people to think that things are going well. YouGov in future need to ask or present that question with a voting split.
Yes I agree but...just as we don't know what the EU would say to an immigration red line, neither do we know whether Tezza will actually make immigration a red line.
As you say, we have to make the first move so hence, I would like these negotiations to be conducted in as much public as possible.
I think it would be good for us all if our negotiators walk into the room with a clear idea of what the country wants and hence argue tooth and nail for it.
I like the transparency idea, but you do need to allow some privacy for the real negotiations. Perhaps the UK delegation should publish its talking points after each round?
I think there a couple of problems. Nobody has come up with any policy for Brexit. It's a stupid situation, but it's where we are. There is no plan or direction for people to buy into. Brexit is a complete void. There has been no leakage so far, probably because there is nothing to leak. But once negotiations are under way, there are too many people involved for the discussions not to become public. That's even more of a reason for the government to have an agreed road map to point to. Otherwise it will disintegrate into "They said"/"We said" arguments
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
There might well have been good reason for it (though if you accept the premise that Hitler was always going to attack the USSR, then it might have been wise for Stalin to declare war in 1939), but the original prompt to the discussion was the Russian embassy's tweet about Munich, which given their own actions was at best hypocritical.
One of the reasons why Stalin could not have declared war in 1939 was that he was too busy murdering his own army officers. Just about anyone with initiative, flair or original thinking was either shot or sent to the gulag.
Damn it, in 1941 Stalin was told, not least by the UK, not only that the Germans were going to attack Russia but the date and main battle plan. He refused to listen or allow his army to prepare.
The man was insane and the manner of his death - on the floor in his own filth unable to call for help, but his staff too frightened to go in unbidden - was no more than his just desserts.
Was meaning to ask whether you have read the Maisky Dairies published earlier this year? I was surprised at the extent of his access to UK's most senior politicians from 1935 to his return to Moscow in 1943 and his insights and vignettes were often quite extraordinarily prescient.
Pretty awful numbers for the three clowns on Brexit.
To be fair, that's a poll that falls squarely in the dog bites man category.
I would think that much of that 50% badly is made up of Remainers, who let's face it got the hump on June 24th and still haven't gotten over it. I don't expect such people to think that things are going well. YouGov in future need to ask or present that question with a voting split.
That could be applied to ordinary polls too. So you think Corbyn is doing a bad job, but you voted Tory so we''ll discount that a bit. Wonderful idea.
Pretty awful numbers for the three clowns on Brexit.
To be fair, that's a poll that falls squarely in the dog bites man category.
I would think that much of that 50% badly is made up of Remainers, who let's face it got the hump on June 24th and still haven't gotten over it. I don't expect such people to think that things are going well. YouGov in future need to ask or present that question with a voting split.
That could be applied to ordinary polls too. So you think Corbyn is doing a bad job, but you voted Tory so we''ll discount that a bit. Wonderful idea.
Urm, yes. That is why polls showing JC with poor ratings amongst Labour voters have more credence than amongst all voters....
Yes I agree but...just as we don't know what the EU would say to an immigration red line, neither do we know whether Tezza will actually make immigration a red line.
As you say, we have to make the first move so hence, I would like these negotiations to be conducted in as much public as possible.
I think it would be good for us all if our negotiators walk into the room with a clear idea of what the country wants and hence argue tooth and nail for it.
I like the transparency idea, but you do need to allow some privacy for the real negotiations. Perhaps the UK delegation should publish its talking points after each round?
I think there a couple of problems. Nobody has come up with any policy for Brexit. It's a stupid situation, but it's where we are. There is no plan or direction for people to buy into. Brexit is a complete void. There has been no leakage so far, probably because there is nothing to leak. But once negotiations are under way, there are too many people involved for the discussions not to become public. That's even more of a reason for the government to have an agreed road map to point to. Otherwise it will disintegrate into "They said"/"We said" arguments
There will be a lot of people in the room for certain sessions, and very few people in the room when the hard bargaining happens. The 'room' will at some point be presented with a fix that has been done in a cupboard. That is the way of all these things.
It does not need to devolve into 'he said/she said' - by publishing its talking points, the UK can simply say "This is what we are asking for" until there is a deal, at which point both sides can say "This is what we've agreed".
Top tip: never try to be healthy. This morning I chose Granola over healthy option, broke a tooth. :-(
Sympathies. I was at the dentist this morning after I broke the side off one of my teeth the other week. Been told there's only a 50/50 chance it will work.
What an afternoon: toothache, and my two favourite radio channels are filled with Gardeners f'ing Question Time and f'ing Golf. I've had to resort to Absolute 80s whilst I cook ...
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
Killing off private renting won't increase the supply of housing. It will make it impossible for people to take up new jobs in different parts of the country, and for people to go to university far from home.
Someone has to buy the houses.
If say, I'm offered a new job in Harrogate, I don't want to have to wait until I've sold my existing house, and bought a new one in Harrogate. A private rented sector is absolutely essential for labour mobility.
Yes, but not 5m properties owned by 2m private landlords, many of them scum of the earth types.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
There might well have been good reason for it (though if you accept the premise that Hitler was always going to attack the USSR, then it might have been wise for Stalin to declare war in 1939), but the original prompt to the discussion was the Russian embassy's tweet about Munich, which given their own actions was at best hypocritical.
One of the reasons why Stalin could not have declared war in 1939 was that he was too busy murdering his own army officers. Just about anyone with initiative, flair or original thinking was either shot or sent to the gulag.
Damn it, in 1941 Stalin was told, not least by the UK, not only that the Germans were going to attack Russia but the date and main battle plan. He refused to listen or allow his army to prepare.
The man was insane and the manner of his death - on the floor in his own filth unable to call for help, but his staff too frightened to go in unbidden - was no more than his just desserts.
Was meaning to ask whether you have read the Maisky Dairies published earlier this year? I was surprised at the extent of his access to UK's most senior politicians from 1935 to his return to Moscow in 1943 and his insights and vignettes were often quite extraordinarily prescient.
Mr. JohnO, I am ashamed to say I haven't. There are only so many hours in a day available for reading and I am a medievalist at heart. Indeed recent reading has seen me go back from the fourteenth century to the twelfth - the scrap between Steven and the Empress Maud (aka Matilda for no apparent reason) is fascinating.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Ties in with my own experience, I'm mid 30s and I've pretty much given up on owning my own property for the foreseeable future. My dad, on the other hand, had already owned about 3 properties by that age.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
You do know where the phrase 'airbrushing from history' originated ? And Katyn, for example, was an interesting choice to make if 'buying time' was the motive.
(Incidentally, 'buying time' is precisely the defence made for Munich.)
"Buying time" included murdering or deporting about 20% of Latvia's population, along with thousands of inhabitants of Eastern Poland.
Let's not forget the Winter War against the Finnish, incidentally one of the greatest war movies if you can find it. Unsentimental, brutal and utterly absorbing.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
You do know where the phrase 'airbrushing from history' originated ? And Katyn, for example, was an interesting choice to make if 'buying time' was the motive.
(Incidentally, 'buying time' is precisely the defence made for Munich.)
"Buying time" included murdering or deporting about 20% of Latvia's population, along with thousands of inhabitants of Eastern Poland.
Indeed. Timothy Snyder argues quite convincingly in his recent book that the state destruction in the Baltics and Central Europe practised by Stalin and Hitler created the conditions in which the Holocaust evolved. It was most devastating and complete precisely in those areas which were consecutively occupied by the Soviets and then the Nazis. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Earth-Holocaust-History-Warning/dp/1784701483/
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
There might well have been good reason for it (though if you accept the premise that Hitler was always going to attack the USSR, then it might have been wise for Stalin to declare war in 1939), but the original prompt to the discussion was the Russian embassy's tweet about Munich, which given their own actions was at best hypocritical.
One of the reasons why Stalin could not have declared war in 1939 was that he was too busy murdering his own army officers. Just about anyone with initiative, flair or original thinking was either shot or sent to the gulag.
Damn it, in 1941 Stalin was told, not least by the UK, not only that the Germans were going to attack Russia but the date and main battle plan. He refused to listen or allow his army to prepare.
The man was insane and the manner of his death - on the floor in his own filth unable to call for help, but his staff too frightened to go in unbidden - was no more than his just desserts.
Was meaning to ask whether you have read the Maisky Dairies published earlier this year? I was surprised at the extent of his access to UK's most senior politicians from 1935 to his return to Moscow in 1943 and his insights and vignettes were often quite extraordinarily prescient.
It is surely not too surprising that the Russian ambassador, or the ambassador of any major nation, will have regularly met politicians, and that is without factoring in Maisky's input from the Cambridge (and other) spies via the KGB staff in his own embassy.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
Killing off private renting won't increase the supply of housing. It will make it impossible for people to take up new jobs in different parts of the country, and for people to go to university far from home.
Osborne's tax changes for BTL are making BTL much less attractive in the medium to long term. If Mrs May's govt can massively increase the supply of new houses, then the position of renters will improve. As a landlord myself I understand the direction in which the Conservatives are moving. In London rcs1000 has frequently pointed out that there is a major increase in the pipeline of high rise flats for London. I do not have the stats but if he is right then the price pressure in London may be easing. Certainly the property prices in London have plateaued in some areas.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Too right. Just ask fox jr.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Absolutely, I posted on here yesterday that the government needs to go all in against private renting and absolutely fuck the landlord's or we'll end up with some kind of Corbyn in charge.
Killing off private renting won't increase the supply of housing. It will make it impossible for people to take up new jobs in different parts of the country, and for people to go to university far from home.
Someone has to buy the houses.
If say, I'm offered a new job in Harrogate, I don't want to have to wait until I've sold my existing house, and bought a new one in Harrogate. A private rented sector is absolutely essential for labour mobility.
Yes, but not 5m properties owned by 2m private landlords, many of them scum of the earth types.
Mr Max, surely a free market capitalist type like yourself would understand that the way to fix the housing problem is:
1. Reform planning to allow more housing to be built where the demand exists, such as in London, and to create new towns around the country. 2. Get interest rates off the floor, so that other ways of investing money generate a return. 3. Reduce the cap on housing benefit, sell off high value council housing and reinvest in new housing stock.
Then the market will do what it does, with more housing and prices falling. Trying to "f... landlords" only increases rents and makes the problem worse.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
Ties in with my own experience, I'm mid 30s and I've pretty much given up on owning my own property for the foreseeable future. My dad, on the other hand, had already owned about 3 properties by that age.</blockquote
When I bought my first flat in 1981 I lived with second hand furniture and bare floors for 3 years. I think people expect way more today and won't sacrifice in order to get a home. I had no holidays for five years. I suspect your family had to make some sacrifices to get their first homes too.
I'm afraid it's nothing as important or interesting as your own work. But it feels nice nonetheless. A few people have apparently walked the coast after reading my website. One *blames* me for every single mile of pain.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
You do know where the phrase 'airbrushing from history' originated ? And Katyn, for example, was an interesting choice to make if 'buying time' was the motive.
(Incidentally, 'buying time' is precisely the defence made for Munich.)
"Buying time" included murdering or deporting about 20% of Latvia's population, along with thousands of inhabitants of Eastern Poland.
Let's not forget the Winter War against the Finnish, incidentally one of the greatest war movies if you can find it. Unsentimental, brutal and utterly absorbing.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
You do know where the phrase 'airbrushing from history' originated ? And Katyn, for example, was an interesting choice to make if 'buying time' was the motive.
(Incidentally, 'buying time' is precisely the defence made for Munich.)
"Buying time" included murdering or deporting about 20% of Latvia's population, along with thousands of inhabitants of Eastern Poland.
Indeed. Timothy Snyder argues quite convincingly in his recent book that the state destruction in the Baltics and Central Europe practised by Stalin and Hitler created the conditions in which the Holocaust evolved. It was most devastating and complete precisely in those areas which were consecutively occupied by the Soviets and then the Nazis. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Earth-Holocaust-History-Warning/dp/1784701483/
I think the only time and period to have lived in that was really comparable to Eastern Europe and Russia, from 1930 to 1950, or China in the same period, was Central Asia or North China when the Mongols invaded.
Yes I agree but...just as we don't know what the EU would say to an immigration red line, neither do we know whether Tezza will actually make immigration a red line.
As you say, we have to make the first move so hence, I would like these negotiations to be conducted in as much public as possible.
I think it would be good for us all if our negotiators walk into the room with a clear idea of what the country wants and hence argue tooth and nail for it.
I like the transparency idea, but you do need to allow some privacy for the real negotiations. Perhaps the UK delegation should publish its talking points after each round?
Yes I think that would work. The aim after all is to reach an agreement the whole country is happy with. Of course, this may easily not be the same as an agreement that is the optimal one for the country, but I just don't think that is likely to be on the table.
Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
There might well have been good reason for it (though if you accept the premise that Hitler was always going to attack the USSR, then it might have been wise for Stalin to declare war in 1939), but the original prompt to the discussion was the Russian embassy's tweet about Munich, which given their own actions was at best hypocritical.
One of the reasons why Stalin could not have declared war in 1939 was that he was too busy murdering his own army officers. Just about anyone with initiative, flair or original thinking was either shot or sent to the gulag.
Damn it, in 1941 Stalin was told, not least by the UK, not only that the Germans were going to attack Russia but the date and main battle plan. He refused to listen or allow his army to prepare.
The man was insane and the manner of his death - on the floor in his own filth unable to call for help, but his staff too frightened to go in unbidden - was no more than his just desserts.
Was meaning to ask whether you have read the Maisky Dairies published earlier this year? I was surprised at the extent of his access to UK's most senior politicians from 1935 to his return to Moscow in 1943 and his insights and vignettes were often quite extraordinarily prescient.
It is surely not too surprising that the Russian ambassador, or the ambassador of any major nation, will have regularly met politicians, and that is without factoring in Maisky's input from the Cambridge (and other) spies via the KGB staff in his own embassy.
Yes, of course, but Maisky was a particularly consummate networker, particularly with the Tories, including Churchill during those wilderness years. And Lloyd George too, but far less contact with a Labour. Anyway, a worthwhile read for those drawn to British politics in the late 30s and into the war.
The greatest threat facing the world right now is Russia itself
That would be the second greatest.
Go on. I'm intrigued. The first?
It involves beheading, virgins, gay freefalling sans-chute, splodeys, a bad attitude to booze and sex, mass delusions, no joy, camels and psychosis.
I thought about that. But in diplomatic terms and in terms of the sheer amount of death, Russia beats any particular Islamist threat.
Actually I think the Pakistani, Iranian and Israeli nukes are more dangerous. Although, on reflection, the gravest threat the world faces right now is the impending coming apart of a financial status quo that is mathematically guaranteed to fail but which has been all we've known for decades.
I'm afraid it's nothing as important or interesting as your own work. But it feels nice nonetheless. A few people have apparently walked the coast after reading my website. One *blames* me for every single mile of pain.
I love coastal paths. My mum used to live in Wembury, Devon, so I would run the path around to Newton Ferrers and then back the short way (inland) to Wembury. I loved the change in such a short distance from rolling dairy fields, to gorse moorland cliffs to sheltered inlet with tall Monterey pines and English gardens.
I think the only time and period to have lived in that was really comparable to Eastern Europe and Russia, from 1930 to 1950, or China in the same period, was Central Asia or North China when the Mongols invaded.
You are right about the Mongols. Why though are the death tolls of the Japanese Chinese War separated from the Second World War? I read Beevors work which includes this conflict.
The Chinese appear to be particularly involved in lots of nasty wars over the centuries.
Brilliant: Clinton is doing a tweetstorm on how Trump is unhinged, a massive bully and 'What sort of man stays up all night to smear a woman with lies and conspiracy theories'?
I hope that question gets asked at the next debate ( Since trump hasn't done a press conference since July...)
So far this year, I have bought 32 books (tree and kindle) from Amazon alone. On the other hand, I'm not in the market for historical fantasy novels, which I believe is your oeuvre.
Price is never a factor in whether I consider a book. The others I'm not sure about.
Interestingly, Amazon does send me its 99p offers to my phone, where kindle is installed but not linked to my account, but does not show them to me on the website where it does know my history.
Mr. L, minor correction: it is a fantasy novel but it's not historical in any way. As Mr. Meeks would say, like most Leavers' writings it's set in a world that's completely made up
A secondary school head who left pupils delighted by scrapping homework so stressed-out teachers can have more time to plan lessons has been reported to Ofsted.
I think the only time and period to have lived in that was really comparable to Eastern Europe and Russia, from 1930 to 1950, or China in the same period, was Central Asia or North China when the Mongols invaded.
You are right about the Mongols. Why though are the death tolls of the Japanese Chinese War separated from the Second World War? I read Beevors work which includes this conflict.
The Chinese appear to be particularly involved in lots of nasty wars over the centuries.
I think it's generally viewed as a separate, though related, war.
The Taiping Rebellion from 1850-64 was a horror story as well.
As Orwell observed, you hear the same horror stories over and over, across different times cultures, and peoples. Genocide, cannibalism, mass rape, torture, enslavement. What was happening in Yugoslavia twenty years ago would have been recognisable to anyone who was alive at the time of the Hundred Years War. Orwell's view that there must be very dark fantasies that are shared by humans generally.
So far this year, I have bought 32 books (tree and kindle) from Amazon alone. On the other hand, I'm not in the market for historical fantasy novels, which I believe is your oeuvre.
Price is never a factor in whether I consider a book. The others I'm not sure about.
Interestingly, Amazon does send me its 99p offers to my phone, where kindle is installed but not linked to my account, but does not show them to me on the website where it does know my history.
I find myself reading a lot of kindle books on my phone. I have an ancient (and much beloved) kindle device but actually, the resolution on the phone is perfectly adequate and it saves me carrying around another contraption.
That said, there are certain books which should not be read on a kindle - those with illustrations of any sort (photographs, charts, graphs), or "high literature" for some reason.
Full Single Market membership backed by Tory MP Ben Howlett. < The Telegraph: Britain needs to stay in the single market in order to make the best of Brexit. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwo-Tv9TE
Reading ancient history, as I am aware several on this site do, you can't get through a description of one period or another without a town or city being "devastated" by its victors. Obviously 2,000+ years later we skip over it without a second thought but I often think of what that must have been like.
So the public think that the good ship Brexit is adrift. I wonder who will be first to walk the plank.
There's a big difference between perception and reality.
The real issue here is that deliberately, May is leaving a vacuum in the public arena so that she can keep her hand covered until real negotiations are in play. Whether that's a good idea or not remains to be seen, but I'd suspect that it is, on the basis that we don't want too much 'Brexit' to play into the French and German elections. It will of course feature I'm sure - but we shouldn't feed it.
Comments
An implication of my proposed strategy and your observations as to the nature of our counterparty, is that the early stages of the negotiation might be very slow indeed, with long periods between rounds.
If negotiations are successful, I'd see a coalescing around some heads of agreement in the 9-15 months timeframe, and then agreement on how to conclude an agreement within 2 years while allowing discussions of how to implement the heads of agreement in detail to continue well past that deadline.
"Wealth of people in their 30s has 'halved in a decade'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37508968
Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.
Well over half the country were 'Don't Know' while True Conservatives and not embittered Osbornites thought they were good.....
And Katyn, for example, was an interesting choice to make if 'buying time' was the motive.
(Incidentally, 'buying time' is precisely the defence made for Munich.)
The UK was also nowhere near ready for war in 1938 (it barely was by 1940), so you could equally argue that Chamberlain's moves were also playing for time.
And no-one in there 30s will yet have significant student loans. Mine were the last cohort at 1k tuition fees.
When the telegraph run this article in 10 years time, the median 20x year old (Future 30x) will be poorer again.
What will be shocking is when the exercise is re-calculated with the twenty somethings of today in ten years time.
I always do that. Even for books I'm near certain to buy.
Indeed part of the reason for the rise of Corbynism is that twenty something cannot see themselves accessing the wealth of the nation by other means.
Or, as I like to think of them, Quinoa and gazpacho eating anti-capitalists....
Damn it, in 1941 Stalin was told, not least by the UK, not only that the Germans were going to attack Russia but the date and main battle plan. He refused to listen or allow his army to prepare.
The man was insane and the manner of his death - on the floor in his own filth unable to call for help, but his staff too frightened to go in unbidden - was no more than his just desserts.
Pretty awful numbers for the three clowns on Brexit.
To be fair, that's a poll that falls squarely in the dog bites man category.
Then they get the flick, which no-one can argue with at that point in time. Someone with an iota of competence can step into the role and salvage matters (to the degree that was ever possible). Where is Michael Gove these days, anyway?
Mate, their policy is driving investors to the property market. Say you have 100 grand, what else is there to do with it? stocks are fully valued, Bank interest is zero and half of Europe's banks are bust anyway.
Right now, buying a flat in a Northern City and renting it looks like a pretty good idea to me.
So you think Corbyn is doing a bad job, but you voted Tory so we''ll discount that a bit. Wonderful idea.
Edit: though different on Amazon, where the text is perhaps more prominent than the small cover image.
BTW: got a book last week where I'm mentioned thirteen times, and am called an 'inspiration'. Go me!
I think May gets the people she needs to help over the next four years. And that's a big plus. How she helps them, well, that's another matter.
Thanks, Mr. Jessop.
It does not need to devolve into 'he said/she said' - by publishing its talking points, the UK can simply say "This is what we are asking for" until there is a deal, at which point both sides can say "This is what we've agreed".
What an afternoon: toothache, and my two favourite radio channels are filled with Gardeners f'ing Question Time and f'ing Golf. I've had to resort to Absolute 80s whilst I cook ...
Must be a Zionist conspiracy eh Jackie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098437/
The obscene totalitarian regimes that dominated Europe in the mid 20th Century are beyond comprehension.
Timothy Snyder argues quite convincingly in his recent book that the state destruction in the Baltics and Central Europe practised by Stalin and Hitler created the conditions in which the Holocaust evolved. It was most devastating and complete precisely in those areas which were consecutively occupied by the Soviets and then the Nazis.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Earth-Holocaust-History-Warning/dp/1784701483/
His history of the mass murder in central Europe is an equally bleak and interesting read:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bloodlands-Europe-between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0099551799/
1. Reform planning to allow more housing to be built where the demand exists, such as in London, and to create new towns around the country.
2. Get interest rates off the floor, so that other ways of investing money generate a return.
3. Reduce the cap on housing benefit, sell off high value council housing and reinvest in new housing stock.
Then the market will do what it does, with more housing and prices falling.
Trying to "f... landlords" only increases rents and makes the problem worse.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walking-English-Coast-Beginners-Guide/dp/191107931X
I'm afraid it's nothing as important or interesting as your own work. But it feels nice nonetheless. A few people have apparently walked the coast after reading my website. One *blames* me for every single mile of pain.
Edit: Although it is a toss up overall
Have to admit, that was my first thought, too.
I think the only time and period to have lived in that was really comparable to Eastern Europe and Russia, from 1930 to 1950, or China in the same period, was Central Asia or North China when the Mongols invaded.
@seanfear
Just wiki'd it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
You are right about the Mongols. Why though are the death tolls of the Japanese Chinese War separated from the Second World War? I read Beevors work which includes this conflict.
The Chinese appear to be particularly involved in lots of nasty wars over the centuries.
I hope that question gets asked at the next debate ( Since trump hasn't done a press conference since July...)
Price is never a factor in whether I consider a book. The others I'm not sure about.
Interestingly, Amazon does send me its 99p offers to my phone, where kindle is installed but not linked to my account, but does not show them to me on the website where it does know my history.
Edited extra bit: and thanks.
Play Danny Willett
A secondary school head who left pupils delighted by scrapping homework so stressed-out teachers can have more time to plan lessons has been reported to Ofsted.
Just wiki'd it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
You are right about the Mongols. Why though are the death tolls of the Japanese Chinese War separated from the Second World War? I read Beevors work which includes this conflict.
The Chinese appear to be particularly involved in lots of nasty wars over the centuries.
I think it's generally viewed as a separate, though related, war.
The Taiping Rebellion from 1850-64 was a horror story as well.
As Orwell observed, you hear the same horror stories over and over, across different times cultures, and peoples. Genocide, cannibalism, mass rape, torture, enslavement. What was happening in Yugoslavia twenty years ago would have been recognisable to anyone who was alive at the time of the Hundred Years War. Orwell's view that there must be very dark fantasies that are shared by humans generally.
Or submarines without any warheads.
That said, there are certain books which should not be read on a kindle - those with illustrations of any sort (photographs, charts, graphs), or "high literature" for some reason.
http://order-order.com/2012/09/12/cf-chairman-says-time-to-move-on-from-911-on-911/
" Famed for claiming Gerry Adams was a hero, a move that went down well with Lord Tebbit, blundering Ben last night told us all to get over 9/11. On the aniversary of 9/11:"
Reading ancient history, as I am aware several on this site do, you can't get through a description of one period or another without a town or city being "devastated" by its victors. Obviously 2,000+ years later we skip over it without a second thought but I often think of what that must have been like.
The real issue here is that deliberately, May is leaving a vacuum in the public arena so that she can keep her hand covered until real negotiations are in play. Whether that's a good idea or not remains to be seen, but I'd suspect that it is, on the basis that we don't want too much 'Brexit' to play into the French and German elections. It will of course feature I'm sure - but we shouldn't feed it.