QMUL chat!

Lol good good. Eh, are you working for the mid-terms? NPA was a bastard last year.

Yeah, I've been in the library since 11am, hopefully I'll manage to get all the work done before the mid-terms start...

Wouldn't happen to be able to help me get my hands on some mid-term examples?

Really? The only time I went on the Tube yesterday was from Tottenham Court Road to Charing Cross

Thursday night...I swear you got off at Aldgate East

this song/remix

Is the QM library open during reading week?

Yes.

Cool. I borrowed sooooo many books about Tony Blair for a history essay, but after planning, it just seems too hard. The question asks us to "analyse Tony Blair's successes and failures as PM".

Constitutional reform/ 1999 House of Lords Act. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

Yes, and obviously Iraq. But how would you define success and failure? That's what put me off. I'm just gonna go for a question where it's more factual-based.

Definitively, I'd go on facts, avoid subjectivity.

It's a horrible question to structure though because it's not an argument, I hate 'analyse' questions.

Yes, and obviously Iraq. But how would you define success and failure? That's what put me off. I'm just gonna go for a question where it's more factual-based.

It's all subjective isn't it? some more hawkish politicians would argue that Iraq was a success because it removed Saddam from power and now Iraq has a functioning democracy, admittedly fragile but still functioning. As long as you back up your view with good arguments you can't really be wrong per say. So defining success/failure is an entirely subjective personal thing.

I'd certainly argue that in it's current state Iraq is geopolitically a minor success, domestically it was an absolute disaster for the Blair government.

Some people believe Blair was a success, some people don't. It's hard to really argue decisively two years after he left office.

This is why I dislike modern history. The essay I'm just starting work on now is 'To what extent did Imperialism affect the lives of Continental Europeans?' which personally speaking I think is much easier to write about.

Precisely. It is because of this subjectiveness you talk of that I've decided to change essay questions. I'm now doing "Post-war consensus was a myth. Discuss". I think that is a lot easier to write about.

What question are you doing for Essay 2 for Intro to Politics?

'Is the New Right a liberal or conservative movement?'

Thats what I'm erring towards anyways, god knows how I'm going to structure that mind considering it is essentially a fusion of both

The essays are mind-gobbing, I swear. I'm erring towards 'What is the key characteristic of socialism?'. I'm just gonna talk about the main characteristics, the ones that are different and similar to other ideologies and whatnot. I dunno.

I'm going to email my seminar tutor and see whether I can argue that it is a synthesis of the both rather than having to choose one or the other, that way I can draw upon what was said in the lecture yesterday. The essays are nonsense though, I'm finding the History side of things so much easier.

What do you get for the Intro to Politics lit review btw?