Howdy, Stranger!

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

This is the “spin”. Now for some questions. – politicalbetting.com

123457

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,699
    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,699

    Scott_xP said:

    One for the economists...

    At what price/kWh does it become cheaper to buy new clothes than wash your old ones?

    Average washing machine is 300W so a 3hr wash is 0.9kWh. I would guess the average wash includes clothes worth £300 new (say 5kg, a kg is a shirt and a pair of jeans, £60 for both?) so you would be looking at £333/kWh?
    At that price this would be the least of your concerns and the clothes themselves would cost loads more in that scenario too. Short answer, there is probably no price where in equilibrium it would be cheaper to buy new clothes each time.
    although it does depend slightly on how often you wash them.
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
    Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
    India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
    So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
    That reminds me, you've never yet told me up front without diversion whether you would have given India (old sense, etc.) independence if in Attlee's position, and without making up side trails.
    If I was a Tory MP or Tory supporter then I would have backed the Tory position at the time, which under Churchill was to keep India within the Empire had the Tories won the 1945 election.

    However the election was lost and hence India became independent thanks to Attlee
    Which he granted because Britain could not afford to keep India against its will and in the teeth of American hostility.

    Churchill would have made the same decision in the end. He would just have killed a great many more people before it dawned on him he had no choice.
    Churchill was aware of the dangers of partition; whether he would have handled it better is now moot.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,947
    @JavierBlas
    BREAKING: Gazprom claims it detected an oil leak during "maintenance" at Nord Stream 1, and therefore the gas pipeline is going to remain closed until repairs are made (no timeline provided for any re-start)


    https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1565739141349916672
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    An interesting idea but as they are now independent nations would need all involved to consent
    Obvs.

    You’d start modestly, with a single market, enhanced defence collaboration and joint procurement, a common energy and climate change policy, and ministerial exchanges.

    I am thinking mostly of UK/Canada.

    Geography militates against bringing Australia and NZ on board.
    Culturally though we are even closer to Australia and NZ than Canada, they don't have Francophile Quebec for example
  • HYUFD said:

    The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%

    The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come

    The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary

    I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame

    They also have only themselves to blame for getting rid of their most successful election winner since Thatcher, who even today matches Starmer in terms of favourables unlike Sunak and Truss with Mori
    You really are blind to how toxic Johnson is in just the same way as the Corbynista's hang on to Corbyn

    Indeed do you not feel any shame in defending Johnson’s behaviour since Paterson scandal right upto his last day in office because if you don't then you need to question right and wrong, honesty and integrity
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,080

    @JavierBlas
    BREAKING: Gazprom claims it detected an oil leak during "maintenance" at Nord Stream 1, and therefore the gas pipeline is going to remain closed until repairs are made (no timeline provided for any re-start)


    https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1565739141349916672

    I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

    BREAKING: Gazprom announces that Nord Stream cannot operate safely due to turbine damage

    https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1565739460087746568
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,699

    @JavierBlas
    BREAKING: Gazprom claims it detected an oil leak during "maintenance" at Nord Stream 1, and therefore the gas pipeline is going to remain closed until repairs are made (no timeline provided for any re-start)


    https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1565739141349916672

    Really?

    I'm truly astonished.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
    That would never have survived centuries since and if Britain had tried that there'd have ultimately been another war of independence.

    The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.

    But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
    It might have done, especially if no excess tax was imposed on them again. If the War of Independence had been run then that would have entrenched the American colonies within the Empire for generations.

    The colonists fought the war on 'no taxation without representation', had they been given MPs to start with there likely would have been no revolt and war, it was to preserve the power to impose tax without colonist representation at Westminster than the Crown and the British government fought the war
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,400
    edited September 2

    @JavierBlas
    BREAKING: Gazprom claims it detected an oil leak during "maintenance" at Nord Stream 1, and therefore the gas pipeline is going to remain closed until repairs are made (no timeline provided for any re-start)


    https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1565739141349916672

    I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

    BREAKING: Gazprom announces that Nord Stream cannot operate safely due to turbine damage

    https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1565739460087746568
    Well, this is Russia's one shot.

    They don't get to pull this one again.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563
    edited September 2

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    Aren't the bigger questions "what prestige does the UK want, and what do we intend to do with it?"

    One reading of the last decade or so is that it's about a generation of politicians who pine for greater national prestige, but aren't really (or realistically) able to say what that looks like.
    The current UK political scene is made up of declinists (Britain doesn’t “deserve” to be at the GDP horizon) and denialists (Britain is already at the GDP horizon, and attempts to say otherwise are mere treachery).

    Charity begins at home, as it were.

    But the world is certainly moving into a multi-polar reality, and the question posed to me was effectively how does Britain be a leader rather than a joiner.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,947
    edited September 2
    rcs1000 said:

    @JavierBlas
    BREAKING: Gazprom claims it detected an oil leak during "maintenance" at Nord Stream 1, and therefore the gas pipeline is going to remain closed until repairs are made (no timeline provided for any re-start)


    https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1565739141349916672

    I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

    BREAKING: Gazprom announces that Nord Stream cannot operate safely due to turbine damage

    https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1565739460087746568
    Well, this is Russia's one shot.

    They don't get to pull this one again.
    The oil leak looks more like a coffee spill.

    image

    https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1565738236185550849
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    An interesting idea but as they are now independent nations would need all involved to consent
    Obvs.

    You’d start modestly, with a single market, enhanced defence collaboration and joint procurement, a common energy and climate change policy, and ministerial exchanges.

    I am thinking mostly of UK/Canada.

    Geography militates against bringing Australia and NZ on board.
    Culturally though we are even closer to Australia and NZ than Canada, they don't have Francophile Quebec for example
    You might be but then you do tend to be a minority
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    An interesting idea but as they are now independent nations would need all involved to consent
    Obvs.

    You’d start modestly, with a single market, enhanced defence collaboration and joint procurement, a common energy and climate change policy, and ministerial exchanges.

    I am thinking mostly of UK/Canada.

    Geography militates against bringing Australia and NZ on board.
    Culturally though we are even closer to Australia and NZ than Canada, they don't have Francophile Quebec for example
    The grounds for UK/Canada co-operation are both cultural and geo-strategic.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947

    HYUFD said:

    The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%

    The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come

    The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary

    I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame

    They also have only themselves to blame for getting rid of their most successful election winner since Thatcher, who even today matches Starmer in terms of favourables unlike

    Sunak and Truss with Mori
    You really are blind to how toxic Johnson is in just the same way as the Corbynista's hang on to Corbyn

    Indeed do you not feel any shame in defending Johnson’s behaviour since Paterson scandal right upto his last day in office because if you don't then you need to question right and wrong, honesty and integrity
    Mori today

    Favourables of top politicians

    Johnson 29%
    Starmer 29%
    Sunak 25%
    Truss 23%
    Zahawi 19%
    Patel 19%

    https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727406513692672?s=20&t=MmM9oCmGUQsbfXXW-HSTsA

    Amongst 2019 Conservative voters who will determine the next general election, Johnson is on 50% favourable to just 37% favourable for Sunak and 36% for Truss

    https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727412096221184?s=20&t=MmM9oCmGUQsbfXXW-HSTsA
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 4,176
    edited September 2

    Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."

    https://twitter.com/TLDRNewsUK/status/1565721391894188032

    Actually I have never received a FPN no.

    Dorries is not fit to govern. Lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers.
    It's a good slogan, but I'm not actually sure it's completely true. If a minister goes at 24mph in a 20mph zone, or picks up a parking ticket, is it really a resigning matter?

    Where Dorries clearly goes wrong is comparing a breach of lockdown rules to a minor parking offence simply because the cash penalty is modest in both cases.

    For lockdown offences, rules and guidance which was (at times) extremely strict was put into place by the PM and ministers because, it was said at the time, there was a risk of the NHS being overwhelmed and many people dying if things were less restricted. They went on TV, gave dire warnings, and told us to follow those rules. Many people genuinely sacrificed in order to do that to the best of their ability - people died alone, precious moments were missed, mental and physical wellbeing was compromised at times. They did it not to avoid a small-ish fine but because they were good people who wanted to protect the NHS and save lives.

    It was qualitatively totally different from a minor traffic offence, notwithstanding the similar fines involved. If Dorries (or Fabricant or whoever) doesn't understand that, they are simply too thick to be trusted with metal cutlery let alone a substantive job. If they do understand it, then they are unforgivably crass and unpleasant for gaslighting people with this rubbish.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,947

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    An interesting idea but as they are now independent nations would need all involved to consent
    Obvs.

    You’d start modestly, with a single market, enhanced defence collaboration and joint procurement, a common energy and climate change policy, and ministerial exchanges.

    I am thinking mostly of UK/Canada.

    Geography militates against bringing Australia and NZ on board.
    Culturally though we are even closer to Australia and NZ than Canada, they don't have Francophile Quebec for example
    You might be but then you do tend to be a minority
    I think HYUFD is right about Australia and NZ being culturally closer to the UK than Canada is.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,699

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    An interesting idea but as they are now independent nations would need all involved to consent
    Obvs.

    You’d start modestly, with a single market, enhanced defence collaboration and joint procurement, a common energy and climate change policy, and ministerial exchanges.

    I am thinking mostly of UK/Canada.

    Geography militates against bringing Australia and NZ on board.
    Culturally though we are even closer to Australia and NZ than Canada, they don't have Francophile Quebec for example
    You might be but then you do tend to be a minority
    I think HYUFD is right about Australia and NZ being culturally closer to the UK than Canada is.
    They play cricket for a start.

    Although now we have the Hundred I suppose we're moving away from cricket.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563
    Didn’t the Americans effectively rebel because they were too greedy to pay for their own Indian Wars?

    The no taxation without representation stuff was just some accompanying rhetorical bluster.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563

    Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."

    https://twitter.com/TLDRNewsUK/status/1565721391894188032

    Actually I have never received a FPN no.

    Dorries is not fit to govern. Lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers.
    It's a good slogan, but I'm not actually sure it's completely true. If a minister goes at 24mph in a 20mph zone, or picks up a parking ticket, is it really a resigning matter?

    Where Dorries clearly goes wrong is comparing a breach of lockdown rules to a minor parking offence simply because the cash penalty is modest in both cases.

    For lockdown offences, rules and guidance which was (at times) extremely strict was put into place by the PM and ministers because, it was said at the time, there was a risk of the NHS being overwhelmed and many people dying if things were less restricted. They went on TV, gave dire warnings, and told us to follow those rules. Many people genuinely sacrificed in order to do that to the best of their ability - people died alone, precious moments were missed, mental and physical wellbeing was compromised at times. They did it not to avoid a small-ish fine but because they were good people who wanted to protect the NHS and save lives.

    It was qualitatively totally different from a minor traffic offence, notwithstanding the similar fines involved. If Dorries (or Fabricant or whoever) doesn't understand that, they are simply too thick to be trusted with metal cutlery let alone a substantive job. If they do understand it, then they are unforgivably crass and unpleasant for gaslighting people with this rubbish.
    You have taken four very long paragraphs to reach the same conclusion I did in one short sentence.
  • Politico.com - 8 Devastating Presidential Insults: Trump’s got nothing on these.

    After the Trump administration’s many Twitter spectacles, the White House account under President Biden cooled into a malarkey-free zone of inflation infographics and statements containing the phrase “fact sheet.” But last week, the account got uncharacteristically spicy with a tweet thread dunking on Republicans who opposed student debt relief.

    The White House tweeted a video of Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticizing Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, along with a simple declaration: “Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene had $183,504 in PPP loans forgiven.” It followed up with a thread calling out four other Republicans, exposing the amount of PPP loans each of them did not have to pay back. . . .

    But Biden isn’t the first to practice the presidential art of punching down. Plenty of presidents — Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama — have thrown decorum out the window to insult their enemies, media moguls and even their own generals while serving as commander in chief. From hindquarters to football helmets, these eight executive put-downs ended many debates — and sometimes started new ones: [SSI -here are best two cited]

    “He’s got his headquarters where his hindquarters ought to be.” ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 1862

    Abraham Lincoln, disappointed by the slow progress of the Union army, sacked General George McClellan in November of 1862. “If you don’t want to use the army,” Lincoln wrote to General McClellan, “I should like to borrow it for a while.” The replacement didn’t satisfy him either. Upon assuming his new job, General Joseph Hooker wrote a dispatch titled “Headquarters in the Saddle” to demonstrate that he was a man of action. Apparently, the president was not impressed: “The trouble with Hooker,” Lincoln said, “is he’s got his headquarters where his hindquarters ought to be.”
    . . . .

    “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience” RONALD REAGAN, 1984

    During the presidential debate of his 1984 reelection bid, Ronald Reagan received a question from Baltimore Sun journalist Henry Trewhitt, who doubted Reagan’s ability to serve in the time of great national security threat due to his old age. “I recall yet that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Trewhitt said. “Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?” Reagan, 73, replied, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” The audience — including his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale — burst into laughter.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/31/the-presidential-tradition-of-punching-down-00054298

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,121
    HYUFD said:

    The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%

    The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come

    The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary

    I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame

    They also have only themselves to blame for getting rid of their most successful election winner since Thatcher, who even today matches Starmer in terms of favourables unlike Sunak and Truss with Mori
    They paved paradise and put up a parking lot?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,947

    Didn’t the Americans effectively rebel because they were too greedy to pay for their own Indian Wars?

    The no taxation without representation stuff was just some accompanying rhetorical bluster.

    Joe Biden has unexpectedly come out against the rebellion. So perhaps your Canada idea is redundant if we can take back the US.

    @POTUS
    You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America.


    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1565493507061698565
  • HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    An interesting idea but as they are now independent nations would need all involved to consent
    Obvs.

    You’d start modestly, with a single market, enhanced defence collaboration and joint procurement, a common energy and climate change policy, and ministerial exchanges.

    I am thinking mostly of UK/Canada.

    Geography militates against bringing Australia and NZ on board.
    Culturally though we are even closer to Australia and NZ than Canada, they don't have Francophile Quebec for example
    You might be but then you do tend to be a minority
    I think HYUFD is right about Australia and NZ being culturally closer to the UK than Canada is.
    We do have cultural ties with all three but they are less so in todays UK
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,340

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
    Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
    India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
    So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
    That reminds me, you've never yet told me up front without diversion whether you would have given India (old sense, etc.) independence if in Attlee's position, and without making up side trails.
    If I was a Tory MP or Tory supporter then I would have backed the Tory position at the time, which under Churchill was to keep India within the Empire had the Tories won the 1945 election.

    However the election was lost and hence India became independent thanks to Attlee
    Which he granted because Britain could not afford to keep India against its will and in the teeth of American hostility.

    Churchill would have made the same decision in the end. He would just have killed a great many more people before it dawned on him he had no choice.
    Churchill was aware of the dangers of partition; whether he would have handled it better is now moot.
    British rule in India was slapdash and incompetent and paid scant regard to the interests of Indians, hence the frequent famines and the fact that Indian's share of the world economy declined from 24% in 1700 to just 4% in 1950. The idea that Churchill could have overseen some kind of benign continuation of the Raj or even somehow done a better job of partition is doubtful in the extreme. The best thing the British did for India was leave, and even that they fucked up.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,513

    @JavierBlas
    BREAKING: Gazprom claims it detected an oil leak during "maintenance" at Nord Stream 1, and therefore the gas pipeline is going to remain closed until repairs are made (no timeline provided for any re-start)


    https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1565739141349916672

    I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

    BREAKING: Gazprom announces that Nord Stream cannot operate safely due to turbine damage

    https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1565739460087746568
    Update: wrong type of leaves fallen on the turbine, which itself would have been manageable by the Leaf, Twig and Vine Gang… except they had been redeployed to clear up the unplanned for sewage issue floated across from UK beaches and getting on the piping.

    Just one of those things isn’t it. Nevermind, I’ve got a box of candles in the spare room i just knew would come in useful - if you don’t mind the smell of Patchouli.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947
    edited September 2

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
    Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
    India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
    So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
    That reminds me, you've never yet told me up front without diversion whether you would have given India (old sense, etc.) independence if in Attlee's position, and without making up side trails.
    If I was a Tory MP or Tory supporter then I would have backed the Tory position at the time, which under Churchill was to keep India within the Empire had the Tories won the 1945 election.

    However the election was lost and hence India became independent thanks to Attlee
    Which he granted because Britain could not afford to keep India against its will and in the teeth of American hostility.

    Churchill would have made the same decision in the end. He would just have killed a great many more people before it dawned on him he had no choice.
    Churchill was aware of the dangers of partition; whether he would have handled it better is now moot.
    British rule in India was slapdash and incompetent and paid scant regard to the interests of Indians, hence the frequent famines and the fact that Indian's share of the world economy declined from 24% in 1700 to just 4% in 1950. The idea that Churchill could have overseen some kind of benign continuation of the Raj or even somehow done a better job of partition is doubtful in the extreme. The best thing the British did for India was leave, and even that they fucked up.
    The British also brought common law, security, the railways and irrigation, Westminster style democracy to India and ended widows being thrown on funeral pyres, child marriage and reduced the exclusion of untouchables
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,121

    The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%

    The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come

    The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary

    I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame

    The party has become dysfunctional and needs to check into the Priory - aka a period in opposition.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
    Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
    India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
    So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
    That reminds me, you've never yet told me up front without diversion whether you would have given India (old sense, etc.) independence if in Attlee's position, and without making up side trails.
    If I was a Tory MP or Tory supporter then I would have backed the Tory position at the time, which under Churchill was to keep India within the Empire had the Tories won the 1945 election.

    However the election was lost and hence India became independent thanks to Attlee
    Which he granted because Britain could not afford to keep India against its will and in the teeth of American hostility.

    Churchill would have made the same decision in the end. He would just have killed a great many more people before it dawned on him he had no choice.
    Churchill was aware of the dangers of partition; whether he would have handled it better is now moot.
    British rule in India was slapdash and incompetent and paid scant regard to the interests of Indians, hence the frequent famines and the fact that Indian's share of the world economy declined from 24% in 1700 to just 4% in 1950. The idea that Churchill could have overseen some kind of benign continuation of the Raj or even somehow done a better job of partition is doubtful in the extreme. The best thing the British did for India was leave, and even that they fucked up.
    The decline in Indian share is probably more to do with the Industrial Revolution than anything else.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,881
    edited September 2
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
    That would never have survived centuries since and if Britain had tried that there'd have ultimately been another war of independence.

    The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.

    But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
    It might have done, especially if no excess tax was imposed on them again. If the War of Independence had been run then that would have entrenched the American colonies within the Empire for generations.

    The colonists fought the war on 'no taxation without representation', had they been given MPs to start with there likely would have been no revolt and war, it was to preserve the power to impose tax without colonist representation at Westminster than the Crown and the British government fought the war
    Indeed and that is my point, had they been given MPs there may not have been a revolt but over time the centre of gravity of the Empire would have moved from England to America.

    Just as power in the Roman Empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople.

    The UK may have remained called the UK just as the Byzantines still called themselves Romans, but democracy, demographics, the economy and the military would see England now as a small state of that kingdom.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,723
    Газпром has suspended Nordstream indefinitely
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    That’s fine, but geopolitically Canada is regarded as something of a gimp.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 4,176
    edited September 2

    Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."

    https://twitter.com/TLDRNewsUK/status/1565721391894188032

    Actually I have never received a FPN no.

    Dorries is not fit to govern. Lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers.
    It's a good slogan, but I'm not actually sure it's completely true. If a minister goes at 24mph in a 20mph zone, or picks up a parking ticket, is it really a resigning matter?

    Where Dorries clearly goes wrong is comparing a breach of lockdown rules to a minor parking offence simply because the cash penalty is modest in both cases.

    For lockdown offences, rules and guidance which was (at times) extremely strict was put into place by the PM and ministers because, it was said at the time, there was a risk of the NHS being overwhelmed and many people dying if things were less restricted. They went on TV, gave dire warnings, and told us to follow those rules. Many people genuinely sacrificed in order to do that to the best of their ability - people died alone, precious moments were missed, mental and physical wellbeing was compromised at times. They did it not to avoid a small-ish fine but because they were good people who wanted to protect the NHS and save lives.

    It was qualitatively totally different from a minor traffic offence, notwithstanding the similar fines involved. If Dorries (or Fabricant or whoever) doesn't understand that, they are simply too thick to be trusted with metal cutlery let alone a substantive job. If they do understand it, then they are unforgivably crass and unpleasant for gaslighting people with this rubbish.
    You have taken four very long paragraphs to reach the same conclusion I did in one short sentence.
    (a) You don't have to read it if you don't like long paragraphs. Please don't feel obliged.

    (b) I didn't reach the same conclusion as you did, as I don't agree any breach of the law whatsoever is automatically disqualifying as you implied (and, if you didn't mean it, why not try writing longer sentences which explain your meaning better?)
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 753
    edited September 2
    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    I really enjoyed the PJ movies myself. Thought they conveyed LOTR's themes well, despite not being completely faithful to the lore (I mean Tom Bombadil was never really going to work in a film trilogy, for example). And I certainly wasn't bored by them.
    Rings of Power, on the other hand...
  • kinabalu said:

    The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%

    The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come

    The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary

    I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame

    The party has become dysfunctional and needs to check into the Priory - aka a period in opposition.
    I find it difficult not to agree but then I do not see labour as the answer

    Indeed, I cannot see anyone has the answer other than a solution to the war in Ukraine which can only be at Russia's loss
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,121

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    Does Europe need an "answer to Canada"?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947
    edited September 2

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
    That would never have survived centuries since and if Britain had tried that there'd have ultimately been another war of independence.

    The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.

    But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
    It might have done, especially if no excess tax was imposed on them again. If the War of Independence had been run then that would have entrenched the American colonies within the Empire for generations.

    The colonists fought the war on 'no taxation without representation', had they been given MPs to start with there likely would have been no revolt and war, it was to preserve the power to impose tax without colonist representation at Westminster than the Crown and the British government fought the war
    Indeed and that is my point, had they been given MPs there may not have been a revolt but over time the centre of gravity of the Empire would have moved from England to America.

    Just as power in the Roman Empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople.

    The UK may have remained called the UK just as the Byzantines still called themselves Romans, but democracy, demographics, the economy and the military would see England now as a small state of that kingdom.
    Yes but the British fought the War precisely to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster over tax decisions for instance and certainly not on equivalent terms to their population
  • Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Net favourability of leading politicians:

    Starmer: -12
    Johnson: -24
    Sunak: -21
    Truss: -22
    Zahawi: -18
    Patel: -32

    Source: Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/2-3-britons-say-things-great-britain-are-heading-wrong-direction https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727406513692672/photo/1

    So basically none of the above.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,121

    @JavierBlas
    BREAKING: Gazprom claims it detected an oil leak during "maintenance" at Nord Stream 1, and therefore the gas pipeline is going to remain closed until repairs are made (no timeline provided for any re-start)


    https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1565739141349916672

    Well better safe than sorry, I suppose?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,513
    CatMan said:

    Ban Golf now:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62770895

    Jonny Bairstow: England batter ruled out of third Test and T20 World Cup

    England batter Jonny Bairstow has been ruled out of the third Test against South Africa and the Twenty20 World Cup after sustaining a possible broken left leg while playing golf on Friday.

    The 32-year-old slipped walking to a tee box and will see a specialist to ascertain the extent of the injury.

    ☹️ . .
  • Pulpstar said:

    Газпром has suspended Nordstream indefinitely

    Putin said he would do that if the G7 attempted to cap Russian oil

    The G7 finance ministers did just that today
  • HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    That’s fine, but geopolitically Canada is regarded as something of a gimp.
    Only by idiots who think the same of the UK as America's lapdog.

    Geopolitically Canada is a successful, democratic, wealthy and happy nation that is looking a lot healthier than it's neighbour.

    If that requires being called a gimp, I'd take being a gimp any day.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947
    edited September 2

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Net favourability of leading politicians:

    Starmer: -12
    Johnson: -24
    Sunak: -21
    Truss: -22
    Zahawi: -18
    Patel: -32

    Source: Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/2-3-britons-say-things-great-britain-are-heading-wrong-direction https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727406513692672/photo/1

    So basically none of the above.
    Amongst Conservative 2019 voters Johnson is on +16% still to just +5% for Sunak and only +1% for Truss

    https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727412096221184?s=20&t=PPtQdq0VQkuWSAfnCB6e_w
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,947
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    Does Europe need an "answer to Canada"?
    Does it need an answer to the US?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    That’s fine, but geopolitically Canada is regarded as something of a gimp.
    Only by idiots who think the same of the UK as America's lapdog.

    Geopolitically Canada is a successful, democratic, wealthy and happy nation that is looking a lot healthier than it's neighbour.

    If that requires being called a gimp, I'd take being a gimp any day.
    Your gimp-hood has never been in question.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Driver said:

    Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."

    https://twitter.com/TLDRNewsUK/status/1565721391894188032

    Actually I have never received a FPN no.

    Dorries is not fit to govern. Lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers.
    Show me someone who has literally never broken the law, and I'll show you someone who's truly not fit to govern.
    What an inane claim.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,121

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    Does Europe need an "answer to Canada"?
    Does it need an answer to the US?
    Definitely not!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,947
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    Does Europe need an "answer to Canada"?
    Does it need an answer to the US?
    Definitely not!
    So you're a sceptic on the whole integration business?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,699

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    I really enjoyed the PJ movies myself. Thought they conveyed LOTR's themes well, despite not being completely faithful to the lore (I mean Tom Bombadil was never really going to work in a film trilogy, for example). And I certainly wasn't bored by them.
    Rings of Power, on the other hand...
    The Two Towers was rubbish.

    Of the others the first was good and the third was bearable.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,121

    kinabalu said:

    The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%

    The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come

    The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary

    I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame

    The party has become dysfunctional and needs to check into the Priory - aka a period in opposition.
    I find it difficult not to agree but then I do not see labour as the answer

    Indeed, I cannot see anyone has the answer other than a solution to the war in Ukraine which can only be at Russia's loss
    Well the Cons can only get that much needed period in Opposition if we have a Labour led Government - so in practice it is the answer in the sense of being the only one on offer.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,293
    edited September 2
    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    The screenwriter (and/or producers or whatever) also did not understand:-

    1. In The Imitation Game, how Enigma was deciphered at Bletchley Park. It is ludicrous to have the bombes fail until the last-minute realisation they could use cribs when that was what the bombes were designed for. And while I can understand why they had to simplify how intelligence was handled (eg not saving the convoy) it was still stupid to have Turing and his mates decide.

    2. In Dunkirk, that French soldiers were evacuated on the same basis as the British, so the whole Frenchman in British uniform subplot was absurd.

    3. In Bohemian Rhapsody, when they stand around pointlessly naming their colleges, why it mattered only that John Deacon did electronics so could play with the band's equipment; also the importance of Kenny Everett.

    4. And other stuff that annoys me about films... See, now you've got me ranting.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,289

    TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    UK courts have to use logic and evidence, so no, they can’t do that as there is no logic or evidence to support that.

    A court, in the Begum case, decided that she has Bangladeshi citizenship. You and I may feel they got that wrong, but it was their decision and it stands until it is overturned.
    Yes, and that's shitty but probably legal, as a lot of shitty things are. Statements from Bangladesh even aren't definitive, since there are plenty of examples where the letter of the law on citizenship leads to some strange outcomes (see a bunch of Australian MPs excluded from Parliament for dual citizenships they did not even all know they had).
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563
    I believe I’m the only NZer on earth who has not seen LoTR. Can’t be arsed.

    Hunt for the Wilderpeople is good though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,289
    An older one, but somehow I'd missed this stunning insight on the problems of the country from Neil Oliver. The man just gets it.

    Pubs, fish and chip shops and the rest are being driven to the wall on purpose. The destruction is intentional. However hard to accept - it's the simplest explanation

    https://twitter.com/thecoastguy/status/1564533248214065153
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,699

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    The screenwriter (and/or producers or whatever) also did not understand:-

    1. How Enigma was deciphered at Bletchley Park. It is ludicrous to have the bombes fail until the last-minute realisation they could use cribs when that was what the bombes were designed for. And while I can understand why they had to simplify how intelligence was handled (eg not saving the convoy) it was still stupid to have Turing and his mates decide.

    2. In Dunkirk, that French soldiers were evacuated on the same basis as the British, so the whole Frenchman in British uniform subplot was absurd.

    3. In Bohemian Rhapsody, when they stand around pointlessly naming their colleges, why it mattered only that John Deacon did electronics so could play with the band's equipment; also the importance of Kenny Everett.

    4. And other stuff that annoys me about films... See, now you've got me ranting.
    Shall we go straight to Disney?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,289

    @JavierBlas
    BREAKING: Gazprom claims it detected an oil leak during "maintenance" at Nord Stream 1, and therefore the gas pipeline is going to remain closed until repairs are made (no timeline provided for any re-start)


    https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1565739141349916672

    They've always taken a safety first approach to these matters, I am sure.

    I believe I’m the only NZer on earth who has not seen LoTR. Can’t be arsed.

    Haven't most of them appeared as background extras too?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,289
    edited September 2

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    I really enjoyed the PJ movies myself. Thought they conveyed LOTR's themes well, despite not being completely faithful to the lore (I mean Tom Bombadil was never really going to work in a film trilogy, for example). And I certainly wasn't bored by them.
    Rings of Power, on the other hand...
    Not seen it yet, but my expectations are low enough that I'll probably enjoy it. The movies hold up well - watch them back to back with the Hobbit films and the difference in quality is stark.

    Being faithful should be low on the list of priorities for anyone adapting a work. You probably won't manage it, fanboys will moan even if you do based on their own interpretations, so best to use it as inspiration and add your own voice.
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Net favourability of leading politicians:

    Starmer: -12
    Johnson: -24
    Sunak: -21
    Truss: -22
    Zahawi: -18
    Patel: -32

    Source: Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/2-3-britons-say-things-great-britain-are-heading-wrong-direction https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727406513692672/photo/1

    So basically none of the above.
    Amonst Conservative 2019 voters Johnson is on +16% still to just +5% for Sunak and only +1% for Truss

    https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727412096221184?s=20&t=PPtQdq0VQkuWSAfnCB6e_w
    His problem is the "unfavourable" side of the equation. Yes, around half the people who voted Tory in 2019 like him so would probably have voted for him again if he'd remained as PM. But 34% have an unfavourable view. The Tories were at real risk of losing them, as there was a very strong sense among MPs (and I tend to agree) that a lot of those 34% were pretty firm and settled in their view.

    That was a huge problem as he wasn't making headway among people who voted for other parties last time. Remember, Major only lost around one in four of supporters between the triumph of 1992 and catastrophe of 1997 - three in four staying loyal isn't good, it's awful.

    I'd be worried were I a Tory about Truss' number there, and it doesn't suggest a big or quick bounce. But I'd not panic unduly. The favourable number will rise as undecided people who are basically still Tories say "the King is dead, long live the Queen" and rally round. The 31% unfavourable is quite bad but not as bad as Johnson, and I suspect the 31% are less settled and firm in their view than they were over Johnson.
  • kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    Does Europe need an "answer to Canada"?
    More than it needs an answer to the USA.

    Damn, beaten to it by williamglenn.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,289
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Net favourability of leading politicians:

    Starmer: -12
    Johnson: -24
    Sunak: -21
    Truss: -22
    Zahawi: -18
    Patel: -32

    Source: Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/2-3-britons-say-things-great-britain-are-heading-wrong-direction https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727406513692672/photo/1

    So basically none of the above.
    Amongst Conservative 2019 voters Johnson is on +16% still to just +5% for Sunak and only +1% for Truss

    https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727412096221184?s=20&t=PPtQdq0VQkuWSAfnCB6e_w
    And Corbyn still polled well with Labour members immediately after the 2019 GE I bet. They were wrong, and now know they were wrong.
  • Cyclefree said:

    I am laughing like a drain at Boris using Peters & Peters as his solicitors.

    In my field they are well known as one of the firms you go to if you're accused of fraud or other serious financial offences.

    We use S&M for that.

    Sorry Slaughter & May, must stop calling them S&M.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,121
    edited September 2

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    Does Europe need an "answer to Canada"?
    Does it need an answer to the US?
    Definitely not!
    So you're a sceptic on the whole integration business?
    I am yes. I see almost no chance of a USE evolving, let alone one that looks anything like the USA.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,947
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    Indeed, especially as Canada would have been part of British North America. Unless BNA was Partitioned of course.
    Although it does presuppose that a 'British North America' would have been as attractive to immigrants as the USA was. Judging by the history of Canada that isn't a certainty.

    If it hadn't been the population of such an area would not have made it to the roughly 360 million it has today.

    Nor is it by any means certain the British would have acted so ruthlessly in annexing Texas and California from Mexico.
    Quite, considering how many emigrants wanted to escape Royal and Imperial control de facto and then de jure.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%

    The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come

    The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary

    I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame

    The party has become dysfunctional and needs to check into the Priory - aka a period in opposition.
    I find it difficult not to agree but then I do not see labour as the answer

    Indeed, I cannot see anyone has the answer other than a solution to the war in Ukraine which can only be at Russia's loss
    Well the Cons can only get that much needed period in Opposition if we have a Labour led Government - so in practice it is the answer in the sense of being the only one on offer.
    A minority labour with lib dem support would be my choice
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,947
    edited September 2
    kle4 said:

    An older one, but somehow I'd missed this stunning insight on the problems of the country from Neil Oliver. The man just gets it.

    Pubs, fish and chip shops and the rest are being driven to the wall on purpose. The destruction is intentional. However hard to accept - it's the simplest explanation

    https://twitter.com/thecoastguy/status/1564533248214065153

    This puzzled me so much that I looked up his Twitter account to see the reason given. Nothing explicit. But lots of chatter about big corporations, death of cash etc.

    Presumably he means the reason for Gmt poilicy is to ensure we now need to buy electronically from Sainsburys, which is bad somehow?* I sure haven't seen those businesses as antivaxxer central.

    *Apart from the bads things that happen when these businesses close.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
    It’s an interesting thought experiment, though.
    A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.

    “Go Canada”, I said.

    Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.

    UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.

    The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
    I have long argued that post Brexit Britain (or England) should be viewed as Europe's answer to Canada, as opposed to the EU as Europe's answer to the USA.

    But there shouldn't and needn't be a formal political union to achieve this. We can trade and cooperate with Canada as peers, and with other nations just as Canada does, while having our own autonomy from the EU just as Canada does too.
    Does Europe need an "answer to Canada"?
    Does it need an answer to the US?
    Definitely not!
    So you're a sceptic on the whole integration business?
    I am yes. I see almost no chance of a USE evolving, let alone one that looks anything like the USA.
    Being sceptical of evolution is up there with creationism. Evolution happens.

    The EU is already a nascent political federation. It's evolution is bound to continue, but it's destination is unclear. It evolving into a proper political and democratic federation is better than the alternative.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    Indeed, especially as Canada would have been part of British North America. Unless BNA was Partitioned of course.
    Although it does presuppose that a 'British North America' would have been as attractive to immigrants as the USA was. Judging by the history of Canada that isn't a certainty.

    If it hadn't been the population of such an area would not have made it to the roughly 360 million it has today.

    Nor is it by any means certain the British would have acted so ruthlessly in annexing Texas and California from Mexico.
    Quite, considering how many emigrants wanted to escape Royal and Imperial control de facto and then de jure.
    Not that many and many of those that did simply moved to Canada, Australia etc which also had the Crown
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,289

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    The screenwriter (and/or producers or whatever) also did not understand:-

    1. In The Imitation Game, how Enigma was deciphered at Bletchley Park. It is ludicrous to have the bombes fail until the last-minute realisation they could use cribs when that was what the bombes were designed for. And while I can understand why they had to simplify how intelligence was handled (eg not saving the convoy) it was still stupid to have Turing and his mates decide.

    2. In Dunkirk, that French soldiers were evacuated on the same basis as the British, so the whole Frenchman in British uniform subplot was absurd.

    3. In Bohemian Rhapsody, when they stand around pointlessly naming their colleges, why it mattered only that John Deacon did electronics so could play with the band's equipment; also the importance of Kenny Everett.

    4. And other stuff that annoys me about films... See, now you've got me ranting.
    Screenwriters should have disclaimers at the end like how historical fiction writers often go over things they changed and why, for instance apologising that X probably wasn't as much a villain as they made them look, but they needed a bad guy.

    My favourite was Bernard Cornwell talking about substituting Sharpe in for the guy who actually heroically stormed the breach at Badajoz (or wherever), on the basis that 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'. And of course, even the heroes based on real people are still fictional.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,919

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Net favourability of leading politicians:

    Starmer: -12
    Johnson: -24
    Sunak: -21
    Truss: -22
    Zahawi: -18
    Patel: -32

    Source: Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/2-3-britons-say-things-great-britain-are-heading-wrong-direction https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727406513692672/photo/1

    So basically none of the above.
    I hope that does not mean I am viewed as a cross between Johnson/Zahawi/Patel et al.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,947
    edited September 2
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    Indeed, especially as Canada would have been part of British North America. Unless BNA was Partitioned of course.
    Although it does presuppose that a 'British North America' would have been as attractive to immigrants as the USA was. Judging by the history of Canada that isn't a certainty.

    If it hadn't been the population of such an area would not have made it to the roughly 360 million it has today.

    Nor is it by any means certain the British would have acted so ruthlessly in annexing Texas and California from Mexico.
    Quite, considering how many emigrants wanted to escape Royal and Imperial control de facto and then de jure.
    Not that many and many of those that did simply moved to Canada, Australia etc which also had the Crown
    Bit difficult moving to Australia from North America before US independence.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947

    Cyclefree said:

    I am laughing like a drain at Boris using Peters & Peters as his solicitors.

    In my field they are well known as one of the firms you go to if you're accused of fraud or other serious financial offences.

    We use S&M for that.

    Sorry Slaughter & May, must stop calling them S&M.
    Profits per partner at S & M are more than £2 million, more than any other UK law firm, so they have the last laugh
    https://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/analysis/legal-business-100-2019/partner-earnings/
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,335

    Cyclefree said:

    I am laughing like a drain at Boris using Peters & Peters as his solicitors.

    In my field they are well known as one of the firms you go to if you're accused of fraud or other serious financial offences.

    We use S&M for that.

    Sorry Slaughter & May, must stop calling them S&M.
    Really??? Why?
  • DougSeal said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I am laughing like a drain at Boris using Peters & Peters as his solicitors.

    In my field they are well known as one of the firms you go to if you're accused of fraud or other serious financial offences.

    We use S&M for that.

    Sorry Slaughter & May, must stop calling them S&M.
    Really??? Why?
    It is a long long story.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Net favourability of leading politicians:

    Starmer: -12
    Johnson: -24
    Sunak: -21
    Truss: -22
    Zahawi: -18
    Patel: -32

    Source: Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/2-3-britons-say-things-great-britain-are-heading-wrong-direction https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727406513692672/photo/1

    So basically none of the above.
    Amongst Conservative 2019 voters Johnson is on +16% still to just +5% for Sunak and only +1% for Truss

    https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727412096221184?s=20&t=PPtQdq0VQkuWSAfnCB6e_w
    And Corbyn still polled well with Labour members immediately after the 2019 GE I bet. They were wrong, and now know they were wrong.
    Except that was not even Tory members or even current Tory voters but 2019 Tory voters, if the Tories held all of those they would be re elected
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,352
    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We had no viable way of keeping hold of the Empire. Our stores of blood and treasure were quite exhausted. For all his failings, Harold recognised that we had no means to resist the “winds of change”*

    * I know, for all you pedants out there
  • kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    I really enjoyed the PJ movies myself. Thought they conveyed LOTR's themes well, despite not being completely faithful to the lore (I mean Tom Bombadil was never really going to work in a film trilogy, for example). And I certainly wasn't bored by them.
    Rings of Power, on the other hand...
    Not seen it yet, but my expectations are low enough that I'll probably enjoy it. The movies hold up well - watch them back to back with the Hobbit films and the difference in quality is stark.

    Being faithful should be low on the list of priorities for anyone adapting a work. You probably won't manage it, fanboys will moan even if you do based on their own interpretations, so best to use it as inspiration and add your own voice.
    I disapprove of some Amazon's lore changes... but that's mainly on the basis that (i) trying to compress about 2000 years of events into a few years is not a good idea, and (ii) changing Galadriel to be a revenge driven shieldmaiden is a backwards step and really shows the showrunners don't understand her character. She doesn't come across well at all in the show so far, IMHO.
    But to be honest, if Rings of Power wasn't a LOTR adaption and just a generic fantasy show I think a lot of people would still find it boring and uninteresting. At least based on the first two episodes I've seen.
    If we're comparing the two fantasy shows out right now, House of the Dragon is a much better series so far than Rings of Power.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We had no viable way of keeping hold of the Empire. Our stores of blood and treasure were quite exhausted. For all his failings, Harold recognised that we had no means to resist the “winds of change”*

    * I know, for all you pedants out there
    Macmillan only gave up the remaining African colonies after Churchill had lost in 1945 and Attlee gave up India, the jewel in the Empire's crown
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    Indeed, especially as Canada would have been part of British North America. Unless BNA was Partitioned of course.
    Although it does presuppose that a 'British North America' would have been as attractive to immigrants as the USA was. Judging by the history of Canada that isn't a certainty.

    If it hadn't been the population of such an area would not have made it to the roughly 360 million it has today.

    Nor is it by any means certain the British would have acted so ruthlessly in annexing Texas and California from Mexico.
    Quite, considering how many emigrants wanted to escape Royal and Imperial control de facto and then de jure.
    Not that many and many of those that did simply moved to Canada, Australia etc which also had the Crown
    Bit difficult moving to Australia from North America before US independence.
    Cook reached Australia in 1770, 13 years before US independence
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,352

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Imagine the discussion on Alternative PB… @HYUFD defending the fact that England and India have the same number as Senators as right because that’s what the Founders, pbut, intended in their great wisdom
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,925
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).

    A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
    Yeah I often think this. Why we didn’t give those places MPs in a Federal govt with lots devolved to local parliaments.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
    That would never have survived centuries since and if Britain had tried that there'd have ultimately been another war of independence.

    The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.

    But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
    It might have done, especially if no excess tax was imposed on them again. If the War of Independence had been run then that would have entrenched the American colonies within the Empire for generations.

    The colonists fought the war on 'no taxation without representation', had they been given MPs to start with there likely would have been no revolt and war, it was to preserve the power to impose tax without colonist representation at Westminster than the Crown and the British government fought the war
    Indeed and that is my point, had they been given MPs there may not have been a revolt but over time the centre of gravity of the Empire would have moved from England to America.

    Just as power in the Roman Empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople.

    The UK may have remained called the UK just as the Byzantines still called themselves Romans, but democracy, demographics, the economy and the military would see England now as a small state of
    that kingdom.
    Yes but the British fought the War precisely
    to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster over tax
    decisions for instance and certainly not on equivalent terms to their population
    Sorry HYUFD but that’s nonsense. The British did not fight the war “precisely to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster etc”.

    They fought the war because it seemed at the time that there was a rebellion in part of their empire. This part of the empire was valuable potentially but less valuable at the time than the Caribbean possessions but still it looked like a rebellion which needed suppressing - nothing to do with stopping them getting representation. There were many many loyalists, overlooked by history who wanted the British to stop the rebellion.

    And the “rebels” weren’t fighting for taxation only with representation - that is a handy justification however it was triggered by the stamp tax where the British were hoping that the American colonists might like to contribute to their own defence - think an even more justifiable version of the US demanding NATO countries up their game - and they frankly didn’t want to.

    Add to that the fact that many colonists were not of British stock and so had no emotional ties as well as those who were from traditions of freedom from British state and it was a potent mix of reasons.



  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563
    There are doubtless better-informed people than me on here, but my understanding is that even after 1947, Britain regarded itself as a Member of the “Big Three”, and hoped to retain some form of empire based around Egypt and Persian oil wealth.

    Suez destroyed that notion, and Winds of Change became inevitable thereafter.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,947
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    Indeed, especially as Canada would have been part of British North America. Unless BNA was Partitioned of course.
    Although it does presuppose that a 'British North America' would have been as attractive to immigrants as the USA was. Judging by the history of Canada that isn't a certainty.

    If it hadn't been the population of such an area would not have made it to the roughly 360 million it has today.

    Nor is it by any means certain the British would have acted so ruthlessly in annexing Texas and California from Mexico.
    Quite, considering how many emigrants wanted to escape Royal and Imperial control de facto and then de jure.
    Not that many and many of those that did simply moved to Canada, Australia etc which also had the Crown
    Bit difficult moving to Australia from North America before US independence.
    Cook reached Australia in 1770, 13 years before US independence
    But Australia was not settled till 1788; and even then it was a penal colony with a very shaky grasp on life for the initial period.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 4,176
    edited September 2

    Cyclefree said:

    I am laughing like a drain at Boris using Peters & Peters as his solicitors.

    In my field they are well known as one of the firms you go to if you're accused of fraud or other serious financial offences.

    We use S&M for that.

    Sorry Slaughter & May, must stop calling them S&M.
    In my experience, they get irrationally irritated about incorrect use of the ampersand rather than "and" in their name. It's Slaughter and May, not Slaughter & May.

    So, if you're corresponding with them, it's really important to bear that in mind and use the ampersand as much as possible.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,947

    There are doubtless better-informed people than me on here, but my understanding is that even after 1947, Britain regarded itself as a Member of the “Big Three”, and hoped to retain some form of empire based around Egypt and Persian oil wealth.

    Suez destroyed that notion, and Winds of Change became inevitable thereafter.

    Honkers as well (pro tem, obvs). And a long string of air and naval bases out there (both ways).
  • We had nukes, we should have threatened to nuke India if they threatened to go independent.

    It's just like sending tanks to Scotland crush sedition there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947

    There are doubtless better-informed people than me on here, but my understanding is that even after 1947, Britain regarded itself as a Member of the “Big Three”, and hoped to retain some form of empire based around Egypt and Persian oil wealth.

    Suez destroyed that notion, and Winds of Change became inevitable thereafter.

    Loss of India made Suez much more difficult for the Empire to recover from
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,699

    We had nukes, we should have threatened to nuke India if they threatened to go independent.

    It's just like sending tanks to Scotland crush sedition there.

    We didn't have nukes until 1952. Even Churchill would have accepted defeat in India by then.

    I'm not going bail for Hyufd, obviously. He doesn't give up merely because he's lost.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,947
    This thread has had a Suez crisis.
  • Cyclefree said:

    I am laughing like a drain at Boris using Peters & Peters as his solicitors.

    In my field they are well known as one of the firms you go to if you're accused of fraud or other serious financial offences.

    We use S&M for that.

    Sorry Slaughter & May, must stop calling them S&M.
    In my experience, they get irrationally irritated about incorrect use of the ampersand rather than "and" in their name. It's Slaughter and May, not Slaughter & May.

    So, if you're corresponding with them, it's really important to bear that in mind and use the ampersand as much as possible.
    I do use ampersands a lot, except in PB headlines, for some reason wordpress doesn't like ampersands in headlines.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947
    boulay said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
    That would never have survived centuries since and if Britain had tried that there'd have ultimately been another war of independence.

    The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.

    But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
    It might have done, especially if no excess tax was imposed on them again. If the War of Independence had been run then that would have entrenched the American colonies within the Empire for generations.

    The colonists fought the war on 'no taxation without representation', had they been given MPs to start with there likely would have been no revolt and war, it was to preserve the power to impose tax without colonist representation at Westminster than the Crown and the British government fought the war
    Indeed and that is my point, had they been given MPs there may not have been a revolt but over time the centre of gravity of the Empire would have moved from England to America.

    Just as power in the Roman Empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople.

    The UK may have remained called the UK just as the Byzantines still called themselves Romans, but democracy, demographics, the economy and the military would see England now as a small state of
    that kingdom.
    Yes but the British fought the War precisely
    to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster over tax
    decisions for instance and certainly not on equivalent terms to their population
    Sorry HYUFD but that’s nonsense. The British did not fight the war “precisely to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster etc”.

    They fought the war because it seemed at the time that there was a rebellion in part of their empire. This part of the empire was valuable potentially but less valuable at the time than the Caribbean possessions but still it looked like a rebellion which needed suppressing - nothing to do with stopping them getting representation. There were many many loyalists, overlooked by history who wanted the British to stop the rebellion.

    And the “rebels” weren’t fighting for taxation only with representation - that is a handy justification however it was triggered by the stamp tax where the British were hoping that the American colonists might like to contribute to their own defence - think an even more justifiable version of the US demanding NATO countries up their game - and they frankly didn’t want to.

    Add to that the fact that many colonists were not of British stock and so had no emotional ties as well as those who were from traditions of freedom from British state and it was a potent mix of reasons.



    They fought the war to defeat the rebellion and the rebellion was because the British imposed taxation on the colonists without representation. At the time most US colonists were also from Great Britain, it was only in the 19th century that mass immigration from Germany and Ireland and Italy and Eastern Europe to the USA really took off
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563
    Winds of Change, by the way, is essentially why Macmillan lays claim to being the fourth best / most consequential post-war PM.

    He could have been a real arsehole about decolonisation.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,947
    HYUFD said:

    There are doubtless better-informed people than me on here, but my understanding is that even after 1947, Britain regarded itself as a Member of the “Big Three”, and hoped to retain some form of empire based around Egypt and Persian oil wealth.

    Suez destroyed that notion, and Winds of Change became inevitable thereafter.

    Loss of India made Suez much more difficult for the Empire to recover from
    Hmm, I wonder what most of the Empire thought of that, the bits outside the UK.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947

    Winds of Change, by the way, is essentially why Macmillan lays claim to being the fourth best / most consequential post-war PM.

    He could have been a real arsehole about decolonisation.

    He also built more social houses than any postwar PM and generally oversaw a growing economy
  • NEW THREAD

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,947
    HYUFD said:

    boulay said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
    That would never have survived centuries since and if Britain had tried that there'd have ultimately been another war of independence.

    The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.

    But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
    It might have done, especially if no excess tax was imposed on them again. If the War of Independence had been run then that would have entrenched the American colonies within the Empire for generations.

    The colonists fought the war on 'no taxation without representation', had they been given MPs to start with there likely would have been no revolt and war, it was to preserve the power to impose tax without colonist representation at Westminster than the Crown and the British government fought the war
    Indeed and that is my point, had they been given MPs there may not have been a revolt but over time the centre of gravity of the Empire would have moved from England to America.

    Just as power in the Roman Empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople.

    The UK may have remained called the UK just as the Byzantines still called themselves Romans, but democracy, demographics, the economy and the military would see England now as a small state of
    that kingdom.
    Yes but the British fought the War precisely
    to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster over tax
    decisions for instance and certainly not on equivalent terms to their population
    Sorry HYUFD but that’s nonsense. The British did not fight the war “precisely to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster etc”.

    They fought the war because it seemed at the time that there was a rebellion in part of their empire. This part of the empire was valuable potentially but less valuable at the time than the Caribbean possessions but still it looked like a rebellion which needed suppressing - nothing to do with stopping them getting representation. There were many many loyalists, overlooked by history who wanted the British to stop the rebellion.

    And the “rebels” weren’t fighting for taxation only with representation - that is a handy justification however it was triggered by the stamp tax where the British were hoping that the American colonists might like to contribute to their own defence - think an even more justifiable version of the US demanding NATO countries up their game - and they frankly didn’t want to.

    Add to that the fact that many colonists were not of British stock and so had no emotional ties as well as those who were from traditions of freedom from British state and it was a potent mix of reasons.



    They fought the war to defeat the rebellion and the rebellion was because the British imposed taxation on the colonists without representation. At the time most US colonists were also from Great Britain, it was only in the 19th century that mass immigration from Germany and Ireland and Italy and Eastern Europe to the USA really took off
    "most US colonists were also from Great Britain", how convenient to omit the Irish.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,563
    The general population of Australia and NZ essentially - if not the policy elites - generally considered themselves quasi British until the 1970s.

    EC membership was a rude awakening.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    The screenwriter (and/or producers or whatever) also did not understand:-

    1. In The Imitation Game, how Enigma was deciphered at Bletchley Park. It is ludicrous to have the bombes fail until the last-minute realisation they could use cribs when that was what the bombes were designed for. And while I can understand why they had to simplify how intelligence was handled (eg not saving the convoy) it was still stupid to have Turing and his mates decide.

    2. In Dunkirk, that French soldiers were evacuated on the same basis as the British, so the whole Frenchman in British uniform subplot was absurd.

    3. In Bohemian Rhapsody, when they stand around pointlessly naming their colleges, why it mattered only that John Deacon did electronics so could play with the band's equipment; also the importance of Kenny Everett.

    4. And other stuff that annoys me about films... See, now you've got me ranting.
    Screenwriters should have disclaimers at the end like how historical fiction writers often go over things they changed and why, for instance apologising that X probably wasn't as much a villain as they made them look, but they needed a bad guy.

    My favourite was Bernard Cornwell talking about substituting Sharpe in for the guy who actually heroically stormed the breach at Badajoz (or wherever), on the basis that 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'. And of course, even the heroes based on real people are still fictional.
    I was listening to an interview with Robert Harris this morning about his new book “Act of Oblivion” and this situation came up.

    It’s based on the true story about two of the signatories of Charles I death warrant, a father and son, who fled to America after the restoration and were hunted all over the states with a large bounty on their (literal) heads.

    He made the point that he had to invent a character who was the person doing the hunt as he felt it impossible otherwise to hook all the story and the political and religious turmoil of the events without it effectively being through the eyes of a main protagonist.

    I was part disappointed that historical accuracy will be lost but on the other hand I thought that if it told a story well of a situation very few really know about then it should be good.

    Might wait for the Amazon reimagining though.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,947
    edited September 2
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    boulay said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
    That would never have survived centuries since and if Britain had tried that there'd have ultimately been another war of independence.

    The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.

    But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
    It might have done, especially if no excess tax was imposed on them again. If the War of Independence had been run then that would have entrenched the American colonies within the Empire for generations.

    The colonists fought the war on 'no taxation without representation', had they been given MPs to start with there likely would have been no revolt and war, it was to preserve the power to impose tax without colonist representation at Westminster than the Crown and the British government fought the war
    Indeed and that is my point, had they been given MPs there may not have been a revolt but over time the centre of gravity of the Empire would have moved from England to America.

    Just as power in the Roman Empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople.

    The UK may have remained called the UK just as the Byzantines still called themselves Romans, but democracy, demographics, the economy and the military would see England now as a small state of
    that kingdom.
    Yes but the British fought the War precisely
    to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster over tax
    decisions for instance and certainly not on equivalent terms to their population
    Sorry HYUFD but that’s nonsense. The British did not fight the war “precisely to ensure the colonists did not get representation at Westminster etc”.

    They fought the war because it seemed at the time that there was a rebellion in part of their empire. This part of the empire was valuable potentially but less valuable at the time than the Caribbean possessions but still it looked like a rebellion which needed suppressing - nothing to do with stopping them getting representation. There were many many loyalists, overlooked by history who wanted the British to stop the rebellion.

    And the “rebels” weren’t fighting for taxation only with representation - that is a handy justification however it was triggered by the stamp tax where the British were hoping that the American colonists might like to contribute to their own defence - think an even more justifiable version of the US demanding NATO countries up their game - and they frankly didn’t want to.

    Add to that the fact that many colonists were not of British stock and so had no emotional ties as well as those who were from traditions of freedom from British state and it was a potent mix of reasons.



    They fought the war to defeat the rebellion and the rebellion was because the British imposed taxation on the colonists without representation. At the time most US colonists were also from Great Britain, it was only in the 19th century that mass immigration from Germany and Ireland and Italy and Eastern Europe to the USA really took off
    "most US colonists were also from Great Britain", how convenient to omit the Irish.
    Also factual until Irish emmigration to America in the 19th century
This discussion has been closed.