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.
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.
@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)
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 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
@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)
@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)
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
@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)
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.
@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)
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
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.
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
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
@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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?)
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 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
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.
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
@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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
@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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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”*
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Comments
Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?
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
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
BREAKING: Gazprom announces that Nord Stream cannot operate safely due to turbine damage
https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1565739460087746568
I'm truly astonished.
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
They don't get to pull this one again.
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.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1565738236185550849
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
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.
Although now we have the Hundred I suppose we're moving away from cricket.
The no taxation without representation stuff was just some accompanying rhetorical bluster.
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
@POTUS
You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1565493507061698565
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.
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.
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.
(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?)
Rings of Power, on the other hand...
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
The G7 finance ministers did just that today
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.
https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727412096221184?s=20&t=PPtQdq0VQkuWSAfnCB6e_w
Of the others the first was good and the third was bearable.
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.
Hunt for the Wilderpeople is good though.
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
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.
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.
Damn, beaten to it by williamglenn.
Sorry Slaughter & May, must stop calling them S&M.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/analysis/legal-business-100-2019/partner-earnings/
* I know, for all you pedants out there
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.
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.
Suez destroyed that notion, and Winds of Change became inevitable thereafter.
So, if you're corresponding with them, it's really important to bear that in mind and use the ampersand as much as possible.
It's just like sending tanks to Scotland crush sedition there.
I'm not going bail for Hyufd, obviously. He doesn't give up merely because he's lost.
He could have been a real arsehole about decolonisation.
NEW THREAD
EC membership was a rude awakening.
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.