Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time for the PB Nighthawks Cafe – the place for late night pol

13»

Comments

  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    For those interested, here is a link to the medical examiner's report for George Floyd

    https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    edited June 2020
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    For many, the colonial period is not some colourful historical pageant, it is their of their parents lived experience. Yes, it was to boost Britain's economic and military power, but don't expect those who were on the receiving end to be grateful.
    Well the rebel alliance was hardly grateful to the Empire in Star wars, that did not stop the Empire dominating most of the galaxy.

    Plus we did give them a few good things like railways, the rule of law and Westminster style democracy
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    A baffling amount of it was actually that economic powers coerced or persuaded the UK government into politically backing their adventures. Most famously the power of the East India Company in Parliament, but also true in the late 19th century in many parts of Africa such as Southern Nigeria, and even more true for Germany's empire.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    To be fair I did once see Dennis Macshane once running up the street in Rotherham when visiting my sister who was working there
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    You don't have to agree with Mr Bone's politics to know he's a gentleman and now, Steeden (whoever he is), is probably not.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    dodrade said:

    DougSeal said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    Will things really change in the USA as a result of all this? Perhaps I'm cynical but why is it different to any other time it has happened? Trump, to be sure, is an unpredictable factor to throw into the mix, but even so.

    The effect of all these unarmed black deaths is cumulative, and the pace of publicized incidents will probably increase with the ubiquity of cell phone video. Black people's behaviour is changing, so that they routinely record all encounters with the police.

    To me it really does feel like an 'enough is enough' time. That does not mean that everything will be resolved perfectly in a few weeks or months, but I do think that the pressure for systemic change to how policing is done will be relentless until things improve markedly.

    Of course, I could be wrong.
    I think the policing unions are a problem - far too much abuse and incompetence is covered up.

    But, these things go round in circles. Theresa May dialled back on stop & search for similar reasons - until it led to a big spike in knife crime, which affects inner cities communities the most.
    The policing problems we have in this country, which are real, are peanuts compared to the cancerous effects of the militarisation of American policing.
    I thought it was very telling that when raising significant racist police incident in the UK, the example brought out yesterday was Stephen Lawrence, which was 27 years ago. The US don't seem to be able to go 27 days without something.

    Orders of magnitude difference in issues between the two countries.
    Interesting how the 2011 riots after the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police have not been brought up, the widespread damage meant sympathy for the protests evaporated very quickly and draconian sentences for rioters meant there was no repeat contrary to much opinion on PB at the time.
    The fact that Mark Duggan had purchased and was in possession of a illegal firearm at the time of his death had much to do with the lack of sympathy.

    "Armed police gun down man with gun, in a confused situation"

    vs

    "Armed police sit & kneel on unarmed, handcuffed man until he dies over a period of time and despite protests from said man"
    How about Jean Charles de Menezes? He was completely unarmed IIRC.
    Yes - he was completely innocent.

    As I recall, there was indignation from some - because the then Major of London fired the police chief. The said Police chief had said (essentially) that that gunning down de Mendes was one of those things that would happen as part of modern policing...
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    For many, the colonial period is not some colourful historical pageant, it is their of their parents lived experience. Yes, it was to boost Britain's economic and military power, but don't expect those who were on the receiving end to be grateful.
    Well the rebel alliance was hardly grateful to the Empire in Star wars, that did not stop the Empire dominating most of the galaxy.

    Plus we did give them a few good things like railways, the rule of law and Westminster style democracy
    We cannot deny pursuing self interest but not with the same disregard for the "natives" as many colonialists (I mean no disrespect). I think that shows today.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    To be fair I did once see Dennis Macshane once running up the street in Rotherham when visiting my sister who was working there
    Ha ha. I would like to see Mps embedded in their communities. The less time they spend in Westminster the more in their constituency the better for me.
    Brexit provided the warning shot. People feel ignored.
    Coronavirus and the arrangements adopted to circumvent this feeling was a Universe not God given opportunity to enable that.
    It is profoundly depressing that the forces of Brexit have proved to be so wedded to the status quo. Small c conservatism at its worst.
    This is the way it is done equals this is the way it should and therefore MUST be done.
  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    HYUFD said:
    Christ - he has a whole team of plonkers.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    edited June 2020
    Was anyone else a little concerned by the way that it was assumed that Alok Sharma might have Covid-19 just because he seemed slightly unwell in the House of Commons? Does this mean that whenever someone feels a bit unwell on a train or bus they're going to be asked to get off in case they have the virus, even though the chances are that it's something less serious. People are going to be afraid to cough or sneeze in public if this is the case.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    alterego said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    You don't have to agree with Mr Bone's politics to know he's a gentleman and now, Steeden (whoever he is), is probably not.
    No. But I made no comment on that. I'm sure Peter Bone is a lovely fellow as this vignette attests. As is Mc Shane for sticking up for him. That wasn't the point.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    Andy_JS said:

    Was anyone else a little concerned by the way that it was assumed that Alok Sharma might have Covid-19 just because he seemed slightly unwell in the House of Commons? Does this mean that whenever someone feels a bit unwell on a train or bus they're going to be asked to get off in case they have the virus, even though the chances are that it's something less serious. People are going to be afraid to cough or sneeze in public if this is the case.

    Yep, this is how it’s going to be for the foreseeable future. If it means people are more likely to actually take sick leave then that is a good thing.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    To be fair I did once see Dennis Macshane once running up the street in Rotherham when visiting my sister who was working there
    Why was Dennis Macshane visiting your sister? And was he running away from you?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756

    Foxy said:

    isam said:



    Michael Portillo currently has a show on ch5 about the Empire that is pretty damning about our colonial behaviour including, but not only, the racism. There can't be much doubt that our position in the world was built on shaky moral foundations. Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten as they say

    Yeah those Mughal despots and African potentates we displaced were models of enlightened liberal values.
    Certainly they were not.

    The Empire was intrinsically and undeniably racist, whether conquering and replacing the natives, as in Australia or the North American Colonies, or ruling them from above as in Africa or India. Not just ruling them, but also constructing an economic system that exploited them, whether industrialised slavery, hut taxes to force wage labour or deconstructing the Indian economy so we could export.

    Of course many other countries have behaved very badly, and often worse. It is perhaps inevitable that power is abused, and the powerless exploited, but we certainly were world beaters when it came to Imperialism.
    Was that racism? Or just the way colonial powers treated their colonies.

    We didn't treat Ireland much better and they are the same race.
    I believe there was an impulse in certain quarters to see the Irish as a lesser breed. There's still more than a whiff of it in certain Glasgow communities.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    kle4 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:



    Michael Portillo currently has a show on ch5 about the Empire that is pretty damning about our colonial behaviour including, but not only, the racism. There can't be much doubt that our position in the world was built on shaky moral foundations. Behind every great fortune is a crime forgotten as they say

    Yeah those Mughal despots and African potentates we displaced were models of enlightened liberal values.
    Certainly they were not.

    The Empire was intrinsically and undeniably racist, whether conquering and replacing the natives, as in Australia or the North American Colonies, or ruling them from above as in Africa or India. Not just ruling them, but also constructing an economic system that exploited them, whether industrialised slavery, hut taxes to force wage labour or deconstructing the Indian economy so we could export.

    Of course many other countries have behaved very badly, and often worse. It is perhaps inevitable that power is abused, and the powerless exploited, but we certainly were world beaters when it came to Imperialism.
    Would it be possible to have an empire that wasn't racist or bigoted?
    Theoretically. Has there been one? Doubtful.
    The first empire documented by contemporary historians was the Persian empire founded by Cyrus, in the sense of a polity that dominates lots of different peoples without seeking to exterminate or assimilate them. It is unfortunate that Cyrus is still the go-to example of an enlightened ruler because it doesn't seem most empires do well.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    To be fair I did once see Dennis Macshane once running up the street in Rotherham when visiting my sister who was working there
    Why was Dennis Macshane visiting your sister? And was he running away from you?
    Perhaps he was in fear of an earwigging about the CCHQ line on what to do when you meet a constituents brother?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    To be fair I did once see Dennis Macshane once running up the street in Rotherham when visiting my sister who was working there
    Why was Dennis Macshane visiting your sister? And was he running away from you?
    I was visiting my sister, he just happened to be running past when he was the local MP
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    Arguable, it was only the loss of India which really meant the US could humiliate us over Suez
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    Arguable, it was only the loss of India which really meant the US could humiliate us over Suez
    We had to beg them for money to survive in the immediate post War period. The greatest global superpower usually doesn't have to beg.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    The greatest mistake the post-war government made was shunning the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and pursuing a nationalist strategy instead. That set us up for decades of relative decline.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853

    Completely OT. Not sure if this has been posted yet. Someone in Norway forgot to make the annual sacrifice to the gods.

    https://www.vgtv.no/video/197861/raset-i-alta-her-forsvinner-husene-i-havet

    Oops. Quick clay. Usually set off by someone digging or doing some ground works, which then sets off a chain reaction of liquifaction.

    For more, see a documentary on another Norwegian slide:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-qfNlEP4A&feature=youtu.be
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    edited June 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    Arguable, it was only the loss of India which really meant the US could humiliate us over Suez
    We had to beg them for money to survive in the immediate post War period. The greatest global superpower usually doesn't have to beg.
    Well we had a lot of war damage but Indian resources, raw materials and manpower kept us in the top rank economically and our currency strong, we had lost that by 1950.

    Plus of course had we won the US war of independence an American challenge would not have been an issue
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:



    There’s traditionally a principle of reciprocity in extradition treaties too but the UK–US extradition treaty of 2003, implemented by the UK by the Extradition Act 2003, is anything but even handed. It allows the extradition of UK nationals who have committed a breach of US law in the UK - but there is no reciprocal right. I am not convinced that the inequality of bargaining power that led to that outcome in an extradition treaty will not be repeated in any FTA leading to similar asymmetries.

    Nonetheless the Guardian-reading classes keep repeating, as though it were 100% guaranteed truth, that the USA wants to ban us having labels showing country of origin, as part of any trade deal.

    Well, maybe they do. Let's see the evidence. Citation needed, as the saying goes.

    (And please let's not repost the completely bonkers Jon Stone tweet from earlier today, in which he demolished his own argument by referencing a US text which showed nothing of the sort).
    I don't think they do.

    The US has been very keen to prevent labelling being used as a non-tariff barrier. However, to date this has mostly in regard to preventing the labelling of GM products. (There have also been some cases about high fructose corn syrup labelling IIRC.)
    That in itself is interesting as Connecticut now has specific GM labelling on all its food products. Again it would be interesting to see how that spreads.
    US companies have taken the Canadian government to the NAFTA/USMCA ISDS tribunals over bans on some petrol additives. The tribunal found against the Canadian government despite the fact that some US states also banned it. (I think the additive is MTBE, but I could be wrong.)
    And the Canadian Government took the US to the WTO over their Country of Origin labelling and won. Hence the reason why the US had to exclude Beef and Pork from their mCOOL laws.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    The greatest mistake the post-war government made was shunning the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and pursuing a nationalist strategy instead. That set us up for decades of relative decline.
    It was De Gaulle who vetoed British entry in the first place, we should have stuck to EFTA
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    edited June 2020
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    The greatest mistake the post-war government made was shunning the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and pursuing a nationalist strategy instead. That set us up for decades of relative decline.
    It was De Gaulle who vetoed British entry in the first place, we should have stuck to EFTA
    That was much later. We were invited to join in the original Schuman Plan.

    The reason we didn't "stick to EFTA" is because it was a political failure.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    The greatest mistake the post-war government made was shunning the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and pursuing a nationalist strategy instead. That set us up for decades of relative decline.
    Hmm. In 1950, the year before the Coal and Steel community was founded we were the world's third largest economy behind the USA and Russia. By 2005 we had slipped all the way to ....fourth.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    The greatest mistake the post-war government made was shunning the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and pursuing a nationalist strategy instead. That set us up for decades of relative decline.
    It was De Gaulle who vetoed British entry in the first place, we should have stuck to EFTA
    That was much later. We were invited to join in the original Schuman Plan.

    The reason we didn't "stick to EFTA" is because it was a political failure.
    But an economic success. We wanted economics not politics.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,713
    edited June 2020

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    The greatest mistake the post-war government made was shunning the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and pursuing a nationalist strategy instead. That set us up for decades of relative decline.
    Hmm. In 1950, the year before the Coal and Steel community was founded we were the world's third largest economy behind the USA and Russia. By 2005 we had slipped all the way to ....fourth.
    Plus it was Thatcher's economic reforms rather than EEC membership which really stopped British decline.

    We were still in relative decline under Heath, Wilson and Callaghan even after joining the EEC
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    The greatest mistake the post-war government made was shunning the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and pursuing a nationalist strategy instead. That set us up for decades of relative decline.
    Hmm. In 1950, the year before the Coal and Steel community was founded we were the world's third largest economy behind the USA and Russia. By 2005 we had slipped all the way to ....fourth.
    Plus it was Thatcher's economic reforms rather than EEC membership which really stopped British decline.

    We were still in relative decline under Heath, Wilson and Callaghan even after joining the EEC
    We only fully transitioned into the EEC just before Thatcher came to power, and her reforms to dismantle the post-war nationalised state were part and parcel of integrating into the European economy. You can't separate the two phenomena.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Yes, but by 1945 (which was still technically before the middle of the 20th Century), the US was by far the greater superpower, no matter how many Dominions the UK had.
    The greatest mistake the post-war government made was shunning the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and pursuing a nationalist strategy instead. That set us up for decades of relative decline.
    It was De Gaulle who vetoed British entry in the first place, we should have stuck to EFTA
    That was much later. We were invited to join in the original Schuman Plan.

    The reason we didn't "stick to EFTA" is because it was a political failure.
    But an economic success. We wanted economics not politics.
    Economics and politics cannot be separated, as those who have suddenly taken fright about China are discovering.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,926
    edited June 2020

    dodrade said:

    DougSeal said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    Will things really change in the USA as a result of all this? Perhaps I'm cynical but why is it different to any other time it has happened? Trump, to be sure, is an unpredictable factor to throw into the mix, but even so.

    The effect of all these unarmed black deaths is cumulative, and the pace of publicized incidents will probably increase with the ubiquity of cell phone video. Black people's behaviour is changing, so that they routinely record all encounters with the police.

    To me it really does feel like an 'enough is enough' time. That does not mean that everything will be resolved perfectly in a few weeks or months, but I do think that the pressure for systemic change to how policing is done will be relentless until things improve markedly.

    Of course, I could be wrong.
    I think the policing unions are a problem - far too much abuse and incompetence is covered up.

    But, these things go round in circles. Theresa May dialled back on stop & search for similar reasons - until it led to a big spike in knife crime, which affects inner cities communities the most.
    The policing problems we have in this country, which are real, are peanuts compared to the cancerous effects of the militarisation of American policing.
    I thought it was very telling that when raising significant racist police incident in the UK, the example brought out yesterday was Stephen Lawrence, which was 27 years ago. The US don't seem to be able to go 27 days without something.

    Orders of magnitude difference in issues between the two countries.
    Interesting how the 2011 riots after the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police have not been brought up, the widespread damage meant sympathy for the protests evaporated very quickly and draconian sentences for rioters meant there was no repeat contrary to much opinion on PB at the time.
    The fact that Mark Duggan had purchased and was in possession of a illegal firearm at the time of his death had much to do with the lack of sympathy.

    "Armed police gun down man with gun, in a confused situation"

    vs

    "Armed police sit & kneel on unarmed, handcuffed man until he dies over a period of time and despite protests from said man"
    How about Jean Charles de Menezes? He was completely unarmed IIRC.
    Yes - he was completely innocent.

    As I recall, there was indignation from some - because the then Major of London fired the police chief. The said Police chief had said (essentially) that that gunning down de Mendes was one of those things that would happen as part of modern policing...
    The woman in charge of the Menezes "operation" is now the Met Commissioner. Go figure!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,926
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    Point of order: we were still a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe during the period in question.

    Second point of order: I think you need to end the "greatest superpower on earth" before the middle of the 20th Century.
    We weren't just that, we were also the centre of the world's largest Empire at the time with London the greatest global city.

    India was still British as was most of Africa until the mid 20th century
    Anyone who revels in the subjugation of non-white people during the Empire is a racist, IMHO.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,926

    He was very powerful to be fair

    But social distancing seemed to be ignored
    Al Sharpton is a powerful, effective speaker.

    He has a nasty history of using racial strife for his own advancement - often at the expense of those he is allegedly helping. He was, after all, the prototype for the characters Rev Reginald Bacon in the Bonfire of the Vanities.
    Al isn't a fan of the Jews e.g. At the funeral of Gavin Cato, as tensions rose in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, back in 1991, Sharpton called Jews “diamond merchants” and tried to tie them to apartheid in South Africa. In the subsequent Crown Heights riots, a young Jewish man was killed by a crowd of African Americans and there were other acts of violence.
    I thought things kicked off because a Jewish motorist ran over and killed a black boy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    dodrade said:

    DougSeal said:

    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    Will things really change in the USA as a result of all this? Perhaps I'm cynical but why is it different to any other time it has happened? Trump, to be sure, is an unpredictable factor to throw into the mix, but even so.

    The effect of all these unarmed black deaths is cumulative, and the pace of publicized incidents will probably increase with the ubiquity of cell phone video. Black people's behaviour is changing, so that they routinely record all encounters with the police.

    To me it really does feel like an 'enough is enough' time. That does not mean that everything will be resolved perfectly in a few weeks or months, but I do think that the pressure for systemic change to how policing is done will be relentless until things improve markedly.

    Of course, I could be wrong.
    I think the policing unions are a problem - far too much abuse and incompetence is covered up.

    But, these things go round in circles. Theresa May dialled back on stop & search for similar reasons - until it led to a big spike in knife crime, which affects inner cities communities the most.
    The policing problems we have in this country, which are real, are peanuts compared to the cancerous effects of the militarisation of American policing.
    I thought it was very telling that when raising significant racist police incident in the UK, the example brought out yesterday was Stephen Lawrence, which was 27 years ago. The US don't seem to be able to go 27 days without something.

    Orders of magnitude difference in issues between the two countries.
    Interesting how the 2011 riots after the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police have not been brought up, the widespread damage meant sympathy for the protests evaporated very quickly and draconian sentences for rioters meant there was no repeat contrary to much opinion on PB at the time.
    The fact that Mark Duggan had purchased and was in possession of a illegal firearm at the time of his death had much to do with the lack of sympathy.

    "Armed police gun down man with gun, in a confused situation"

    vs

    "Armed police sit & kneel on unarmed, handcuffed man until he dies over a period of time and despite protests from said man"
    How about Jean Charles de Menezes? He was completely unarmed IIRC.
    Yes - he was completely innocent.

    As I recall, there was indignation from some - because the then Major of London fired the police chief. The said Police chief had said (essentially) that that gunning down de Mendes was one of those things that would happen as part of modern policing...
    The woman in charge of the Menezes "operation" is now the Met Commissioner. Go figure!
    The resilience of non-elected officials to the consequences of their actions, in this country is always impressive. I have mentioned it, from time to time.

    The firing of Sir Ian Blair was held by some to be a terrible political interference in officialdom.

    Above a certain level, there is no failure.

    Look at the career of Sonia Sharp...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    He was very powerful to be fair

    But social distancing seemed to be ignored
    Al Sharpton is a powerful, effective speaker.

    He has a nasty history of using racial strife for his own advancement - often at the expense of those he is allegedly helping. He was, after all, the prototype for the characters Rev Reginald Bacon in the Bonfire of the Vanities.
    Al isn't a fan of the Jews e.g. At the funeral of Gavin Cato, as tensions rose in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, back in 1991, Sharpton called Jews “diamond merchants” and tried to tie them to apartheid in South Africa. In the subsequent Crown Heights riots, a young Jewish man was killed by a crowd of African Americans and there were other acts of violence.
    I thought things kicked off because a Jewish motorist ran over and killed a black boy.
    Yes - Followed by Sharpton trying his very best to inflame the situation.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DougSeal said:



    There’s traditionally a principle of reciprocity in extradition treaties too but the UK–US extradition treaty of 2003, implemented by the UK by the Extradition Act 2003, is anything but even handed. It allows the extradition of UK nationals who have committed a breach of US law in the UK - but there is no reciprocal right. I am not convinced that the inequality of bargaining power that led to that outcome in an extradition treaty will not be repeated in any FTA leading to similar asymmetries.

    Nonetheless the Guardian-reading classes keep repeating, as though it were 100% guaranteed truth, that the USA wants to ban us having labels showing country of origin, as part of any trade deal.

    Well, maybe they do. Let's see the evidence. Citation needed, as the saying goes.

    (And please let's not repost the completely bonkers Jon Stone tweet from earlier today, in which he demolished his own argument by referencing a US text which showed nothing of the sort).
    I don't think they do.

    The US has been very keen to prevent labelling being used as a non-tariff barrier. However, to date this has mostly in regard to preventing the labelling of GM products. (There have also been some cases about high fructose corn syrup labelling IIRC.)
    That in itself is interesting as Connecticut now has specific GM labelling on all its food products. Again it would be interesting to see how that spreads.
    US companies have taken the Canadian government to the NAFTA/USMCA ISDS tribunals over bans on some petrol additives. The tribunal found against the Canadian government despite the fact that some US states also banned it. (I think the additive is MTBE, but I could be wrong.)
    And the Canadian Government took the US to the WTO over their Country of Origin labelling and won. Hence the reason why the US had to exclude Beef and Pork from their mCOOL laws.
    My point was simply that sometimes FTA agreements make something impossible in one country (banning MTBE additives) but not in another. The makers of MTBE couldn't take the California government to an ISDS tribunal because that was an intra-US issue, but they could take the Canadian government.

    Hence, you can have the Camadian government not allowed to mandate GM food is labeled as such, butt he Conneticut state government can.
  • Completely OT. Not sure if this has been posted yet. Someone in Norway forgot to make the annual sacrifice to the gods.

    https://www.vgtv.no/video/197861/raset-i-alta-her-forsvinner-husene-i-havet

    Oops. Quick clay. Usually set off by someone digging or doing some ground works, which then sets off a chain reaction of liquifaction.

    For more, see a documentary on another Norwegian slide:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-qfNlEP4A&feature=youtu.be
    Thanks for that. Fascinating
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    "Indian defense minister says there have been 'significant' Chinese troop movements amid border tensions"

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/04/india/china-india-border-standoff-intl-hnk/index.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    To be fair I did once see Dennis Macshane once running up the street in Rotherham when visiting my sister who was working there
    Why was Dennis Macshane visiting your sister? And was he running away from you?
    And why was his sister working in the street?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:


    I see I've set a few hares running.

    But really, this modern self-hate over the British Empire is ludicrous beyond belief. Everything has a context, no nation on earth is free of shameful episodes in its history, and the net benefit to the world of European scientific, cultural and moral heritage is immense. These things can't be rationally separated out into 'British empire bad', especially since by the standards of any other empire in history it was remarkably benign, let alone by the standards of other regimes of the time.

    We didn't go from being a small, wet island on the north coast of Europe to become the greatest superpower on earth from the mid 18th century until the mid 20th century by being nice.

    Morally there was lots wrong with the empire but that was not its intention, its intention was to boost Britain as an economic and military power
    For many, the colonial period is not some colourful historical pageant, it is their of their parents lived experience. Yes, it was to boost Britain's economic and military power, but don't expect those who were on the receiving end to be grateful.
    Well the rebel alliance was hardly grateful to the Empire in Star wars, that did not stop the Empire dominating most of the galaxy.

    Plus we did give them a few good things like railways, the rule of law and Westminster style democracy
    "railways" now I know you are a parody account.

    No country in the world that didn't have the wonderful benefits of being ruled by the British has any railways does it?

    It's amazing how apologists for empire sound exactly the same as the Chinese government talking about Tibet.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Same Pimlico street. A good case for why Mps living amongst the communities they represent and debating and voting remotely raising issues which actually matter to them might shake the tired consensus of this dormant political class.
    No wonder JRM was so determined this state of affairs could not continue.
    To be fair I did once see Dennis Macshane once running up the street in Rotherham when visiting my sister who was working there
    Why was Dennis Macshane visiting your sister? And was he running away from you?
    And why was his sister working in the street?
    Rotherham only has one street. That is also news.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    coach said:

    Jonathan said:



    coach said:

    TOPPING said:

    It has begun.

    First comment on my FB page (yes I'm that old) from a friend who has just been made redundant after 16 years having been furloughed.

    Entertainment, marquees.

    If he's been made redundant before the furlough ends that is indeed worrying. There'll be so many in the next few months, dreadful situation
    Many millions across the UK, EU and worldwide

    How governments deal with it will decide their destiny

    And not Cummings nonsense
    The Cummings nonsense is important in two ways. The government chucked away much of its authority and when we look back at these times we will remember a govt that did one thing whilst preaching another. It was looking after its own more then looking after you.
    The Cummings story ended in London yesterday
    Really, arguably it made the events in London possible.
    Now that is utter nonsense

    If Cummings had not happened, yesteday would still have happened with the outrage over the murder by US police of yet another black man

    Black lives matter
    The govt lost its authority to enforce its own rules.
    And what has that to do with yesterdays protest
    The govt would have responded differently if Cummings had not happened.
    How? Would they have had high-profile police interventions, with knees on necks? Of course not. Any Government, in or out of a Covid lockdown, would have been extremely wary of how to police the protests - for fear of being seen as part of the same problem. It would have been a softly softly approach.

    Have them quietly let off some steam. And have CCHQ work out who was dumb enough to go to protest with their mobile phone. For the Covid contact tracing, like...
This discussion has been closed.