Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Had she not called an election the Blairites might well have backed her in seeking a compromise in the belief they had nothing to lose, and Labour members would see that after a shattering defeat.
By wrecking her authority and giving a shock boost to Corbyn's she ended that hope.
The Blairites would not back anything that did not amount to permanent single market membership
I am fairly sure they would have backed a temporary arrangement in the hope it would become permanent later.
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Mao supposedly is responsible for 45 million deaths through the 'Great Leap Forward' and on that basis was worse than both Hitler and Stalin even if some of those deaths were indirect
If we're going for the 'my genocidal maniac is worse than yours,' can I nominate Pol Pot?
Admittedly at just 2 million dead he's not in the league of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin or even the Japanese government in World War Two, but that does represent a quarter of Cambodia's entire population.
Percentage wise yes.
King Leopold of the Belgians was also supposedly responsible for the deaths of 15 million Congolese
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will ll be hers.
I doubt that very mub.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attledisunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
The only BINO that would do that and get the Labour leadership to back it is one with a permanent customs union for the whole UK which would likely see her lose a no confidence vote as Tory leader anyway before she could even put it to Parliament.
It may be only a Labour minority government now can get a deal through the Commons that still technically amounts to Brexit
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
That might have been a viable option had she started off in that vein when she took office. But she decided to pander to the ERG instead.
Few interesting side notes: Sauber could conceivably snatch 7th from Force India Battle for 3rd is in-play, but Raikkonen's likeliest to win it Hulkenberg has all but won the division two trophy
The question then is not how to avoid such discord, but how best to manage it?
I would suggest that taking one step out of the EU at a time, and then ferociously debating whether to take a further step, would be a possible approach with merit. Exit to EFTA, or something very similar, and debate taking it further.
Alternatively, you could punt the impossible trade-offs to a constitutional convention, drawn randomly from Her Majesty's subjects, to work out how to balance concerns over immigration with access to the single market, etc.
I've just noticed that the Conservatives have had 17 leaders in the last 100 years. That's fewer than I would have thought.
Couple of caveats:
First of all, there was no 'leader of the Conservative party' (known as the Unionists until 1925, incidentally) until 1922. When the party was in opposition, if there was a former PM leading one of the Houses, that person was tacitly assumed to be overall leader. If not, there was no overall leader. The one dazzling exception to that was Lord Stanley, who was acknowledged by Bentinck, Granby and Disraeli to be the overall party leader from the Peelite split onwards.
Second, I make it sixteen leaders since that time. If you are counting Austen Chamberlain that gives us seventeen. But if you are counting him you also need to count Curzon. That gives us eighteen. Before you say it, I know Chamberlain was regarded by Birkenhead and Curzon and perhaps more pertinently Lloyd George as the senior member of the leadership group, but that didn't make him the official Party leader.
Third, why are you surprised by this? Most Prime Ministers have a shelf life of around five years. If we accept several had spells in Opposition first, that gives us a rough average of six years or so as party leader. Seventeen by six is 102. So that's about the right number.
Labour since 1922 (when coincidentally they also stopped having actual as opposed to formal annual elections and elected one overall permanent leader) have had fourteen permanent leaders. So they're actually still ahead.
Thanks for the c&c.
I was going off Wiki (yes, I know...). And instinctively I would have thought there were more than that number; but instincts are often wrong.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Yes I agree with that. Brexit could never have been delivered in the way it was presented during the referendum. May's fundamental error was to start off from the position that it could be delivered as promised. This was probably driven by her desire to prove to her backbenches that she was a born again Brexiteer, ironically if a leaver had become PM they might well have adopted a more gradual approach and started off by debunking some of the more egregious untruths which their colleagues promoted during the campaign.
The only sustainable long term Brexit is probably a single market and/or customs union agreed but the Tory Party and most Leave voters will not accept that though the country as a whole may do.
A Canada style FTA would be acceptable to Tories and Leavers but the EU are clear that FTA is only on offer for GB not NI and the UK as a whole
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
I can't think of another decision of the magnitude of Brexit for which the governing party has had to rely on opposition votes. It's not really a viable option in modern politics.
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Mao supposedly is responsible for 45 million deaths through the 'Great Leap Forward' and on that basis was worse than both Hitler and Stalin even if some of those deaths were indirect
If we're going for the 'my genocidal maniac is worse than yours,' can I nominate Pol Pot?
Admittedly at just 2 million dead he's not in the league of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin or even the Japanese government in World War Two, but that does represent a quarter of Cambodia's entire population.
I was talking about that just last week with my youngest (16).
Despite being a fairly knowledgeable young lad, he had no idea about Pol Pot and the killing fields.
After doing a bit of research he was horrified by what he found.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Mr. Floater, I had little idea about that until a few years ago. One of the sad little snippets I read was about a form of dancing that went back quite some way. It was passed on by oral tradition, so after the slaughter it was lost forever, because everyone who knew it had been killed.
I think you're quoting me on the masterly inactivity, and I'm no longer active in national politics, so I allow myself a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't think there was much point in the opposition having a rigid position while the negotiations were going on, but it's now reached the point where they need to offer a reasonable alternative if they're going to help vote May's plan down.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
I think it's too late for that approach. I believe it might have been attainable if the Remain-leaning groupings had united a while back to push for it, as the best way of combining respect for the referendum result with minimal economic damage, but now it would look too much like Mrs May's proposed Chequers deal, which those groups have rubbished.
In addition, what sign is there that the EU would be happy with it? It would violate one of their holy truths, which is that you can't have the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without accepting Freedom of Movement.
I'd have thought that the political priority for Labour should be to avoid getting landed with the problem, which is completely intractable. It looks as though they appreciate the danger.
There is an argument that the best result long term for the Tories would be a general election in January which sees the Tories largest party but Corbyn ends up PM of a minority government in a hung parliament. Then May will depart having tried her best and the Tories can get a more charismatic leader like Boris in opposition while Labour is lumbered with the responsibility of actually getting the Brexit deal through and the post Brexit fallout
That sounds like Balfour putting the Liberals in to bat in 1905, in the expectation they couldn't form a govt.,or the Tories who welcomed defeat in 97, to "refresh in Opposition" for a few years. It was 18 and 13 years respectively before another Tory PM. Careful what you wish for!
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Had she not called an election the Blairites might well have backed her in seeking a compromise in the belief they had nothing to lose, and Labour members would see that after a shattering defeat.
By wrecking her authority and giving a shock boost to Corbyn's she ended that hope.
The Blairites would not back anything that did not amount to permanent single market membership
I am fairly sure they would have backed a temporary arrangement in the hope it would become permanent later.
There is no majority in the Tory Party for single market membership either temporary or permanent anyway (and certainly not beyond a transition period) so May would have been toppled even had she proposed it and Blairites backed it
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try. May (a remainer) was in charge of the process and the 'red lines' were hers not ours.
And I'm always a bit sceptical about 'incalculable consequences'. If they're incalculable then surely that just means they are unpredictable...? Which means that anything (good or bad) could happen.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will ll be hers.
I doubt that very mub.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attledisunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
The only BINO that would do that and get the Labour leadership to back it is one with a permanent customs union for the whole UK which would likely see her lose a no confidence vote as Tory leader anyway before she could even put it to Parliament.
It may be only a Labour minority government now can get a deal through the Commons that still technically amounts to Brexit
Ah, so Jezza could succeed where Tezzie can't.
Maybe with SNP and LD support but it would leave the Tories free to go all out for hard Brexit and Leavers support in opposition
The reason why we are unwilling to give her asylum is deeply troubling. Apparently, the government is worried about upsetting community relations here. This is a polite way of saying that they think that there will be some amongst the Pakistani Muslim community who will agitate against her, demand that she be killed and generally make it unsafe for her to be here. That this should happen in Britain in the 21st century is utterly shameful.
The government should be facing down such bullies not appeasing them.
Instead our craven government lets into this country on a speaking tour a cleric banned from preaching in Pakistan who goes round preaching his hatred in mosques here and incites others to commit murder e.g. of the poor Ahmadi shopkeeper in Glasgow and praises those who killed the Pakistani governor who stood up for Mrs Bibi.
Meanwhile the outrage bus gets all upset that some morons behave utterly distastefully in their own home. And yet we do not show outrage and anger at matters which really deserve such a reaction and which have implications for all of us.
And today we commemorate those who fought that we might be free. Freedom to say and think what we want is the keynote freedom. Not to be bullied by those who would shut us up and use the threat of violence to do so. I feel ashamed at the feebleness of our government. If there is one thing Britain used to understand it was the importance of standing up to bullies. Now we bend over and hold our ankles (I'm sorry). It's pathetic.
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
I can't think of another decision of the magnitude of Brexit for which the governing party has had to rely on opposition votes. It's not really a viable option in modern politics.
The war in Iraq springs to mind.
Gay marriage too (certainly if you include the LDs)
I think you're quoting me on the masterly inactivity, and I'm no longer active in national politics, so I allow myself a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't think there was much point in the opposition having a rigid position while the negotiations were going on, but it's now reached the point where they need to offer a reasonable alternative if they're going to help vote May's plan down.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
I think it's too late for that approach. I believe it might have been attainable if the Remain-leaning groupings had united a while back to push for it, as the best way of combining respect for the referendum result with minimal economic damage, but now it would look too much like Mrs May's proposed Chequers deal, which those groups have rubbished.
In addition, what sign is there that the EU would be happy with it? It would violate one of their holy truths, which is that you can't have the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without accepting Freedom of Movement.
I'd have thought that the political priority for Labour should be to avoid getting landed with the problem, which is completely intractable. It looks as though they appreciate the danger.
There is an argument that the best result long term for the Tories would be a general election in January which sees the Tories largest party but Corbyn ends up PM of a minority government in a hung parliament. Then May will depart having tried her best and the Tories can get a more charismatic leader like Boris in opposition while Labour is lumbered with the responsibility of actually getting the Brexit deal through and the post Brexit fallout
That sounds like Balfour putting the Liberals in to bat in 1905, in the expectation they couldn't form a govt.,or the Tories who welcomed defeat in 97, to "refresh in Opposition" for a few years. It was 18 and 13 years respectively before another Tory PM. Careful what you wish for!
Except I said a minority government and the Liberals won a landslide in 1906 as did New Labour in 1997 and neither had to negotiate anything like as complex as Brexit
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
I think it was in Bob Woodward's book where it was said Trump's lack of interest isn't about influence, it is simply he's not interested in pleasing people who don't have a vote in US Presidential elections, only people that might enrich him.
I think you're quoting me on the masterly inactivity, and I'm no longer active in national politics, so I allow myself a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't think there was much point in the opposition having a rigid position while the negotiations were going on, but it's now reached the point where they need to offer a reasonable alternative if they're going to help vote May's plan down.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
I think it's too late for that approach. I believe it might have been attainable if the Remain-leaning groupings had united a while back to push for it, as the best way of combining respect for the referendum result with minimal economic damage, but now it would look too much like Mrs May's proposed Chequers deal, which those groups have rubbished.
In addition, what sign is there that the EU would be happy with it? It would violate one of their holy truths, which is that you can't have the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without accepting Freedom of Movement.
I'd have thought that the political priority for Labour should be to avoid getting landed with the problem, which is completely intractable. It looks as though they appreciate the danger.
There is an argument that the best result long term for the Tories would be a general election in January which sees the Tories largest party but Corbyn ends up PM of a minority government in a hung parliament. Then May will depart having tried her best and the Tories can get a more charismatic leader like Boris in opposition while Labour is lumbered with the responsibility of actually getting the Brexit deal through and the post Brexit fallout
That sounds like Balfour putting the Liberals in to bat in 1905, in the expectation they couldn't form a govt.,or the Tories who welcomed defeat in 97, to "refresh in Opposition" for a few years. It was 18 and 13 years respectively before another Tory PM. Careful what you wish for!
Seventeen years, not eighteen (1922). It is also worth remembering both Bonar Law (as the leader of the largest party in the Commons) and Austen Chamberlain (same reason, indeed his party had an actual majority) had refused the premiership in 1916 and 1921 respectively.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Yes I agree with that. Brexit could never have been delivered in the way it was presented during the referendum. May's fundamental error was to start off from the position that it could be delivered as promised. This was probably driven by her desire to prove to her backbenches that she was a born again Brexiteer, ironically if a leaver had become PM they might well have adopted a more gradual approach and started off by debunking some of the more egregious untruths which their colleagues promoted during the campaign.
The only sustainable long term Brexit is probably a single market and/or customs union agreed but the Tory Party and most Leave voters will not accept that though the country as a whole may do.
A Canada style FTA would be acceptable to Tories and Leavers but the EU are clear that FTA is only on offer for GB not NI and the UK as a whole
Its all academic now anyway. May will not get a deal and we will either go over the cliff or do a screeching u turn. As I posted earlier, my money is on the latter.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
Some might suggest it's a shame other presidents (one in particular) weren't a bit more like that.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
Some might suggest it's a shame other presidents (one in particular) weren't a bit more like that.
I think you're quoting me on the masterly inactivity, and I'm no longer active in national politics, so I allow myself a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't think there was much point in the opposition having a rigid position while the negotiations were going on, but it's now reached the point where they need to offer a reasonable alternative if they're going to help vote May's plan down.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
I think it's too late for that approach. I believe it might have been attainable if the Remain-leaning groupings had united a while back to push for it, as the best way of combining respect for the referendum result with minimal economic damage, but now it would look too much like Mrs May's proposed Chequers deal, which those groups have rubbished.
In addition, what sign is there that the EU would be happy with it? It would violate one of their holy truths, which is that you can't have the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without accepting Freedom of Movement.
I'd have thought that the political priority for Labour should be to avoid getting landed with the problem, which is completely intractable. It looks as though they appreciate the danger.
There is an argument that the best result long term for the Tories would be a general election in January which sees the Tories largest party but Corbyn ends up PM of a minority government in a hung parliament. Then May will depart having tried her best and the Tories can get a more charismatic leader like Boris in opposition while Labour is lumbered with the responsibility of actually getting the Brexit deal through and the post Brexit fallout
That sounds like Balfour putting the Liberals in to bat in 1905, in the expectation they couldn't form a govt.,or the Tories who welcomed defeat in 97, to "refresh in Opposition" for a few years. It was 18 and 13 years respectively before another Tory PM. Careful what you wish for!
Seventeen years, not eighteen (1922). It is also worth remembering both Bonar Law (as the leader of the largest party in the Commons) and Austen Chamberlain (same reason, indeed his party had an actual majority) had refused the premiership in 1916 and 1921 respectively.
I stand corrected. Nonetheless, my point still stands. Once you lose power, you lose the ability to control events.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Even though the US networks son't seem to be splashing news of Trump's no show at the commemoration yesterday as much as I thought they would, it does feel as if he crossed a line. As the Head of State and CiC, I'm sure that if he said he had to be there, he would have got there. There are certain standards that you have to keep up and he failed miserably to respect his fellow countrymen, especially those whose forebears fought and died in France - it will not have gone unnoticed by the large military community. Its just another drip in a long line eroding his authority, but one that I think will resonate more and more.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
This is only necessary because of her election blunder (which might have been a success under a different leader). Without that she might have been able to throw RM under the bus. Maybe she thought an election would make that easier rather than harder.
And the cult will still believe he is anti-brexit....
In effect he might soon be despite his inclinations. Labour vote down the deal, if we get one, and what then? In a GE they could argue they'd fight for a better deal, but what if there is no GE? They cannot then back the deal if there was a referendum, having just rejected it. And if we don't get a referendum either? Having rejected the deal and unable to get another option but not backing no deal? Corbyn may not have many options left either- and might say he wanted to respect the brexit vote but the Tories cocked it up.
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Nice work on the research, but Morris Dancer is nearly always wrong about everything so it is no great surprise.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
I think it was in Bob Woodward's book where it was said Trump's lack of interest isn't about influence, it is simply he's not interested in pleasing people who don't have a vote in US Presidential elections, only people that might enrich him.
I remember the guy who wrote art of the deal saying that trump had a very short attention span and would make decisions quickly and stick to them. I think it is just as likely the staff come with the itinerary and say so then mr president we have a lunch followed by a conference for the rest of the day....BORRIINNGG, not doing it, next.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Even though the US networks son't seem to be splashing news of Trump's no show at the commemoration yesterday as much as I thought they would, it does feel as if he crossed a line. As the Head of State and CiC, I'm sure that if he said he had to be there, he would have got there. There are certain standards that you have to keep up and he failed miserably to respect his fellow countrymen, especially those whose forebears fought and died in France - it will not have gone unnoticed by the large military community. Its just another drip in a long line eroding his authority, but one that I think will resonate more and more.
I don't think he will run in 2020.
Trump attended both the Paris commemorations and visited an American cemetery today. As long as the GOP base still supports him he will run again
I stand corrected. Nonetheless, my point still stands. Once you lose power, you lose the ability to control events.
Normally, yes. Again, however, in 1905 Balfour had a number of aces that are less important now. First of all, he did have reason to think the Liberals would split - and in fact they nearly did, several senior figures on the right coming up with the daft 'Relugas Compact' whereby they would only serve if Campbell-Bannerman took a peerage and the title Lord Privy Seal, while giving the title First Lord of the Treasury to Asquith - this only failed to cause a crisis when Asquith decided he couldn't be bothered with all that rubbish and agreed to be Chancellor. Secondly, although they lost the election rather badly, to put it mildly (no election where the leader loses his seat can be considered a success) their share of the vote actually held up pretty well, and indeed within eight years they were back to largest party status. Third, the splits within he Unionists over tariffs would be more easily sorted in Opposition (and were helpfully sorted by the election where most Free Traders lost their seats, and even more helpfully sorted by Chamberlain's stroke in 1906).
But most of all, he had a four to one majority in the Lords, which was coeval with the Commons, so when he said 'in government or out the Unionisits will continue to direct the destiny of this great Empire' he may have been being undemocratic but he was not wrong. Of course, he hopelessly misplayed his hand and lost this vital advantage after 1910, but that was just Balfour for you.
Mr. Recidivist, why such a bitchy comment? The figures are disputed. There's also disagreement over whether to include Holodomor and, going by Wikipedia, the estimates for that alone vary from 3.3 to 7.5m.
I think you're quoting me on the masterly inactivity, and I'm no longer active in national politics, so I allow myself a bit of tongue in cheek. I don't think there was much point in the opposition having a rigid position while the negotiations were going on, but it's now reached the point where they need to offer a reasonable alternative if they're going to help vote May's plan down.
Permanent customs union and regulatory alignment without actually trying to reverse the referendum altogether seems a reasonable stance to me, and one that reflects the 52-48 split fairly - yes, we'll be out, but not that far out. I'd personally rather we stayed in, but I think that's unlikely and I realise it would be incredibly divisive, which customs union really would not.
I think it's too late for that approach. I tractable. It looks as though they appreciate the danger.
There is an argument that the best result long term for the Tories would be a general election in January which sees the Tories largest party but Corbyn ends up PM of a minority government in a hung parliament. Then May will depart having tried her best and the Tories can get a more charismatic leader like Boris in opposition while Labour is lumbered with the responsibility of actually getting the Brexit deal through and the post Brexit fallout
That sounds like Balfour putting the Liberals in to bat in 1905, in the expectation they couldn't form a govt.,or the Tories who welcomed defeat in 97, to "refresh in Opposition" for a few years. It was 18 and 13 years respectively before another Tory PM. Careful what you wish for!
Seventeen years, not eighteen (1922). It is also worth remembering both Bonar Law (as the leader of the largest party in the Commons) and Austen Chamberlain (same reason, indeed his party had an actual majority) had refused the premiership in 1916 and 1921 respectively.
It is also worth remembering that despite their landslide loss in 1906 in the two 1910 general elections the Tories won the popular vote in both and were just two seats behind the Liberals in January and 1 seat behind the Liberals in December. At the next general election in 1918 the Tories won 382 seats and a majority of seats in the Commons even if Lloyd George remained PM.
So despite the Liberals being in power for 13 years the Tories were competitive throughout
Mr. Recidivist, why such a bitchy comment? The figures are disputed. There's also disagreement over whether to include Holodomor and, going by Wikipedia, the estimates for that alone vary from 3.3 to 7.5m.
I assure you they vary by more than that. The highest figure I have seen put forward is 13 million.
Edit - and how could anyone not include them among Stalin's victims? It was a systemic and deliberate - and successful - attempt to break the peasantry by starving them into submission, albeit with immensely damaging consequences for the USSR's economic and social development.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will ll be hers.
I doubt that very mub.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attledisunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
The only BINO that would do that and get the Labour leadership to back it is one with a permanent customs union for the whole UK which would likely see her lose a no confidence vote as Tory leader anyway before she could even put it to Parliament.
It may be only a Labour minority government now can get a deal through the Commons that still technically amounts to Brexit
Ah, so Jezza could succeed where Tezzie can't.
Maybe with SNP and LD support but it would leave the Tories free to go all out for hard Brexit and Leavers support in opposition
And divide the party in two.
And you say you are not a ukipper and in the same breath talk the suicidal language of hard brexit
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Seems on the low side to me. I find it difficult to believe only three million died in the Holodomor alone. The most plausible estimates I have seen from Robert Service (who really is believed to be one of the best historians of Stalin's reign) nudge towards 10 million.
Anne Applebaum's "Gulag" is a stupendous work of research, her estimate is that it was a minimum of 16-18 million dead, but the brutality of being worked to death, and the suffering of those who survived is at least the equal of the monstrosity of the holocaust. There is no moral high ground here: the fact is that the UK allied with one monster in order to beat another. So the "very well, alone" national myth needs to be reinterpreted in the light of what we now know about the crimes of Stalin. Living in one of what Tim Snyder calls "The Bloodlands", I think the UK's illusions about itself look rather threadbare. Indeed the "we won" myth has been a major contributor to the unfolding national humiliation of Brexit.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Even though the US networks son't seem to be splashing news of Trump's no show at the commemoration yesterday as much as I thought they would, it does feel as if he crossed a line. As the Head of State and CiC, I'm sure that if he said he had to be there, he would have got there. There are certain standards that you have to keep up and he failed miserably to respect his fellow countrymen, especially those whose forebears fought and died in France - it will not have gone unnoticed by the large military community. Its just another drip in a long line eroding his authority, but one that I think will resonate more and more.
I don't think he will run in 2020.
Trump attended both the Paris commemorations and visited an American cemetery today. As long as the GOP base still supports him he will run again
But couldn't be arsed to attend a ceremony at an American specific cemetery.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
Some might suggest it's a shame other presidents (one in particular) weren't a bit more like that.
Perhaps we should be grateful that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were not so isolationist!
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Yes I agree with that. Brexit could never have been delivered in the way it was presented during the referendum. May's fundamental error was to start off from the position that it could be delivered as promised. This was probably driven by her desire to prove to her backbenches that she was a born again Brexiteer, ironically if a leaver had become PM they might well have adopted a more gradual approach and started off by debunking some of the more egregious untruths which their colleagues promoted during the campaign.
The only sustainable long term Brexit is probably a single market and/or customs union agreed but the Tory Party and most Leave voters will not accept that though the country as a whole may do.
A Canada style FTA would be acceptable to Tories and Leavers but the EU are clear that FTA is only on offer for GB not NI and the UK as a whole
Its all academic now anyway. May will not get a deal and we will either go over the cliff or do a screeching u turn. As I posted earlier, my money is on the latter.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
This is only necessary because of her election blunder (which might have been a success under a different leader). Without that she might have been able to throw RM under the bus. Maybe she thought an election would make that easier rather than harder.
Unlikely given most new Tory MPs would have been staunch Brexiteers
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15 parliament.
.. v In future leavers will still be a political force, rather as former communists are a political force in Eastern Europe, but it will be clear that their ideas are discredited and cannot be implemented in the way they suggest. They will not get near to government again for the foreseeable future.
So I'm actually quite optimistic that we can put the disasters of the past few years behind us. It will take time but it can be done.
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will ll be hers.
I doubt that very mub.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attledisunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
The only BINO that would do that
Ah, so Jezza could succeed where Tezzie can't.
Maybe with SNP and LD support but it would leave the Tories free to go all out for hard Brexit and Leavers support in opposition
And divide the party in two.
And you say you are not a ukipper and in the same breath talk the suicidal language of hard brexit
It is backing EU ref 2 or staying permanently in the single market and customs union that will divide the party in two, a clear majority of the Tory Party backs either a FTA only with the EU or No Deal
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
Some might suggest it's a shame other presidents (one in particular) weren't a bit more like that.
Perhaps we should be grateful that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were not so isolationist!
The FDR who said repeatedly, and I quote, 'Your sons are not going to be sent to any foreign wars?'
The FDR who stayed out of the war until war was forced on him at Pearl Harbor and by Hitler's decision to declare war?
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Even though the US networks son't seem to be splashing news of Trump's no show at the commemoration yesterday as much as I thought they would, it does feel as if he crossed a line. As the Head of State and CiC, I'm sure that if he said he had to be there, he would have got there. There are certain standards that you have to keep up and he failed miserably to respect his fellow countrymen, especially those whose forebears fought and died in France - it will not have gone unnoticed by the large military community. Its just another drip in a long line eroding his authority, but one that I think will resonate more and more.
I don't think he will run in 2020.
Trump attended both the Paris commemorations and visited an American cemetery today. As long as the GOP base still supports him he will run again
But couldn't be arsed to attend a ceremony at an American specific cemetery.
Yes but it was raining and he may have got wet, shame on him
Maybe 24 hrs late, but found this in the WW1 Wikipedia article:
[S]hortly after the Marne, Crown Prince Wilhelm told an American reporter; "We have lost the war. It will go on for a long time but lost it is already."[79]
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Even though the US networks son't seem to be splashing news of Trump's no show at the commemoration yesterday as much as I thought they would, it does feel as if he crossed a line. As the Head of State and CiC, I'm sure that if he said he had to be there, he would have got there. There are certain standards that you have to keep up and he failed miserably to respect his fellow countrymen, especially those whose forebears fought and died in France - it will not have gone unnoticed by the large military community. Its just another drip in a long line eroding his authority, but one that I think will resonate more and more.
I don't think he will run in 2020.
Trump attended both the Paris commemorations and visited an American cemetery today. As long as the GOP base still supports him he will run again
But couldn't be arsed to attend a ceremony at an American specific cemetery.
Yes but it was raining and he may have got wet, shame on him
Anne Applebaum's "Gulag" is a stupendous work of research, her estimate is that it was a minimum of 16-18 million dead, but the brutality of being worked to death, and the suffering of those who survived is at least the equal of the monstrosity of the holocaust. There is no moral high ground here: the fact is that the UK allied with one monster in order to beat another. So the "very well, alone" national myth needs to be reinterpreted in the light of what we now know about the crimes of Stalin. Living in one of what Tim Snyder calls "The Bloodlands", I think the UK's illusions about itself look rather threadbare. Indeed the "we won" myth has been a major contributor to the unfolding national humiliation of Brexit.
It was Richard Overy who highlighted that feature as the great irony of the Second World War, and Sir Humphrey who said that it achieved nothing as the result was to leave Eastern Europe under a Communist dictatorship instead of a Fascist one, 'at the cost of millions of lives and the ruination of this country.'
Where maybe Stalin was a little different is that while his brutalities towards his own people easily matched that of Hitler towards the Poles or the other Slavic peoples, nothing quite matches the unreasoning and vicious systematic slaughter of the Holocaust. Stalin did not have the victims gassed, their bodies rendered for soap, their teeth plucked out and sold and their possessions stolen to enrich his Ministers.
I therefore would argue that the Holocaust specifically was worse. That doesn't in any way excuse the horrors of the Gulags the way that stupid Corbynista at Goldsmiths tried to a few weeks back.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
Some might suggest it's a shame other presidents (one in particular) weren't a bit more like that.
Perhaps we should be grateful that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were not so isolationist!
The FDR who said repeatedly, and I quote, 'Your sons are not going to be sent to any foreign wars?'
The FDR who stayed out of the war until war was forced on him at Pearl Harbor and by Hitler's decision to declare war?
That FDR?
To be fair, FDR stretched American neutrality in Britain’s favour to breaking point, what with Lend-Lease and America’s undeclared war on U-boats near its coast.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Even though the US networks son't seem to be splashing news of Trump's no show at the commemoration yesterday as much as I thought they would, it does feel as if he crossed a line. As the Head of State and CiC, I'm sure that if he said he had to be there, he would have got there. There are certain standards that you have to keep up and he failed miserably to respect his fellow countrymen, especially those whose forebears fought and died in France - it will not have gone unnoticed by the large military community. Its just another drip in a long line eroding his authority, but one that I think will resonate more and more.
I don't think he will run in 2020.
Trump attended both the Paris commemorations and visited an American cemetery today. As long as the GOP base still supports him he will run again
But couldn't be arsed to attend a ceremony at an American specific cemetery.
Yes but it was raining and he may have got wet, shame on him
Seems like rain is his kryptonite!!!
Maybe Melania told him she wasn't going to hold the brolly for him.
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will ll be hers.
I doubt that very mub.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attledisunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
The only BINO that would do that
Ah, so Jezza could succeed where Tezzie can't.
Maybe with SNP and LD support but it would leave the Tories free to go all out for hard Brexit and Leavers support in opposition
And divide the party in two.
And you say you are not a ukipper and in the same breath talk the suicidal language of hard brexit
It is backing EU ref 2 or staying permanently in the single market and customs union that will divide the party in two, a clear majority of the Tory Party backs either a FTA only with the EU or No Deal
Again you talk for the conservative party but are blind to the fact this does not represent the majority of conservative mps or the voting public. No deal will not happen
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
Some might suggest it's a shame other presidents (one in particular) weren't a bit more like that.
Perhaps we should be grateful that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were not so isolationist!
The FDR who said repeatedly, and I quote, 'Your sons are not going to be sent to any foreign wars?'
The FDR who stayed out of the war until war was forced on him at Pearl Harbor and by Hitler's decision to declare war?
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attlee or Thatcher but she will not be anywhere near as reviled as Blair, Cameron and Brown. Indeed most likely she will be seen as a Major or Callaghan figure, someone who tried their best with a disunited party in difficult circumstances
Where that defence falls down is that she is the one who made her own life impossible by calling an unnecessary election to take advantage of a vast poll lead which she blew with a highly inept campaign, which also neutralised the Labour right and made the DUP of crucial importance at the worst imaginable moment.
I think she has faced very difficult if not impossible circumstances but let's not forget it was at least partly her own fault.
That was an error but even had she won a majority of 100 I suspect she would still have problems getting a Deal with the EU and then getting that Deal through the Commons
Yes I agree with that. Brexit could never have been delivered in the way it was presented during the referendum. May's fundamental error was to start off from the position that it could be delivered as promised. This was probably driven by her desire to prove to her backbenches that she was a born again Brexiteer, ironically if a leaver had become PM they might well have adopted a more gradual approach and started off by debunking some of the more egregious untruths which their colleagues promoted during the campaign.
The only sustainable long term Brexit is probably a single market and/or customs union agreed but the Tory Party and most Leave voters will not accept that though the country as a whole may do.
A Canada style FTA would be acceptable to Tories and Leavers but the EU are clear that FTA is only on offer for GB not NI and the UK as a whole
Its all academic now anyway. May will not get a deal and we will either go over the cliff or do a screeching u turn. As I posted earlier, my money is on the latter.
Or a general election or second referendum
Certainly a u turn will have to be legitimised through either a referendum or general election. I think the former is more likely though the latter is a possibility.
What if the EU doesn't want the UK to stay? May's capitulated so much, the 'deal' is probably better for the EU. They have access to the UK market, the UK has no influence, regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland is agreed by May.
Maybe 24 hrs late, but found this in the WW1 Wikipedia article:
[S]hortly after the Marne, Crown Prince Wilhelm told an American reporter; "We have lost the war. It will go on for a long time but lost it is already."[79]
It was the belief of the German high command that due to the relative size and wealth of the allies facing them, they could not fight a war on two fronts and hope to win it. That was the rationale of the Schlieffen plan and the reason for both the declaration of war on France and the unprovoked invasion of Belgium.
In this they were correct, and that is reflected in what you say.
However, in March 1918 they were back down to one front. And they came close to smashing through.
That is not to say 1914 wasn't their best chance, but it wasn't their only chance.
What if the EU doesn't want the UK to stay? May's capitulated so much, the 'deal' is probably better for the EU. They have access to the UK market, the UK has no influence, regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland is agreed by May.
I actually think there is some credence in that.
Yesterday it was suggested we could only remain if we gave a 15 -20 year guarantee we would not change our mind. Such a guarantee is impossible with 5 year Parliaments
Mr. Divvie, Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
And yes, that's true. By necessity, we allied with one monster against another. We ought not forget that. Not sure why you've put executions in inverted commas (unless you think murders would be a more fitting term, perhaps).
I believe Snyder is considered one the best current historians of Stalin's reign.
'The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.'
I'd have thought if you want to make points about remembering history and trite comparisons of numbers killed, accuracy would be paramount.
Mao supposedly is responsible for 45 million deaths through the 'Great Leap Forward' and on that basis was worse than both Hitler and Stalin even if some of those deaths were indirect
If we're going for the 'my genocidal maniac is worse than yours,' can I nominate Pol Pot?
Admittedly at just 2 million dead he's not in the league of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin or even the Japanese government in World War Two, but that does represent a quarter of Cambodia's entire population.
I was talking about that just last week with my youngest (16).
Despite being a fairly knowledgeable young lad, he had no idea about Pol Pot and the killing fields.
After doing a bit of research he was horrified by what he found.
As we were listening to disco, punk and new wave, the Khmer Rouge were engaging in arguably the most appallingly stupid politcal endeavour of all time. Having visted Tuol Sleng, a torture centre for the "party faithful" in a school in suburban Phnom Penh I can attest to the mindless inhumanity being inflicted in our recent past.
A curiously moving article on an imaginary wartime cricketers XI: https://www.thefulltoss.com/england-cricket-blog/the-wartime-xi/ ...One man who encapsulates the utter futility of war even more than McBryan is the Australian Norman Callaway. He was able to play in a single first class match before the war, aged 18, in which he scored 207 in his only innings. In all probability, therefore, he will remain the player with the highest first class average in history. After war began he signed up and was killed in May 1917 during the Second Battle of Bullecourt....
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
Some might suggest it's a shame other presidents (one in particular) weren't a bit more like that.
Perhaps we should be grateful that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were not so isolationist!
The FDR who said repeatedly, and I quote, 'Your sons are not going to be sent to any foreign wars?'
The FDR who stayed out of the war until war was forced on him at Pearl Harbor and by Hitler's decision to declare war?
That FDR?
To be fair, FDR stretched American neutrality in Britain’s favour to breaking point, what with Lend-Lease and America’s undeclared war on U-boats near its coast.
USS Reuben James was torpedoed more than a month before Pearl Harbor [sic].
What if the EU doesn't want the UK to stay? May's capitulated so much, the 'deal' is probably better for the EU. They have access to the UK market, the UK has no influence, regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland is agreed by May.
They have repeatedly said they would like to UK to stay. And I think that is genuine. A humbled UK shorn of the delusions of superiority that has pervaded so much of its relationship with the EU is exactly what Barnier has been aiming for. And he is within an ace of achieving it.
What if the EU doesn't want the UK to stay? May's capitulated so much, the 'deal' is probably better for the EU. They have access to the UK market, the UK has no influence, regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland is agreed by May.
They have repeatedly said they would like to UK to stay. And I think that is genuine. A humbled UK shorn of the delusions of superiority that has pervaded so much of its relationship with the EU is exactly what Barnier has been aiming for. And he is within an ace of achieving it.
That's the sort of thinking that helped Leave get over the line. That's the sort of thinking that will keep the festering sore open.
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
I can't think of another decision of the magnitude of Brexit for which the governing party has had to rely on opposition votes. It's not really a viable option in modern politics.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Even though the US networks son't seem to be splashing news of Trump's no show at the commemoration yesterday as much as I thought they would, it does feel as if he crossed a line. As the Head of State and CiC, I'm sure that if he said he had to be there, he would have got there. There are certain standards that you have to keep up and he failed miserably to respect his fellow countrymen, especially those whose forebears fought and died in France - it will not have gone unnoticed by the large military community. Its just another drip in a long line eroding his authority, but one that I think will resonate more and more.
I don't think he will run in 2020.
Trump attended both the Paris commemorations and visited an American cemetery today. As long as the GOP base still supports him he will run again
But couldn't be arsed to attend a ceremony at an American specific cemetery.
Yes but it was raining and he may have got wet, shame on him
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
The battalion did indeed suffer terrible losses but as others have pointed out, the second photo was likely taken on the same day to show a sub-regiment. Trees and angle of the sun are identical and clearly taken in the summer.
I presume we will be a getting a trump tweet in the morning claiming him missing all this stuff is Fake News...he attended all of it, in fact he arrived first and left last and all the world leaders said he was the best.
I presume we will be a getting a trump tweet in the morning claiming him missing all this stuff is Fake News...he attended all of it, in fact he arrived first and left last and all the world leaders said he was the best.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
On topic, I think the predictions of interminable disputes about the UKs relationship with Europe is overdone and it is more likely that the issue will drop down the political agenda as it did for most of the period from 1980 until the 2010-15
There's a major flaw in (v); Leavers will still be able to say our ideas can be implemented in the way we wanted, but we were never allowed to try.
...
Spare a thought, though, for Theresa May - she will ll be hers.
I doubt that very mub.
Indeed, she is no Churchill, Attledisunited party in difficult circumstances
We don't want leaders who try their best. We want leaders who are up to the job. May simply isn't.
Who is up to the job of getting a Brexit deal which pleases both Barnier and Rees Mogg and Arlene Foster which is the task for any Tory PM trying to get a deal which the EU can agree to and which can pass the House of Commons?
She doesn't need to please the Moggster, just a majority in Parliament. Some form of BINO would achieve that but she is incapable of seeing that a deal with cross-party appeal is what is required.
The only BINO that would do that
Ah, so Jezza could succeed where Tezzie can't.
Maybe with SNP and LD support but it would leave the Tories free to go all out for hard Brexit and Leavers support in opposition
And divide the party in two.
And you say you are not a ukipper and in the same breath talk the suicidal language of hard brexit
It is backing EU ref 2 or staying permanently in the single market and customs union that will divide the party in two, a clear majority of the Tory Party backs either a FTA only with the EU or No Deal
Again you talk for the conservative party but are blind to the fact this does not represent the majority of conservative mps or the voting public. No deal will not happen
It represents the views of the party membership and enough Tory MPs to block May's customs union plan or Chequers
What if the EU doesn't want the UK to stay? May's capitulated so much, the 'deal' is probably better for the EU. They have access to the UK market, the UK has no influence, regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland is agreed by May.
They have repeatedly said they would like to UK to stay. And I think that is genuine. A humbled UK shorn of the delusions of superiority that has pervaded so much of its relationship with the EU is exactly what Barnier has been aiming for. And he is within an ace of achieving it.
The UK is still the EU's second biggest economy after Germany and its second biggest military power after France, of course the EU would like us to stay provided we now agree to accept the rules as it is stronger with us than without us
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
Well I think we are going to find out if no deal does actually trash our manufacturing and break up the union in full 4K real time coverage.
On Sunday afternoon Mr Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel attended a peace conference - the Paris Peace Forum - with leaders including Mr Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Mr Trump did not attend the peace conference and left for the US shortly after it began.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
I get the impression that when he says "America first" he actually really means it. He has no real interest in anything outside his borders that he hasn't had an influence on.
Some might suggest it's a shame other presidents (one in particular) weren't a bit more like that.
Perhaps we should be grateful that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were not so isolationist!
The FDR who said repeatedly, and I quote, 'Your sons are not going to be sent to any foreign wars?'
The FDR who stayed out of the war until war was forced on him at Pearl Harbor and by Hitler's decision to declare war?
That FDR?
To be fair, FDR stretched American neutrality in Britain’s favour to breaking point, what with Lend-Lease and America’s undeclared war on U-boats near its coast.
HMS Illustrious under repair in USA before Pearl Harbour at Norfolk Naval Yard in USA.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
The reaction of the public will create the climate to stop it
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
May needs to deal with Corbyn. Labour Brexit votes in return for an election next year. It’s the only way. Either that or a national govt.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
May needs to deal with Corbyn. Labour Brexit votes in return for an election next year. It’s the only way. Either that or a national govt.
She has no majority.
No one has a majority. It is plain stupiity by all our politicians
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
The reaction of the public will create the climate to stop it
You're assuming the MPs have the interest of the public at heart. I can't help thinking that many of them (regardless of party) simply do not. We're not on their radar, so to speak. And as long as "failing and blaming" remains a viable electoral strategy (again, this applies to all parties), there's no impetus to change.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
The reaction of the public will create the climate to stop it
Indeed it will. And anyone who doubts that no deal is a complete non-starter should listen to Radio 4 any questions from Friday. An NFU person was one of the panel and she said that no deal would mean something close to armageddon for agriculture - no sales to the EU for six months she said. And 35% of food supplies might be disrupted. This would be politically unsustainable.
Comments
King Leopold of the Belgians was also supposedly responsible for the deaths of 15 million Congolese
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/11/labour-faces-split-second-referendum-emily-thornberry-undermines/
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/11/brazil-post-race-analysis-2018.html
Few interesting side notes:
Sauber could conceivably snatch 7th from Force India
Battle for 3rd is in-play, but Raikkonen's likeliest to win it
Hulkenberg has all but won the division two trophy
I would suggest that taking one step out of the EU at a time, and then ferociously debating whether to take a further step, would be a possible approach with merit. Exit to EFTA, or something very similar, and debate taking it further.
Alternatively, you could punt the impossible trade-offs to a constitutional convention, drawn randomly from Her Majesty's subjects, to work out how to balance concerns over immigration with access to the single market, etc.
I was going off Wiki (yes, I know...). And instinctively I would have thought there were more than that number; but instincts are often wrong.
https://twitter.com/SolomonMg/status/1061703412100816896
A Canada style FTA would be acceptable to Tories and Leavers but the EU are clear that FTA is only on offer for GB not NI and the UK as a whole
Despite being a fairly knowledgeable young lad, he had no idea about Pol Pot and the killing fields.
After doing a bit of research he was horrified by what he found.
You get the feeling the Donald wasn’t all that fussed about this weekend. Probably didn’t want to miss NFL games this evening.
Careful what you wish for!
You use the same word I did, craven.
The Dodge Drafter will be built in Canada.
I don't think he will run in 2020.
But most of all, he had a four to one majority in the Lords, which was coeval with the Commons, so when he said 'in government or out the Unionisits will continue to direct the destiny of this great Empire' he may have been being undemocratic but he was not wrong. Of course, he hopelessly misplayed his hand and lost this vital advantage after 1910, but that was just Balfour for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
So despite the Liberals being in power for 13 years the Tories were competitive throughout
Edit - and how could anyone not include them among Stalin's victims? It was a systemic and deliberate - and successful - attempt to break the peasantry by starving them into submission, albeit with immensely damaging consequences for the USSR's economic and social development.
And you say you are not a ukipper and in the same breath talk the suicidal language of hard brexit
The FDR who stayed out of the war until war was forced on him at Pearl Harbor and by Hitler's decision to declare war?
That FDR?
Maybe 24 hrs late, but found this in the WW1 Wikipedia article:
[S]hortly after the Marne, Crown Prince Wilhelm told an American reporter; "We have lost the war. It will go on for a long time but lost it is already."[79]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#German_Offensive_in_Belgium_and_France
Where maybe Stalin was a little different is that while his brutalities towards his own people easily matched that of Hitler towards the Poles or the other Slavic peoples, nothing quite matches the unreasoning and vicious systematic slaughter of the Holocaust. Stalin did not have the victims gassed, their bodies rendered for soap, their teeth plucked out and sold and their possessions stolen to enrich his Ministers.
I therefore would argue that the Holocaust specifically was worse. That doesn't in any way excuse the horrors of the Gulags the way that stupid Corbynista at Goldsmiths tried to a few weeks back.
What if the EU doesn't want the UK to stay? May's capitulated so much, the 'deal' is probably better for the EU. They have access to the UK market, the UK has no influence, regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland is agreed by May.
In this they were correct, and that is reflected in what you say.
However, in March 1918 they were back down to one front. And they came close to smashing through.
That is not to say 1914 wasn't their best chance, but it wasn't their only chance.
Yesterday it was suggested we could only remain if we gave a 15 -20 year guarantee we would not change our mind. Such a guarantee is impossible with 5 year Parliaments
https://www.thefulltoss.com/england-cricket-blog/the-wartime-xi/
...One man who encapsulates the utter futility of war even more than McBryan is the Australian Norman Callaway. He was able to play in a single first class match before the war, aged 18, in which he scored 207 in his only innings. In all probability, therefore, he will remain the player with the highest first class average in history.
After war began he signed up and was killed in May 1917 during the Second Battle of Bullecourt....
At my current rate of writing articles for PB, the next one should be ready for late 2029.
I heard today that one of my wife's family had three telegrams in the same day, each saying a different son had been killed.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1061719875612299266?s=20
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Illustrious_(87)_at_the_Norfolk_Naval_Shipyard_in_November_1941.jpg
Her sister ship HMS Formidable was under repair at the same yard after the Battle of Crete.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
She has no majority.
It would clarify her position