Monday 5th September 2016

[frightful_oik]

74% Northern? I'm a Midlander!

Happy birthday Roger and thanks for the maps link. There goes today

[SpinningHugo]

Oh, Owen....

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/09/ ... ust-banter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

The MPs choosing could be interesting given how many have said they won't serve under Corbyn's leadership!

You do it, no you do it!

I suspect there could be a few volunteers for shadow Chancellor. Corbyn really would have to start discussing policy with MPs outside his camp if that came to pass.
I tend to sympathise with Ed's position that a shadow leader needs to be able to choose their team. But also MPs need to be able to choose their leader. Ed Balls comments about the change to leadership elections is strange as Ed's new system allowed just that. Why MPs nominated someone they felt unable to serve under remains unfathomable to me and ranks alongside the poor oversight of the EU referendum proposals - opposition failed to challenge the question, the timescale of the debate or any of it that I remember. Are MPs getting thicker or something?

Labour right wingers supported the changes as they thought it would benefit them. Now its clear they don't, they don't.

Its part of a more general malaise amongst them, though - they don't have any compelling vision to win people over, just one short term tactical "fix" after another.

That's not what I meant at all. The whole point of nominations is so that only people with MP support end up on the ballot. The new rules didn't create a situation where someone without MP support gets elected, MPs nominating someone they didn't support created that situation. This is why I also think an incumbent leader should also need nominations if challenged, as with Kinnock. The changes introduced by Ed Miliband were clearly intended to allow members an equal vote on nominees, not a free vote to impose a leader on the PLP against their wishes. Although some people may support the latter and think it more democratic, I don't think it was Ed's intention and I really don't think he or anyone else who supported the rule changes can be blamed for the current problem. How could anyone have predicted MPs would nominate someone virtually none of them wanted? This is the point behind my wondering if they were a bit thick and this error in judgement came not from the right wing of the party, but the soft left on the main part. The right wing aren't to blame for the current situation, soft left MPs trying to do what was right and giving members a left wing voice in the debate is to blame.

[StephenDolan]

Yes, he has. The problem is that because of how so many of Corbyn's opponents have behaved, many don't trust him.

(either that he genuinely believes in the programme he has set out, or that the "dark forces" in the party would ever allow him to implement it)

As I said yesterday, the "scorched earth" tactics of the Bitterites have proved as disastrous *and* counter-productive as many of us predicted.

Corbyn's ideas in 2015 were greeted with dismay by the other candidates and most of the PLP. Now, those voting are expected to believe that Kendall etc support the ideas of Smith. That match a lot of what had been dismissed a mere year ago. I guess they all had a collective Damascene conversion?

[SpinningHugo]

Yes, he has. The problem is that because of how so many of Corbyn's opponents have behaved, many don't trust him.

(either that he genuinely believes in the programme he has set out, or that the "dark forces" in the party would ever allow him to implement it)

As I said yesterday, the "scorched earth" tactics of the Bitterites have proved as disastrous *and* counter-productive as many of us predicted.

i wonder how many years you'll be able to keep this excuse for failure going? I had thought that after nearly a decade since the last Bitterite leader of the party was brought down, the other sections of the party would start to take some responsibility for leading it?

no doubt post-2020 there will be many of the Corbyn left bemoaning the fact that they would have won if only the soft-left had not undermined them at every turn. The treachery of Ed Miliband and Lucy Powell.

Smith wouldn't win if he were the best candidate in the history of the Labour movement (which he obviously isn't) and the remaining Bitterites (all three of them) had disappeared in a puff of smoke. That just isn't the Labour party any longer.

[Temulkar]

I suspect there could be a few volunteers for shadow Chancellor. Corbyn really would have to start discussing policy with MPs outside his camp if that came to pass.
I tend to sympathise with Ed's position that a shadow leader needs to be able to choose their team. But also MPs need to be able to choose their leader. Ed Balls comments about the change to leadership elections is strange as Ed's new system allowed just that. Why MPs nominated someone they felt unable to serve under remains unfathomable to me and ranks alongside the poor oversight of the EU referendum proposals - opposition failed to challenge the question, the timescale of the debate or any of it that I remember. Are MPs getting thicker or something?

Labour right wingers supported the changes as they thought it would benefit them. Now its clear they don't, they don't.

Its part of a more general malaise amongst them, though - they don't have any compelling vision to win people over, just one short term tactical "fix" after another.

You mean in the same way that others opposed the change because they thought it wouldn't favour them, but now support it?

the Labour right (indeed everyone who is not a paid up Corbyn supporter) is doomed longterm within Labour. The Campaign group won and will be in charge for the foreseeable future.

I'd be surprised if many of the PLP went back to serve under Corbyn. They'd look like idiots now. How could they go in front of Andrew Neil?

I think this is going to be the next battleground. They'll reinstate the elections and Corbyn will refuse to recognise it. We'll then have a row over who is the shadow cabinet.

What fun!

Professor O'Hara is, as usual good on this kind of thing

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

see penultimate paragraph.

I find it hard to believe that in the 21st century any professinal historian would espouse AJP's structurally limited concept of the history of cock up, which even in the 70s was lambasted. It reduces the nature of historical change to random event with no underlying causation, which is bunkum. It is frankly a clear example of why the right in the party have completely misjudged the situation. If it was not Corbyn it would be someone else. In fact, so little of this whole struggle is about corbyn that the rights constant attacks on him betray how little they get it.

Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos, Five Star - even Sanders and Trump - are all clear indication of a deep rooted structural cause in the shift in domestic politics internationally. This article makes the focus so small so as to ignore the vast wider evidence, and then uses it to infer that evidence does not therefore exist, and structural causeation can be dismissed. it's very clever historical sophistry but a poor analysis, but I suspect Professor O'Hara understands that better than you.

[citizenJA]

Good-morning, everyone.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Labour right wingers supported the changes as they thought it would benefit them. Now its clear they don't, they don't.

Its part of a more general malaise amongst them, though - they don't have any compelling vision to win people over, just one short term tactical "fix" after another.

You mean in the same way that others opposed the change because they thought it wouldn't favour them, but now support it?

the Labour right (indeed everyone who is not a paid up Corbyn supporter) is doomed longterm within Labour. The Campaign group won and will be in charge for the foreseeable future.

I'd be surprised if many of the PLP went back to serve under Corbyn. They'd look like idiots now. How could they go in front of Andrew Neil?

I think this is going to be the next battleground. They'll reinstate the elections and Corbyn will refuse to recognise it. We'll then have a row over who is the shadow cabinet.

What fun!

Professor O'Hara is, as usual good on this kind of thing

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

see penultimate paragraph.

I find it hard to believe that in the 21st century any professinal historian would espouse AJP's structurally limited concept of the history of cock up, which even in the 70s was lambasted. It reduces the nature of historical change to random event with no underlying causation, which is bunkum. It is frankly a clear example of why the right in the party have completely misjudged the situation. If it was not Corbyn it would be someone else. In fact, so little of this whole struggle is about corbyn that the rights constant attacks on him betray how little they get it.

Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos, Five Star - even Sanders and Trump - are all clear indication of a deep rooted structural cause in the shift in domestic politics internationally. This article makes the focus so small so as to ignore the vast wider evidence, and then uses it to infer that evidence does not therefore exist, and structural causeation can be dismissed. it's very clever historical sophistry but a poor analysis, but I suspect Professor O'Hara understands that better than you.

You could also claim the rise of UKIP and the Greens, and even the extraordinary mushrooming of the SNP, as part of the same thing.

[citizenJA]

Corbyn suggests members get a say in shadow cabinet membership

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ons-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That'll work.

The MPs choosing could be interesting given how many have said they won't serve under Corbyn's leadership!

You do it, no you do it!

The point of that proporals is to give the MPs back control of the shadow cabinet. They'd all serve then, and attempt to run it ignoring JC.

Which is why he opposes it.

Ad why he has put forward this crackpot 'members decide' alternative.

Balls said MPs should serve in the shadow cabinet yesterday I see. Interesting as to the way the wind is blowing.

Appear to cooperate, try to remove again in two years?

Won't work of course, but then nothing will. Death throes now.

I'm the Minister of Doom, Dread, Foreboding Sense of Calamity. You're usurping my position and respectfully request you cease. Labour aren't in 'Death throes', merely some pretty sh**.

[SpinningHugo]

Labour right wingers supported the changes as they thought it would benefit them. Now its clear they don't, they don't.

Its part of a more general malaise amongst them, though - they don't have any compelling vision to win people over, just one short term tactical "fix" after another.

You mean in the same way that others opposed the change because they thought it wouldn't favour them, but now support it?

the Labour right (indeed everyone who is not a paid up Corbyn supporter) is doomed longterm within Labour. The Campaign group won and will be in charge for the foreseeable future.

I'd be surprised if many of the PLP went back to serve under Corbyn. They'd look like idiots now. How could they go in front of Andrew Neil?

I think this is going to be the next battleground. They'll reinstate the elections and Corbyn will refuse to recognise it. We'll then have a row over who is the shadow cabinet.

What fun!

Professor O'Hara is, as usual good on this kind of thing

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

see penultimate paragraph.

I find it hard to believe that in the 21st century any professinal historian would espouse AJP's structurally limited concept of the history of cock up, which even in the 70s was lambasted. It reduces the nature of historical change to random event with no underlying causation, which is bunkum. It is frankly a clear example of why the right in the party have completely misjudged the situation. If it was not Corbyn it would be someone else. In fact, so little of this whole struggle is about corbyn that the rights constant attacks on him betray how little they get it.

Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos, Five Star - even Sanders and Trump - are all clear indication of a deep rooted structural cause in the shift in domestic politics internationally. This article makes the focus so small so as to ignore the vast wider evidence, and then uses it to infer that evidence does not therefore exist, and structural causeation can be dismissed. it's very clever historical sophistry but a poor analysis, but I suspect Professor O'Hara understands that better than you.

What would have happened if, say Andrew Smith MP, a dull soft headed MP but no Corbyn supporter, had not nominated him in 2015 in order to 'widen the debate'? (No Corbyn on the ballot then. Continuity Burnham presumably wins, and Labour heads for a more boring and less catastrophic defeat in 2020?).

or if Eric Joyce hadn't hit someone in the Commons bar, resigned, triggered a Falkirk by-election, the selection scandal, and the re-writing of the rules for elections by Miliband?

or if a handful of MPs had given their third preferences to David Miliband rather than Ed.

We can, surely, both accept the grand historical sweep stuff you'd like to focus on, whilst also accommodating "shit happens".

That is modern historiography, at least on my limited understanding of it.

And O'Hara's point about Labour being really funny, if it weren't so tragic, must surely be right? It is daily entertainment, if we could but stand back.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Happy Birthday, RogerOThornhill!

[RogerOThornhill]

That is modern historiography, at least on my limited understanding of it.

"Historiography is the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Modern historiography would be possibly looking at how events were portrayed by the historians, media, politicians not the events themselves per se. Same as Roman historiography would be studying Cicero, Suetonius, Cassius Dio etc.

[SpinningHugo]

That is modern historiography, at least on my limited understanding of it.

"Historiography is the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Modern historiography would be possibly looking at how events were portrayed by the historians, media, politicians not the events themselves per se. Same as Roman historiography would be studying Cicero, Suetonius, Cassius Dio etc.

All true, but it is acceptable usage to include philosophy of history under historiography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or at least it was when I did A level history.

Do we have another specific word for "the philosophy of history"? Google says no, but I may just be ignorant.

[RogerOThornhill]

All true, but it is acceptable usage to include philosophy of history under historiography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or at least it was when I did A level history.

Do we have another specific word for "the philosophy of history"? Google says no, but I may just be ignorant.

But you're talking about the events themselves not the writers of history which is what historiography deals with.

[Temulkar]

You mean in the same way that others opposed the change because they thought it wouldn't favour them, but now support it?

the Labour right (indeed everyone who is not a paid up Corbyn supporter) is doomed longterm within Labour. The Campaign group won and will be in charge for the foreseeable future.

I'd be surprised if many of the PLP went back to serve under Corbyn. They'd look like idiots now. How could they go in front of Andrew Neil?

I think this is going to be the next battleground. They'll reinstate the elections and Corbyn will refuse to recognise it. We'll then have a row over who is the shadow cabinet.

What fun!

Professor O'Hara is, as usual good on this kind of thing

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

see penultimate paragraph.

I find it hard to believe that in the 21st century any professinal historian would espouse AJP's structurally limited concept of the history of cock up, which even in the 70s was lambasted. It reduces the nature of historical change to random event with no underlying causation, which is bunkum. It is frankly a clear example of why the right in the party have completely misjudged the situation. If it was not Corbyn it would be someone else. In fact, so little of this whole struggle is about corbyn that the rights constant attacks on him betray how little they get it.

Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos, Five Star - even Sanders and Trump - are all clear indication of a deep rooted structural cause in the shift in domestic politics internationally. This article makes the focus so small so as to ignore the vast wider evidence, and then uses it to infer that evidence does not therefore exist, and structural causeation can be dismissed. it's very clever historical sophistry but a poor analysis, but I suspect Professor O'Hara understands that better than you.

You could also claim the rise of UKIP and the Greens, and even the extraordinary mushrooming of the SNP, as part of the same thing.

I think they are but missed them in my haste to repudiate . Of course, I am on the left of the historical spectrum but not actually the far left - Braudel not Marx.

[danesclose]

What would have happened if, say Andrew Smith MP, a dull soft headed MP but no Corbyn supporter, had not nominated him in 2015 in order to 'widen the debate'? (No Corbyn on the ballot then. Continuity Burnham presumably wins, and Labour heads for a more boring and less catastrophic defeat in 2020?).

Let me guess. MPs & others on the right of the party would be briefing against Burnham in the same way that they did against Brown & Miliband?

or if a handful of MPs had given their third preferences to David Miliband rather than Ed.

Labour would have been less radical during the last Parliament, followers of Brown (such as Ed Balls & Damian McBride) would have briefed against D. Miliband. The Tories would have made a meal of his involvement in extraordinary rendition?

[Temulkar]

You mean in the same way that others opposed the change because they thought it wouldn't favour them, but now support it?

the Labour right (indeed everyone who is not a paid up Corbyn supporter) is doomed longterm within Labour. The Campaign group won and will be in charge for the foreseeable future.

I'd be surprised if many of the PLP went back to serve under Corbyn. They'd look like idiots now. How could they go in front of Andrew Neil?

I think this is going to be the next battleground. They'll reinstate the elections and Corbyn will refuse to recognise it. We'll then have a row over who is the shadow cabinet.

What fun!

Professor O'Hara is, as usual good on this kind of thing

http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

see penultimate paragraph.

I find it hard to believe that in the 21st century any professinal historian would espouse AJP's structurally limited concept of the history of cock up, which even in the 70s was lambasted. It reduces the nature of historical change to random event with no underlying causation, which is bunkum. It is frankly a clear example of why the right in the party have completely misjudged the situation. If it was not Corbyn it would be someone else. In fact, so little of this whole struggle is about corbyn that the rights constant attacks on him betray how little they get it.

Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos, Five Star - even Sanders and Trump - are all clear indication of a deep rooted structural cause in the shift in domestic politics internationally. This article makes the focus so small so as to ignore the vast wider evidence, and then uses it to infer that evidence does not therefore exist, and structural causeation can be dismissed. it's very clever historical sophistry but a poor analysis, but I suspect Professor O'Hara understands that better than you.

What would have happened if, say Andrew Smith MP, a dull soft headed MP but no Corbyn supporter, had not nominated him in 2015 in order to 'widen the debate'? (No Corbyn on the ballot then. Continuity Burnham presumably wins, and Labour heads for a more boring and less catastrophic defeat in 2020?).

or if Eric Joyce hadn't hit someone in the Commons bar, resigned, triggered a Falkirk by-election, the selection scandal, and the re-writing of the rules for elections by Miliband?

or if a handful of MPs had given their third preferences to David Miliband rather than Ed.

We can, surely, both accept the grand historical sweep stuff you'd like to focus on, whilst also accommodating "shit happens".

That is modern historiography, at least on my limited understanding of it.

And O'Hara's point about Labour being really funny, if it weren't so tragic, must surely be right? It is daily entertainment, if we could but stand back.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fact that Corbyn was nominated to 'widen the debate' is in itself evidence of a structural shift not of shit happening. The shit happening is that it wasn't Macdonald again or another of the dwindling band of Bennite disciples in teh House. As I said it could have been anyone, although Corbyn's particular brand of understatement has also been a strength - as much as a weakness.

[SpinningHugo]

All true, but it is acceptable usage to include philosophy of history under historiography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or at least it was when I did A level history.

Do we have another specific word for "the philosophy of history"? Google says no, but I may just be ignorant.

But you're talking about the events themselves not the writers of history which is what historiography deals with.

I didn't mean to do so. I was addressing Temulkar's criticism of O'Hara's adoption of the 'history as cock-up' theory. So I was trying, no doubt inadequately as it isn't my area, to discuss the theory of history. Are events, such as Corbyn best 'explained' through the large sweeping historical forces of discontent with the establishment that have swept the west, or is it best understood as being an accident caused by Eric Joyce getting pissed up.

My understanding, and this is long out of date, is that modern theories of history answer "both and neither." And the study of theories of history does travel under the name of "historiography".

but, though I do claim to know about some stuff, the theory of history I don't. I haven't looked at it for a long time.

[citizenJA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... nistration

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... nistration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Childcare charity 4Children goes into administration

One of the country’s biggest childcare charities, which provided thousands of low-income families with nursery, after-school clubs and parenting services, has collapsed.

4Children, which was the government’s official Early Years strategic partner, went into administration after a rapid corporate expansion fuelled by private loans unravelled in the face of government cuts.

Charity leaders blamed the collapse of 4Children, a respected and nationally recognised charity, on an increasingly tight financial environment for charities delivering council-funded services and described it as a a warning sign to ministers about the sustainability of children’s services in a competitive public sector marketplace.

The problem with charities providing public services is they can and will go belly-up. Government needs to fund and provide pubic services.

[SpinningHugo]

The fact that Corbyn was nominated to 'widen the debate' is in itself evidence of a structural shift not of shit happening. The shit happening is that it wasn't Macdonald again or another of the dwindling band of Bennite disciples in teh House. As I said it could have been anyone, although Corbyn's particular brand of understatement has also been a strength - as much as a weakness.

Not sure I follow. Surely the point is that with one fewer nomination from one of the idiots (Beckett, Field, Smith), there wuld not have been anyone. McDonnell (who I think you mean) would have had less chance of getting 35 than Corbyn, who was perceived as useless but harmless (unlike McDonnell who was perceived as able but nasty).

[AnatolyKasparov]

Re the 2010 contest, its worth remembering that several MPs (and some members, too) voted for DM because they wanted to "be on the winning side" rather than out of any positive enthusiasm for him. His younger brother might well have won those sections too, otherwise. And the greater legitimacy that would have given him might have meant subsequent events could have turned out differently (better?)

As one of those who voted for D Miliband totally without conviction then, I feel this a bit on a personal level.

[Temulkar]

That is modern historiography, at least on my limited understanding of it.

"Historiography is the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Modern historiography would be possibly looking at how events were portrayed by the historians, media, politicians not the events themselves per se. Same as Roman historiography would be studying Cicero, Suetonius, Cassius Dio etc.

To be fair to Hugo, historiography is more than that, its also the history of history and it's philosophy. You can't really understand Bede without understanding his historiographical viewpoint. Roman historiography would be more Pictor as far as purpose goes, Cicero and the rest merely conform to his concepts - in different ways.

[Temulkar]

The fact that Corbyn was nominated to 'widen the debate' is in itself evidence of a structural shift not of shit happening. The shit happening is that it wasn't Macdonald again or another of the dwindling band of Bennite disciples in teh House. As I said it could have been anyone, although Corbyn's particular brand of understatement has also been a strength - as much as a weakness.

Not sure I follow. Surely the point is that with one fewer nomination from one of the idiots (Beckett, Field, Smith), there wuld not have been anyone. McDonnell (who I think you mean) would have had less chance of getting 35 than Corbyn, who was perceived as useless but harmless (unlike McDonnell who was perceived as able but nasty).

The primary cause of Corbyn being nominated was to widen the debate, that was admitted by everyone, even JC himsefl who didnt expect to win. The reasons for it being Corbyn rather than someone else don't matter - the desire to widen the debate does, because that is the primary cause of his nomination. The minuutiae of who chose what and why and when subsequent or prior to the manifestation of that cause are immaterial, what is important is why that historical process was triggered in the first place. That cannot - at any level - be put down to the random chance of individual choice. It can only be ascribed to a deeper structural shift that was clearly evident in both British and wider politics in the western world.

And while we are about it, blaming it all on Blair and Iraq is just as nonsensical. Blair and Iraq may have contribted to the general lack of trust and malaise withing politics, but his was not the trigger in a global structural shift. That came ffrom the US sup-prime implosion and the great recession, and there are so many factors over such an extended period of time that caused that, that untangling it will take a couple of centuries for historians of the future.

[Willow904]

The fact that Corbyn was nominated to 'widen the debate' is in itself evidence of a structural shift not of shit happening. The shit happening is that it wasn't Macdonald again or another of the dwindling band of Bennite disciples in teh House. As I said it could have been anyone, although Corbyn's particular brand of understatement has also been a strength - as much as a weakness.

Not sure I follow. Surely the point is that with one fewer nomination from one of the idiots (Beckett, Field, Smith), there wuld not have been anyone. McDonnell (who I think you mean) would have had less chance of getting 35 than Corbyn, who was perceived as useless but harmless (unlike McDonnell who was perceived as able but nasty).

I think the point is that wider circumstances led those MPs to think nominating a left winger to widen the debate would be a good idea. That there was an awareness of the need to lessen the gap between members and MPs is evidence that changes at grass roots level indirectly led to Corbyn becoming leader. This is an argument I have always made and why I don't get AnatolyKasparov's suggestion that the right of the party have been hoist on their own petard. They didn't do this. The people who nominated Corbyn, without supporting him, for whatever reason, caused the current situation.

Edited to add that Temulkar puts it better in the preceding comment.

[Temulkar]

All true, but it is acceptable usage to include philosophy of history under historiography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or at least it was when I did A level history.

Do we have another specific word for "the philosophy of history"? Google says no, but I may just be ignorant.

But you're talking about the events themselves not the writers of history which is what historiography deals with.

I didn't mean to do so. I was addressing Temulkar's criticism of O'Hara's adoption of the 'history as cock-up' theory. So I was trying, no doubt inadequately as it isn't my area, to discuss the theory of history. Are events, such as Corbyn best 'explained' through the large sweeping historical forces of discontent with the establishment that have swept the west, or is it best understood as being an accident caused by Eric Joyce getting pissed up.

My understanding, and this is long out of date, is that modern theories of history answer "both and neither." And the study of theories of history does travel under the name of "historiography".

but, though I do claim to know about some stuff, the theory of history I don't. I haven't looked at it for a long time.

The question always used to explain that is the Hitler paradox. If, as could easily have happened, Hitler had died on the Somme, would the Second World War and Holocaust have happened? Some things would likely be different, some events and dates changed, but the cause of both was not in the decisions made by one man, but in th structural underlying causes - economic and social - that made war and pogrom inevitable after 1919.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... ion-summit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Sir Michael Wilshaw's speech at the London Councils education summit

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... parliament" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New Welfare Powers Transferred to the Scottish Parliament


From today, the Scottish Parliament assumes powers to:

Create new benefits in devolved areas.
Top up reserved benefits (such Universal Credit, Tax Credits and Child Benefit).
Make discretionary payments and assistance.
Change employment support.
Make changes to Universal Credit for the costs of rented accommodation.
Make changes to Universal Credit on the timing of payments and recipients.
In addition, from 1 April next year, the Scottish Parliament will take on the power to make discretionary housing payments. Other welfare powers (including responsibility for carers and disability benefits, maternity payments and funeral payments) will transfer at a later date.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/manu ... r-feedback" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Manufacturer of Accu-Chek Insight insulin pumps issues updated handling instructions following user feedback


People are reminded that the ‘Key Lock’ function on the Accu-Chek Insight pump locks only the buttons on the front of the insulin pump. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that the Quick Bolus keys on the top of the pump that deliver a dose of insulin are not pressed accidentally, for example when sleeping.

[SpinningHugo]

The fact that Corbyn was nominated to 'widen the debate' is in itself evidence of a structural shift not of shit happening. The shit happening is that it wasn't Macdonald again or another of the dwindling band of Bennite disciples in teh House. As I said it could have been anyone, although Corbyn's particular brand of understatement has also been a strength - as much as a weakness.

Not sure I follow. Surely the point is that with one fewer nomination from one of the idiots (Beckett, Field, Smith), there wuld not have been anyone. McDonnell (who I think you mean) would have had less chance of getting 35 than Corbyn, who was perceived as useless but harmless (unlike McDonnell who was perceived as able but nasty).

The primary cause of Corbyn being nominated was to widen the debate, that was admitted by everyone, even JC himsefl who didnt expect to win. The reasons for it being Corbyn rather than someone else don't matter - the desire to widen the debate does, because that is the primary cause of his nomination. The minuutiae of who chose what and why and when subsequent or prior to the manifestation of that cause are immaterial, what is important is why that historical process was triggered in the first place. That cannot - at any level - be put down to the random chance of individual choice. It can only be ascribed to a deeper structural shift that was clearly evident in both British and wider politics in the western world.

And while we are about it, blaming it all on Blair and Iraq is just as nonsensical. Blair and Iraq may have contribted to the general lack of trust and malaise withing politics, but his was not the trigger in a global structural shift. That came ffrom the US sup-prime implosion and the great recession, and there are so many factors over such an extended period of time that caused that, that untangling it will take a couple of centuries for historians of the future.

All true of course at one level, but at another unhelpful.

So, for example, the discontent with the major two parties long pre-dates the 2008 crash. For decades Labour and the Tories have been losing votes to others. I remember the Greens getting 15% in 1989 and coming third.

I'd also agree that the social democratic politics which I support has been on retreat everywhere for 40 years. What is striking is how odd the long Blairite hegemony of 1997-2007 now looks.

But, I don't think Corbyn (or his equivalent) would have even come close to taking over the Labour party without Iraq. I think you're underestimating how that event was the formative political event for a generation of people, and how it destroyed their belief in the kind of politics Blair represented. Very sad if, like me, you actually think that kind of politics has the best prospects for successfully improving the UK (and elsewhere).

In the UK at least (but cf Germany) the far right seem to have hit their high watermark, with the Tories seemingly returning to the position of dominance they once had, but without any opposition of significance to oppose them. One will emerge eventually I suppose.

As for the great recession, meh I don't think it was that great. Unlike in say the 30s, economists knew how to react (looser monetary and fiscal policy) and largely (despite Osborne using the crisis as a cloak for shrinking the state) did so. I don't myself see it as evidence of the 'neoliberal consensus being broken' or some such.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... t-response" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



General election 2015 reports: government response

[Temulkar]

Not sure I follow. Surely the point is that with one fewer nomination from one of the idiots (Beckett, Field, Smith), there wuld not have been anyone. McDonnell (who I think you mean) would have had less chance of getting 35 than Corbyn, who was perceived as useless but harmless (unlike McDonnell who was perceived as able but nasty).

The primary cause of Corbyn being nominated was to widen the debate, that was admitted by everyone, even JC himsefl who didnt expect to win. The reasons for it being Corbyn rather than someone else don't matter - the desire to widen the debate does, because that is the primary cause of his nomination. The minuutiae of who chose what and why and when subsequent or prior to the manifestation of that cause are immaterial, what is important is why that historical process was triggered in the first place. That cannot - at any level - be put down to the random chance of individual choice. It can only be ascribed to a deeper structural shift that was clearly evident in both British and wider politics in the western world.

And while we are about it, blaming it all on Blair and Iraq is just as nonsensical. Blair and Iraq may have contribted to the general lack of trust and malaise withing politics, but his was not the trigger in a global structural shift. That came ffrom the US sup-prime implosion and the great recession, and there are so many factors over such an extended period of time that caused that, that untangling it will take a couple of centuries for historians of the future.

All true of course at one level, but at another unhelpful.

So, for example, the discontent with the major two parties long pre-dates the 2008 crash. For decades Labour and the Tories have been losing votes to others. I remember the Greens getting 15% in 1989 and coming third.

I'd also agree that the social democratic politics which I support has been on retreat everywhere for 40 years. What is striking is how odd the long Blairite hegemony of 1997-2007 now looks.

But, I don't think Corbyn (or his equivalent) would have even come close to taking over the Labour party without Iraq. I think you're underestimating how that event was the formative political event for a generation of people, and how it destroyed their belief in the kind of politics Blair represented. Very sad if, like me, you actually think that kind of politics has the best prospects for successfully improving the UK (and elsewhere).

In the UK at least (but cf Germany) the far right seem to have hit their high watermark, with the Tories seemingly returning to the position of dominance they once had, but without any opposition of significance to oppose them. One will emerge eventually I suppose.

As for the great recession, meh I don't think it was that great. Unlike in say the 30s, economists knew how to react (looser monetary and fiscal policy) and largely (despite Osborne using the crisis as a cloak for shrinking the state) did so. I don't myself see it as evidence of the 'neoliberal consensus being broken' or some such.

And there lies your failiure to understand Corbyn or indeed the wider issues that he is a product of. The great recession is the beggining of the end of the system that has dominated for the last 35 years or so, since the 70s oil crisis and OPEC. Iraq for all it's grotesque failure is not what caused a shift in perception. Blair won in 2005, Brown would likely have won in 2007, all in spite of Iraq. Cameron won in spite of Lybia. As one of your heros (I assume) was so fond of saying - it's the economy stupid.

[SpinningHugo]

But you're talking about the events themselves not the writers of history which is what historiography deals with.

I didn't mean to do so. I was addressing Temulkar's criticism of O'Hara's adoption of the 'history as cock-up' theory. So I was trying, no doubt inadequately as it isn't my area, to discuss the theory of history. Are events, such as Corbyn best 'explained' through the large sweeping historical forces of discontent with the establishment that have swept the west, or is it best understood as being an accident caused by Eric Joyce getting pissed up.

My understanding, and this is long out of date, is that modern theories of history answer "both and neither." And the study of theories of history does travel under the name of "historiography".

but, though I do claim to know about some stuff, the theory of history I don't. I haven't looked at it for a long time.

The question always used to explain that is the Hitler paradox. If, as could easily have happened, Hitler had died on the Somme, would the Second World War and Holocaust have happened? Some things would likely be different, some events and dates changed, but the cause of both was not in the decisions made by one man, but in th structural underlying causes - economic and social - that made war and pogrom inevitable after 1919.

Personally, I'd suggest that the holocaust happening in the same way without him is indeed unlikely. You'd have to think that the same boldly aggressive military decisions (Poland, France) would have happened and the same hubris that led to operation Barbarossa (and hence the ability to kill the Jews in the east, where most died) would also have occurred. I'd doubt all of that.

So, without Hitler no doubt there would have been the rise of the far right in Germany after WW1, and maybe even a second war at some point, but looked at from a counterfactual point of view, remove him and the past would look very different indeed.

going back to Corbyn, I do think Labour just got really unlucky with a sequence of events. it is only the false perspective of hindsight that makes his improbable success look inevitable.

[Temulkar]

I didn't mean to do so. I was addressing Temulkar's criticism of O'Hara's adoption of the 'history as cock-up' theory. So I was trying, no doubt inadequately as it isn't my area, to discuss the theory of history. Are events, such as Corbyn best 'explained' through the large sweeping historical forces of discontent with the establishment that have swept the west, or is it best understood as being an accident caused by Eric Joyce getting pissed up.

My understanding, and this is long out of date, is that modern theories of history answer "both and neither." And the study of theories of history does travel under the name of "historiography".

but, though I do claim to know about some stuff, the theory of history I don't. I haven't looked at it for a long time.

The question always used to explain that is the Hitler paradox. If, as could easily have happened, Hitler had died on the Somme, would the Second World War and Holocaust have happened? Some things would likely be different, some events and dates changed, but the cause of both was not in the decisions made by one man, but in th structural underlying causes - economic and social - that made war and pogrom inevitable after 1919.

Personally, I'd suggest that the holocaust happening in the same way without him is indeed unlikely. You'd have to think that the same boldly aggressive military decisions (Poland, France) would have happened and the same hubris that led to operation Barbarossa (and hence the ability to kill the Jews in the east, where most died) would also have occurred. I'd doubt all of that.

So, without Hitler no doubt there would have been the rise of the far right in Germany after WW1, and maybe even a second war at some point, but looked at from a counterfactual point of view, remove him and the past would look very different indeed.

going back to Corbyn, I do think Labour just got really unlikely with a sequence of events. it is only the false perspective of hindsight that makes his improbable success look inevitable.

Sadly its a counterfactual that has been played out a myriad of times, but Im not going to explain the structuralist/intentionalist argument to you. I suspect it will be banging my head against a brick wall.

[SpinningHugo]

And there lies your failiure to understand Corbyn or indeed the wider issues that he is a product of. The great recession is the beggining of the end of the system that has dominated for the last 35 years or so, since the 70s oil crisis and OPEC. Iraq for all it's grotesque failure is not what caused a shift in perception. Blair won in 2005, Brown would likely have won in 2007, all in spite of Iraq. Cameron won in spite of Lybia. As one of your heros (I assume) was so fond of saying - it's the economy stupid.

Well, the collapse of "the system" has been predicted for a very long time indeed. it seems to pootle along regardless. From the perspective of today, the 2007/8 crash was less disruptive in the UK than Thatcher's recession of 1980-81. That didn't foretell the end of all things either.

i also think you are conflating two things: the effect of Iraq on the Labour party membership and its impact on the wider electorate. I am talking about the former.


So among Labour members, who despite the surge are around 1% of eligible voters, the Iraq war was a formative event for many. It destroyed 'Blairism' in the party, probably I now think for good. This wasn't immediately apparent first because Blairism still seemed to win, and so was tolerated, and second because those whose attitudes were being shaped were still young. Among the public in general it has had a much less significant effect.

I didn't vote for Labour in 2005 because of Iraq, and i still think that was the only decision I could have made.

[SpinningHugo]

Sadly its a counterfactual that has been played out a myriad of times, but Im not going to explain the structuralist/intentionalist argument to you. I suspect it will be banging my head against a brick wall.

Well done you for trying your best, eh?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Well if Hitler had died in WW1 I do doubt we would have had the Holocaust as it actually turned out. We would very likely still have had a very bloody major war and near genocidal pogroms, though. So it is with Labour - without Harman's hideous, historic misjudgement leading to Corbyn it would still have been something else leading to something similar sooner or later. The "Blairite" tendency had taken the party so far - and so dangerously - from its historic purpose that some sort of reckoning was IMO inevitable.

[PorFavor]

I don't think what Theresa May (Politics Live, Guardian, 13.07 - not copy and pasteable, for some reason) has said about Keith Vaz is a million miles away (in meaning) from what Jeremy Corbyn said bearing in mind that Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn (and, at least nominally, Keith Vaz) are on different "sides". I think Theresa May put it in a more professional way, however.






Edited - typo

[RogerOThornhill]

Sadly its a counterfactual that has been played out a myriad of times

I tend to regard countefactuals as fairly pointless and only written because the author would rather that the alternative happened.

There's enough to be written about that did happen never mind that which did not.

[SpinningHugo]

Well if Hitler had died in WW1 I do doubt we would have had the Holocaust as it actually turned out. We would very likely still have had a very bloody major war and near genocidal pogroms, though. So it is with Labour - without Harman's hideous, historic misjudgement leading to Corbyn it would still have been something else leading to something similar sooner or later. The "Blairite" tendency had taken the party so far - and so dangerously - from its historic purpose that some sort of reckoning was IMO inevitable.

But if it was the Blairites fault, why did the rise of Corbyn (or equivalent) not occur earlier? Blair resigned in 2007. We had three years of Brown and 5 of Miliband. if it was all the Blairites fault why did it happen so long after the Blairites stopped calling the shots?

Labour just got unlucky. In the party as it was then constituted, the 'soft' left candidate should have won in 2015 (as in normal times they do). Unfortunately three things combined

1. the soft left candidate was peculiarly hopeless. One of the least competent politicians I have ever seen.

2. the 2015 defeat traumatised the party so that many decided that they may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb if defeat was inevitable

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... shame.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

they decided they'd prefer to lose without compromise, than compromise and lose anyway. That is still the best argument of those who will vote for Corbyn: show us someone who will win if Corbyn will lose.

and yes

3. the lack of understanding of why Labour abstained on the second reading of the Welfare bill, while voting against on the final reading. it just wasn't the moment to be playing Parliamentary games. Even today people go around saying Labour abstained on the Welfare Bill, when in fact every MP voted against.

Now the party has been reconstituted and there is no going back.

But it was bad luck, not the inevitable forces of the collapse of capitalism or something. Things could easily have been different, as is shown by the fact that a majority of the party as it was in May 2015 would now vote for Smith, not Corbyn. The lack of any significant Labour politician with adequate charisma willing and able to lead it is also an historical aberration. Smith deserves credit for trying his best, but you'd have to be very blinkered to think he looks like a PM in waiting.

If Eric Joyce hadn't got pissed in the Commons bar that night....

[Temulkar]

Well if Hitler had died in WW1 I do doubt we would have had the Holocaust as it actually turned out. We would very likely still have had a very bloody major war and near genocidal pogroms, though. So it is with Labour - without Harman's hideous, historic misjudgement leading to Corbyn it would still have been something else leading to something similar sooner or later. The "Blairite" tendency had taken the party so far - and so dangerously - from its historic purpose that some sort of reckoning was IMO inevitable.

People tend to forget that Hitler was not the instigator of militant anti-semitism in German society. It's a popular misconception. Whilst the idea of eliminationist tendencies in German antisemitism in the 19th century probosed by Goldhagen isnt proven, its undeniable that elimantionist ant-semitism pre-existed Hitler and the Nazis. The establishment of the German Fatherland Party with a policy platform nearly identical to the later Nazi racial laws. Individuals like Kapp or Class espousing the very ideas HItler would later make his own in 1919/20, and gaining significant support. The rabid antisemitism of the Freikorps who conflated Marxism and Judaism with violent consequences for Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Libenicht (sp). That militant antsemitism was itself a product of the intellectual nationalism of the unification period, which has deep roots.

You really cannot blame one man for a crime committed by millions, that is not to abrogate Hitler of responsibility by the way, nor to diminish his role in the course of events, but the direction of travel predates him.

[Temulkar]

Sadly its a counterfactual that has been played out a myriad of times

I tend to regard countefactuals as fairly pointless and only written because the author would rather that the alternative happened.

There's enough to be written about that did happen never mind that which did not.

I agree with that in general, but within a specific argument as to one man's responsibility for a single event, it is a rather useful excercise. Counterfactual was much looked down upon in the 60s and 70s, but I think it has proven its validity in a focussed study since.

[55DegreesNorth]

Afternoon folks,
And Happy Birthday to Roger. I hope you enjoy the cake as much as i have the map link. There go all my jobs for the day.
And 78% northern. Must have been the time spent in Cricklewood.

[RogerOThornhill]

This might well be worth a read...


Emma_Norris
‏@Emma_Norris

New @instituteforgov @NicholasTimmins report on #universalcredit out tomorrow. Find it here from midnight: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[danesclose]

No mention of Owen Smith's bit of banter yet?

[citizenJA]

What it's like working as a Member of Parliament? I mean the the day-to-day Parliament attendance when in session, constituency work,
obligations requiring attention, things perhaps not listed on the Parliament UK website or in programs uploaded onto youtube.

An MP in an opposition capacity likely has a different work day than a member in government. I suspect a Tory MP works a different day
than a Labour MP, for example, regardless of their party being in government or not, though I may be wrong.

My interest is primarily contemporary Labour MPs' work. I'd like to know what it's like to be a Labour party MP. I want to look at this
with some detachment, you know what I mean? I'm not looking to find out how one or a handful of Labour MPs operate, I want to have
a general, though accurate, sketch of the work of Labour Parliamentarians.

Does anyone have any thoughts or links that could help me understand an MPs' job? I don't know the MP of the constituency I live in
well enough to find out this information from him and I'm reluctant for other reasons. It's a difficult time. I don't feel comfortable
asking him for a run down on the days-in-the-professional-lives of Labour MPs. I'd like a general overview, nothing more.

[PorFavor]

3.30pm: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, makes a statement to the Commons about the government’s plans for leaving the EU. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Have I missed it?

[TR'sGhost]

That is modern historiography, at least on my limited understanding of it.

"Historiography is the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Modern historiography would be possibly looking at how events were portrayed by the historians, media, politicians not the events themselves per se. Same as Roman historiography would be studying Cicero, Suetonius, Cassius Dio etc.

All true, but it is acceptable usage to include philosophy of history under historiography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or at least it was when I did A level history.

Do we have another specific word for "the philosophy of history"? Google says no, but I may just be ignorant.

When I did my degree we talked in terms of "methodology" rather than historiography. But we looked at history as a social science, not the telling of the deeds of great men.

[citizenJA]

3.30pm: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, makes a statement to the Commons about the government’s plans for leaving the EU. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Have I missed it?

We all have. Including Davis. He's starting now, apparently. Everyone seems to want to continue discussing Keith Vaz. It's a struggle.

[PorFavor]

Junior doctors suspend planned five-day strike in September

British Medical Association says remaining programme of industrial action stays in place
(Guardian)

I think it's wise to have called off this, the earliest, one owing to the accusations of it being at too short notice.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -september

[citizenJA]

Junior doctors suspend planned five-day strike in September

British Medical Association says remaining programme of industrial action stays in place
(Guardian)

I think it's wise to have called off this, the earliest, one owing to the accusations of it being at too short notice.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -september

I agree. I was relieved to read it. However, I'm not happy with how the junior doctors are being treated and support them.