Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
I haven't been paying much attention, but has he done anything majorly wrong vs not really getting a grip on the role (especially as the major issue - Brexit - has been carved out, and, inevitability, in a Pacific War we are bit players).
If Boris is as self-aware as some of his supporters claim, standing down to become Party Chairman with an air of studied neutrality and helping groom the next generation could be an interesting role (and position him for a behind the scenes role) vs being a failed leadership candidate
I think our role in a Pacific War would be limited to sending a Trident sub and a destroyer. Which would be tokens.
The only military contribution we could usefully make would be through GCHQ/MI6 and, possibly, the SBS.
Do we overtly send trident subs anywhere? Not much of a token if not.
Theresa May needs to do something that will make the public revise the opinion that they've already formed of her. Since the opinion that they've formed of her is that she's too awkward, slow-thinking and out-of-touch, it's going to need to be pretty spectacular.
I'm afraid Strictly is out of the question.
Great British Bake Off is more Mrs May's style, I'd have thought.
She's a vicar's daughter. And I'm afraid she fits the stereotype.
Keeping your head down, and getting on with your homework to get the good grades, is all she's known all her life.
Just reading the words "when IDS beat Ken Clarke" shows how far, and for how long, the Tories have lost their bearings completely thanks to the eurosceptic virus.
A perfect misreading of the situation.
In 2001, with no UKIP, and the UK's membership of the euro very much current and on the table, with over 60% of the British public opposing membership, it was unthinkable to many Conservative Party members (including me) to elect a pro-euro leader.
It's hard to know what to think of May pulling out of that TV debate.
Had she gone, I think she'd have been outshone by Corbyn, and she might even have performed very poorly, and I'm not sure how that'd have been any better for her, since she'd have looked like she was being led by Corbyn in any event.
If you don't attend a public debate you (1) have something to hide or (2) you are taking the public for granted. Neither is a good look for a candidate. In Mrs May's case it was a bit of both.
Corbyn called her bluff, and she folded.
It was a snide move by him, but, she should have anticipated it.
Yes and Mike's point about looking as though you were dancing to Jezza's tune is overshadowed by the perception which took place: that she was complacent or inept or scared. Far far worse. Being bounced into a debate not of your choosing is a very very small opportunity to show that you are the leader the country needs.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
On topic, I wouldn't be entirely sure that the decision will be referred to the party membership. If the Tories were in opposition then it would definitely go there (the Howard example was very much the exception in that instance), but in government there's a case to be made that the Magic Circle operates, if it can.
That, however, assumes that either one candidate is head and shoulders above the rest, which isn't currently the case, or that there is sufficient collegiality for other runners and riders to withdraw once a consensus is reached - which is a big but not impossible ask.
On balance, the likelihood is that a vote will go to the members but it's far from a certainty.
One thing I don't expect is a 'challenge' from Boris. Firstly, individuals can't challenge, as such - though they can lead calls for a VoNC, making it clear what they want the outcome to be (but crucially, while other MPs might go along with the Vote, they're not then obliged to stick with the challenger who'd by then be tainted with disloyalty, without the countering effect of the momentum a challenger had under the old rules). Besides, does Boris actually have all that many supporters these days?
On topic, I wouldn't be entirely sure that the decision will be referred to the party membership. If the Tories were in opposition then it would definitely go there (the Howard example was very much the exception in that instance), but in government there's a case to be made that the Magic Circle operates, if it can.
That, however, assumes that either one candidate is head and shoulders above the rest, which isn't currently the case, or that there is sufficient collegiality for other runners and riders to withdraw once a consensus is reached - which is a big but not impossible ask.
On balance, the likelihood is that a vote will go to the members but it's far from a certainty.
One thing I don't expect is a 'challenge' from Boris. Firstly, individuals can't challenge, as such - though they can lead calls for a VoNC, making it clear what they want the outcome to be (but crucially, while other MPs might go along with the Vote, they're not then obliged to stick with the challenger who'd by then be tainted with disloyalty, without the countering effect of the momentum a challenger had under the old rules). Besides, does Boris actually have all that many supporters these days?
I can't see it happening, the prize is simply too great, and it takes only a few MPs to get a challenger on the ballot. I think you'd see Peter Bone or Chris Chope getting themselves nominated to avoid a coronation, serving as a pre-emptive stalking horse to encourage a viable candidate to throw their hat in the ring.
The Conservative party doesn't have stalking horses any more. You can't win the raffle unless you buy a ticket at the outset.
I know. I thought people would understand what I meant, but I can spell it out if needs be: 1) May resigns/decapitated 2) Nominations open for leadership 3) X is announced as the saviour and duly nominated by 200+ MPs 4) Peter Bone is nominated by Chris Chope and Tom Pursglove, announcing "I'm standing to give the membership a choice. I hope others will also stand." 5) Y decides to throw hat in the ring 6) Peter Bone retires from contest
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
As I have said before I think Gove knew exactly what Boris would be like as a PM and so made sure he would not get the job. I don't think Gove ever seriously wanted it. He just wanted to make sure Boris didn't get it. As such he did us a great service.
if say Spain was leaving - would we spend a long time discussing it? Probably not.... (Sexit? Spexit?)
Something like that would probably have been the dream scenario for British Eurosceptics, even if it were only a small country like Malta leaving. They would have been able to agitate either for the UK to leave too, or to break the united front of the remaining EU.
On topic, I wouldn't be entirely sure that the decision will be referred to the party membership. If the Tories were in opposition then it would definitely go there (the Howard example was very much the exception in that instance), but in government there's a case to be made that the Magic Circle operates, if it can.
That, however, assumes that either one candidate is head and shoulders above the rest, which isn't currently the case, or that there is sufficient collegiality for other runners and riders to withdraw once a consensus is reached - which is a big but not impossible ask.
On balance, the likelihood is that a vote will go to the members but it's far from a certainty.
One thing I don't expect is a 'challenge' from Boris. Firstly, individuals can't challenge, as such - though they can lead calls for a VoNC, making it clear what they want the outcome to be (but crucially, while other MPs might go along with the Vote, they're not then obliged to stick with the challenger who'd by then be tainted with disloyalty, without the countering effect of the momentum a challenger had under the old rules). Besides, does Boris actually have all that many supporters these days?
I can't see it happening, the prize is simply too great, and it takes only a few MPs to get a challenger on the ballot. I think you'd see Peter Bone or Chris Chope getting themselves nominated to avoid a coronation, serving as a pre-emptive stalking horse to encourage a viable candidate to throw their hat in the ring.
The Conservative party doesn't have stalking horses any more. You can't win the raffle unless you buy a ticket at the outset.
I know. I thought people would understand what I meant, but I can spell it out if needs be: 1) May resigns/decapitated 2) Nominations open for leadership 3) X is announced as the saviour and duly nominated by 200+ MPs 4) Peter Bone is nominated by Chris Chope and Tom Pursglove, announcing "I'm standing to give the membership a choice. I hope others will also stand." 5) Y decides to throw hat in the ring 6) Peter Bone retires from contest
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
Boris Johnson is almost certainly the best choice for Prime Minister at present. The position requires very little administrative ability and a nimbleness about political positions that only he possesses is going to be required if anything is going to be salvaged from the Brexit wreckage.
His stint as Mayor was ideal training. Leave all the grunt work to bright underlings and personify the nation.
Assuming Theresa May survives party conference unscathed (I think she will) then she must conduct an extensive Ministerial reshuffle: she will be strong enough to do so.
Inter alia, this is what she should do. Sack around three Cabinet members, namely Johnson (or offer him a minor Department, which he will likely refuse), Truss and Leadsom. Jeremy Hunt should become Foreign Secretary. Esther McVeigh, Brandon Lewis, Anne Milton and Dominic Raab should join the cabinet. Rees-Mogg should be appointed a Minister of State in a middle ranking ministry.
Johnny Mercer and Tom Tugendhat should also go from the backbenches straight to Minister of State rank.
Three or four years from now, we should at last have a cadre of credible candidates for Prime Minister for the 2022 election.
Members of Political Betting, Other appointments will be laid before you.
But change has to happen now!
The only reason Jeremy Hunt wasn't fired when May came to power was so that he could carry out the introduction of the junior doctor contract and to take all the flack. It would have been pointless to throw another minister to the wolves as well.
No chance of any leadership challenge this autumn if there is major military action or even full war in Korea.
Why? We've changed Prime Minister in both World Wars and indeed in the run up to the first Gulf War.
The First Gulf War (which was actually the second Gulf War - the Iran-Iraq War used to be known as the Gulf War before 1990), is the better comparison: a PM overthrown for domestic reasons, with the military action a lesser order of consideration, not least because the UK was a junior player in the war.
The falls of Asquith and Chamberlain by contrast were directly effected in order to improve the government's handling of the war. Both were made possible by the existence of at least one alternative PM who was perceived as being able to do the job better.
However, that said, there is merit to rottenborough's point: in difficult times, the risks of unnecessary political change are magnified.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
Boris Johnson is almost certainly the best choice for Prime Minister at present. The position requires very little administrative ability and a nimbleness about political positions that only he possesses is going to be required if anything is going to be salvaged from the Brexit wreckage.
His stint as Mayor was ideal training. Leave all the grunt work to bright underlings and personify the nation.
Do you really want to be personified by Boris?
He's sane, moderately amusing and capable of rational thought when he bothers. It would have the side effect of annoying the Eurocrats immensely in the short term, which would be worth it all by itself. And if he owned a problem rather than simply contributed to it, he would actually make an effort to solve it.
Mr. Tyndall, my prediction is that nothing happens. Sanctions have no effect, Kim gets his nukes, and the long term odds on a nuclear war breaking out (perhaps not from North Korea but from other despots who will take the obvious cue and get nukes if they possibly can) tumble.
On topic, I wouldn't be entirely sure that the decision will be referred to the party membership. If the Tories were in opposition then it would definitely go there (the Howard example was very much the exception in that instance), but in government there's a case to be made that the Magic Circle operates, if it can.
That, however, assumes that either one candidate is head and shoulders above the rest, which isn't currently the case, or that there is sufficient collegiality for other runners and riders to withdraw once a consensus is reached - which is a big but not impossible ask.
On balance, the likelihood is that a vote will go to the members but it's far from a certainty.
One thing I don't expect is a 'challenge' from Boris. Firstly, individuals can't challenge, as such - though they can lead calls for a VoNC, making it clear what they want the outcome to be (but crucially, while other MPs might go along with the Vote, they're not then obliged to stick with the challenger who'd by then be tainted with disloyalty, without the countering effect of the momentum a challenger had under the old rules). Besides, does Boris actually have all that many supporters these days?
I can't see it happening, the prize is simply too great, and it takes only a few MPs to get a challenger on the ballot. I think you'd see Peter Bone or Chris Chope getting themselves nominated to avoid a coronation, serving as a pre-emptive stalking horse to encourage a viable candidate to throw their hat in the ring.
The Conservative party doesn't have stalking horses any more. You can't win the raffle unless you buy a ticket at the outset.
I know. I thought people would understand what I meant, but I can spell it out if needs be: 1) May resigns/decapitated 2) Nominations open for leadership 3) X is announced as the saviour and duly nominated by 200+ MPs 4) Peter Bone is nominated by Chris Chope and Tom Pursglove, announcing "I'm standing to give the membership a choice. I hope others will also stand." 5) Y decides to throw hat in the ring 6) Peter Bone retires from contest
Why wouldn't Y just stand immediately?
Because they don't want to rock the boat. They change their mind because a disruptive leadership contest will take place regardless of whether they stand or not.
@Richard_Tyndall So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
---- YES
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
---- NOT EVEN Donald Trump can out-crazy Kim. China doesn't try
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
---- NOT REALLY
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
---- CHINA WOULD LOVE N Korea to be a satellite. They are not performing the role assigned to them. China doesn't want either the USA or N Korea to do anything
My 2c
---- EDIT China could switch off the taps to North Korea, which would cause significant hardship. But it wouldn't necessarily get Kim to improve his behaviour.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
As I have said before I think Gove knew exactly what Boris would be like as a PM and so made sure he would not get the job. I don't think Gove ever seriously wanted it. He just wanted to make sure Boris didn't get it. As such he did us a great service.
I still suspect Gove was the ball that George Osborne later said he'd fumbled.
No chance of any leadership challenge this autumn if there is major military action or even full war in Korea.
Why? We've changed Prime Minister in both World Wars and indeed in the run up to the first Gulf War.
The First Gulf War (which was actually the second Gulf War - the Iran-Iraq War used to be known as the Gulf War before 1990), is the better comparison: a PM overthrown for domestic reasons, with the military action a lesser order of consideration, not least because the UK was a junior player in the war.
The falls of Asquith and Chamberlain by contrast were directly effected in order to improve the government's handling of the war. Both were made possible by the existence of at least one alternative PM who was perceived as being able to do the job better.
However, that said, there is merit to rottenborough's point: in difficult times, the risks of unnecessary political change are magnified.
Hopefully we wont have to test whether I am right this autumn.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
Boris Johnson is almost certainly the best choice for Prime Minister at present. The position requires very little administrative ability and a nimbleness about political positions that only he possesses is going to be required if anything is going to be salvaged from the Brexit wreckage.
His stint as Mayor was ideal training. Leave all the grunt work to bright underlings and personify the nation.
I really don't understand your confidence (possibly a poor choice of word, belief? preferment?) for Boris.
On topic, I wouldn't be entirely sure that the decision will be referred to the party membership. If the Tories were in opposition then it would definitely go there (the Howard example was very much the exception in that instance), but in government there's a case to be made that the Magic Circle operates, if it can.
That, however, assumes that either one candidate is head and shoulders above the rest, which isn't currently the case, or that there is sufficient collegiality for other runners and riders to withdraw once a consensus is reached - which is a big but not impossible ask.
On balance, the likelihood is that a vote will go to the members but it's far from a certainty.
One thing I don't expect is a 'challenge' from Boris. Firstly, individuals can't challenge, as such - though they can lead calls for a VoNC, making it clear what they want the outcome to be (but crucially, while other MPs might go along with the Vote, they're not then obliged to stick with the challenger who'd by then be tainted with disloyalty, without the countering effect of the momentum a challenger had under the old rules). Besides, does Boris actually have all that many supporters these days?
I can't see it happening, the prize is simply too great, and it takes only a few MPs to get a challenger on the ballot. I think you'd see Peter Bone or Chris Chope getting themselves nominated to avoid a coronation, serving as a pre-emptive stalking horse to encourage a viable candidate to throw their hat in the ring.
The Conservative party doesn't have stalking horses any more. You can't win the raffle unless you buy a ticket at the outset.
I know. I thought people would understand what I meant, but I can spell it out if needs be: 1) May resigns/decapitated 2) Nominations open for leadership 3) X is announced as the saviour and duly nominated by 200+ MPs 4) Peter Bone is nominated by Chris Chope and Tom Pursglove, announcing "I'm standing to give the membership a choice. I hope others will also stand." 5) Y decides to throw hat in the ring 6) Peter Bone retires from contest
Why wouldn't Y just stand immediately?
Because they don't want to rock the boat. They change their mind because a disruptive leadership contest will take place regardless of whether they stand or not.
I don't see Peter Bone changing anyone's mind.
More to the point, I don't see the rampaging egos at the top of the Conservative party deciding against rocking the boat.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
Boris Johnson is almost certainly the best choice for Prime Minister at present. The position requires very little administrative ability and a nimbleness about political positions that only he possesses is going to be required if anything is going to be salvaged from the Brexit wreckage.
His stint as Mayor was ideal training. Leave all the grunt work to bright underlings and personify the nation.
Do you really want to be personified by Boris?
He's sane, moderately amusing and capable of rational thought when he bothers. It would have the side effect of annoying the Eurocrats immensely in the short term, which would be worth it all by itself. And if he owned a problem rather than simply contributed to it, he would actually make an effort to solve it.
I don't disagree with some of your characterisations but he is also renowned for bring extremely lazy and for not understanding his brief. Rightly or wrongly he also has a widespread reputation for being a buffoon.
Not characteristics I would suggest are ideal in a PM
Assuming Theresa May survives party conference unscathed (I think she will) then she must conduct an extensive Ministerial reshuffle: she will be strong enough to do so.
Inter alia, this is what she should do. Sack around three Cabinet members, namely Johnson (or offer him a minor Department, which he will likely refuse), Truss and Leadsom. Jeremy Hunt should become Foreign Secretary. Esther McVeigh, Brandon Lewis, Anne Milton and Dominic Raab should join the cabinet. Rees-Mogg should be appointed a Minister of State in a middle ranking ministry.
Johnny Mercer and Tom Tugendhat should also go from the backbenches straight to Minister of State rank.
Three or four years from now, we should at last have a cadre of credible candidates for Prime Minister for the 2022 election.
Members of Political Betting, Other appointments will be laid before you.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
What I have found depressing is how little control even China seems to have over this madman. Setting off a nuclear test at the moment when their President was about to address APEC was either a calculated insult or reckless indifference. The ideal scenario is Chinese special forces taking out the entire Kim family along with their closest lieutenants and replacing them with a rational if puppet regime. It doesn't seem remotely likely.
One of my daughter's friends at Uni has just gone to Seoul for a year with Erasmus. Her parents must be having palpitations.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
I haven't been paying much attention, but has he done anything majorly wrong vs not really getting a grip on the role (especially as the major issue - Brexit - has been carved out, and, inevitability, in a Pacific War we are bit players).
If Boris is as self-aware as some of his supporters claim, standing down to become Party Chairman with an air of studied neutrality and helping groom the next generation could be an interesting role (and position him for a behind the scenes role) vs being a failed leadership candidate
I think our role in a Pacific War would be limited to sending a Trident sub and a destroyer. Which would be tokens.
The only military contribution we could usefully make would be through GCHQ/MI6 and, possibly, the SBS.
Do we overtly send trident subs anywhere? Not much of a token if not.
If it's on patrol anywhere right now, it's probably within range of North Korea.
It's hard to know what to think of May pulling out of that TV debate.
Had she gone, I think she'd have been outshone by Corbyn, and she might even have performed very poorly, and I'm not sure how that'd have been any better for her, since she'd have looked like she was being led by Corbyn in any event.
If you don't attend a public debate you (1) have something to hide or (2) you are taking the public for granted. Neither is a good look for a candidate. In Mrs May's case it was a bit of both.
Corbyn called her bluff, and she folded.
It was a snide move by him, but, she should have anticipated it.
Yes and Mike's point about looking as though you were dancing to Jezza's tune is overshadowed by the perception which took place: that she was complacent or inept or scared. Far far worse. Being bounced into a debate not of your choosing is a very very small opportunity to show that you are the leader the country needs.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
I'm not in the Brains Trust, and have no answers to the lad in NK. I can only say that I genuinely feel uneasy about the situation. As a lad in the 70s, I was honestly a little bit scared of a nuclear war, watching programmes and public information films such as Protect and Survive. I'm getting the same feeling now. I hope that China can rein him in, and Trump doesn't go buckwild.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
Boris Johnson is almost certainly the best choice for Prime Minister at present. The position requires very little administrative ability and a nimbleness about political positions that only he possesses is going to be required if anything is going to be salvaged from the Brexit wreckage.
His stint as Mayor was ideal training. Leave all the grunt work to bright underlings and personify the nation.
Do you really want to be personified by Boris?
He's sane, moderately amusing and capable of rational thought when he bothers. It would have the side effect of annoying the Eurocrats immensely in the short term, which would be worth it all by itself. And if he owned a problem rather than simply contributed to it, he would actually make an effort to solve it.
Cripes, is this your Eurosceptic side showing its colours once more?
Thank heavens, welcome back. You've been missed mate ;-)
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
Boris Johnson is almost certainly the best choice for Prime Minister at present. The position requires very little administrative ability and a nimbleness about political positions that only he possesses is going to be required if anything is going to be salvaged from the Brexit wreckage.
His stint as Mayor was ideal training. Leave all the grunt work to bright underlings and personify the nation.
I really don't understand your confidence (possibly a poor choice of word, belief? preferment?) for Boris.
PM is a huge step up from being Mayor.
Boris is the only Brexiteer who could even contemplate getting away with a major reversal of course. No-one else would have the shamelessness or the self-confidence. That means he's more capable of creating new political space where none exists today.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
"He can't yet do x" is the response to each test, and then 2 weeks later it turns out that now he can, but he can't yet do y, etc. The technical problems he has to overcome are, literally, not rocket science, they are engineering problems, and he and his scientists have the boost that they know all the problems are soluble because people have solved them.
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
Assuming Theresa May survives party conference unscathed (I think she will) then she must conduct an extensive Ministerial reshuffle: she will be strong enough to do so.
Inter alia, this is what she should do. Sack around three Cabinet members, namely Johnson (or offer him a minor Department, which he will likely refuse), Truss and Leadsom. Jeremy Hunt should become Foreign Secretary. Esther McVeigh, Brandon Lewis, Anne Milton and Dominic Raab should join the cabinet. Rees-Mogg should be appointed a Minister of State in a middle ranking ministry.
Johnny Mercer and Tom Tugendhat should also go from the backbenches straight to Minister of State rank.
Three or four years from now, we should at last have a cadre of credible candidates for Prime Minister for the 2022 election.
Members of Political Betting, Other appointments will be laid before you.
But change has to happen now!
The only reason Jeremy Hunt wasn't fired when May came to power was so that he could carry out the introduction of the junior doctor contract and to take all the flack. It would have been pointless to throw another minister to the wolves as well.
Steady. Jeremy Hunt has successfully steered the NHS for over 5 years.
Assuming Theresa May survives party conference unscathed (I think she will) then she must conduct an extensive Ministerial reshuffle: she will be strong enough to do so.
Inter alia, this is what she should do. Sack around three Cabinet members, namely Johnson (or offer him a minor Department, which he will likely refuse), Truss and Leadsom. Jeremy Hunt should become Foreign Secretary. Esther McVeigh, Brandon Lewis, Anne Milton and Dominic Raab should join the cabinet. Rees-Mogg should be appointed a Minister of State in a middle ranking ministry.
Johnny Mercer and Tom Tugendhat should also go from the backbenches straight to Minister of State rank.
Three or four years from now, we should at last have a cadre of credible candidates for Prime Minister for the 2022 election.
Members of Political Betting, Other appointments will be laid before you.
But change has to happen now!
The only reason Jeremy Hunt wasn't fired when May came to power was so that he could carry out the introduction of the junior doctor contract and to take all the flack. It would have been pointless to throw another minister to the wolves as well.
Steady. Jeremy Hunt has successfully steered the NHS for over 5 years.
That takes some doing.
True, however people said that about May and the Home Office...
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
I don't think anything will happen unless his strikes, which he may well do. I think he wants to see just how far he cans strut out his chest.
A missile strike in the sea near Guam would be interesting. If he hits Guam and causes causalities (dummy warhead, or not) then that's quite another thing.
Assuming Theresa May survives party conference unscathed (I think she will) then she must conduct an extensive Ministerial reshuffle: she will be strong enough to do so.
Inter alia, this is what she should do. Sack around three Cabinet members, namely Johnson (or offer him a minor Department, which he will likely refuse), Truss and Leadsom. Jeremy Hunt should become Foreign Secretary. Esther McVeigh, Brandon Lewis, Anne Milton and Dominic Raab should join the cabinet. Rees-Mogg should be appointed a Minister of State in a middle ranking ministry.
Johnny Mercer and Tom Tugendhat should also go from the backbenches straight to Minister of State rank.
Three or four years from now, we should at last have a cadre of credible candidates for Prime Minister for the 2022 election.
Members of Political Betting, Other appointments will be laid before you.
But change has to happen now!
The only reason Jeremy Hunt wasn't fired when May came to power was so that he could carry out the introduction of the junior doctor contract and to take all the flack. It would have been pointless to throw another minister to the wolves as well.
Steady. Jeremy Hunt has successfully steered the NHS for over 5 years.
That takes some doing.
Having inherited a catastrophe from Lansley. I think he is one of the very few Ministers in this government that is underrated.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
What I have found depressing is how little control even China seems to have over this madman. Setting off a nuclear test at the moment when their President was about to address APEC was either a calculated insult or reckless indifference. The ideal scenario is Chinese special forces taking out the entire Kim family along with their closest lieutenants and replacing them with a rational if puppet regime. It doesn't seem remotely likely.
One of my daughter's friends at Uni has just gone to Seoul for a year with Erasmus. Her parents must be having palpitations.
I don't think China knows what to do about him either.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
I haven't been paying much attention, but has he done anything majorly wrong vs not really getting a grip on the role (especially as the major issue - Brexit - has been carved out, and, inevitability, in a Pacific War we are bit players).
If Boris is as self-aware as some of his supporters claim, standing down to become Party Chairman with an air of studied neutrality and helping groom the next generation could be an interesting role (and position him for a behind the scenes role) vs being a failed leadership candidate
I think our role in a Pacific War would be limited to sending a Trident sub and a destroyer. Which would be tokens.
The only military contribution we could usefully make would be through GCHQ/MI6 and, possibly, the SBS.
Do we overtly send trident subs anywhere? Not much of a token if not.
If it's on patrol anywhere right now, it's probably within range of North Korea.
Would have to be somewhere in the Pacific, or north east of Diego Garcia...
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
"He can't yet do x" is the response to each test, and then 2 weeks later it turns out that now he can, but he can't yet do y, etc. The technical problems he has to overcome are, literally, not rocket science, they are engineering problems, and he and his scientists have the boost that they know all the problems are soluble because people have solved them.
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
China could bring down the N Korean economy within a week, were it to cut off energy and oil supplies. Whether that would bring down Kim is another matter. As with the US, if China did make it an existential crisis for Kim's regime, they'd be running very substantial risks themselves. And of course, a complete breakdown of a nuclear-armed state is not really something China necessarily wants on its doorstep anyway.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
What I have found depressing is how little control even China seems to have over this madman. Setting off a nuclear test at the moment when their President was about to address APEC was either a calculated insult or reckless indifference. The ideal scenario is Chinese special forces taking out the entire Kim family along with their closest lieutenants and replacing them with a rational if puppet regime. It doesn't seem remotely likely.
One of my daughter's friends at Uni has just gone to Seoul for a year with Erasmus. Her parents must be having palpitations.
I don't think China knows what to do about him either.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
I haven't been paying much attention, but has he done anything majorly wrong vs not really getting a grip on the role (especially as the major issue - Brexit - has been carved out, and, inevitability, in a Pacific War we are bit players).
If Boris is as self-aware as some of his supporters claim, standing down to become Party Chairman with an air of studied neutrality and helping groom the next generation could be an interesting role (and position him for a behind the scenes role) vs being a failed leadership candidate
I think our role in a Pacific War would be limited to sending a Trident sub and a destroyer. Which would be tokens.
The only military contribution we could usefully make would be through GCHQ/MI6 and, possibly, the SBS.
Do we overtly send trident subs anywhere? Not much of a token if not.
If it's on patrol anywhere right now, it's probably within range of North Korea.
I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a Trident sub in the Indian Ocean right now.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
What I have found depressing is how little control even China seems to have over this madman. Setting off a nuclear test at the moment when their President was about to address APEC was either a calculated insult or reckless indifference. The ideal scenario is Chinese special forces taking out the entire Kim family along with their closest lieutenants and replacing them with a rational if puppet regime. It doesn't seem remotely likely.
One of my daughter's friends at Uni has just gone to Seoul for a year with Erasmus. Her parents must be having palpitations.
I don't think China knows what to do about him either.
No, their frustration and irritation is palpable. The last thing they want is the US's most sophisticated weapon systems being deployed that close to their country and the sea of Japan full of US carriers.
There's only one thing for it: Send Juncker over to Pyongyang with the 35 accession chapters of the acquis. That will keep Kim Jong-un occupied for years.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
What I have found depressing is how little control even China seems to have over this madman. Setting off a nuclear test at the moment when their President was about to address APEC was either a calculated insult or reckless indifference. The ideal scenario is Chinese special forces taking out the entire Kim family along with their closest lieutenants and replacing them with a rational if puppet regime. It doesn't seem remotely likely.
One of my daughter's friends at Uni has just gone to Seoul for a year with Erasmus. Her parents must be having palpitations.
I don't think China knows what to do about him either.
No, their frustration and irritation is palpable. The last thing they want is the US's most sophisticated weapon systems being deployed that close to their country and the sea of Japan full of US carriers.
the USA should offer S |Korea nuclear bomb technology
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
My view is that he thinks that if his regime is armed with nuclear weapons, he can successfully invade the South, while deterring the US from responding.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
"He can't yet do x" is the response to each test, and then 2 weeks later it turns out that now he can, but he can't yet do y, etc. The technical problems he has to overcome are, literally, not rocket science, they are engineering problems, and he and his scientists have the boost that they know all the problems are soluble because people have solved them.
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
China could bring down the N Korean economy within a week, were it to cut off energy and oil supplies. Whether that would bring down Kim is another matter. As with the US, if China did make it an existential crisis for Kim's regime, they'd be running very substantial risks themselves. And of course, a complete breakdown of a nuclear-armed state is not really something China necessarily wants on its doorstep anyway.
Yes, I was talking about getting rid of Kim - bringing N Korea to its knees is the easy bit.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
What I have found depressing is how little control even China seems to have over this madman. Setting off a nuclear test at the moment when their President was about to address APEC was either a calculated insult or reckless indifference. The ideal scenario is Chinese special forces taking out the entire Kim family along with their closest lieutenants and replacing them with a rational if puppet regime. It doesn't seem remotely likely.
One of my daughter's friends at Uni has just gone to Seoul for a year with Erasmus. Her parents must be having palpitations.
I don't think China knows what to do about him either.
No, their frustration and irritation is palpable. The last thing they want is the US's most sophisticated weapon systems being deployed that close to their country and the sea of Japan full of US carriers.
the USA should offer S |Korea nuclear bomb technology
might speed things up a bit
What "things" were you looking to "speed up" exactly?
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
The most interesting rumour I heard was that last year's murder of Kim's in the Thai (?) airport was because China had attempted to orchestra a coup to put him on the throne of North Korea.
That would seem to be the best solution, if it can be achieved, but only China can do it.
On topic, I wouldn't be entirely sure that the decision will be referred to the party membership. If the Tories were in opposition then it would definitely go there (the Howard example was very much the exception in that instance), but in government there's a case to be made that the Magic Circle operates, if it can.
That, however, assumes that either one candidate is head and shoulders above the rest, which isn't currently the case, or that there is sufficient collegiality for other runners and riders to withdraw once a consensus is reached - which is a big but not impossible ask.
On balance, the likelihood is that a vote will go to the members but it's far from a certainty.
One thing I don't expect is a 'challenge' from Boris. Firstly, individuals can't challenge, as such - though they can lead calls for a VoNC, making it clear what they want the outcome to be (but crucially, while other MPs might go along with the Vote, they're not then obliged to stick with the challenger who'd by then be tainted with disloyalty, without the countering effect of the momentum a challenger had under the old rules). Besides, does Boris actually have all that many supporters these days?
I can't see it happening, the prize is simply too great, and it takes only a few MPs to get a challenger on the ballot. I think you'd see Peter Bone or Chris Chope getting themselves nominated to avoid a coronation, serving as a pre-emptive stalking horse to encourage a viable candidate to throw their hat in the ring.
The Conservative party doesn't have stalking horses any more. You can't win the raffle unless you buy a ticket at the outset.
I know. I thought people would understand what I meant, but I can spell it out if needs be: 1) May resigns/decapitated 2) Nominations open for leadership 3) X is announced as the saviour and duly nominated by 200+ MPs 4) Peter Bone is nominated by Chris Chope and Tom Pursglove, announcing "I'm standing to give the membership a choice. I hope others will also stand." 5) Y decides to throw hat in the ring 6) Peter Bone retires from contest
Why wouldn't Y just stand immediately?
Presumably Y would want to know there was demand for an alternative to X before risking it?
Otherwise s/he could be a damp squib and blow the chance of a future senior position under X
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
Not pretending to be a member of any brains trust, yet alone on PB, but I've given my view on this before. As for your last line: China will want nothing to do with NK: in fact, one of their fears is of millions of refugees flooding their borders if the NK regime was to fall.
NK is a rogue state, and could do anything. Years of 'playing nice' to them and doing essentially nothing has just given them time to gain capability. It was, and is, a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation.
So what to do?
Nothing can be done without Chinese intervention, and you need to look at what they want and, most importantly, what they fear. So my overly-hopeful solution is the following:
1) Encourage China to 'deal' with NK, with the aim being a unified Korea more akin to the South than the North. In the long term such a 2) In the meantime, the UN (mainly under the US) protects SK. 3) The rest of the world agrees to a massive funding scheme for the north of Korea under the unified regime, targeted initially towards emergency aid, and later to 're'-construction. 4) China and the US agree to demilitarise from the unified Korea, and to 'deal' with the resultant nuclear material in a similar manner to previous schemes.
If this were to happen, China might come out of it with a great deal of kudos, and have helped solve one of the foremost threats to world peace. On the other hand, it should be made clear that their (sometimes grudging) support for NK over the decades means that if the NK regime commits an atrocity, they will be held partially responsible. China cannot tell the world that no-one else can deal with NK, and then refuse to deal with them themselves.
As ever, Russia is a complicating factor to the above.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
What I have found depressing is how little control even China seems to have over this madman. Setting off a nuclear test at the moment when their President was about to address APEC was either a calculated insult or reckless indifference. The ideal scenario is Chinese special forces taking out the entire Kim family along with their closest lieutenants and replacing them with a rational if puppet regime. It doesn't seem remotely likely.
One of my daughter's friends at Uni has just gone to Seoul for a year with Erasmus. Her parents must be having palpitations.
I don't think China knows what to do about him either.
No, their frustration and irritation is palpable. The last thing they want is the US's most sophisticated weapon systems being deployed that close to their country and the sea of Japan full of US carriers.
the USA should offer S |Korea nuclear bomb technology
might speed things up a bit
What "things" were you looking to "speed up" exactly?
the correct PB answer as always is Brexit
but I was thinking more of pressurising China into action
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
"He can't yet do x" is the response to each test, and then 2 weeks later it turns out that now he can, but he can't yet do y, etc. The technical problems he has to overcome are, literally, not rocket science, they are engineering problems, and he and his scientists have the boost that they know all the problems are soluble because people have solved them.
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
I think the chances of a N Korean strike on the continental USA are pretty much nil.
Seoul & Tokyo are the two big cities at risk from fatty Kim methinks.
The difficulty Kim will have with any part of the continental USA is it is a bloody long way. I know he's tested past Japan but anything on its way to the west coast will have to be airborne for quite a while and the USA might be able to intercept over the pacific. A missile lobbed toward Tokyo will more likely than not get there.
North Korea distances
Seoul 56 Km Tokyo 1184 Km Guam 3430 Km - Closest USA territory Anchorage 5786 Km - Continental USA Hawaii 7501 Km Seattle 8055 Km - Closest major city on "West coast" London 8609 Km LA 9393 Km DC 10850 Km
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
The most interesting rumour I heard was that last year's murder of Kim's in the Thai (?) airport was because China had attempted to orchestra a coup to put him on the throne of North Korea.
That would seem to be the best solution, if it can be achieved, but only China can do it.
We need to "check our privilege" on this, because we are a grade A balls-out nuclear power, although only in the nicest possible way. If I were installed as Supreme Leader of N Korea tomorrow I would look very carefully at the arguments pro and con bringing Kim's project to fruition, when there are people like Trump with nuclear footballs. So China would have to install me as a puppet and do a Blix on the country to ensure the program was eradicated.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
"He can't yet do x" is the response to each test, and then 2 weeks later it turns out that now he can, but he can't yet do y, etc. The technical problems he has to overcome are, literally, not rocket science, they are engineering problems, and he and his scientists have the boost that they know all the problems are soluble because people have solved them.
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
I think the chances of a N Korean strike on the continental USA are pretty much nil.
Seoul & Tokyo are the two big cities at risk from fatty Kim methinks.
The difficulty Kim will have with any part of the continental USA is it is a bloody long way. I know he's tested past Japan but anything on its way to the west coast will have to be airborne for quite a while and the USA might be able to intercept over the pacific. A missile lobbed toward Tokyo will more likely than not get there.
North Korea distances
Seoul 56 Km Tokyo 1184 Km Guam 3430 Km - Closest USA territory Anchorage 5786 Km - Continental USA Hawaii 7501 Km Seattle 8055 Km - Closest major city on "West coast" London 8609 Km LA 9393 Km DC 10850 Km
Feck, hadn't realised we were closer than LA, bloody Mercator.
I agree about likelihood of actually striking the USA, it's about looking as if you could if you wanted to.
Boris would be a headache for Theresa May even if she wasn't in a precarious position herself. What to do about him? His performance as Foreign Secretary might charitably be described as in line with expectations; certainly he has only confirmed the widespread doubts about his seriousness. A powerful party leader would by now have called his bluff, but we don't have a powerful party leader. Meanwhile we could do with a Foreign Secretary who is not regarded as a joke or worse by the EU governments we need to do a deal with, and we could also do with a reshuffle which allows some new talent room to develop.
Go for it, Mrs May. I really don't think you've got much to lose at this stage.
We really dodged a bullet with Boris.
Can you imagine him as PM?
By contrast, I still wonder (with interest) what Michael Gove as PM might have been like.
It certainly wouldn't have been dull or lazy.
People couldn't imagine Boris doing all the detail of the actual Brecit negotiations but shamelessly taking over after they have been completed and selling post Brexit UK and post Brexit Tories is more than possible and as has been pointed out as someone who wrote two articles about the merits of Remaining and Leaving the EU just days before pumping for the latter he knows the art of political positioning more than anyone.
He is also by far the most charismatic figure the Tories currently have
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
The most interesting rumour I heard was that last year's murder of Kim's in the Thai (?) airport was because China had attempted to orchestra a coup to put him on the throne of North Korea.
That would seem to be the best solution, if it can be achieved, but only China can do it.
Not the first such rumour. Ten or so years ago there was an explosion on a train running between China and NK, which some conspiracy theorists think was a Chinese attempt on Kim Jong-il.
Also interesting and potentially relevant was the purported death of several Syrians in the explosion, given their collaboration on nuclear technology.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
"He can't yet do x" is the response to each test, and then 2 weeks later it turns out that now he can, but he can't yet do y, etc. The technical problems he has to overcome are, literally, not rocket science, they are engineering problems, and he and his scientists have the boost that they know all the problems are soluble because people have solved them.
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
I think the chances of a N Korean strike on the continental USA are pretty much nil.
Seoul & Tokyo are the two big cities at risk from fatty Kim methinks.
The difficulty Kim will have with any part of the continental USA is it is a bloody long way. I know he's tested past Japan but anything on its way to the west coast will have to be airborne for quite a while and the USA might be able to intercept over the pacific. A missile lobbed toward Tokyo will more likely than not get there.
North Korea distances
Seoul 56 Km Tokyo 1184 Km Guam 3430 Km - Closest USA territory Anchorage 5786 Km - Continental USA Hawaii 7501 Km Seattle 8055 Km - Closest major city on "West coast" London 8609 Km LA 9393 Km DC 10850 Km
Feck, hadn't realised we were closer than LA, bloody Mercator.
I agree about likelihood of actually striking the USA, it's about looking as if you could if you wanted to.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
"He can't yet do x" is the response to each test, and then 2 weeks later it turns out that now he can, but he can't yet do y, etc. The technical problems he has to overcome are, literally, not rocket science, they are engineering problems, and he and his scientists have the boost that they know all the problems are soluble because people have solved them.
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
I think the chances of a N Korean strike on the continental USA are pretty much nil.
Seoul & Tokyo are the two big cities at risk from fatty Kim methinks.
The difficulty Kim will have with any part of the continental USA is it is a bloody long way. I know he's tested past Japan but anything on its way to the west coast will have to be airborne for quite a while and the USA might be able to intercept over the pacific. A missile lobbed toward Tokyo will more likely than not get there.
North Korea distances
Seoul 56 Km Tokyo 1184 Km Guam 3430 Km - Closest USA territory Anchorage 5786 Km - Continental USA Hawaii 7501 Km Seattle 8055 Km - Closest major city on "West coast" London 8609 Km LA 9393 Km DC 10850 Km
Feck, hadn't realised we were closer than LA, bloody Mercator.
I agree about likelihood of actually striking the USA, it's about looking as if you could if you wanted to.
Apparently there’s a volcano warming up on Hawaii, too!
Presumably Y would want to know there was demand for an alternative to X before risking it?
Otherwise s/he could be a damp squib and blow the chance of a future senior position under X
Exactly, also if they discover a leadership contest is going to happen whether they throw their hat if the ring or not they will end up throwing their hat in the ring.
Alastair is right though, egos aren't going to allow a coronation. I just thought I'd highlight how a coronation won't happen even if the vast majority was ok with it. We only had a coronation last year because Leadsom blew her own legs off.
I can't believe PB sometimes. Here we all are, discussing the very real possibility of nuclear war, and nobody's considering the impact of nuclear Armageddon on carbon emissions.
Assuming Theresa May survives party conference unscathed (I think she will) then she must conduct an extensive Ministerial reshuffle: she will be strong enough to do so.
Inter alia, this is what she should do. Sack around three Cabinet members, namely Johnson (or offer him a minor Department, which he will likely refuse), Truss and Leadsom. Jeremy Hunt should become Foreign Secretary. Esther McVeigh, Brandon Lewis, Anne Milton and Dominic Raab should join the cabinet. Rees-Mogg should be appointed a Minister of State in a middle ranking ministry.
Johnny Mercer and Tom Tugendhat should also go from the backbenches straight to Minister of State rank.
Three or four years from now, we should at last have a cadre of credible candidates for Prime Minister for the 2022 election.
Members of Political Betting, Other appointments will be laid before you.
But change has to happen now!
The only reason Jeremy Hunt wasn't fired when May came to power was so that he could carry out the introduction of the junior doctor contract and to take all the flack. It would have been pointless to throw another minister to the wolves as well.
Steady. Jeremy Hunt has successfully steered the NHS for over 5 years.
That takes some doing.
We can all debate his performance at DoH until the cows come home but it is undeniable that the guy is toxic and would do nothing to improve opinion of the government
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
The most interesting rumour I heard was that last year's murder of Kim's in the Thai (?) airport
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
"He can't yet do x" is the response to each test, and then 2 weeks later it turns out that now he can, but he can't yet do y, etc. The technical problems he has to overcome are, literally, not rocket science, they are engineering problems, and he and his scientists have the boost that they know all the problems are soluble because people have solved them.
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
I think the chances of a N Korean strike on the continental USA are pretty much ajor city on "West coast" London 8609 Km LA 9393 Km DC 10850 Km
Feck, hadn't realised we were closer than LA, bloody Mercator.
I agree about likelihood of actually striking the USA, it's about looking as if you could if you wanted to.
Though Seattle and Hawaii are closer to N Korea than London
Personally I would advise Japan and S Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons programme pretty quickly if they really want to warn Kim off at least ourselves and the Americans and Chinese have our own nukes
This is a contender for the vaguest post in the history of PB, but I need your help.
I'm sure there was a quote, possibly by either The Duke of Wellington or Horatio Nelson along the lines of 'If I'm upsetting France then I'm doing a good job.'
Could PBers help out if that quote exists, and what it was precisely?
I can't believe PB sometimes. Here we all are, discussing the very real possibility of nuclear war, and nobody's considering the impact of nuclear Armageddon on carbon emissions.
Isn't it shocking that we've all worried about Houston but no one cares about the hundreds of deaths in Guangzhou province caused by three typhoons in the last week?
I don't know if this is helpful, but I genuinely don't know.
If by "we" you mean the UK (as opposed to, say, the West), then there's not a lot we can do. The Type 45 destroyers are a bit poorly at the moment. At a push we could slap the US Marines' Harriers and the initial batch of the US & UK F35Bs on HMS Queen Elizabeth and send that off, but it would at best be a support role. If they invade South Korea, are we going to put British Army personnel on the ground? Er, I would hope not.
A UN-authorised intervention would require Russia and China support. The 1950's Korean War was UN-authorised but at the time China and the then-Soviet Union were somewhat disengaged. So it might not happen. But if it does, we would have to send in something, Christ knows what.
If North Korea nukes USA, then we're talking Article 5 and we'd be expected to retaliate. Ulp.
But that's me gobbing off. I don't actually know anything.
For a depiction in drama for an analogous occurrence, see:
I can't believe PB sometimes. Here we all are, discussing the very real possibility of nuclear war, and nobody's considering the impact of nuclear Armageddon on carbon emissions.
In fact, one reason Margaret Thatcher was in favour of nuclear power stations was because of their low carbon footprint.
Mr. Surbiton, there's a QT parody from Not The Nine O'Clock News. Nuclear missiles are on the way to obliterate the UK and the leftwing woman on the panel says the real tragedy is that four million people will die... unemployed.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, you really do have more money than sense.
I don't know if this is helpful, but I genuinely don't know.
If by "we" you mean the UK (as opposed to, say, the West), then there's not a lot we can do. The Type 45 destroyers are a bit poorly at the moment. At a push we could slap the US Marines' Harriers and the initial batch of the US & UK F35Bs on HMS Queen Elizabeth and send that off, but it would at best be a support role. If they invade South Korea, are we going to put British Army personnel on the ground? Er, I would hope not.
A UN-authorised intervention would require Russia and China support. The 1950's Korean War was UN-authorised but at the time China and the then-Soviet Union were somewhat disengaged. So it might not happen. But if it does, we would have to send in something, Christ knows what.
If North Korea nukes USA, then we're talking Article 5 and we'd be expected to retaliate. Ulp.
But that's me gobbing off. I don't actually know anything.
For a depiction in drama for an analogous occurrence, see:
This is a contender for the vaguest post in the history of PB, but I need your help.
I'm sure there was a quote, possibly by either The Duke of Wellington or Horatio Nelson along the lines of 'If I'm upsetting France then I'm doing a good job.'
Could PBers help out if that quote exists, and what it was precisely?
It doesn't have much point to it coming from either of those, does it? It would be more amusing from someone like Douglas Haig.
Come to think of it, much more amusing, given the scope for scholarly debate whether he said "If I'm upsetting French then I'm doing a good job" or "If I'm upsetting the French then I'm doing a good job." He probably thought both.
I can't believe PB sometimes. Here we all are, discussing the very real possibility of nuclear war, and nobody's considering the impact of nuclear Armageddon on carbon emissions.
This has just come up from the Guardian "Suppose Kim fires a nuclear-armed missile at Guam or Japan, then the US hits two or three military targets in North Korea with nuclear bombs and sinks Pyongyang’s navy. A short, conventional war follows, destroying Seoul and most of North Korea. A shocked China accepts it has miscalculated badly and does nothing in response. That is probably the least destructive possible outcome of what would be the first nuclear attack since 1945. But what would it teach Russia and China? Practically, it would teach them that nuclear weapons can be used with successful geopolitical outcomes. Morally, it would teach them that nuclear annihilation is OK.” Attributed to Paul Mason.
Mr. L, indeed. The title race is immensely close, and if either Hamilton or Vettel were disintegrated by a hydrogen bomb that might just tip the result.
I can't believe PB sometimes. Here we all are, discussing the very real possibility of nuclear war, and nobody's considering the impact of nuclear Armageddon on carbon emissions.
And the F1 season.
In the event of a nuclear war, most of my friends want George R.R. Martin to tweet out who will be sat on the Iron Throne.
Personally, I've seen the last two episodes of Twin Peaks, I'm happy.
This has just come up from the Guardian "Suppose Kim fires a nuclear-armed missile at Guam or Japan, then the US hits two or three military targets in North Korea with nuclear bombs and sinks Pyongyang’s navy. A short, conventional war follows, destroying Seoul and most of North Korea. A shocked China accepts it has miscalculated badly and does nothing in response. That is probably the least destructive possible outcome of what would be the first nuclear attack since 1945. But what would it teach Russia and China? Practically, it would teach them that nuclear weapons can be used with successful geopolitical outcomes. Morally, it would teach them that nuclear annihilation is OK.” Attributed to Paul Mason.
Are South Korea and The US really going to send troops where they have recently dropped nuclear weapons?
If by "we" you mean the UK (as opposed to, say, the West), then there's not a lot we can do. The Type 45 destroyers are a bit poorly at the moment. At a push we could slap the US Marines' Harriers and the initial batch of the US & UK F35Bs on HMS Queen Elizabeth and send that off, A UN-authorised intervention would require Russia and China support. The 1950's Korean War was UN-authorised but at the time China and the then-Soviet Union were somewhat disengaged. So it might not happen. But if it does, we would have to send in something, Christ knows what.
If North Korea nukes USA, then we're talking Article 5 and we'd be expected to retaliate. Ulp.
But that's me gobbing off. I don't actually know anything.
For a depiction in drama for an analogous occurrence, see:
If N Korea nukes the West coast of the USA Trump would nuke Pyongyang and the rest of the country within an hour leaving what we did irrelevant
The final settlement of the North Korea saga will be: they will keep their nuclear weapons and the US will gradually wean the Kim family to the riches of capitalism.
The US should blame themselves. North Korea has seen what happened to Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi. Kim does not want to die in a similar fashion unless one of his generals / soldiers do it for him.
Once he has let it be known that he has the nukes and the Americans make secret overtures to him [ if they are not doing already ], a sort of stability will be restored.
Israel has the bomb. So does Pakistan and India. Was China in 1964 much different ?
Saddam Hussain was a nasty dictator, as was Gaddafi. Were they nastier than the Saudi royal family ? We seem to have a thing about Iran. It is far more educated and liberal than Saudi Arabia and actually helped put an end to ISIS who were sponsored by the Saudis and the Gulf states. [ who are our friends !!! ]
Ultimately, China will be the loser because they would not feel comfortable having a land border with a US client state.
Who is giving the North Koreans accelerated nuclear technology. Not China. Russia. For the same reasons as they are creating trouble in the west through soft technology. Russia gains from the instability.
This has just come up from the Guardian "Suppose Kim fires a nuclear-armed missile at Guam or Japan, then the US hits two or three military targets in North Korea with nuclear bombs and sinks Pyongyang’s navy. A short, conventional war follows, destroying Seoul and most of North Korea. A shocked China accepts it has miscalculated badly and does nothing in response. That is probably the least destructive possible outcome of what would be the first nuclear attack since 1945. But what would it teach Russia and China? Practically, it would teach them that nuclear weapons can be used with successful geopolitical outcomes. Morally, it would teach them that nuclear annihilation is OK.” Attributed to Paul Mason.
Are South Korea and The US really going to send troops where they have recently dropped nuclear weapons?
Drones?
But we mustn't assume Kim is mad just because Team America and funny hair. It would be insane to nuke Guam or anywhere else, whereas wanting to join the big boys' nuclear club by looking like he could nuke Guam if he wanted to is so obviously rational that we do it ourselves. Which is why he won't nuke anywhere.
Us and the USA have always sided with the baddies in the ME. Not to mention helping to create some of them. It's something I'm very ashamed of, and by and large I'm not ashamed of an awful lot in our history.
I can't believe PB sometimes. Here we all are, discussing the very real possibility of nuclear war, and nobody's considering the impact of nuclear Armageddon on carbon emissions.
And the F1 season.
In the event of a nuclear war, most of my friends want George R.R. Martin to tweet out who will be sat on the Iron Throne.
Personally, I've seen the last two episodes of Twin Peaks, I'm happy.
Plus it is baked in that the survivors get to find out what Theresa wrote in those letters to the Trident commanders. That's worth a lot.
If by "we" you mean the UK (as opposed to, say, the West), then there's not a lot we can do. The Type 45 destroyers are a bit poorly at the moment. At a push we could slap the US Marines' Harriers and the initial batch of the US & UK F35Bs on HMS Queen Elizabeth and send that off, A UN-authorised intervention would require Russia and China support. The 1950's Korean War was UN-authorised but at the time China and the then-Soviet Union were somewhat disengaged. So it might not happen. But if it does, we would have to send in something, Christ knows what.
If North Korea nukes USA, then we're talking Article 5 and we'd be expected to retaliate. Ulp.
But that's me gobbing off. I don't actually know anything.
For a depiction in drama for an analogous occurrence, see:
If N Korea nukes the West coast of the USA Trump would nuke Pyongyang and the rest of the country within an hour leaving what we did irrelevant
The final settlement of the North Korea saga will be: they will keep their nuclear weapons and the US will gradually wean the Kim family to the riches of capitalism.
The US should blame themselves. North Korea has seen what happened to Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi. Kim does not want to die in a similar fashion unless one of his generals / soldiers do it for him.
(Snip)
Who is giving the North Koreans accelerated nuclear technology. Not China. Russia. For the same reasons as they are creating trouble in the west through soft technology. Russia gains from the instability.
"Who is giving the North Koreans accelerated nuclear technology."
NK received help from Russia and China in nuclear and missile tech at various times up to the 1980s, as they played them off against each other. Other players (such as AQ Khan and Pakistan) also helped later on.
Comments
In 2001, with no UKIP, and the UK's membership of the euro very much current and on the table, with over 60% of the British public opposing membership, it was unthinkable to many Conservative Party members (including me) to elect a pro-euro leader.
It worked.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
Thoughts from the PB Brains trust please.
1) May resigns/decapitated
2) Nominations open for leadership
3) X is announced as the saviour and duly nominated by 200+ MPs
4) Peter Bone is nominated by Chris Chope and Tom Pursglove, announcing "I'm standing to give the membership a choice. I hope others will also stand."
5) Y decides to throw hat in the ring
6) Peter Bone retires from contest
We told them to get lost.
The falls of Asquith and Chamberlain by contrast were directly effected in order to improve the government's handling of the war. Both were made possible by the existence of at least one alternative PM who was perceived as being able to do the job better.
However, that said, there is merit to rottenborough's point: in difficult times, the risks of unnecessary political change are magnified.
Peace for now, nuclear winter for later.
So. A serious question away from Brexit for a while.
What do we do about N.Korea?
Do we believe that Kim is mad enough to actually use a nuke in a pre-emptive strike on either the South, Japan or some US territory? Do we believe he actually could or is he still years away?
---- YES
If he is that mad is there actually anything we can do about it?
---- NOT EVEN Donald Trump can out-crazy Kim. China doesn't try
Given it seems that using force against him would probably result in as many people dying than if we just let him set off a bomb, are there any viable alternatives?
---- NOT REALLY
Do we have to wait for him to kill people and then rely on China agreeing to take part in removing him?
Is there any mileage in telling China that if they get rid of him and put a new, more stable, regime in place we would consider that reasonable and would not object? We would accept that N Korea becomes a satellite of China?
---- CHINA WOULD LOVE N Korea to be a satellite. They are not performing the role assigned to them. China doesn't want either the USA or N Korea to do anything
My 2c
---- EDIT China could switch off the taps to North Korea, which would cause significant hardship. But it wouldn't necessarily get Kim to improve his behaviour.
PM is a huge step up from being Mayor.
More to the point, I don't see the rampaging egos at the top of the Conservative party deciding against rocking the boat.
Not characteristics I would suggest are ideal in a PM
One of my daughter's friends at Uni has just gone to Seoul for a year with Erasmus. Her parents must be having palpitations.
Thank heavens, welcome back. You've been missed mate ;-)
If I were him I would just conduct tests until it was clear beyond doubt that he is a grade A nuclear power with the ability to hit the continental USA, then stop. With Trump in the frame, I am not sure Kim is the one we have to worry about, though.
I don't see that China has a magical way of "getting rid of him". They are probably as worried as we are.
That takes some doing.
A missile strike in the sea near Guam would be interesting. If he hits Guam and causes causalities (dummy warhead, or not) then that's quite another thing.
If he does, all bets are off.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Features/China-up-close/Was-Korean-Peninsula-part-of-China-Xi-and-the-Han-dynasty-game-plan
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiz2_D98ovWAhVPKFAKHUG3DP4QjRwIBw&url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/feb/11/george-bush-billboard&psig=AFQjCNFGogNX4dN4o-ebJLfBe2Abb_4llg&ust=1504627126896714
might speed things up a bit
He may well be quite wrong in his assumptions.
That would seem to be the best solution, if it can be achieved, but only China can do it.
Otherwise s/he could be a damp squib and blow the chance of a future senior position under X
NK is a rogue state, and could do anything. Years of 'playing nice' to them and doing essentially nothing has just given them time to gain capability. It was, and is, a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation.
So what to do?
Nothing can be done without Chinese intervention, and you need to look at what they want and, most importantly, what they fear. So my overly-hopeful solution is the following:
1) Encourage China to 'deal' with NK, with the aim being a unified Korea more akin to the South than the North. In the long term such a
2) In the meantime, the UN (mainly under the US) protects SK.
3) The rest of the world agrees to a massive funding scheme for the north of Korea under the unified regime, targeted initially towards emergency aid, and later to 're'-construction.
4) China and the US agree to demilitarise from the unified Korea, and to 'deal' with the resultant nuclear material in a similar manner to previous schemes.
If this were to happen, China might come out of it with a great deal of kudos, and have helped solve one of the foremost threats to world peace. On the other hand, it should be made clear that their (sometimes grudging) support for NK over the decades means that if the NK regime commits an atrocity, they will be held partially responsible. China cannot tell the world that no-one else can deal with NK, and then refuse to deal with them themselves.
As ever, Russia is a complicating factor to the above.
but I was thinking more of pressurising China into action
Seoul & Tokyo are the two big cities at risk from fatty Kim methinks.
The difficulty Kim will have with any part of the continental USA is it is a bloody long way. I know he's tested past Japan but anything on its way to the west coast will have to be airborne for quite a while and the USA might be able to intercept over the pacific. A missile lobbed toward Tokyo will more likely than not get there.
North Korea distances
Seoul 56 Km
Tokyo 1184 Km
Guam 3430 Km - Closest USA territory
Anchorage 5786 Km - Continental USA
Hawaii 7501 Km
Seattle 8055 Km - Closest major city on "West coast"
London 8609 Km
LA 9393 Km
DC 10850 Km
I agree about likelihood of actually striking the USA, it's about looking as if you could if you wanted to.
He is also by far the most charismatic figure the Tories currently have
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryongchon_disaster
Also interesting and potentially relevant was the purported death of several Syrians in the explosion, given their collaboration on nuclear technology.
Alastair is right though, egos aren't going to allow a coronation. I just thought I'd highlight how a coronation won't happen even if the vast majority was ok with it. We only had a coronation last year because Leadsom blew her own legs off.
Mike's on holiday now for the next three weeks, and nothing major ever happens when Mike's on holiday.
Personally I would advise Japan and S Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons programme pretty quickly if they really want to warn Kim off at least ourselves and the Americans and Chinese have our own nukes
I'm sure there was a quote, possibly by either The Duke of Wellington or Horatio Nelson along the lines of 'If I'm upsetting France then I'm doing a good job.'
Could PBers help out if that quote exists, and what it was precisely?
If by "we" you mean the UK (as opposed to, say, the West), then there's not a lot we can do. The Type 45 destroyers are a bit poorly at the moment. At a push we could slap the US Marines' Harriers and the initial batch of the US & UK F35Bs on HMS Queen Elizabeth and send that off, but it would at best be a support role. If they invade South Korea, are we going to put British Army personnel on the ground? Er, I would hope not.
A UN-authorised intervention would require Russia and China support. The 1950's Korean War was UN-authorised but at the time China and the then-Soviet Union were somewhat disengaged. So it might not happen. But if it does, we would have to send in something, Christ knows what.
If North Korea nukes USA, then we're talking Article 5 and we'd be expected to retaliate. Ulp.
But that's me gobbing off. I don't actually know anything.
For a depiction in drama for an analogous occurrence, see:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Book_(film)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_vr6KALYrY
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5s_VjhFWY
(Spoiler alert: we nuke Pakistan)
Mr. Eagles, is it the one about us being detested by France and he hopes we always are?
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
However, I am aware of the spirit of your post.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, you really do have more money than sense.
And, for the quote below, you're welcome.
Come to think of it, much more amusing, given the scope for scholarly debate whether he said "If I'm upsetting French then I'm doing a good job" or "If I'm upsetting the French then I'm doing a good job." He probably thought both.
"Suppose Kim fires a nuclear-armed missile at Guam or Japan, then the US hits two or three military targets in North Korea with nuclear bombs and sinks Pyongyang’s navy. A short, conventional war follows, destroying Seoul and most of North Korea. A shocked China accepts it has miscalculated badly and does nothing in response. That is probably the least destructive possible outcome of what would be the first nuclear attack since 1945. But what would it teach Russia and China? Practically, it would teach them that nuclear weapons can be used with successful geopolitical outcomes. Morally, it would teach them that nuclear annihilation is OK.”
Attributed to Paul Mason.
Personally, I've seen the last two episodes of Twin Peaks, I'm happy.
The US should blame themselves. North Korea has seen what happened to Saddam Hussain and Gaddafi. Kim does not want to die in a similar fashion unless one of his generals / soldiers do it for him.
Once he has let it be known that he has the nukes and the Americans make secret overtures to him [ if they are not doing already ], a sort of stability will be restored.
Israel has the bomb. So does Pakistan and India. Was China in 1964 much different ?
Saddam Hussain was a nasty dictator, as was Gaddafi. Were they nastier than the Saudi royal family ? We seem to have a thing about Iran. It is far more educated and liberal than Saudi Arabia and actually helped put an end to ISIS who were sponsored by the Saudis and the Gulf states. [ who are our friends !!! ]
Ultimately, China will be the loser because they would not feel comfortable having a land border with a US client state.
Who is giving the North Koreans accelerated nuclear technology. Not China. Russia. For the same reasons as they are creating trouble in the west through soft technology. Russia gains from the instability.
But we mustn't assume Kim is mad just because Team America and funny hair. It would be insane to nuke Guam or anywhere else, whereas wanting to join the big boys' nuclear club by looking like he could nuke Guam if he wanted to is so obviously rational that we do it ourselves. Which is why he won't nuke anywhere.
Us and the USA have always sided with the baddies in the ME. Not to mention helping to create some of them. It's something I'm very ashamed of, and by and large I'm not ashamed of an awful lot in our history.
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/904731575144861697
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_North_Korean_nuclear_program
"Who is giving the North Koreans accelerated nuclear technology."
NK received help from Russia and China in nuclear and missile tech at various times up to the 1980s, as they played them off against each other. Other players (such as AQ Khan and Pakistan) also helped later on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
But I have little doubt they've developed much of it themselves, from open sources. Rocket science is less rocket sciencey than it once was...