Opinium Lab 35 Con 35. May now only 7 points clear of Corbyn, and Corbyn ahead of all alternative Tory leaders except Boris. But neither leader exactly wowing the electorate at present.
More likely, they've ensured Corbyn and no Brexit.
I think so. Not quite ensured, perhaps, but made highly probable. One route is Corbyn becomes PM in this Parliament to implement Customs Union plus Referendum. But far more likely in my view is a General Election which Labour win with that offer in their manifesto. And as we all know, the 'Confirmatory Referendum' is just a long winded way of describing Remain.
Opinium Lab 35 Con 35. May now only 7 points clear of Corbyn, and Corbyn ahead of all alternative Tory leaders except Boris. But neither leader exactly wowing the electorate at present.
Iain Duncan Smith will today attack the "Labour lie" that the Tories want to withdraw from the European Union.
"The Conservative party does not want Britain to leave the EU," Mr Duncan Smith will say. "Anyone who says differently is telling a lie."
Well he wasn't lying.
At that point (2003) there would have been a majority in the Tory Party and in the country for staying in the EU.
Obviously by 2016 things had changed....
..although they changed in the Tory party well before they did in the country of course, and the amusing short-sightedness of the quote is typical IDS.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Opinium Lab 35 Con 35. May now only 7 points clear of Corbyn, and Corbyn ahead of all alternative Tory leaders except Boris. But neither leader exactly wowing the electorate at present.
I prefer calling them cuks (using the c of centipede) but it will not get traction in prudish media. So I like the idea of the cuks (rhymes with spooks).
I think May’s position is perfectly sane politics. The moment Team May admits they’re whipping a horse so dead it’s a glue stick an alliance on it falls apart, brexiteers start pushing managed no deal cabinet remainers for Deal plus CU for example and all hell breaks loose. Hence May doesn’t give up on it. people question her sanity without realising the real madness the moment she admits defeat.
Am I right, or am I right?
You are both of those things.
The Tories/DUP need to shape up and pass the Withdrawal Agreement.
Iain Duncan Smith will today attack the "Labour lie" that the Tories want to withdraw from the European Union.
"The Conservative party does not want Britain to leave the EU," Mr Duncan Smith will say. "Anyone who says differently is telling a lie."
Well he wasn't lying.
At that point (2003) there would have been a majority in the Tory Party and in the country for staying in the EU.
Obviously by 2016 things had changed....
..although they changed in the Tory party well before they did in the country, and the amusing short-sightedness of the quote is typical IDS.
Looking back to 2003 I don't anyone could have envisioned what happened in 2016.
Don't get me wrong I think overall IDS is an idiot but on this point, in 2003, he was quite correct that the Tory Party wouldn't have advocated leaving the EU and nobody in 2003 could have expected the country would vote to leave in a referendum either...
A Corbyn government is not going to be Venezuela, however many expect it to be. It will or would be bumpy, unpredictable and possibly short-lived, but Che Guevara or Erich Honecker it won't be.
More likely, they've ensured Corbyn and no Brexit.
I think so. Not quite ensured, perhaps, but made highly probable. One route is Corbyn becomes PM in this Parliament to implement Customs Union plus Referendum. But far more likely in my view is a General Election which Labour win with that offer in their manifesto. And as we all know, the 'Confirmatory Referendum' is just a long winded way of describing Remain.
This time I disagree with you Kin my old bean, I don’t think Corbyn forces a GE. He doesn’t win a vonc he doesn’t have the numbers, and the cons won’t call an election any time soon because it’s not due for years yet, in meantime they have government, and How does GE solve brexit anyway? So my answer is no corbyn Government ever.
If this thing slips to no deal the whole Labour Party is destroyed, not just the Corbyn Cult
The weird thing is that most MP's, other than hard core Brexiteers, the DUP, and hardcore Remainers, find the WA largely unobjectionable.
Odd then they aren't willing to vote for it........
Can anyone explain the difference between a second referendum, a people's vote and a confirmatory referendum? Is the latter just another nicer sounding iteration on the same theme to get more support in polling - with remain of course being the only definite option on the ballot paper?
As for being in a customs union with the EU - who is seriously going to think that is a good idea once they know the details of what it means in practice. The customs union is fine - but a customs union is a thoroughly dumb idea. Its the Turkey option - except unlike Turkey we pay billions for the priviledge and they get billions from the EU. And even Turkey is apparently unhappy with it. And it still doesn't entirely solve the NI border issue.
Iain Duncan Smith will today attack the "Labour lie" that the Tories want to withdraw from the European Union.
"The Conservative party does not want Britain to leave the EU," Mr Duncan Smith will say. "Anyone who says differently is telling a lie."
Well he wasn't lying.
At that point (2003) there would have been a majority in the Tory Party and in the country for staying in the EU.
Obviously by 2016 things had changed....
..although they changed in the Tory party well before they did in the country, and the amusing short-sightedness of the quote is typical IDS.
Looking back to 2003 I don't anyone could have envisioned what happened in 2016.
Don't get me wrong I think overall IDS is an idiot but on this point, in 2003, he was quite correct that the Tory Party wouldn't have advocated leaving the EU and nobody in 2003 could have expected the country would vote to leave in a referendum either...
I mean in 2003 nobody would have expected there would be a PM stupid enough to actually offer another "IN/OUT" referendum.
And as we all know, the 'Confirmatory Referendum' is just a long winded way of describing Remain.
Sometimes you don't notice these changes because they creep up on you but I think it's interesting that nearly everyone is now assuming that the voters don't want to do brexit, at least any specific one, and a referendum with an option to remain is equivalent to remain.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Odd then they aren't willing to vote for it........
Can anyone explain the difference between a second referendum, a people's vote and a confirmatory referendum? Is the latter just another nicer sounding iteration on the same theme to get more support in polling - with remain of course being the only definite option on the ballot paper?
Pretty much. I mean, in theory a confirmatory referendum could be either New Deal vs No Deal or New Deal vs Continued Faffing, and voting for that leaves it undecided, but it's hard to imagine organizing a referendum and leaving out the option that most of the MPs and most of the voters support.
I’m too young to remember our last socialist government. How long will I have to wait to see one? 2 weeks? 2 months? 2 years?
It feels quite likely at this point.
It won’t be as bad as No Deal Brexit.
You can only really have one of No Deal and Corbyn PM or the other, not both as a Corbyn government would likely renegotiate with the EU based on SM and/or CU BINO with the SNP and No Deal Brexit really requires a hard Brexiteer Tory PM to sustain it
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Not if you go back to Cromwell or even what some were planning in the 1970s, there are still over 150,000 of them and they hold most of the guns and weaponry and most military contractors are rightwing anyway.
It would probably require a serious dip in a Corbyn government's popularity while Corbyn continued to pursue socialist policies and links with leftist regimes to pursue but there are circumstances it could be imagined to occur
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Isn't the Queen the actual head of the armed forces anyway? I can't see Liz taking on a democratic elected PM, unless he was proposing to remove her from the constitution.
I’m sorry? The Government would advise he Queen to veto a bill passed by the legislature? Seriously? What “abuse of constitutional procedures” could possibly warrant that? Does May really think that not getting her way is unconstitutional?
I would feel extremely concerned if HMQ was placed in that situation. That just shouldn't happen.
I’m too young to remember our last socialist government. How long will I have to wait to see one? 2 weeks? 2 months? 2 years?
It feels quite likely at this point.
It won’t be as bad as No Deal Brexit.
I disagree.
What are you saying is difference between a hard brexit dressed in a deal and a managed no deal brexit? Hm? A no deal brexit comes with huge bio hazard warning label and is kept in a sealed room, a hard brexit as part of a deal can sit on a shop shelf for children to play with. But what is the difference.
People have been brainwashed by politicians going around saying, do be afraid of the big bad no deal. People need to admit they have been brainwashed by political rhetoric designed to create a certain outcome, or else spell out the key differences between hard brexit dressed in a transition and a gently managed no deal decoupling.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Not if you go back to Cromwell or even what some were planning in the 1970s, there are still over 150,000 of them and they hold most of the guns and weaponry and most military contractors are rightwing anyway.
It would probably require a serious dip in a Corbyn government's popularity while Corbyn continued to pursue socialist policies and links with leftist regimes to pursue but there are circumstances it could be imagined to occur
There were strong rumours of it in both 1968 and 1975, and some circumstantial evidence of some highly unusual goings-on at Heathrow Airport's "army exercise" in 1975, but that's talking about a very different era, both in terms of the people at the top of the armed forces and society. I would say it's very, very unlikely.
I’m sorry? The Government would advise he Queen to veto a bill passed by the legislature? Seriously? What “abuse of constitutional procedures” could possibly warrant that? Does May really think that not getting her way is unconstitutional?
I would feel extremely concerned if HMQ was placed in that situation. That just shouldn't happen.
Oh FFS, call a GE and have done with it. This is no longer a functioning government.
Maybe we will end up with the same result, but who knows. This is our constitutional safety valve and needs to be used.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Not if you go back to Cromwell or even what some were planning in the 1970s, there are still over 150,000 of them and they hold most of the guns and weaponry and most military contractors are rightwing anyway.
You are talking absolute shit. These "military contractors" (upon whom the UK armed forces are 100% dependent for logistics and technical support) are just ordinary people with 9-5 jobs, Ford Galaxies and mortgages. They aren't going to participate in a coup for fuck's sake.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Not if you go back to Cromwell or even what some were planning in the 1970s, there are still over 150,000 of them and they hold most of the guns and weaponry and most military contractors are rightwing anyway.
It would probably require a serious dip in a Corbyn government's popularity while Corbyn continued to pursue socialist policies and links with leftist regimes to pursue but there are circumstances it could be imagined to occur
There were strong rumours of it in both 1968 and 1975, and some circumstantial evidence of some highly unusual goings-on at Heathrow Airport's "army exercise" in 1975, but that's talking about a very different era, both in terms of the people at the top of the armed forces and society. I would say it's very, very unlikely.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Not if you go back to Cromwell or even what some were planning in the 1970s, there are still over 150,000 of them and they hold most of the guns and weaponry and most military contractors are rightwing anyway.
You are talking absolute shit. These "military contractors" (upon whom the UK armed forces are 100% dependent for logistics and technical support) are just ordinary people with 9-5 jobs, Ford Galaxies and mortgages. They aren't going to participate in a coup for fuck's sake.
They need the army for their livelihoods and I doubt a Corbyn government will be exactly well disposed to the armed forces
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Isn't the Queen the actual head of the armed forces anyway? I can't see Liz taking on a democratic elected PM, unless he was proposing to remove her from the constitution.
Oh wait...
16 Air Asslt Bde aren't going to deploy to Horseferry Rd and storm the Channel 4 HQ just because Brenda tells them to.
EL PASO — Beto O’Rourke officially kicked off his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination Saturday morning, quoting the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., raising populist themes and praising the way immigration has enriched El Paso and the nation.
They need the army for their livelihoods and I doubt a Corbyn government will be exactly well disposed to the armed forces
Corbyn will be a far superior custodian of the armed forces than the tories due to a lack of interest in foreign adventurism and not replacing Trident.
So just to summarise. The PM is trying a course of action that has failed three times before. Her party is threatening to depose her but lacks the will to strike. We may or may not be calling a General Election. Both major parties have been infiltrated by other organisations. The minor parties are AWOL. Talk is of getting HMQ to veto a Bill. We have a very short deadline to the biggest economic dislocation since WWII. The MPs can't agree on anything and are generating nonsensical plans unworthy of adults.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Isn't the Queen the actual head of the armed forces anyway? I can't see Liz taking on a democratic elected PM, unless he was proposing to remove her from the constitution.
Oh wait...
16 Air Asslt Bde aren't going to deploy to Horseferry Rd and storm the Channel 4 HQ just because Brenda tells them to.
Lord Guthrie, who as chief of the defence staff briefed the newly-elected Tony Blair on the system in 1997, says the ultimate fail-safe is the fact that the head of the armed services is not the prime minister, but the Queen.
"I think the chief of the defence staff, if he really did think the prime minister had gone mad, would make quite sure that that order was not obeyed.
The Human Button Tuesday, 2 December, 2008 BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT
"And I think you have to remember that actually prime ministers give direction, they tell the chief of the defence staff what they want, but it's not prime ministers who actually tell a sailor to press a button in the middle of the Atlantic.
"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
So just to summarise. The PM is trying a course of action that has failed three times before. Her party is threatening to depose her but lacks the will to strike. We may or may not be calling a General Election. Both major parties have been infiltrated by other organisations. The minor parties are AWOL. Talk is of getting HMQ to veto a Bill. We have a very short deadline to the biggest economic dislocation since WWII. The MPs can't agree on anything and are generating nonsensical plans unworthy of adults.
It's representative democracy mixed with direct democracy. It's better than having one person in charge as is still the case in the majority of countries around the world.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Not if you go back to Cromwell or even what some were planning in the 1970s, there are still over 150,000 of them and they hold most of the guns and weaponry and most military contractors are rightwing anyway.
It would probably require a serious dip in a Corbyn government's popularity while Corbyn continued to pursue socialist policies and links with leftist regimes to pursue but there are circumstances it could be imagined to occur
There were strong rumours of it in both 1968 and 1975, and some circumstantial evidence of some highly unusual goings-on at Heathrow Airport's "army exercise" in 1975, but that's talking about a very different era, both in terms of the people at the top of the armed forces and society. I would say it's very, very unlikely.
It was never going to happen then for the simple reason that Harold Wilson was regarded by almost everyone as a moderate. That isn't the case with Corbyn's policies, regardless of how nice he is as a person.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Isn't the Queen the actual head of the armed forces anyway? I can't see Liz taking on a democratic elected PM, unless he was proposing to remove her from the constitution.
Oh wait...
16 Air Asslt Bde aren't going to deploy to Horseferry Rd and storm the Channel 4 HQ just because Brenda tells them to.
Lord Guthrie, who as chief of the defence staff briefed the newly-elected Tony Blair on the system in 1997, says the ultimate fail-safe is the fact that the head of the armed services is not the prime minister, but the Queen.
"I think the chief of the defence staff, if he really did think the prime minister had gone mad, would make quite sure that that order was not obeyed.
The Human Button Tuesday, 2 December, 2008 BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT
"And I think you have to remember that actually prime ministers give direction, they tell the chief of the defence staff what they want, but it's not prime ministers who actually tell a sailor to press a button in the middle of the Atlantic.
"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
They need the army for their livelihoods and I doubt a Corbyn government will be exactly well disposed to the armed forces
Corbyn will be a far superior custodian of the armed forces than the tories due to a lack of interest in foreign adventurism and not replacing Trident.
Corbyn is interested in foreign adventurism, just providing support to leftist Latin American governments, Hamas and Hezbollah etc rather than our traditional allies
So just to summarise. The PM is trying a course of action that has failed three times before. Her party is threatening to depose her but lacks the will to strike. We may or may not be calling a General Election. Both major parties have been infiltrated by other organisations. The minor parties are AWOL. Talk is of getting HMQ to veto a Bill. We have a very short deadline to the biggest economic dislocation since WWII. The MPs can't agree on anything and are generating nonsensical plans unworthy of adults.
So just to summarise. The PM is trying a course of action that has failed three times before. Her party is threatening to depose her but lacks the will to strike. We may or may not be calling a General Election. Both major parties have been infiltrated by other organisations. The minor parties are AWOL. Talk is of getting HMQ to veto a Bill. We have a very short deadline to the biggest economic dislocation since WWII. The MPs can't agree on anything and are generating nonsensical plans unworthy of adults.
It's representative democracy mixed with direct democracy. It's better than having one person in charge as is still the case in the majority of countries around the world.
And yet we are at an impasse. The trend of the executive to cede power to the legislature has brought us here, where the legislature is plainly buckling under the job it has been given. How to resolve this?
They need the army for their livelihoods and I doubt a Corbyn government will be exactly well disposed to the armed forces
Corbyn will be a far superior custodian of the armed forces than the tories due to a lack of interest in foreign adventurism and not replacing Trident.
Corbyn is interested in foreign adventurism, just providing support to leftist Latin American governments, Hamas and Hezbollah etc rather than our traditional allies
Corbyn is going to be neither Che Guevara, Gandhi, Attlee or Churchill, but he's not going to join Hamas either. Sometimes you make excellent points HYUFD, and at other times you sound like you're already fighting the next election.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Not if you go back to Cromwell or even what some were planning in the 1970s, there are still over 150,000 of them and they hold most of the guns and weaponry and most military contractors are rightwing anyway.
It would probably require a serious dip in a Corbyn government's popularity while Corbyn continued to pursue socialist policies and links with leftist regimes to pursue but there are circumstances it could be imagined to occur
There were strong rumours of it in both 1968 and 1975, and some circumstantial evidence of some highly unusual goings-on at Heathrow Airport's "army exercise" in 1975, but that's talking about a very different era, both in terms of the people at the top of the armed forces and society. I would say it's very, very unlikely.
It was never going to happen then for the simple reason that Harold Wilson was regarded by almost everyone as a moderate. That isn't the case with Corbyn's policies, regardless of how nice he is as a person.
Some people at the time thought otherwise. Wealthy people and right-wing people in the 70's held him in disdain. He was rumoured to be a Soviet spy and/or corrupt, with Kagan macs and Lavender Lists. It was a time of corruption and decay, and Wilson was part of what in retrospect was a rather grubby time.
So just to summarise. The PM is trying a course of action that has failed three times before. Her party is threatening to depose her but lacks the will to strike. We may or may not be calling a General Election. Both major parties have been infiltrated by other organisations. The minor parties are AWOL. Talk is of getting HMQ to veto a Bill. We have a very short deadline to the biggest economic dislocation since WWII. The MPs can't agree on anything and are generating nonsensical plans unworthy of adults.
Is it? Generals Franco and Pinochet both came to power because the army felt the need to overthrow Marxist governments, unlikely yes but nothing is impossible
Yes, it's completely impossible. a) It's completely antithetical to the tradition and culture of the forces. b) There aren't enough of them. c) The command and control isn't strong enough to compel that sort of action. d) Much of the forces' enabling technology is supported by civilian contractors.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
Not if you go back to Cromwell or even what some were planning in the 1970s, there are still over 150,000 of them and they hold most of the guns and weaponry and most military contractors are rightwing anyway.
It would probably require a serious dip in a Corbyn government's popularity while Corbyn continued to pursue socialist policies and links with leftist regimes to pursue but there are circumstances it could be imagined to occur
There were strong rumours of it in both 1968 and 1975, and some circumstantial evidence of some highly unusual goings-on at Heathrow Airport's "army exercise" in 1975, but that's talking about a very different era, both in terms of the people at the top of the armed forces and society. I would say it's very, very unlikely.
It was never going to happen then for the simple reason that Harold Wilson was regarded by almost everyone as a moderate. That isn't the case with Corbyn's policies, regardless of how nice he is as a person.
Some people at the time thought otherwise. Wealthy people and right-wing people in the 70's held him in disdain. He was rumoured to be a Soviet spy and/or corrupt, with Kagan macs and Lavender Lists. It was a time of corruption and decay, and Wilson was part of what in retrospect was a rather grubby time.
The 1970s tend to be oversimplified in my view, and the trailers for an upcoming radio 4 series seem to confirm the problem. There was in fact simultaneously both greater and less cohesion and contentment than now, in different ways.
They need the army for their livelihoods and I doubt a Corbyn government will be exactly well disposed to the armed forces
Corbyn will be a far superior custodian of the armed forces than the tories due to a lack of interest in foreign adventurism and not replacing Trident.
Corbyn is interested in foreign adventurism, just providing support to leftist Latin American governments, Hamas and Hezbollah etc rather than our traditional allies
Corbyn is going to be neither Che Guevara, Gandhi, Attlee or Churchill, but he's not going to join Hamas either. Sometimes you make excellent points HYUFD, and at other times you sound like you're already fighting the next election.
The main reason why is because his two Deputy Prime Ministers - Layla Moran and Joanna Cherry - won't let him!
Lord Guthrie, who as chief of the defence staff briefed the newly-elected Tony Blair on the system in 1997, says the ultimate fail-safe is the fact that the head of the armed services is not the prime minister, but the Queen.
"I think the chief of the defence staff, if he really did think the prime minister had gone mad, would make quite sure that that order was not obeyed.
The Human Button Tuesday, 2 December, 2008 BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT
"And I think you have to remember that actually prime ministers give direction, they tell the chief of the defence staff what they want, but it's not prime ministers who actually tell a sailor to press a button in the middle of the Atlantic.
"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
In my experience very few people are going to risk their lives for their love of HM the Q. To suppose that they might misunderstands what motivates people in combat. I have seen people take incredible and stupid risks (I include myself) that got some of them killed or worse. They didn't do it for the UK, Tony Blair, the Iraqi people or the fucking queen. They did it for each other, for their comrades and the sense of shared endeavour. That's the ultimate authority. If that bond of common purpose where you will, without hesitation, risk your life for somebody you don't even particularly like isn't created then combat effectiveness = 0%.
The title, ironically, seems to capture more of the complexity of the decade - "The decade that invented the future" - so I hope it will capture more of the nuances and sometimes maddening complexity of the decade that the trailers didn't seem to hint enough at.
Lord Guthrie, who as chief of the defence staff briefed the newly-elected Tony Blair on the system in 1997, says the ultimate fail-safe is the fact that the head of the armed services is not the prime minister, but the Queen.
"I think the chief of the defence staff, if he really did think the prime minister had gone mad, would make quite sure that that order was not obeyed.
The Human Button Tuesday, 2 December, 2008 BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT
"And I think you have to remember that actually prime ministers give direction, they tell the chief of the defence staff what they want, but it's not prime ministers who actually tell a sailor to press a button in the middle of the Atlantic.
"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
In my experience very few people are going to risk their lives for their love of HM the Q. To suppose that they might misunderstands what motivates people in combat. I have seen people take incredible and stupid risks (I include myself) that got some of them killed or worse. They didn't do it for the UK, Tony Blair, the Iraqi people or the fucking queen. They did it for each other, for their comrades and the sense of shared endeavour. That's the ultimate authority. If that bond of common purpose where you will, without hesitation, risk your life for somebody you don't even particularly like isn't created then combat effectiveness = 0%.
I defer to your far greater knowledge. Though presumably in the constitutional stuff, only the higher generals and staff chiefs have to be taking orders from the Queen.
And yet we are at an impasse. The trend of the executive to cede power to the legislature has brought us here, where the legislature is plainly buckling under the job it has been given. How to resolve this?
The legislature is fine.
There's a government without a majority, trying to do something that everyone knows is going to work out badly. In the best of times, this requires the PM to cut deals with different factions to get stuff through. The PM won't cut a deal. So her stuff won't get through.
So just to summarise. The PM is trying a course of action that has failed three times before. Her party is threatening to depose her but lacks the will to strike. We may or may not be calling a General Election. Both major parties have been infiltrated by other organisations. The minor parties are AWOL. Talk is of getting HMQ to veto a Bill. We have a very short deadline to the biggest economic dislocation since WWII. The MPs can't agree on anything and are generating nonsensical plans unworthy of adults.
Lord Guthrie, who as chief of the defence staff briefed the newly-elected Tony Blair on the system in 1997, says the ultimate fail-safe is the fact that the head of the armed services is not the prime minister, but the Queen.
"I think the chief of the defence staff, if he really did think the prime minister had gone mad, would make quite sure that that order was not obeyed.
The Human Button Tuesday, 2 December, 2008 BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT
"And I think you have to remember that actually prime ministers give direction, they tell the chief of the defence staff what they want, but it's not prime ministers who actually tell a sailor to press a button in the middle of the Atlantic.
"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
In my experience very few people are going to risk their lives for their love of HM the Q. To suppose that they might misunderstands what motivates people in combat. I have seen people take incredible and stupid risks (I include myself) that got some of them killed or worse. They didn't do it for the UK, Tony Blair, the Iraqi people or the fucking queen. They did it for each other, for their comrades and the sense of shared endeavour. That's the ultimate authority. If that bond of common purpose where you will, without hesitation, risk your life for somebody you don't even particularly like isn't created then combat effectiveness = 0%.
I defer to your far greater knowledge. Though presumably in the constitutional stuff, only the higher generals and staff chiefs have to be taking orders from the Queen.
The CDS, being the highest ranking military ranking office and titular commander-in-chief, is the key personality. They receive their direction from the Defence Council (PM, SecDef, other 4* officers and some civil service types). What the CDS would do if they got an Instagram DM from the Queen telling them to seize the levers of power is a set of circumstances that is so ludicrous as to be not worthy of consideration.
And yet we are at an impasse. The trend of the executive to cede power to the legislature has brought us here, where the legislature is plainly buckling under the job it has been given. How to resolve this?
The legislature is fine.
There's a government without a majority, trying to do something that everyone knows is going to work out badly. In the best of times, this requires the PM to cut deals with different factions to get stuff through. The PM won't cut a deal. So her stuff won't get through.
I take your point (although you are describing the situation not addressing the problem: explanation isn't exculpation). But I would find it difficult to use the word "fine" to describe the state of the present legislature.
So just to summarise. The PM is trying a course of action that has failed three times before. Her party is threatening to depose her but lacks the will to strike. We may or may not be calling a General Election. Both major parties have been infiltrated by other organisations. The minor parties are AWOL. Talk is of getting HMQ to veto a Bill. We have a very short deadline to the biggest economic dislocation since WWII. The MPs can't agree on anything and are generating nonsensical plans unworthy of adults.
The title, ironically, seems to capture more of the complexity of the decade - "The decade that invented the future" - so I hope it will capture more of the nuances and sometimes maddening complexity of the decade that the trailers didn't seem to hint enough at.
They need the army for their livelihoods and I doubt a Corbyn government will be exactly well disposed to the armed forces
Corbyn will be a far superior custodian of the armed forces than the tories due to a lack of interest in foreign adventurism and not replacing Trident.
Lord Guthrie, who as chief of the defence staff briefed the newly-elected Tony Blair on the system in 1997, says the ultimate fail-safe is the fact that the head of the armed services is not the prime minister, but the Queen.
"I think the chief of the defence staff, if he really did think the prime minister had gone mad, would make quite sure that that order was not obeyed.
The Human Button Tuesday, 2 December, 2008 BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT
"And I think you have to remember that actually prime ministers give direction, they tell the chief of the defence staff what they want, but it's not prime ministers who actually tell a sailor to press a button in the middle of the Atlantic.
"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
In my experience very few people are going to risk their lives for their love of HM the Q. To suppose that they might misunderstands what motivates people in combat. I have seen people take incredible and stupid risks (I include myself) that got some of them killed or worse. They didn't do it for the UK, Tony Blair, the Iraqi people or the fucking queen. They did it for each other, for their comrades and the sense of shared endeavour. That's the ultimate authority. If that bond of common purpose where you will, without hesitation, risk your life for somebody you don't even particularly like isn't created then combat effectiveness = 0%.
I defer to your far greater knowledge. Though presumably in the constitutional stuff, only the higher generals and staff chiefs have to be taking orders from the Queen.
I don't particularly agree with his exact terminology but Sebastian Junger explains it far better than me here:
Comments
It feels quite likely at this point.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/30/tom-watson-labour-must-back-another-referendum-to-win-elections
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/30/slovakia-votes-in-poll-that-could-elect-first-female-president
At that point (2003) there would have been a majority in the Tory Party and in the country for staying in the EU.
Obviously by 2016 things had changed....
Chuka is fish and chip paper.
The Tories/DUP need to shape up and pass the Withdrawal Agreement.
If they don't, it's Jeremy in very short order.
Don't get me wrong I think overall IDS is an idiot but on this point, in 2003, he was quite correct that the Tory Party wouldn't have advocated leaving the EU and nobody in 2003 could have expected the country would vote to leave in a referendum either...
If this thing slips to no deal the whole Labour Party is destroyed, not just the Corbyn Cult
Can anyone explain the difference between a second referendum, a people's vote and a confirmatory referendum? Is the latter just another nicer sounding iteration on the same theme to get more support in polling - with remain of course being the only definite option on the ballot paper?
As for being in a customs union with the EU - who is seriously going to think that is a good idea once they know the details of what it means in practice. The customs union is fine - but a customs union is a thoroughly dumb idea. Its the Turkey option - except unlike Turkey we pay billions for the priviledge and they get billions from the EU. And even Turkey is apparently unhappy with it. And it still doesn't entirely solve the NI border issue.
Talk of a military coup against a Corbyn government is just a tory wank fantasy like Brexit.
It would probably require a serious dip in a Corbyn government's popularity while Corbyn continued to pursue socialist policies and links with leftist regimes to pursue but there are circumstances it could be imagined to occur
Oh wait...
What are you saying is difference between a hard brexit dressed in a deal and a managed no deal brexit? Hm? A no deal brexit comes with huge bio hazard warning label and is kept in a sealed room, a hard brexit as part of a deal can sit on a shop shelf for children to play with. But what is the difference.
People have been brainwashed by politicians going around saying, do be afraid of the big bad no deal.
People need to admit they have been brainwashed by political rhetoric designed to create a certain outcome, or else spell out the key differences between hard brexit dressed in a transition and a gently managed no deal decoupling.
Maybe we will end up with the same result, but who knows. This is our constitutional safety valve and needs to be used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/politics/beto-rally.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
This isn't reality, it's the bloody Kobyashi Maru
"I think the chief of the defence staff, if he really did think the prime minister had gone mad, would make quite sure that that order was not obeyed.
The Human Button
Tuesday, 2 December, 2008
BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT
"And I think you have to remember that actually prime ministers give direction, they tell the chief of the defence staff what they want, but it's not prime ministers who actually tell a sailor to press a button in the middle of the Atlantic.
"The armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the Queen."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7758314.stm
Welcome to British summer time folks!
The title, ironically, seems to capture more of the complexity of the decade - "The decade that invented the future" - so I hope it will capture more of the nuances and sometimes maddening complexity of the decade that the trailers didn't seem to hint enough at.
There's a government without a majority, trying to do something that everyone knows is going to work out badly. In the best of times, this requires the PM to cut deals with different factions to get stuff through. The PM won't cut a deal. So her stuff won't get through.
Night peeps.
https://youtu.be/TGZMSmcuiXM?t=508