can you name a bigger german policy failure in the last 75 years ?
Adenauer led to Germany's reintegration in the world order Brandt had Ostpolitik Schmidt normalised relations with Europe Kohl pushed EU and achieved unification Schroder did little but no harm either
Merkel is currently undermining the core of German foreign policy since the war.
Epic fail
Umm, Stalingrad? (1942)
According to Rods model, Germany had the right foreign policy in 1941-5.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
the epic fk up of 2008 was a result of Blair's stewardship of the economy in the previous 10 years. His only plus was that he got out of the hot seat before it all went tits up,
Wow flashback to 2010/2015 arguments... I think the ten years of economic growth before it was derailed by a global financial crisis is a decent record.
given Blairs policies were a major contributor to the financial crisis ( what with London being the world;s biggest financial centre ) he shares the blame.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
With the possible exception of Putin's Russia (and a bit too early to tell if his Mid East adventures are any more successful than ours!), it is hard to think of any world leader whose foreign policy has been a success in recent decades.
I'd say China hasnt had a bad run.
No wars, growing world influence, buying up Africa, buying up Western technology and extending its local reach so it's neighbours know who's boss.
Merkel has done much the same, which is where we started.
:-)
Early Merkel yes, but now she's got to top dog status she has to stay on top and the edifice is crumbling beneath her. Personally I dont thnk she can hold it the cracks together. It's time for new leadership.
It's the standard problem of the EU, they all want to rush it faster than people want to go and eventually the peasants rebel and it's back to the drawing board.
Merkel's Chancellorship has been largely devoid of any new grand EU projects - indeed many have criticised her for wanting to work within existing frameworks. The Lisbon Treaty was a leftover from the failed Constitution before she came to power.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
With the possible exception of Putin's Russia (and a bit too early to tell if his Mid East adventures are any more successful than ours!), it is hard to think of any world leader whose foreign policy has been a success in recent decades.
I'd say China hasnt had a bad run.
No wars, growing world influence, buying up Africa, buying up Western technology and extending its local reach so it's neighbours know who's boss.
I'd agree. But I have little doubt that China's economy has been a massive bubble for a decade or more, and the question is how well they'll cope when it bursts. I think much depends on what causes the burst: internal or external factors.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
Surely Northern Ireland was as much Major's doing?
I can remember a Sunday Times article lambasting Major because we had people talking to the IRA ...
As much is stretching it I think but i agree Major deserves credit. But compare Northern Ireland in 1997 to 2007...
Think of the incredible negotiating that had to be done to get the Good Friday agreement through... And the amazing fact that in the end Paisley and McGuinness went into government together...
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
I don't know what good Blair achieved on the economy. He handed over a load of poison pills in Northern Ireland, with his secret amnesties for IRA members, combined with persecution of former members of the armed forces. He was an awful PM.
Okay.
The point I am trying to make is that Blair can be seen as a success according to his own objectives (even if you personally don't like them).
Cameron failed at this.
What do you think their objectives were?
IMO that certainly initially, both had the same objective: to take an unpopular party and propel it to power. In that, both were successful. If anything Blair had an easier job given the way the Conservative party disintegrated after 1993.
Cameron is deserving of criticism for many things but his achievement in delivering 5 years of stable coalition government after the 2010 election was remarkable. I can't think of any other contemporary politician who could have carried it off.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
Surely Northern Ireland was as much Major's doing?
I can remember a Sunday Times article lambasting Major because we had people talking to the IRA ...
As much is stretching it I think but i agree Major deserves credit. But compare Northern Ireland in 1997 to 2007...
Think of the incredible negotiating that had to be done to get the Good Friday agreement through... And the amazing fact that in the end Paisley and McGuinness went into government together...
The Good Friday agreement was signed less than a year after Blair came to power. AIUI much of the groundwork was done well before that.
What Blair might have done is provide a clean pair of hands; the republicans could say they weren't dealing with the Conservatives, with whom they shared rather a lot of recent mutual bad will and history.
Yet Major strove towards peace, even if it was clinched under Blair. And yes, it probably came quicker due to the change in government. Yet it would probably have happened eventually under Major, if he had won in 1997. Too many people were tired of the Troubles.
But I'm not an expert on the period, so it'd be interesting to hear other views.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
I don't know what good Blair achieved on the economy. He handed over a load of poison pills in Northern Ireland, with his secret amnesties for IRA members, combined with persecution of former members of the armed forces. He was an awful PM.
Okay.
The point I am trying to make is that Blair can be seen as a success according to his own objectives (even if you personally don't like them).
Cameron failed at this.
What do you think their objectives were?
IMO that certainly initially, both had the same objective: to take an unpopular party and propel it to power. In that, both were successful. If anything Blair had an easier job given the way the Conservative party disintegrated after 1993.
But aside from that, what else did they want?
Blair wanted to modernise the country... To improve the NHS; to invest in education; reduce poverty etc... E definitely changed Britain far more than Cameron IMO.
On foreign policy he wanted a more interventionist policy nd he got it... I mean I know Iraq was a disaster... But it's totally clear Blair pushed it through and even managed to persuade Bush to try the Un route.
Cameron's big things were the deficit and the big society. On both I would say he failed. I think Michael Gove was probably the only major reformer of his government.
Cameron would probably claim that record employment was a legacy, millions of low paid people on improved hourly rates and out of income tax, foreign aid, gay marriage, improved adoption rates, falling crime etc etc.
In years to come, he'll be able to claim he was a great democrat who trusted the people with the voting system, the future of the union and it's relationship with Europe.
Evening all. Some posters appear to be misremembering the chronology of referendum night - the Newcastle result came in ahead of Sunderland. Both pointed to a Leave victory by similar margins to the 'par' scores in the fabled model.
Cameron would probably claim that record employment was a legacy, millions of low paid people on improved hourly rates and out of income tax, foreign aid, gay marriage, improved adoption rates, falling crime etc etc.
In years to come, he'll be able to claim he was a great democrat who trusted the people with the voting system, the future of the union and it's relationship with Europe.
We are not far from the point in time where the Coalition is seen as a golden period of government, but more likely to benefit the Lib Dems than Tories.
Cameron would probably claim that record employment was a legacy, millions of low paid people on improved hourly rates and out of income tax, foreign aid, gay marriage, improved adoption rates, falling crime etc etc.
In years to come, he'll be able to claim he was a great democrat who trusted the people with the voting system, the future of the union and it's relationship with Europe.
We are not far from the point in time where the Coalition is seen as a golden period of government, but more likely to benefit the Lib Dems than Tories.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
With the possible exception of Putin's Russia (and a bit too early to tell if his Mid East adventures are any more successful than ours!), it is hard to think of any world leader whose foreign policy has been a success in recent decades.
I'd say China hasnt had a bad run.
No wars, growing world influence, buying up Africa, buying up Western technology and extending its local reach so it's neighbours know who's boss.
I'd agree. But I have little doubt that China's economy has been a massive bubble for a decade or more, and the question is how well they'll cope when it bursts. I think much depends on what causes the burst: internal or external factors.
I agree on the Chinese bubble. I reckon Trump's trade war will burst it, most likely next year.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
Surely Northern Ireland was as much Major's doing?
I can remember a Sunday Times article lambasting Major because we had people talking to the IRA ...
As much is stretching it I think but i agree Major deserves credit. But compare Northern Ireland in 1997 to 2007...
Think of the incredible negotiating that had to be done to get the Good Friday agreement through... And the amazing fact that in the end Paisley and McGuinness went into government together...
The Good Friday agreement was signed less than a year after Blair came to power. AIUI much of the groundwork was done well before that.
What Blair might have done is provide a clean pair of hands; the republicans could say they weren't dealing with the Conservatives, with whom they shared rather a lot of recent mutual bad will and history.
Yet Major strove towards peace, even if it was clinched under Blair. And yes, it probably came quicker due to the change in government. Yet it would probably have happened eventually under Major, if he had won in 1997. Too many people were tired of the Troubles.
But I'm not an expert on the period, so it'd be interesting to hear other views.
My understanding is that the Good Friday agreement very nearly didn't happen at all...
In any case... There was a lot of work to be done after 1999...
Cameron is deserving of criticism for many things but his achievement in delivering 5 years of stable coalition government after the 2010 election was remarkable. I can't think of any other contemporary politician who could have carried it off.
Absolutely right. It was Cameron's and Osborne's skill that resulted in so many not recognising what an incredibly deep hole we were in after the Brown disaster. Our economy was teetering on the brink of a 1930s style collapse.
Even now we have not completely climbed out of that hole but thanks to those 2 (and some very useful Lib Dem support) we can now see the light at the top.
Cameron would probably claim that record employment was a legacy, millions of low paid people on improved hourly rates and out of income tax, foreign aid, gay marriage, improved adoption rates, falling crime etc etc.
In years to come, he'll be able to claim he was a great democrat who trusted the people with the voting system, the future of the union and it's relationship with Europe.
Good point on employment. The income tax thing I think was originally a lib dem policy? But he deserves credit certainly. Falling crime seems to be a long term trend? Didn't know about improved adoption rates.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
I don't know what good Blair achieved on the economy. He handed over a load of poison pills in Northern Ireland, with his secret amnesties for IRA members, combined with persecution of former members of the armed forces. He was an awful PM.
The country changed fundamentally during the Blair years, not least of which due to his tacit policy of pursuing both social change and economic growth through mass immigration.
Cameron would probably claim that record employment was a legacy, millions of low paid people on improved hourly rates and out of income tax, foreign aid, gay marriage, improved adoption rates, falling crime etc etc.
In years to come, he'll be able to claim he was a great democrat who trusted the people with the voting system, the future of the union and it's relationship with Europe.
Good point on employment. The income tax thing I think was originally a lib dem policy? But he deserves credit certainly. Falling crime seems to be a long term trend? Didn't know about improved adoption rates.
The coalition did a lot of work on the adoption system, and Cameron seemed to be a driver of that. In some ways it was good (though a regular poster on here vehemently disagrees), but in others it was a capitulation to the fact the care system is utterly borken.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
I don't know what good Blair achieved on the economy. He handed over a load of poison pills in Northern Ireland, with his secret amnesties for IRA members, combined with persecution of former members of the armed forces. He was an awful PM.
Okay.
The point I am trying to make is that Blair can be seen as a success according to his own objectives (even if you personally don't like them).
Cameron failed at this.
What do you think their objectives were?
IMO that certainly initially, both had the same objective: to take an unpopular party and propel it to power. In that, both were successful. If anything Blair had an easier job given the way the Conservative party disintegrated after 1993.
Just after Maastricht, of course. When the EU (as it had by then become) took a definitive turn away from being just an economic community, into a political project in search of full economic, monetary, political and social union.
It's very early days, but perhaps historians will look back on this period and see the Conservative Party came full circle after an - increasingly uncomfortable - 25 year experiment with europhilia and internationalist governance.
What happens to Labour will be even more interesting.
My understanding is that the Good Friday agreement very nearly didn't happen at all...
In any case... There was a lot of work to be done after 1999...
Agree with that. Blair needs immense credit for it, which he gets. But I still think his work sits on the foundations produced by Major.
Does anyone (TimT?) know of a good website / book covering peace processes that have failed and worked, including NI and (although probably too recent) Columbia? It seems an area that's worthy of study.
My understanding is that the Good Friday agreement very nearly didn't happen at all...
In any case... There was a lot of work to be done after 1999...
Agree with that. Blair needs immense credit for it, which he gets. But I still think his work sits on the foundations produced by Major.
Does anyone (TimT?) know of a good website / book covering peace processes that have failed and worked, including NI and (although probably too recent) Columbia? It seems an area that's worthy of study.
I enjoyed Jonathan Powell's book on Northern Ireland peace process and his/Blair's role in it.
My understanding is that the Good Friday agreement very nearly didn't happen at all...
In any case... There was a lot of work to be done after 1999...
Agree with that. Blair needs immense credit for it, which he gets. But I still think his work sits on the foundations produced by Major.
Does anyone (TimT?) know of a good website / book covering peace processes that have failed and worked, including NI and (although probably too recent) Columbia? It seems an area that's worthy of study.
If you are in the Smoke make a visit to the Bookshop at Friends House, it has a whole section on peacemaking. The cafe is good too. I browse there sometimes when waiting for the train.
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
I don't know what good Blair achieved on the economy. He handed over a load of poison pills in Northern Ireland, with his secret amnesties for IRA members, combined with persecution of former members of the armed forces. He was an awful PM.
The country changed fundamentally during the Blair years, not least of which due to his tacit policy of pursuing both social change and economic growth through mass immigration.
That can't be undone.
I suspect Blair would not be particularly upset about either of those things...
It's interesting though that the Tories under Howard did try campaigning on immigration and didn't make much headway.
Feels like immigration only really became a big issue after the crash...
The reason that Cameron got nowhere with his negotiations last year were twofold:
Yes - talk about catastrophic policy failures... Cameron is in a league of his own.
Oh dont be silly he shares the top spot with Blair, they bookend the post cold war flops
Blair won three elections and left when he wanted having achieved much of what he set out to do.
Whatever you think of Blair's legacy... He can hardly be compared to Cameron who having finally won a majority managed to throw it all away within a year or so.
the reference was to failures of UK foreign policy
maybe you count Iraq as a success ?
No fair enough it was a disaster. Overall though Blair can point to real achievements in Northern Ireland; on the economy; on the NHS; on pensioner poverty etc...
I don't know what good Blair achieved on the economy. He handed over a load of poison pills in Northern Ireland, with his secret amnesties for IRA members, combined with persecution of former members of the armed forces. He was an awful PM.
The country changed fundamentally during the Blair years, not least of which due to his tacit policy of pursuing both social change and economic growth through mass immigration.
That can't be undone.
I suspect Blair would not be particularly upset about either of those things...
It's interesting though that the Tories under Howard did try campaigning on immigration and didn't make much headway.
Feels like immigration only really became a big issue after the crash...
Howard campaigned up to May 2005. London got bombed in the July. That was the moment.
My understanding is that the Good Friday agreement very nearly didn't happen at all...
In any case... There was a lot of work to be done after 1999...
Agree with that. Blair needs immense credit for it, which he gets. But I still think his work sits on the foundations produced by Major.
Does anyone (TimT?) know of a good website / book covering peace processes that have failed and worked, including NI and (although probably too recent) Columbia? It seems an area that's worthy of study.
If you are in the Smoke make a visit to the Bookshop at Friends House, it has a whole section on peacemaking. The cafe is good too. I browse there sometimes when waiting for the train.
Thanks, I'd never heard of Friends House (yet alone the bookshop), though I must have walked past it many, many times.
Don't know when I'll next get down to the Smoke, yet alone with time to browse bookshops ...
@JosiahJessop I studied it as part of an Open University MSc in International Development, and the course book on the subject 'civil war, civil peace' was up to the OU's normally excellent standards. A lot of the case studies in it were from Nepal, as well as Northern Ireland, as I recall. I don't know whether you can get hold of OU publications without doing the course.
Edit/here's the abstract:
After a peace agreement, half of all civil wars start again. When a cease fire or peace deal is agreed, aid workers, military personnel, diplomats and others pour in, but what can they do to reduce the chances of a return to war? A growing number of academic courses aimed at practitioners and policy-makers in Britain and elsewhere attempt to answer this question but until now there has been no book to accompany them. In part, a handbook on how to understand each war as a unique phenomenon, it develops a set of war analysis tools, challenging commonly held assumptions about the nature of gender, ethnicity and greed.
The question is really whether she is in the same position as May, not great but with no credible alternative. The SPD seem even more moribund than the CDU and we all know now what happens to the junior partner of Coalitions. It will be scary if the AfD becomes the alternative.
The question is really whether she is in the same position as May, not great but with no credible alternative. The SPD seem even more moribund than the CDU and we all know now what happens to the junior partner of Coalitions. It will be scary if the AfD becomes the alternative.
AfD have some of UKIP's problems with factionalism. They can't agree on a Chancellor candidate and look like going with a joint leadership ticket which sounds like a recipe for a chaotic election campaign.
@JosiahJessop I studied it as part of an Open University MSc in International Development, and the course book on the subject 'civil war, civil peace' was up to the OU's normally excellent standards. A lot of the case studies in it were from Nepal, as well as Northern Ireland, as I recall. I don't know whether you can get hold of OU publications without doing the course.
Edit/here's the abstract:
After a peace agreement, half of all civil wars start again. When a cease fire or peace deal is agreed, aid workers, military personnel, diplomats and others pour in, but what can they do to reduce the chances of a return to war? A growing number of academic courses aimed at practitioners and policy-makers in Britain and elsewhere attempt to answer this question but until now there has been no book to accompany them. In part, a handbook on how to understand each war as a unique phenomenon, it develops a set of war analysis tools, challenging commonly held assumptions about the nature of gender, ethnicity and greed.
Many thanks. I'd love to read that.
I'm unsure whether I'm surprised or not that a half of all peace agreements in civil wars fail. Perhaps - sadly - the war needs to progress to a stage of stalemate where peace becomes the 'best' option for all sides. Where the combatants have been worn down. Too early, and the hotheads on either side still think they can win.
The question is really whether she is in the same position as May, not great but with no credible alternative. The SPD seem even more moribund than the CDU and we all know now what happens to the junior partner of Coalitions. It will be scary if the AfD becomes the alternative.
AfD won't be a realistic alternative for next year, but if the resulting coalition is CDU-SPD-Green then suddenly a lot of centre right voters will be homeless and the following election could see them become the largest party.
After an initial phase of post-referendum arrogance and euphoria, it has become increasingly obvious that May’s government completely misread the likely EU response to a British exit from the bloc. It now seems likely that the UK will continue to stagger from failure to failure at an accelerating pace.
As I recall the case study on Northern Ireland, the conclusion was that it was the work done, mostly under Major, to address the underlying grievances of the nationalist population - particularly around things like housing allocation, and policing - that laid the foundations that made any sort of political dialogue possible. The talks get the headlines but it was the culmination of years of hard graft and heavy lifting that made it possible.
My Amazon link includes 'look inside' with the contents pages and an extract so you can get a feel for it
The question is really whether she is in the same position as May, not great but with no credible alternative. The SPD seem even more moribund than the CDU and we all know now what happens to the junior partner of Coalitions. It will be scary if the AfD becomes the alternative.
AfD won't be a realistic alternative for next year, but if the resulting coalition is CDU-SPD-Green then suddenly a lot of centre right voters will be homeless and the following election could see them become the largest party.
That's what I fear. The Germans are not happy and not being given a choice. That can only last so long. 2017 may be too soon but another grand coalition leaving too many out in the cold would be disastrous.
@JosiahJessop I studied it as part of an Open University MSc in International Development, and the course book on the subject 'civil war, civil peace' was up to the OU's normally excellent standards. A lot of the case studies in it were from Nepal, as well as Northern Ireland, as I recall. I don't know whether you can get hold of OU publications without doing the course.
Edit/here's the abstract:
After a peace agreement, half of all civil wars start again. When a cease fire or peace deal is agreed, aid workers, military personnel, diplomats and others pour in, but what can they do to reduce the chances of a return to war? A growing number of academic courses aimed at practitioners and policy-makers in Britain and elsewhere attempt to answer this question but until now there has been no book to accompany them. In part, a handbook on how to understand each war as a unique phenomenon, it develops a set of war analysis tools, challenging commonly held assumptions about the nature of gender, ethnicity and greed.
Many thanks. I'd love to read that.
I'm unsure whether I'm surprised or not that a half of all peace agreements in civil wars fail. Perhaps - sadly - the war needs to progress to a stage of stalemate where peace becomes the 'best' option for all sides. Where the combatants have been worn down. Too early, and the hotheads on either side still think they can win.
P'haps.
Sometimes, but the other way for wars to end is with increasing radicalism due to mutual antagonism, with partition or subjugation. When people accept radicalism as the price of ending conflict then the result is a very dangerous peace. Think Russia under the Bolsheviks, China under Mao, Afghanistan under the Taliban etc etc.
On my UK Amazon it is coming up for £25 and used for £14. As I said below, the look inside (only on Amazon.com) includes a good extract from the book so you can get a feel for it. It doesnt contain any very recent stuff being five years old
After an initial phase of post-referendum arrogance and euphoria, it has become increasingly obvious that May’s government completely misread the likely EU response to a British exit from the bloc. It now seems likely that the UK will continue to stagger from failure to failure at an accelerating pace.
What preposterous drivel. He also repeats the lame-ass fallacy that older Tories die off and younger socialists take over. NO THEY DON'T. People go right as they age, and twas ever thus.
Also, fuck off you sneering Polish twat, you come from a nation which only produces turnips, anti-Semitism and brown coal. By contrast, WE ARE ENGLAND.
Do foreigners not realise how this stuff reads to Brits?
Like an accurate summary of Red, White and Blue Brexit?
After an initial phase of post-referendum arrogance and euphoria, it has become increasingly obvious that May’s government completely misread the likely EU response to a British exit from the bloc. It now seems likely that the UK will continue to stagger from failure to failure at an accelerating pace.
What preposterous drivel. He also repeats the lame-ass fallacy that older Tories die off and younger socialists take over. NO THEY DON'T. People go right as they age, and twas ever thus.
Also, fuck off you sneering Polish twat, you come from a nation which only produces turnips, anti-Semitism and brown coal. By contrast, WE ARE ENGLAND.
Do foreigners not realise how this stuff reads to Brits?
One can but agree with your sentiments; however you seem to have omitted the dumplings and disgusting betroot soup, not to mention the bodgers.
Rather bizarrely the book seems to have at least six different pages on Amazon.co.uk, four with widely varying prices and two saying currently unavailable. Yet it's clearly the same book every time. I guess the lesson is to try a variety of searches if you are looking for something not mass market.
After an initial phase of post-referendum arrogance and euphoria, it has become increasingly obvious that May’s government completely misread the likely EU response to a British exit from the bloc. It now seems likely that the UK will continue to stagger from failure to failure at an accelerating pace.
No doubt as we stagger from failure to failure, the already high numbers of Britains in search of a better life being drawn to the bright lights of Poland will reach truly epidemic proportions. Will the last Brit leaving for Warsaw turn out the lights?
Re "how does this read to the rest of the UK?". Bang tidy in Wales butt.
However, rejoice for I have seen the light. A former Polish finance minister has shown me the error of my ways. I was lost but now I am found. I thought 50 years of living in my own country gave me an insight but no, I was following false prophets. We shall stagger from disaster to disaster forever unless we bend the knee and beg prostrate to be taken back. For they are wiser than us about how we run our affairs, more tolerant, more far seeing. I was wrong and now I am inconsolable in my grief for my errors.
Good night and thank you o great former Polish finance minister. I shall venerate your worthiness forever.
After an initial phase of post-referendum arrogance and euphoria, it has become increasingly obvious that May’s government completely misread the likely EU response to a British exit from the bloc. It now seems likely that the UK will continue to stagger from failure to failure at an accelerating pace.
No doubt as we stagger from failure to failure, the already high numbers of Britains in search of a better life being drawn to the bright lights of Poland will reach truly epidemic proportions. Will the last Brit leaving for Warsaw turn out the lights?
Don't confuse politics and economics. Even the political failure that was John Major handed over a golden economic legacy. The failure of Brexit will be John Major on steroids.
I'd never even heard about Alibris. Are they generally reliable - I'm a fairly frequent purchaser of obscure books, albeit mostly about engineering.
Ditto, though politics and history in my case: I don't recall ever having a problem with them. The three sites I'll use when looking for something are Amazon, Alibris, and Abebooks. Alibris normally have some sort of discount voucher code available, too, which you can find using the search engine of your choice.
I'd never even heard about Alibris. Are they generally reliable - I'm a fairly frequent purchaser of obscure books, albeit mostly about engineering.
Ditto, though politics and history in my case: I don't recall ever having a problem with them. The three sites I'll use when looking for something are Amazon, Alibris, and Abebooks. Alibris normally have some sort of discount voucher code available, too, which you can find using the search engine of your choice.
Ah, have used Abebooks in the past.
One thing I hate is going for an obscure book and getting a hard copy of a scanned book. Particularly bad when the book includes fold-out engineering diagrams that have only been half-scanned.
Yes, there are often tell-tales in the book descriptions, but you only learn to detect them once you've been burnt.
In my eyes, to be a great nation you must have seriously changed and enriched human history, in several different ways
Long list:
England (or Britain, if we are being generous to Scotland, Ireland and Wales) Italy France Spain Germany USA China Russia Egypt India The Jewish Nation (scattered) Japan Iran (aka Persia)
Ruthless shortlist:
England Italy The Jewish Nation China
In no particular order:
US. China. UK (nowadays more cultural).
Perhaps better to ask which countries punch above their weight. In which cases countries with large populations such as India tend to rank lower, and smaller countries rank higher.
In my eyes, to be a great nation you must have seriously changed and enriched human history, in several different ways
Long list:
England (or Britain, if we are being generous to Scotland, Ireland and Wales) Italy France Spain Germany USA China Russia Egypt India The Jewish Nation (scattered) Japan Iran (aka Persia)
Ruthless shortlist:
England Italy The Jewish Nation China
Russia? Granted they've got chess sown up, but what else?
Sean T said: "What preposterous drivel. He also repeats the lame-ass fallacy that older Tories die off and younger socialists take over. NO THEY DON'T. People go right as they age, and twas ever thus."
wasn't it Churchill who said "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. "
In my eyes, to be a great nation you must have seriously changed and enriched human history, in several different ways
Long list:
England (or Britain, if we are being generous to Scotland, Ireland and Wales) Italy France Spain Germany USA China Russia Egypt India The Jewish Nation (scattered) Japan Iran (aka Persia)
Ruthless shortlist:
England Italy The Jewish Nation China
Russia? Granted they've got chess sown up, but what else?
They just got their man elected POTUS, now that is real influence...
In my eyes, to be a great nation you must have seriously changed and enriched human history, in several different ways
Long list:
England (or Britain, if we are being generous to Scotland, Ireland and Wales) Italy France Spain Germany USA China Russia Egypt India The Jewish Nation (scattered) Japan Iran (aka Persia)
Ruthless shortlist:
England Italy The Jewish Nation China
Russia? Granted they've got chess sown up, but what else?
They just got their man elected POTUS, now that is real influence...
In my eyes, to be a great nation you must have seriously changed and enriched human history, in several different ways
Long list:
England (or Britain, if we are being generous to Scotland, Ireland and Wales) Italy France Spain Germany USA China Russia Egypt India The Jewish Nation (scattered) Japan Iran (aka Persia)
Ruthless shortlist:
England Italy The Jewish Nation China
Russia? Granted they've got chess sown up, but what else?
They just got their man elected POTUS, now that is real influence...
I think we can add that to Gulags and Chernobyl as one of their great accomplishments.
In my eyes, to be a great nation you must have seriously changed and enriched human history, in several different ways
Long list:
England (or Britain, if we are being generous to Scotland, Ireland and Wales) Italy France Spain Germany USA China Russia Egypt India The Jewish Nation (scattered) Japan Iran (aka Persia)
Ruthless shortlist:
England Italy The Jewish Nation China
Russia? Granted they've got chess sown up, but what else?
After an initial phase of post-referendum arrogance and euphoria, it has become increasingly obvious that May’s government completely misread the likely EU response to a British exit from the bloc. It now seems likely that the UK will continue to stagger from failure to failure at an accelerating pace.
No doubt as we stagger from failure to failure, the already high numbers of Britains in search of a better life being drawn to the bright lights of Poland will reach truly epidemic proportions. Will the last Brit leaving for Warsaw turn out the lights?
People flow from poorer countries to richer ones. Even though China is - by any reasonable measure - a more vibrant and successful economy than (say) the UK, there is a flow of people from China to the UK.
In my eyes, to be a great nation you must have seriously changed and enriched human history, in several different ways
Long list:
England (or Britain, if we are being generous to Scotland, Ireland and Wales) Italy France Spain Germany USA China Russia Egypt India The Jewish Nation (scattered) Japan Iran (aka Persia)
Ruthless shortlist:
England Italy The Jewish Nation China
Russia? Granted they've got chess sown up, but what else?
Regarding Germany, the SPD is really keen not to go into coalition with the CDU/CSU again. They believe that being the junior coalition partner is not a great place to be, and they want to rebuild in opposition.
I think the price that Mrs Merkel would pay for their support next time around would be high indeed. Of course, the FDP is likely to be back in the Bundestag next time around, so that also makes things more interesting.
'Yes. We are England. We are a great nation. You are funny little Celtic statelets. You are not great nations. We get that. It's just a fact.'
Is it though? Many do question whether England is a nation at all. It can so easily be broken down into other nations - or peoples - Cornwall - Wessex - Nothumbria - Anglia - Mercia etc.
The FA says it plans to appeal against the fine handed down by FIFA after England players wore poppies on their shirts. The Scottish FA was also punished for a similar action by its team in the same game - a World Cup qualifier at Wembley Stadium. England was told to pay £35,000 for "several incidents" during the match, including displaying a "political symbol and several cases of spectator misconduct", FIFA said. Scotland, who lost the 11 November match 3-0, was fined around £15,000.
Comments
Think of the incredible negotiating that had to be done to get the Good Friday agreement through... And the amazing fact that in the end Paisley and McGuinness went into government together...
IMO that certainly initially, both had the same objective: to take an unpopular party and propel it to power. In that, both were successful. If anything Blair had an easier job given the way the Conservative party disintegrated after 1993.
But aside from that, what else did they want?
What Blair might have done is provide a clean pair of hands; the republicans could say they weren't dealing with the Conservatives, with whom they shared rather a lot of recent mutual bad will and history.
Yet Major strove towards peace, even if it was clinched under Blair. And yes, it probably came quicker due to the change in government. Yet it would probably have happened eventually under Major, if he had won in 1997. Too many people were tired of the Troubles.
But I'm not an expert on the period, so it'd be interesting to hear other views.
On foreign policy he wanted a more interventionist policy nd he got it... I mean I know Iraq was a disaster... But it's totally clear Blair pushed it through and even managed to persuade Bush to try the Un route.
Cameron's big things were the deficit and the big society. On both I would say he failed. I think Michael Gove was probably the only major reformer of his government.
In years to come, he'll be able to claim he was a great democrat who trusted the people with the voting system, the future of the union and it's relationship with Europe.
(Will +1 become the new 'indeed' ?)
In any case... There was a lot of work to be done after 1999...
Even now we have not completely climbed out of that hole but thanks to those 2 (and some very useful Lib Dem support) we can now see the light at the top.
That can't be undone.
It's very early days, but perhaps historians will look back on this period and see the Conservative Party came full circle after an - increasingly uncomfortable - 25 year experiment with europhilia and internationalist governance.
What happens to Labour will be even more interesting.
Does anyone (TimT?) know of a good website / book covering peace processes that have failed and worked, including NI and (although probably too recent) Columbia? It seems an area that's worthy of study.
It's interesting though that the Tories under Howard did try campaigning on immigration and didn't make much headway.
Feels like immigration only really became a big issue after the crash...
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/811335057667424256
Don't know when I'll next get down to the Smoke, yet alone with time to browse bookshops ...
Edit/here's the abstract:
After a peace agreement, half of all civil wars start again. When a cease fire or peace deal is agreed, aid workers, military personnel, diplomats and others pour in, but what can they do to reduce the chances of a return to war? A growing number of academic courses aimed at practitioners and policy-makers in Britain and elsewhere attempt to answer this question but until now there has been no book to accompany them. In part, a handbook on how to understand each war as a unique phenomenon, it develops a set of war analysis tools, challenging commonly held assumptions about the nature of gender, ethnicity and greed.
Seems to be on US Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Peace-Ohio-Global/dp/0896802493
The question is really whether she is in the same position as May, not great but with no credible alternative. The SPD seem even more moribund than the CDU and we all know now what happens to the junior partner of Coalitions. It will be scary if the AfD becomes the alternative.
I'm unsure whether I'm surprised or not that a half of all peace agreements in civil wars fail. Perhaps - sadly - the war needs to progress to a stage of stalemate where peace becomes the 'best' option for all sides. Where the combatants have been worn down. Too early, and the hotheads on either side still think they can win.
P'haps.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/theresa-may-brexit-leave-voters-by-jacek-rostowski-2016-12
After an initial phase of post-referendum arrogance and euphoria, it has become increasingly obvious that May’s government completely misread the likely EU response to a British exit from the bloc. It now seems likely that the UK will continue to stagger from failure to failure at an accelerating pace.
My Amazon link includes 'look inside' with the contents pages and an extract so you can get a feel for it
Ouch. £54 on UK Amazon.
Has gone on my wishlist, ahead of "Building Response to Tunnelling: Case studies from Construction of the Jubilee Line Extension"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Civil-Peace-Research-International-Studies/dp/0852558953/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1482274203&sr=8-8&keywords=Civil+war+civil+peace
They are speaking to themselves, as much or more than as we ever speak to ourselves
I'd never even heard about Alibris. Are they generally reliable - I'm a fairly frequent purchaser of obscure books, albeit mostly about engineering.
However, rejoice for I have seen the light. A former Polish finance minister has shown me the error of my ways. I was lost but now I am found. I thought 50 years of living in my own country gave me an insight but no, I was following false prophets. We shall stagger from disaster to disaster forever unless we bend the knee and beg prostrate to be taken back. For they are wiser than us about how we run our affairs, more tolerant, more far seeing. I was wrong and now I am inconsolable in my grief for my errors.
Good night and thank you o great former Polish finance minister. I shall venerate your worthiness forever.
(Runs for cover)
One thing I hate is going for an obscure book and getting a hard copy of a scanned book. Particularly bad when the book includes fold-out engineering diagrams that have only been half-scanned.
Yes, there are often tell-tales in the book descriptions, but you only learn to detect them once you've been burnt.
US.
China.
UK (nowadays more cultural).
Perhaps better to ask which countries punch above their weight. In which cases countries with large populations such as India tend to rank lower, and smaller countries rank higher.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/811346183117570048
wasn't it Churchill who said "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain. "
Mrs May's training program in action: it is far safer to be feared than loved.
(& "Trillion Pound" Osborne is history.)
Still: there should be consequences for breach of trust.
Wrapped prezzie for work Secret Santa (tough draw - devout older Muslim Doctor), and picked out some bottles for various secretaries.
Sleep now, work is done...
Social media trolls
How are the mighty fallen!
I think the price that Mrs Merkel would pay for their support next time around would be high indeed. Of course, the FDP is likely to be back in the Bundestag next time around, so that also makes things more interesting.
Is it though? Many do question whether England is a nation at all. It can so easily be broken down into other nations - or peoples - Cornwall - Wessex - Nothumbria - Anglia - Mercia etc.
NEW THREAD
http://news.sky.com/story/england-and-scotland-fined-for-wearing-poppies-in-football-qualifier-10702281
It is now time to tell FIFA unequivocally to do one and refuse to pay a single penny.