Is it all for the best?

[beastofbedfordshire]

If I alter history, would that infringe on my ability to alter history 🤔

[johnloony]

I voted for the second option. This poll is similar to an idea that was gradually forming in my head, although my poll would have been more specific about the options. I was going to ask: what one thing would you change, if you could? The options are:

1. Hillary Clinton is elected President instead of Donald Trump
2. The EU referendum has a "Remain" result
3. David Cameron stays on as Prime Minister
4. Someone else (e.g. Boris Johnson or Michael Gove) becomes PM instead of Theresa May
5. Mrs May doesn't call a snap general election

Despite my eternal frustration at the fact that Mrs May called a general election which we didn't want or need, I think that the result of the general election (and subsequent events) have exposed a fundamental truth which would have become clear eventually anyway: that Mrs May just isn't very good as PM. Therefore my answer is that I would choose option 3.

My change to history is that David Cameron stays on as PM and gets on with the job which he was mandated to do by the referendum, of negotiating good terms for Brexit. Needless to say, he wouldn't have called an extra general election and wouldn't have thrown away a good majority in the House of Commons.

Constitutionally (not just in the UK, but generally), it is also not generally a good idea for prime ministers to resign just because they have lost a referendum; it gets the voters used to the idea that they can get rid of the PM by voting No in the referendum instead of actually voting on the issue of the referendum itself.

The question of Trump vs. Clinton can look after itself. I was appalled by Trump being elected, but in the great scheme of things Hillary Clinton could easily have messed things up more seriously than Trump might - particularly on the issue of external warmongering. One way of looking at it is that the USA is essentially an anarchy, which gets on with running itself (working, doing business) without much government interference. A useless do-nothing POTUS is potentially better than an activist one.

[carlton43]

I feel that the Law of Unintended Consequences nearly always causes effects that one could not have foreseen and often would not wish for. On balance best not to tinker at the edges as there are just too many edges and not enough breadth of vision in any of us.

But to advance straight from that observation to a Panglossian 'it Is All For The Best' goes far too far and leaves me unable to vote.......yet again!

[slon]

May 11, 2018 21:40:54 GMT beastofbedfordshire said:

If I alter history, would that infringe on my ability to alter history 🤔

Very Tralfamadorian.

[sirbenjamin]

May 11, 2018 21:40:54 GMT beastofbedfordshire said:

If I alter history, would that infringe on my ability to alter history 🤔

Go back to Uganda, Beast!

[polupolu]

An interesting question. How about the following:

1982: The Argentine Junta decides it is too risky to try and take some islands off the United Kingdom by force.

Consequence?  Who knows, maybe good, maybe bad.  Not sure if I would want all the consequences, but it would be different I suspect.

Lets guess:

1983 election Conservatives still the largest party but lose their overall majority, Alliance holds the balance of power.

Tories get rid of "loser" Thatcher.  She is replaced by Michael Heseltine.  Foot resigns.  Labour refuses to negotiate with splitters.  Alliance props up the Tories in return for STV, reform of the Lords and a change in economic strategy.  North Sea Oil revenues used to fund new infrastructure, Research and Development and an industrial strategy that concentrates on the old industrial heartlands rather than tax cuts.

At the next (STV) election, the Alliance splinters.  The Tory party eventually splits with the right wing peeling off and becoming a sort of proto-UKIP.  Labour manages to stay together (just) though there are some defections to the Owenite part of the ex-Alliance.  The Owenites and Heselteenies eventual come together as the "National Progress" list.  My wing of the ex-Alliance is reduced to 5 MPs and gets less that 7% of 1st preference votes.

[polupolu]

It is almost impossible to guess the consequences of some events - they might have radically changed the world or had almost no impact. We only have one world history that we can draw conclusions from. Here is a suggestion from ancient history:

* Constantine loses the battle of the Milvian Bridge and dies there.

Immediate consequences: Christianity does not become the official religion of the Roman Empire; there is no council of Nicea to anathemise heterodox Christian beliefs; the Roman empire is not split in two and Byzantium remains unimportant. So potentially we have a unified non-Christian Rome and the possibility of Arian, Nestorian or even Pelagian Christianity becoming the "standard".

However, it is possible that Christianity eventually becomes the state religion anyway, that something similar to the council of Nicea happens a bit later and Constantine wasn't the only emperor to split control of the empire so the very defensible Byzantium could end up the capital of a rump Empire anyway

[Deleted]

May 14, 2018 13:32:38 GMT polupolu said:

It is almost impossible to guess the consequences of some events - they might have radically changed the world or had almost no impact. We only have one world history that we can draw conclusions from. Here is a suggestion from ancient history:

* Constantine loses the battle of the Milvian Bridge and dies there.

Immediate consequences: Christianity does not become the official religion of the Roman Empire; there is no council of Nicea to anathemise heterodox Christian beliefs; the Roman empire is not split in two and Byzantium remains unimportant. So potentially we have a unified non-Christian Rome and the possibility of Arian, Nestorian or even Pelagian Christianity becoming the "standard".

However, it is possible that Christianity eventually becomes the state religion anyway, that something similar to the council of Nicea happens a bit later and Constantine wasn't the only emperor to split control of the empire so the very defensible Byzantium could end up the capital of a rump Empire anyway

The re-foundation of Byzantium as Constantinople was, in itself, neither here nor there. The imperial power had first been formally divided by Diocletian in the period 286-93, with Diocletian presiding over his (eventually) three colleagues from Nicomedia, which is only 56 miles from Byzantium and which he chose as his main seat of government for similar reasons.

Diocletian's "tetrarchic" system lasted in the form he intended for only 13 years (until it began to break down in 306) but the reason he had implemented it did not go away - the Roman state needed men who were present and with the authority to make rapid military decisions along vulnerable stretches of the frontier. Constantine made himself sole ruler 324-37 but, following his death, periods when the empire had a single ruler were exceptional (the very last was Theodosius, who died in 395). In my view, the division of the empire was destined to happen. Diocletian had envisaged that multiple emperors would rule as a college, with personal rather than geographically defined authority, and the orders they individually gave within their spheres of competence being valid throughout the empire. However, this proved unfeasible and successive divisions of the empire (which tended to follow major cultural and economic faultlines) gave rise to what amounted in practice to personal realms. 

As for Christianity, active persecution mostly ended in 311, when the dying Galerius officially abandoned the campaign against it begun eight years earlier. Constantine did not precisely make Christianity the official religion, but made it officially a religio licita, conspicuously favoured it, and benefited it in various ways at the expense of paganism. It is difficult to predict what would have happened in the absence of Constantine: Christianity was certainly very weak in the western provinces, and its rapid growth there would have been much slower - if it happened at all - had it not been for official patronage. The weakness of late paganism has probably been exaggerated. In Britain, archaeology demonstrates a noticeable revival in pagan practice following the accession of Julian, and this continued until pagan worship was officially suppressed by Gratian and Theodosius. 

Constantine's influence over the church itself is often exaggerated. He was no theologian and was exasperated by the bishops' inability to agree, as well as his own inability to force them to do so. Indeed, it is arguable that the church councils he called to impose unity actually made pre-existing divisions worse, by forcing them into the open and polarising clerical opinion. 

[catking]

On a similar theme, what if Cyrus the Great had a) never taken Babylon or b) not facilitated the return of Jewish exiles to Jerusalem.

In all liklihood, Judasism would not have survived and Christianity would never have emerged from it either. The knock on consequences are impossible to even come close to guessing.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2018 10:15:51 GMT catking said:

On a similar theme, what if Cyrus the Great had a) never taken Babylon or b) not facilitated the return of Jewish exiles to Jerusalem.

In all liklihood, Judasism would not have survived and Christianity would never have emerged from it either. The knock on consequences are impossible to even come close to guessing.

Judaism was shaped by the exile and, without it, would not have developed some of what we now see as its key characteristics. We can say this with a degree of confidence as not all proto-Jews (as I think it is more appropriate to call them) were exiled. The Samaritans, though now a tiny group of about 2,000 people, were once an important local variant of "Yahwism", and their claim to represent a continuation of the religious tradition of the old northern kingdom of Israel is very likely correct.

[catking]

All in all, there is a compelling argument that Cyrus the Great is one of the single most important figures in all of human history.

[johnloony]

May 14, 2018 13:16:27 GMT polupolu said:

An interesting question. How about the following:

1982: The Argentine Junta decides it is too risky to try and take some islands off the United Kingdom by force.

Consequence?  Who knows, maybe good, maybe bad.  Not sure if I would want all the consequences, but it would be different I suspect.

Lets guess:

1983 election Conservatives still the largest party but lose their overall majority, Alliance holds the balance of power.

Tories get rid of "loser" Thatcher.  She is replaced by Michael Heseltine.  Foot resigns.  Labour refuses to negotiate with splitters.  Alliance props up the Tories in return for STV, reform of the Lords and a change in economic strategy.  North Sea Oil revenues used to fund new infrastructure, Research and Development and an industrial strategy that concentrates on the old industrial heartlands rather than tax cuts.

At the next (STV) election, the Alliance splinters.  The Tory party eventually splits with the right wing peeling off and becoming a sort of proto-UKIP.  Labour manages to stay together (just) though there are some defections to the Owenite part of the ex-Alliance.  The Owenites and Heselteenies eventual come together as the "National Progress" list.  My wing of the ex-Alliance is reduced to 5 MPs and gets less that 7% of 1st preference votes.

Load of nonsense. The Falklands factor was only a very minor factor in generating a Conservative landslide in 1983 (despite the long-running attempts of many people to pretend a myth otherwise). By early 1982 the Lib/SDP surge was already rapidly deflating, and the Conservative Party was recovering from mid-term unpopularity anyway. The big surge in support for the Conservative Party from April 1982 onwards was only of a few months' duration, and by 1983 had become negligible compared with what it would be otherwise anyway.

[No Offence Alan]

I think not having the Falklands war would have had a far greater impact on Argentinian politics than British.

[The Bishop]

I know what some political scientists have claimed in hindsight, but I have long thought the Falklands WAS highly significant politically. That is not just borne out by the massive spike in support for both the Tories and Mrs T in spring/summer 1982, but all the anecdotal evidence from that time.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Most election analysts say that the improvements to the economy were the real reason why the Conservatives won in 1983, but the Falklands certainly made it a lot more defensible to support Maggie in public and provided a lot of political cover for the Conservative argument on the economy to get over. So even if the bread-and-butter arguments won it, it was the Falklands which allowed them to be made and ensured people would listen.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2018 9:21:12 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Most election analysts say that the improvements to the economy were the real reason why the Conservatives won in 1983, but the Falklands certainly made it a lot more defensible to support Maggie in public and provided a lot of political cover for the Conservative argument on the economy to get over. So even if the bread-and-butter arguments won it, it was the Falklands which allowed them to be made and ensured people would listen.

Labour support peaked in late 1981 and, while the following months showed a modest Conservative recovery, the launch of the SDP disproportionately impacted upon Labour. The Falklands War made Margaret Thatcher's personality and rhetoric seem suddenly more relevant, and the rest is history.

[The Bishop]

May 17, 2018 9:36:11 GMT @goodoldcause said:

May 17, 2018 9:21:12 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Most election analysts say that the improvements to the economy were the real reason why the Conservatives won in 1983, but the Falklands certainly made it a lot more defensible to support Maggie in public and provided a lot of political cover for the Conservative argument on the economy to get over. So even if the bread-and-butter arguments won it, it was the Falklands which allowed them to be made and ensured people would listen.

Labour support peaked in late 1981 and, while the following months showed a modest Conservative recovery, the launch of the SDP disproportionately impacted upon Labour. The Falklands War made Margaret Thatcher's personality and rhetoric seem suddenly more relevant, and the rest is history.

That was in the summer of 1981 - "Alliance" support started to rise after the Warrington byelection and briefly hit 50% at the close of the year (after Crosby)

[Deleted]

May 17, 2018 13:38:06 GMT The Bishop said:

May 17, 2018 9:36:11 GMT @goodoldcause said:

Labour support peaked in late 1981 and, while the following months showed a modest Conservative recovery, the launch of the SDP disproportionately impacted upon Labour. The Falklands War made Margaret Thatcher's personality and rhetoric seem suddenly more relevant, and the rest is history.

That was in the summer of 1981 - "Alliance" support started to rise after the Warrington byelection and briefly hit 50% at the close of the year (after Crosby)

Quite right. I was there, but it was a long time ago...

[Forfarshire Conservative]

If I could alter history I’d probably ensure we (The UK) remained neutral during the Great War. Despite the propaganda I feel that it was a useless war costing far too many young British and Empire lives and only for a few useless colonies and some esoteric notion of Belgian neutrality and “honour”, which considering what they were doing in the Congo it’s debatable they had any. 

[carlton43]

Jul 20, 2018 19:48:15 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

If I could alter history I’d probably ensure we (The UK) remained neutral during the Great War. Despite the propaganda I feel that it was a useless war costing far too many young British and Empire lives and only for a few useless colonies and some esoteric notion of Belgian neutrality and “honour”, which considering what they were doing in the Congo it’s debatable they had any. 

The more important consideration after casualties is the massive loss of wealth, the devastation of our foreign investments, the loss of merchant shipping, the increase in national debt, and the loss of markets and exports (especially of arms/steel/ships sales during the war). 

It was a quite monumentally wrong decision, perhaps the worst in the history of Britain and the source of most of our present ills.