Author Topic: Troublesome Young Men ~ by Lynne Olson ~ April Book Club Online (Read 68779 times)

JoanK · « **Reply #80 on:** March 22, 2010, 07:33:04 PM »

The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.

Troublesome Young Men:
The Rebels Who Brought Churchill to Power
by Lynne Olson

The 1930's. Depression years . Tough times for America. The nation was self absorbed and little concerned in what was going in Europe.

And what was going on in Europe? In England there was little interest in confronting the menace of Hitler and his invasion of neighboring countries.

The question is why? Perhaps you think you know? Not really, not until you read this book.

Lynne Olson writes a story that comes alive with the history of England during one of its most perilous periods and bring us a fascinating tale of TROUBLESOME YOUNG MEN, highly ambitious, powerful, wealthy young men, with their love of life, their love affairs, who put their careers in jeopardy to oust the old and bring in a new government willing to face the evil that was upon them.

JOIN IN WHAT PROMISES TO BE A GOOD DISCUSSION APRIL lst

______________________________

Reading Schedule

April l-8 Chapters 1-5
April 9-15 Chapters 6-10
April 16-22 Chapters 11-15
April 23-30 Chapters 16-end

Discussion Leaders: Ella and Harold

___________________________________________________________________________________

They sometimes broadcast sessions of Parliament on C-Span at night. I'm not a regular enough listener to know the schedule. Does anyone else?

The atmosphere is quite different than in the US Congress -- much more raucous, everybody yelling at the speaker, name calling etc.

JoanK · « **Reply #81 on:** March 22, 2010, 07:46:38 PM »

It's probably important for understanding the book to understand the difference between the British Parliamentary system and our American system. I hope I can make it clear.

First: there are two houses: House of Lords and House of Commons. But the House of Lords is ceremonial -- legislative business is done in "the Commons".

Second: the Prime minister corresponds to our President. But he/she is not elected by the people. Rather, people vote for their "member" of Parliament. The party that gets the majority of seats choses one member to be Prime minister. If no one party gets a majority, the parties meet and form a coelition government.

Third: there aren't regularly scheduled elections, although there is a limit to how long they can go without an election (I THINK it's 7 years -- not sure). Within that, a party rules until it is defeated on a vote that is considered a major one. Then, it's said, the government has "fallen" and a new election is held. If Obama had failed to pass the healthcare bill and we were in England, we would have had a new election of all of the members of Parliament. And perhaps Obama would have been "out".

More in a minute.

JoanK · « **Reply #82 on:** March 22, 2010, 07:58:08 PM »

So there are two ways a prime minister can lose his office. His government can "fall" and there be a new election. Or his party can boot him out, and a new PM be chosen by the party. I don't know the method for that, but I think we'll learn it in this book.

One more difference: when someone runs for Parliament, he doesn't have to (and usually doesn't) live in the area that he will represent. He gets "in" with party members, and they find a nice "seat" for him to run for. This explains how all these members of Parliament, even those from working class and poor district,all come rom the same small pool of the elite. As we will see, many of them have never seen their district until they run to represent it.

When people vote for their member, they know they are also voting on who will be the Prime minister. So presumably, they'll vote for a member they don't like to get the PM and politics they want. But if the PARTY doesn't like a person, they can refuse to let them run for that seat next time. Thus, his party can have a stronger hold on a politician than his constituents.

And of course, this hold is important for the party since if their members oppose them their government will "fall" and they will have to struggle to get a majority of seats in the next election.

Babi · « **Reply #83 on:** March 23, 2010, 08:43:35 AM »

Thanks for that explanation, JOANK. It's hardly what we would consider a 'representative' type
of government. Still, it appears to work. At least the party in power knows that if they don't
please the people, they will lost their majority in the next election. So the people do have some power in their hands, even if their 'representative' must pay more attention to the party line than the needs of his constituents. It will help to have this all in mind when we get
into the politics of the book.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #84 on:** March 23, 2010, 09:59:43 AM »

Oh, you did that very well, JOANK. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

We do need that information to understand many things in this book and we will be referring to your explanation again.

It's a bit like Hillary Clinton, in a way. She had never lived in New York, but decided to become their Senator, ran for it and got elected. And the Democratic party helped tremendously.

Perhaps the differences would be she then must reside in New York, which she now does; whereas, a member of Parliament (MP) does not. Of course, now she is Secretary of State.s

Do these Parliament members visit their district often? As you say, the MP's described in our book are elitist and probably have never been in their district before.

Now as to the Prime Minister - oh, I must go - late for an appt.

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #85 on:** March 23, 2010, 03:53:44 PM »

Some things I remember about the English parliamentary governmental system. The Chief of state is the Monarch, a hereditary King or Queen. The monarch role today is limited to the ceremonial role of a chief of state as distinguished from a Chief of government. The Chief of government today in England is the Prime Minister who is a Member of Parliament, the legislative body. Thus under the English system both legislative and executive powers are exercised by member of parliament. The Prime Minister and chief ministers responsible for various Government departments are all also legislators not just making laws through new legislation but also exercising executive day to day control of the government.

In contrast under the U.S. constitution the President is both Chief of State and Chief of Government. The executive and legislative branches are emphatically separated by the Constitution with the power and role of each spelled out in separate sections of the written Constitution. The Constitution then continues to a 3rd article creating a separate and very independent judicial system that has come to serve as a watch dog assuring the constitutionality of acts of the Executive and legislative branches

There are many other differences between each of the two systems with advantages and disadvantages inherent in both. I think further thoughts with comments on these differences are appropriate for this preliminary secession prior to our April 1st opening. I have go go now. But will make further comment later.

serenesheila · « **Reply #86 on:** March 23, 2010, 10:26:40 PM »

Thank you for all of the information about the Brittish political system. I am reading chapter 2, of our book. Ella, and Harold, many thanks to you, for the choice of this book. I am finding it fascinating. I have never understood the differences between the American system, and that of the Brits.

I am really looking forward to our discussion, and learning more.

Sheila

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #87 on:** March 24, 2010, 10:25:56 AM »

Now, I must understand this. As JOANK has stated all legislative business is done in the House of Commons in Britain.

I'm not sure yet, JOAN, what the House of Lords does?

Here is a brief statement about a parliamentary system of government:

Legislatures called parliaments operate under a parliamentary system of government in which the executive is constitutionally answerable to the parliament. This can be contrasted with a presidential system, on the model of the United States' congressional system, which operate under a stricter separation of powers whereby the executive does not form part of, nor is appointed by, the parliamentary or legislative body.

Typically, congresses do not select or dismiss heads of governments, and governments cannot request an early dissolution as may be the case for parliaments

That last sentence seems to be the main difference, with, of course, the Queen. No one can dismiss her! Hahahahaa

mrssherlock · « **Reply #88 on:** March 24, 2010, 01:57:47 PM »

Quote

the executive is constitutionally answerable to the parliament

Britain doesn't have a constitution, does it?

JoanK · « **Reply #89 on:** March 24, 2010, 02:29:33 PM »

It has the Magna Carta. I don't know if there is a constitution as well.

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #90 on:** March 24, 2010, 03:36:48 PM »

Here are a few other interesting things about the English political system. The term of a Parliament is five years. In other words by law passed by Parliament there must be a general election every five years. However, a government may if it deems it politically advantageous call for a new general election any time during the term. This has been a rather common practice any time the party in power finds itself particularly popular. I remember Mrs Thatcher used this strategy in 1982 a few months after her Falklands Islands naval campaign successfully liberated the Falkland British Island population from Argentine military occupation. Though the term of the parliament had several remaining years to run, an easy electoral victory assured the party another 5 years. Other governments before and since then have used this strategy.

I note within my memory one exception to the 5 year life of a Parliament rule. It was in WW II. During the 1938 1945 period Britain went through at least 7 wartime years without a general election. In the U.S. we went through the full political process reelecting the wartime President in 1944 in the face of spirited political opposition.

I don’ think there is anywhere a single written document styled the UK Constitution. Yet English Political writings sometimes refer to an English constitution though unwritten based on centuries of tradition, historic Royal concessions (including the Magna Charter), and particularly basic laws passed by parliaments. In this regard the English Parliament certainly seems much more powerful than the U.S. Congress. In England the Queens Consent (approval) of laws passed by Parliament today is an automatic, ceremonial routine while in the U.S. Laws passed by Congress required Presidential approval and are subject to presidential veto that can only be over ridden by a super Congressional majority. Also U.S laws passed by Congress are subject to review by the Federal Court System. Frequently Congressional approved laws signed by the President have been invalidated as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I don’t know if Court reviews of Laws passed by the English Parliament are ever subject to court review, but I suspect that court invalidation of parliament is at best rare.

joangrimes · « **Reply #91 on:** March 24, 2010, 05:51:56 PM »

Britian is a Constitutional Monarchy. Magna Carta is part of the English Constituion. The whole body of laws is the Constitution. It is not a written document. Here is a link to Wikipedia which gives tons of information about Parliament and has links to listening to broadcasts also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

Joan Grimes

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #92 on:** March 25, 2010, 08:57:40 AM »

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU who posted about Parliament, the system of government that Great Britain has; I know we will have another question or two as we discuss the book. I am so looking forward to it.

WESTMINSTER PALACE:

The Palace of Westminster contains over 1,100 rooms, 100 staircases and 4.8 kilometres (3 mi) of passageways,[15] which are spread over four floors. The ground floor is occupied by offices, dining rooms and bars; the first floor (known as the principal floor) houses the main rooms of the Palace, including the debating chambers, the lobbies and the libraries. The top-two floors are used for committee rooms and offices.

Imagine that! I don't know how big our own Capitol Building is, but I can find out later.

Why would any of our Troubled YOung Men have to leave the building, but they did!!!

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #93 on:** March 25, 2010, 09:01:06 AM »

Images of Wesminster Palace - England's Capitol Building

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Westminster_Palace.html

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #94 on:** March 25, 2010, 11:12:34 AM »

The next U.K general election will have to come on or before June 3, 2010, This date will mark the 5 year term limit of the present Parliament. The present Labor Party Government is waiting until the last minute since it now appears the Conservative Party will win.

This brings up another characteristic of U.K. Elections. The election campaign is completed in six week. This means that sometime before mid April the new election date will be announced and the campaign will begin.

Such a short campaign period, is of course quite opposite to our custom in the U.S. ,dragging it out about 2 years. We will begin our 2012 campaign next January when candidates begin to announce their candidacies. It will move into high gear as 2011 passes to its climax in the summer and fall of2012. Finally a winner will begin his/her 4 year term January 20, 2013

Click the following for Wikopedia article on the coming UK General election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010

JoanK · « **Reply #95 on:** March 25, 2010, 02:47:04 PM »

I must admit that in most things I prefer our system to the British, but I like the idea of limiting the campaign to six weeks a lot. It seems more and more in this country that we are ALWAYS in the middle of a campaign, and that all political decisions become campaign decisions, even more than usual.

mrssherlock · « **Reply #96 on:** March 25, 2010, 05:00:58 PM »

One can only speculate what effect lengthening the term for Representatives would have. I wonder how they have time to conduct legislative business at all between fund raising and campaigning. Two years is no time at all.

My nephew has spent many years in Asia in business and he reads The Guardian as do some 750,000 others. Curious to see what this business oriented organization wrote about Olsen's book, I found this http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/28/featuresreviews.guardianreview4

I am astounded by this book, can hardly put it down.

kidsal · « **Reply #97 on:** March 25, 2010, 05:16:18 PM »

Book arrived today. On a trip to England I sat next to a man who had a construction business. His company had been hired to work in Westminster - said it is too bad the public can't tour some of the areas as the tile work is so beautiful.

Babi · « **Reply #98 on:** March 26, 2010, 07:44:18 AM »

Got my book from the library yesterday and have started reading it. Immediately engrossing,
and this stuff really happened! It does make it more exciting, knowing none of this is fiction.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #99 on:** March 26, 2010, 01:19:38 PM »

Are you saying KIDAL that no one can tour Westminster or just certain areas? I don't know if I have read that anywhere.

Here is a brief history of the building:

"The first royal palace was built on the site in the eleventh century, and Westminster was the primary London residence of the Kings of England until a fire destroyed much of the complex in 1512. After that, it served as the home of Parliament, which had been meeting there since the thirteenth century, and the seat of the Royal Courts of Justice, based in and around Westminster Hall. In 1834, an even greater fire ravaged the heavily rebuilt Houses of Parliament, and the only structures of significance to survive were Westminster Hall, the Cloisters and Chapter House of St Stephen's, the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft and the Jewel Tower.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #100 on:** March 26, 2010, 01:30:31 PM »

HAROLD, that is very interesting - "The election campaign is completed in six week

And, am I correct, in stating that this is for just the House of Commons? The Prime Minister is chosen by the majority party, correct?

And the House of Lords are not elected?

I have to get this straightened out in mind before we take up the book!

And, yes, wouldn't it be nice if the campaigns for our Congressional representataives would just be allowed to last six weeks. If would be cost effective for both parties, wouldn't it? And our President?

donnamo · « **Reply #101 on:** March 26, 2010, 08:56:59 PM »

I just picked up my copy of our book at the college I'm attending. It is borrowed from another nearby college and has a warning taped to the front, saying they could possibly charge me $120 fine if the book is lost or returned damaged. Really? $120? Sheesh. What happened to just replacing the book?

From reading all your comments here on this thread, I can't imagine reading Troublesome Young Men and not underlining passages or writing in the margins, so I think I'm going to get on line and order a copy for myself. Sure will be cheaper than paying $120 when I drop the book in a mud puddle, eh?

How does the book discussion work here? Do we discuss a chapter a week, or is it a day by day thing as we each read at our own pace?

Babi · « **Reply #102 on:** March 27, 2010, 08:51:28 AM »

Since I'm first in line behind you, DONNAMO, I'll go ahead and answer your question. Check
the heading at the top of the page. You'll find a discussion schedule there.
Did you ever mention what college you're attending? I'm always interested in what people
are studying and where.

kidsal · « **Reply #103 on:** March 27, 2010, 10:15:48 AM »

Imagine there are certain sections of the building where the public is not allowed just as our capitol building.

JoanK · « **Reply #104 on:** March 27, 2010, 01:32:37 PM »

DONNAMO: WELCOME! I can see you're an actve reader, and I think you'll really enjoy our discussions.

As you can see in the heading, the first "week" (April 1 to 8 ) we discuss the first 5 chapters, coming in whenever you want, and discussing anything you want, but not going ahead (I had to sit on my eyes to avoid reading ahead, but it's a better discussion if we don't). Ella and Harold may put up discussion questions to stir discussion; you can focus on them or ignore them, we usually go all over the place.

Enjoy!

marcie · « **Reply #105 on:** March 27, 2010, 11:55:12 PM »

Hello, everyone. I just found this book in our public library and I'd love to talk about it with you. The premise sounds intriguing.

I usually read more fiction than nonfiction.

My head is spinning from the information posted here about how the British government is constituted. I hope that there will be information in the book that will help me become more familiar with this knowledge. I look forward to getting into the book and this discussion in a few days. I know I'll learn a lot from the book and from each of you.

kiwilady · « **Reply #106 on:** March 28, 2010, 03:19:06 AM »

I can join in this discussion as my library actually has a copy available I should have it by April 1! I have reserved it and it usually takes about two business days for me to be able to pick it up.

Carolyn

kiwilady · « **Reply #107 on:** March 28, 2010, 03:23:08 AM »

Our Parliament is run on the Westminster system also. I don't think I would like any other system. Its always been a very stable system for the last 100 or more years. We may not have constitutions but we do have many laws protecting civil liberties. It is also good that there can be a vote of no confidence within a party caucus and a PM can be replaced by their own party. Also there can be a vote of no confidence in the Govt and new elections be called. It has not happened often but it can happen. I think we have a lot of freedom really in our system. However we have Proportional Representation (like Germany) as our voting system whereas UK has first past the post.

Carolyn

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #108 on:** March 28, 2010, 12:02:04 PM »

OH, THIS IS WONDERFUL. WHAT A GOOD GROUP WE ARE GOING TO BE WHEN APRIL lst ROLLS AROUND.

DONNAMO, I hope you will have a book in front of you by then, whether it is a library one or whether you buy one. Like you, I want to underline, write in the margin, make notes in the back; but by the time I am through reading I feel as though it is an old comfortable friend.

HI MARCIE. I'm so happy you are joining us. The book is good, you'll enjoy it and at times it reads a bit like fiction. The lives of these young men are fascinating, but they are all too real and had an immense impact on the outcome of WWII.

CAROLYN: WELCOME, we need your input. We'll be asking you many questions, indeed, yes! Thanks for joining in.

I'm not superstitious! Does anyone have any thoughts about starting our conversation of FOOLS DAY?

mrssherlock · « **Reply #109 on:** March 28, 2010, 01:42:34 PM »

Seems appropriate to me since IMHO this book could have had an alternative title with the word "FOOLS" prominently featured.

marcie · « **Reply #110 on:** March 28, 2010, 03:21:39 PM »

That's funny, mrssherlock.:-) April 1 is fine for me too.

FlaJean · « **Reply #111 on:** March 28, 2010, 10:03:18 PM »

I heard Cokey Roberts say in a book review that she thought electing a woman president in our US system of government would be much harder than in the parliamentary system of government. The reason being that the party in power picks their leader where we elect among millions of people across fifty states. Perhaps she is right as Great Britain had Margaret Thatcher and Israel had Golda Meir years ago.

kiwilady · « **Reply #112 on:** March 29, 2010, 12:15:35 AM »

In one administration here, the last administration, we had women in every high seat. PM
Chief Justice etc and even the Governor General was a woman at one stage. This admin lasted for 9 years. We have had 2 woman PMs so far. Jenny Shipley (National Party ( conservative) and the last PM was Helen Clark now at the UN. She represented the NZ Labour Party (centre left) Mind you reading in your political forums in the US our centre left would be considered socialist which is NOT a dirty word here as its not Communism as commonly thought in the US. To me brought up for much of my life under several Socialist Administrations our current Labour party is very much centerist. Much like New Labour in the UK. Our elections take place three yearly.

bookad · « **Reply #113 on:** March 29, 2010, 06:56:56 AM »

hi there, it's Deb from Canada

we did have a woman Prime Minister, 'Kim Campbell' from the conservative party....she followed Brian Malrooney, who was very unpopular ,....and I believe because of him, the conservative party almost lost status in the next election & sadly Kim Campbell never got to show us 'her stuff'....I would really have liked to have seen her in office longer!

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #114 on:** March 29, 2010, 09:29:46 AM »

That brought a smile, JACKIE!

That's an excellent point, FLAJEAN! I would like to discuss a book about either of those ladies. Did either of them write an autobiography? Well, I can look them up, of course.

CAROLYN, I think, perhaps, our government is attempting to catch up to socialism with our healthcare bill. But we better not get into a discussion of that!! Mercy!

DEB, I don't understand. Why didn't the lady, the PM Kim Campbell get to "show her stuff?"

Jonathan · « **Reply #115 on:** March 29, 2010, 11:07:36 AM »

'Why didn't the lady, the PM Kim Campbell get to "show her stuff?" '

Deb may remember it differently, but she is right about the prime minister's unpopularity after several terms. The way I remember it...well, let's start with politicians and their egos. Brian Malroney, who had done some good things, couldn't face defeat in an election. As prime minister it was his privilege to resign his office and 'recommend' to the governor-general a successor to take over his office. The g-g would then call on the pm's choice to form a government, having satisfied himself that the new prime minister would be supported by a majority in the House of Commons. Once Kim Campbell was prime minister she called an election. She had been a popular member of Mulroney's cabinet and she had shown good stuff, but under the circumstances she had no good prospects of leading the party to victory in an election. She was used in a sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, Deb. Is it already twenty years since then!. Kim resigned and went to live in California to head up a Canadian consulate there.

serenesheila · « **Reply #116 on:** March 29, 2010, 05:58:47 PM »

I watched an hour program last night, on the National Geographic Channel. Can't remembrt the exact title. Something like "The Nazi King of England". I found it fascinating! It began with Edward's single life as a Prince. Then covered his courtship of Wallis. They both were fans of Hitler. Spending time in Germany in the mid to late 1930s.

Churchill was involved in excialing him to a chain of small islands. Edward's life was under the scrutiny of both the Brits, and our FBI. I was a child in the 30s, but remember my family talking about his activities.

The program talked about Hitler's intention of capturing England, and putting Edward back on the throne as a puppet King. I am wondering if any of you saw the program. After watching the program, I erased the recording. Today, I wish I had kept it, as I would like to see it again.

Sheila

kiwilady · « **Reply #117 on:** March 29, 2010, 06:43:38 PM »

I think Wallis Simpson and Edward had an unhealthy relationship. She was very much in charge. I felt he was a weak man really and probably would have made a very unsatisfactory king. His shy younger brother came up trumps with the support of his wife and was much loved.

Carolyn

bookad · « **Reply #118 on:** March 29, 2010, 07:11:36 PM »

briefly back to 'Kim Campbell', Canadian Prime Minister

I am almost 60; and at the time Kim Campbell was our Prime Minister, I must say I wasn't very interested in our political situation--I know she became the P.M. when Malroney stepped down; their caucus voted her to the position--but Malroney was very unpopular with pushing the 'free trade' thru despite MAJOR opposition --sort of on par with the unrest in getting the health care thru in your country
--thats my memory about it anyway

Deb

joangrimes · « **Reply #119 on:** March 30, 2010, 12:12:56 AM »

It seems to me that it was commom knowledge to everyone that Edward was a Nazi Sympathizer. I was just a child in the 30s also but My dad kept up with all the world news and it was discussed every night at the dinner table. I remember seeing Wallis Simpson's pic on the Front page of the news paper and my dad talking about the whole situation at length. I have seen several movies and read several books about Wallis and EDward. I just cannot remember th names of them right now.

I think that Carolyn is right that Wallis was a much stronger person Edward. She was able to influence him.

News:

Author Topic: Troublesome Young Men ~ by Lynne Olson ~ April Book Club Online (Read 68779 times)