Today's Times has Tory MPs saying what I said last month, Suank is overpromising on boats and going to underdeliver (and also other Tory MPs moaning about the military bases being used in their constituencies.)
He's done well on a few things, Northern Ireland, a bit of sanity on the fiscal/tax front, general competence, the Imperial Veto on the GRR.
Edit - Every day he keeps Braverman at the Home Office is a stain on him and his premiership.
I liked A Very British Coup. It was Lutwark’s classic coup d’etat, mostly non-violent, because all the pieces have already been played.
I was on the side of the plotters, against a PM who wished to make this country a satellite of the Soviet Union.
Never read it, but I do enjoy those occasions when you can genuinely sympathise with the villain of a story. And not in the sense that they were meant to be sympathetic, but when the author fully intends for you to be on one side, but you still find yourself siding with the other. The classic example for me is all the shit Oliver Platt's character is given toward the end of 2012.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
Yeah who can forget that time Harperson led an armed militia to take over the Lords after Cameron won?
If she did, it would about put her in as much charge of the UK as taking over the Capitol put that group in charge of the US. That is to say 'not'.
That's because they did not succeed in what they attempted, they simply delayed it. It doesn't lessen the severity of the attempt, nor would someone here far more pointlessly trying to take over the Lords by force.
Unless we should also immediately release anyone convicted of attempted murder on the basis they didn't succeed.
It was a shocking event, that should have been classified as a 'terrorist attack' if they wanted maximum headline-grabbing nomenclature. Calling it a coup was totally innacurate, and these things need to be said, or what's the point of the truth?
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Have you ever been caught in the middle of one of those protests? I have and I can assure you murderous intent is there, what else do you call throwing petrol bombs. If we were the us do you think those protests would not have people with guns and willing to use them?
Which Britsh protests about election outcomes have had petrol bombs thrown, outside Northern Ireland?
Well the one that swept over me certainly had petrol bombs, flares and hurled bricks deployed against the police. This was back in 92
I am sorry, but I remember 1992 quite well but cannot find in either my memory or Google any reference to petrol bombs being thrown at police over the election result. Which city was it?
Don't remember that either. I do remember Brown making an arse of himself trying to argue that the Tories had lost the moral right to govern when he thought they were short of a majority, even if they were clearly the largest party. But then the seats just kept coming, Basildon notably.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
From last year.
J.L. Partners poll of 8,004 UK adults for @ukonward
% support for running the UK with "a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament/elections"
Indeed. I think one of the great failings of our education system over many many decades is that we do not teach young adults the processes, benefits and occasional pitfalls of democracy. In Britain it has always been something left to others to elucidate and the growth of social media as an influence is drowning out the arguments. .
People sometimes seem genuinely surprised that Democracy is not a particularly efficient process, and that it is full of politics. We see politicians complainaint about people playing politics all the time. Where else should they be playing it?
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
From last year.
J.L. Partners poll of 8,004 UK adults for @ukonward
% support for running the UK with "a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament/elections"
Indeed. I think one of the great failings of our education system over many many decades is that we do not teach young adults the processes, benefits and occasional pitfalls of democracy. In Britain it has always been something left to others to elucidate and the growth of social media as an influence is drowning out the arguments. .
Unless they vote for a Fascist or Communist leader however democracy isn't at risk in the UK
“Our study of GPT-4 is entirely phenomenological: We have focused on the surprising things that GPT-4 can do, but we do not address the fundamental questions of why and how it achieves such remarkable intelligence. How does it reason, plan, and create? Why does it exhibit such general and flexible intelligence when it is at its core merely the combination of simple algorithmic components—gradient descent and large-scale transformers with extremely large amounts of data? These questions are part of the mystery and fascinatoon of LLMs, which challenge our understanding of learning and cognition, fuel our curiosity, and motivate deeper research.
Key directions include ongoing research on the phenomenon of emergence in LLMs (see [WTB+22] for a recent survey). Yet, despite intense interest in questions about the capabilities of LLMs, progress to date has been quite limited with only toy models where some phenomenon of emergence is proved [BEG+22, ABC+22, JSL22]. One general hypothesis [OCS+20] is that the large amount of data (especially the diversity of the content) forces neural networks to learn generic and useful “neural circuits”, such as the ones discovered in [OEN+22, ZBB+22, LAG+22], while the large size of models provide enough redundancy and diversity for the neural circuits to specialize and fine-tune to specific tasks.”
Basically, sentience and intelligence might be emergent properties, which arise ‘naturally’ given enough complexity, data and information. The machines are coming to life as they grow
Which makes sense, as our own consciousness is an emergent property, which revealed itself as we got more complex, evolving from Protozoa to primitive fish to mammal and primate
Interesting stuff. I am open minded; but there are problems. In the empirical world things have causes (hence science) which can be uncovered, hypothesised and tested, verified (or falsified), on the basis of which laws and regularities can be formulated and predictions made. This I would describe as the world of 'how it works'.
With mental events (consciousness, sentience) there isn't a 'How It Works' available, nor, crucially, is it possible to formulate an empirically based possibility(s) - hypothesis - of "How It Works" within any physics known to us.
So either it is not an emergent property at all (BTW mental events are not properties, they are things, as we all know in our heads) or else they emerge by laws/physics of which we are 100% ignorant. And likely to remain so.
I see no problem at all. Consciousness obviously emerges somehow - it emerged in us, and in other higher animals, who in turn evolved from lower animals, who evolved from blobs of slime and acid, and rocks and water and sunlight
All living creatures process information so as to live. As the creatures evolve to become more complex they need to process MORE information, so their brains grow, and at some point on this road the brain gets big enough and is processing enough information it somehow becomes self aware. Conscious. Sentient
Why should computers, which are made of atoms and molecules just like us, not follow the same pattern? As they get bigger and process more information, there will be a moment when consciousness will evolve just as it evolved in animals. It’s not a unique miracle
The mystery of how and when consciousness arises at a particular moment abides. I agree with that. Is a chimp conscious? Of course. A dog? Yes. A gecko? Hmm. A bumblebee? Probably not. An amoeba? Almost certainly not. A virus?
Somewhere on that evolutionary progression consciousness emerged. So then the question is: what stage are computers at? Bumblebee? Gecko? Dog?
"Somehow" is the crucial problem word here. Which how (How It Works) is the question, not the answer.
Well yes, but unless you believe that at this crucial moment, God intervened and zapped the divine spark into animal/human life, then it somehow happened. Increasing complexity of information and need to process it produced consciousness. And therefore it is not uniquely miraculous and is as likely to happen in computing machines as in kangaroos
Not sure what your point is here, but bringing in divine intervention seems like a literal Deus ex machina to me when the problem is the incompleteness of a contemporary theory and its lack of explanatory power. Why not, like Hume, jump to a giant spider with strange powers
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Have you ever been caught in the middle of one of those protests? I have and I can assure you murderous intent is there, what else do you call throwing petrol bombs. If we were the us do you think those protests would not have people with guns and willing to use them?
Which Britsh protests about election outcomes have had petrol bombs thrown, outside Northern Ireland?
Well the one that swept over me certainly had petrol bombs, flares and hurled bricks deployed against the police. This was back in 92
I am sorry, but I remember 1992 quite well but cannot find in either my memory or Google any reference to petrol bombs being thrown at police over the election result. Which city was it?
Same here. I think there was some bad fiction about Evul Brit Inetlligence agents stealing all the ballot boxes or something - which no-one actually read. I found one such book in the locally library, years later...
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
The country is becoming more polarised just as the US is. We aren't there yet but I can see it coming if we don't derail it soon
I seem to live in a different country, one where the two main parties have 75% of the electorate between them, and have little major difference between their political policies on nearly every issue.
Really? Are you blind when one side is constantly othering the opposing side...think "never kissed a tory", "tories are scum", picketing of tory conferences where mp's get rape threats. Hell I don't like the tories either but when you have that level of dehumanisation of the other side then it doesn't lead to good things
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
From last year.
J.L. Partners poll of 8,004 UK adults for @ukonward
% support for running the UK with "a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament/elections"
Indeed. I think one of the great failings of our education system over many many decades is that we do not teach young adults the processes, benefits and occasional pitfalls of democracy. In Britain it has always been something left to others to elucidate and the growth of social media as an influence is drowning out the arguments. .
Unless they vote for a Fascist or Communist leader however democracy isn't at risk in the UK
One might have said the same thing about the US. Trump for all his massive failings was neither a fascist nor a communist. But they still had an attempted coup.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
The country is becoming more polarised just as the US is. We aren't there yet but I can see it coming if we don't derail it soon
I don't think it is. Despite the brickbats it's mainly civil on here.
Gary Lineker and Brexit are the only areas where it's not.
Today's Times has Tory MPs saying what I said last month, Suank is overpromising on boats and going to underdeliver (and also other Tory MPs moaning about the military bases being used in their constituencies.)
He's done well on a few things, Northern Ireland, a bit of sanity on the fiscal/tax front, general competence, the Imperial Veto on the GRR.
Edit - Every day he keeps Braverman at the Home Office is a stain on him and his premiership.
David Cameron's Home Secretary said we should leave the ECHR and sent "Go Home" vans round the country. Is Suella Braverman qualitatively different?
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
The country is becoming more polarised just as the US is. We aren't there yet but I can see it coming if we don't derail it soon
I seem to live in a different country, one where the two main parties have 75% of the electorate between them, and have little major difference between their political policies on nearly every issue.
Really? Are you blind when one side is constantly othering the opposing side...think "never kissed a tory", "tories are scum", picketing of tory conferences where mp's get rape threats. Hell I don't like the tories either but when you have that level of dehumanisation of the other side then it doesn't lead to good things
Yes, but there has always been right and left wing rent-a-mobs. I remember NF vs SWP scraps 40 years ago. There is nothing new there.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
Yeah who can forget that time Harperson led an armed militia to take over the Lords after Cameron won?
If she did, it would about put her in as much charge of the UK as taking over the Capitol put that group in charge of the US. That is to say 'not'.
That's because they did not succeed in what they attempted, they simply delayed it. It doesn't lessen the severity of the attempt, nor would someone here far more pointlessly trying to take over the Lords by force.
Unless we should also immediately release anyone convicted of attempted murder on the basis they didn't succeed.
It was a shocking event, that should have been classified as a 'terrorist attack' if they wanted maximum headline-grabbing nomenclature. Calling it a coup was totally innacurate, and these things need to be said, or what's the point of the truth?
People can differ in their of whether it was a coup, that's a matter for debate. There are many different types of coup, and I think some people try to diminish the events by cleaving to a particular type of one and saying 'See, it was not precisely like this so it wasn't one'. Some others do suggest a little bit too much planning of the specifics of the day's events when they refer to a coup, a machiavellian level of control which was not present, but I personally don't see a particularly issue with a general usage of the term, given the very clear intent of a particular faction to overturn the election without a care for the legal processes, and their clear incitement of the mob to do what they then did, as part of that process. The setting the scene and whipping up the action were done by those seeking to overturn, so it was part of their overall attempts, even though it then went very organic and chaotic.
At that point it is a rather semantic debate and the way it is labelled a marginal issue.
I flagged it up as a subsample, I never tried to pass it off as a full blown Scotland poll.
We need a list of house rules on banning offences. I'll start, just to help out like:
Passing off subsamples as full blown polls Being rude about Smithson Sr Annoying a moderator
He can make whatever rules he likes.
He runs the site and puts in the hours all year round - for free - so you can broadcast your bullshit below the line to a wider audience than it you could ever otherwise hope to have.
I liked A Very British Coup. It was Lutwark’s classic coup d’etat, mostly non-violent, because all the pieces have already been played.
I was on the side of the plotters, against a PM who wished to make this country a satellite of the Soviet Union.
Never read it, but I do enjoy those occasions when you can genuinely sympathise with the villain of a story. And not in the sense that they were meant to be sympathetic, but when the author fully intends for you to be on one side, but you still find yourself siding with the other. The classic example for me is all the shit Oliver Platt's character is given toward the end of 2012.
I liked A Very British Coup. It was Lutwark’s classic coup d’etat, mostly non-violent, because all the pieces have already been played.
I was on the side of the plotters, against a PM who wished to make this country a satellite of the Soviet Union.
Never read it, but I do enjoy those occasions when you can genuinely sympathise with the villain of a story. And not in the sense that they were meant to be sympathetic, but when the author fully intends for you to be on one side, but you still find yourself siding with the other. The classic example for me is all the shit Oliver Platt's character is given toward the end of 2012.
I liked A Very British Coup. It was Lutwark’s classic coup d’etat, mostly non-violent, because all the pieces have already been played.
I was on the side of the plotters, against a PM who wished to make this country a satellite of the Soviet Union.
Never read it, but I do enjoy those occasions when you can genuinely sympathise with the villain of a story. And not in the sense that they were meant to be sympathetic, but when the author fully intends for you to be on one side, but you still find yourself siding with the other. The classic example for me is all the shit Oliver Platt's character is given toward the end of 2012.
Rather like Season Shit of Game of Thrones (which really started falling apart from Season 5).
By the end of it, Daenerys was about the only major character I sympathised with. That was absolutely not the intention of the show runners.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Today's Times has Tory MPs saying what I said last month, Suank is overpromising on boats and going to underdeliver (and also other Tory MPs moaning about the military bases being used in their constituencies.)
He's done well on a few things, Northern Ireland, a bit of sanity on the fiscal/tax front, general competence, the Imperial Veto on the GRR.
Edit - Every day he keeps Braverman at the Home Office is a stain on him and his premiership.
David Cameron's Home Secretary said we should leave the ECHR and sent "Go Home" vans round the country. Is Suella Braverman qualitatively different?
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
The country is becoming more polarised just as the US is. We aren't there yet but I can see it coming if we don't derail it soon
I seem to live in a different country, one where the two main parties have 75% of the electorate between them, and have little major difference between their political policies on nearly every issue.
Really? Are you blind when one side is constantly othering the opposing side...think "never kissed a tory", "tories are scum", picketing of tory conferences where mp's get rape threats. Hell I don't like the tories either but when you have that level of dehumanisation of the other side then it doesn't lead to good things
Yes, but there has always been right and left wing rent-a-mobs. I remember NF vs SWP scraps 40 years ago. There is nothing new there.
Since when were the nf or bnp right wing....every policy they wanted was leftish except for the stance on immigration. Hint being hard on immigration but left wing on everything else does not make you a party of the right
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Have you ever been caught in the middle of one of those protests? I have and I can assure you murderous intent is there, what else do you call throwing petrol bombs. If we were the us do you think those protests would not have people with guns and willing to use them?
Which Britsh protests about election outcomes have had petrol bombs thrown, outside Northern Ireland?
Well the one that swept over me certainly had petrol bombs, flares and hurled bricks deployed against the police. This was back in 92
I am sorry, but I remember 1992 quite well but cannot find in either my memory or Google any reference to petrol bombs being thrown at police over the election result. Which city was it?
I do remember some *very* violent anti-poll-tax riots around then. But not especially about the elections.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
The country is becoming more polarised just as the US is. We aren't there yet but I can see it coming if we don't derail it soon
I seem to live in a different country, one where the two main parties have 75% of the electorate between them, and have little major difference between their political policies on nearly every issue.
Really? Are you blind when one side is constantly othering the opposing side...think "never kissed a tory", "tories are scum", picketing of tory conferences where mp's get rape threats. Hell I don't like the tories either but when you have that level of dehumanisation of the other side then it doesn't lead to good things
Yes, but there has always been right and left wing rent-a-mobs. I remember NF vs SWP scraps 40 years ago. There is nothing new there.
Since when were the nf or bnp right wing....every policy they wanted was leftish except for the stance on immigration. Hint being hard on immigration but left wing on everything else does not make you a party of the right
I appreciate that you think almost everyone politically to the left of you, but I think that says more about you than them.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
You make us sound like some sad old tart whose lover is going back to his wife. Russia bears the full moral responsibility for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the fact is that had the US *not* come into Europe two-footed again, Ukraine would still be an unhappy but nominally independent Russian satellite, not a warzone, Europe's economy would not have been shattered by an energy crisis, and thousands of people would still be alive. That being the net result of their attentions, being snubbed as an uninteresting backwater seems quite attractive.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
Yeah who can forget that time Harperson led an armed militia to take over the Lords after Cameron won?
If she did, it would about put her in as much charge of the UK as taking over the Capitol put that group in charge of the US. That is to say 'not'.
That's because they did not succeed in what they attempted, they simply delayed it. It doesn't lessen the severity of the attempt, nor would someone here far more pointlessly trying to take over the Lords by force.
Unless we should also immediately release anyone convicted of attempted murder on the basis they didn't succeed.
It was a shocking event, that should have been classified as a 'terrorist attack' if they wanted maximum headline-grabbing nomenclature. Calling it a coup was totally innacurate, and these things need to be said, or what's the point of the truth?
People can differ in their of whether it was a coup, that's a matter for debate. There are many different types of coup, and I think some people try to diminish the events by cleaving to a particular type of one and saying 'See, it was not precisely like this so it wasn't one'. Some others do suggest a little bit too much planning of the specifics of the day's events when they refer to a coup, a machiavellian level of control which was not present, but I personally don't see a particularly issue with a general usage of the term, given the very clear intent of a particular faction to overturn the election without a care for the legal processes, and their clear incitement of the mob to do what they then did, as part of that process. The setting the scene and whipping up the action were done by those seeking to overturn, so it was part of their overall attempts, even though it then went very organic and chaotic.
At that point it is a rather semantic debate and the way it is labelled a marginal issue.
An attempted coup d’etat is a fair description. But, it was inept, like the Kapp Putsch.
A serious coup would have involved thousands of the army moving in to “restore order.”
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
The country is becoming more polarised just as the US is. We aren't there yet but I can see it coming if we don't derail it soon
I seem to live in a different country, one where the two main parties have 75% of the electorate between them, and have little major difference between their political policies on nearly every issue.
Really? Are you blind when one side is constantly othering the opposing side...think "never kissed a tory", "tories are scum", picketing of tory conferences where mp's get rape threats. Hell I don't like the tories either but when you have that level of dehumanisation of the other side then it doesn't lead to good things
Yes, but there has always been right and left wing rent-a-mobs. I remember NF vs SWP scraps 40 years ago. There is nothing new there.
Since when were the nf or bnp right wing....every policy they wanted was leftish except for the stance on immigration. Hint being hard on immigration but left wing on everything else does not make you a party of the right
I appreciate that you think almost everyone politically to the left of you, but I think that says more about you than them.
Today's Times has Tory MPs saying what I said last month, Suank is overpromising on boats and going to underdeliver (and also other Tory MPs moaning about the military bases being used in their constituencies.)
He's done well on a few things, Northern Ireland, a bit of sanity on the fiscal/tax front, general competence, the Imperial Veto on the GRR.
Edit - Every day he keeps Braverman at the Home Office is a stain on him and his premiership.
I think you're looking for reasons to oppose him because you quite enjoy being the anti-Tory Tory and it's become your brand.
I flagged it up as a subsample, I never tried to pass it off as a full blown Scotland poll.
We need a list of house rules on banning offences. I'll start, just to help out like:
Passing off subsamples as full blown polls Being rude about Smithson Sr Annoying a moderator
He can make whatever rules he likes.
He runs the site and puts in the hours all year round - for free - so you can broadcast your bullshit below the line to a wider audience than it you could ever otherwise hope to have.
Don't like it? Get your own blog.
Have you been watching GB News again? You seem very angry today (as does Pagan). Calm down dear!
I flagged it up as a subsample, I never tried to pass it off as a full blown Scotland poll.
We need a list of house rules on banning offences. I'll start, just to help out like:
Passing off subsamples as full blown polls Being rude about Smithson Sr Annoying a moderator
He can make whatever rules he likes.
He runs the site and puts in the hours all year round - for free - so you can broadcast your bullshit below the line to a wider audience than it you could ever otherwise hope to have.
Don't like it? Get your own blog.
Fine English unwoke ale o'clock I sense.
Strange that you're blustering (yet again) about whether someone should 'broadcast their bullshit' on PB or not, hadn't realised you had even the tiniest say about who posts here.
My unfashionable view is that in the UK we are past the peak of the culture wars. We just aren’t the US.
I believe @CorrectHorseBattery3 made a similar point - that it was lost when Lineker was "cancelled".
TheScreamingEagles will you consider allowing Horse back?
Nah, you're way better than he was
That is kind but I miss @CorrectHorseBattery3's contributions. He added a good voice to this site. I do hope he is allowed back at some point.
In the meantime I will do my best to represent him where I can - but my knowledge of Hampshire is not as good as his, being a Surrey man myself.
The same for his excellent SW London knowledge. I am a fellow SW Londoner but living in Putney Bridge rather than over the river, I do not have as much knowledge as him.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
Yeah who can forget that time Harperson led an armed militia to take over the Lords after Cameron won?
If she did, it would about put her in as much charge of the UK as taking over the Capitol put that group in charge of the US. That is to say 'not'.
That's because they did not succeed in what they attempted, they simply delayed it. It doesn't lessen the severity of the attempt, nor would someone here far more pointlessly trying to take over the Lords by force.
Unless we should also immediately release anyone convicted of attempted murder on the basis they didn't succeed.
It was a shocking event, that should have been classified as a 'terrorist attack' if they wanted maximum headline-grabbing nomenclature. Calling it a coup was totally innacurate, and these things need to be said, or what's the point of the truth?
People can differ in their of whether it was a coup, that's a matter for debate. There are many different types of coup, and I think some people try to diminish the events by cleaving to a particular type of one and saying 'See, it was not precisely like this so it wasn't one'. Some others do suggest a little bit too much planning of the specifics of the day's events when they refer to a coup, a machiavellian level of control which was not present, but I personally don't see a particularly issue with a general usage of the term, given the very clear intent of a particular faction to overturn the election without a care for the legal processes, and their clear incitement of the mob to do what they then did, as part of that process. The setting the scene and whipping up the action were done by those seeking to overturn, so it was part of their overall attempts, even though it then went very organic and chaotic.
At that point it is a rather semantic debate and the way it is labelled a marginal issue.
An attempted coup d’etat is a fair description. But, it was inept, like the Kapp Putsch.
A serious coup would have involved thousands of the army moving in to “restore order.”
I see it more like the Beer Hall Putsch, if that. It's been a long time since I studied the Weimar Republic, but those were serious attempts to seize power. Nobody, even the biggest proponents of the coup theory, thinks that the guy dressed as Davy Crockett had any kind of plan, regardless of how far fetched, to take control over the US state.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Have you ever been caught in the middle of one of those protests? I have and I can assure you murderous intent is there, what else do you call throwing petrol bombs. If we were the us do you think those protests would not have people with guns and willing to use them?
Which Britsh protests about election outcomes have had petrol bombs thrown, outside Northern Ireland?
Well the one that swept over me certainly had petrol bombs, flares and hurled bricks deployed against the police. This was back in 92
I am sorry, but I remember 1992 quite well but cannot find in either my memory or Google any reference to petrol bombs being thrown at police over the election result. Which city was it?
I do remember some *very* violent anti-poll-tax riots around then. But not especially about the elections.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Have you ever been caught in the middle of one of those protests? I have and I can assure you murderous intent is there, what else do you call throwing petrol bombs. If we were the us do you think those protests would not have people with guns and willing to use them?
Which Britsh protests about election outcomes have had petrol bombs thrown, outside Northern Ireland?
Well the one that swept over me certainly had petrol bombs, flares and hurled bricks deployed against the police. This was back in 92
I am sorry, but I remember 1992 quite well but cannot find in either my memory or Google any reference to petrol bombs being thrown at police over the election result. Which city was it?
I do remember some *very* violent anti-poll-tax riots around then. But not especially about the elections.
The poll tax riots were certainly quite violent but weren't against an election result, though they did bring about the end both of the policy and that PM.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
If it ever wasn't there'd be plenty of people in Western countries who'd willingly surrender to a much more malign hegemon on the basis it was no different to what we used to do and it was about time we got our just desserts.
Today's Times has Tory MPs saying what I said last month, Suank is overpromising on boats and going to underdeliver (and also other Tory MPs moaning about the military bases being used in their constituencies.)
He's done well on a few things, Northern Ireland, a bit of sanity on the fiscal/tax front, general competence, the Imperial Veto on the GRR.
Edit - Every day he keeps Braverman at the Home Office is a stain on him and his premiership.
I think you're looking for reasons to oppose him because you quite enjoy being the anti-Tory Tory and it's become your brand.
Only you can resolve that conundrum.
Nope, I've already told two Tory MPs/candidates that I'll help them at the next GE as I want them to win next year. One of them even backed Brexit.
My unfashionable view is that in the UK we are past the peak of the culture wars. We just aren’t the US.
I believe @CorrectHorseBattery3 made a similar point - that it was lost when Lineker was "cancelled".
TheScreamingEagles will you consider allowing Horse back?
Nah, you're way better than he was
That is kind but I miss @CorrectHorseBattery3's contributions. He added a good voice to this site. I do hope he is allowed back at some point.
In the meantime I will do my best to represent him where I can - but my knowledge of Hampshire is not as good as his, being a Surrey man myself.
The same for his excellent SW London knowledge. I am a fellow SW Londoner but living in Putney Bridge rather than over the river, I do not have as much knowledge as him.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
From last year.
J.L. Partners poll of 8,004 UK adults for @ukonward
% support for running the UK with "a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament/elections"
Indeed. I think one of the great failings of our education system over many many decades is that we do not teach young adults the processes, benefits and occasional pitfalls of democracy. In Britain it has always been something left to others to elucidate and the growth of social media as an influence is drowning out the arguments. .
Unless they vote for a Fascist or Communist leader however democracy isn't at risk in the UK
One might have said the same thing about the US. Trump for all his massive failings was neither a fascist nor a communist. But they still had an attempted coup.
I seem to remember HYUFD's favourite Tory leader tried to shut down Parliament.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
You make us sound like some sad old tart whose lover is going back to his wife. Russia bears the full moral responsibility for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the fact is that had the US *not* come into Europe two-footed again, Ukraine would still be an unhappy but nominally independent Russian satellite, not a warzone, Europe's economy would not have been shattered by an energy crisis, and thousands of people would still be alive. That being the net result of their attentions, being snubbed as an uninteresting backwater seems quite attractive.
I support the right of Ukraine to choose not to be a "nominally independent Russia satellite". I am very grateful that American money, logistics and kit have allowed that to be so. I am concerned that someone like Trump might end that support.
Being in the position of a supplicant is not great. I wish we weren't. But we need American power to protect us and reduce the threat of China to our independence and freedom to make choices. That is the real world so what goes on there matters to us.
My unfashionable view is that in the UK we are past the peak of the culture wars. We just aren’t the US.
I believe @CorrectHorseBattery3 made a similar point - that it was lost when Lineker was "cancelled".
TheScreamingEagles will you consider allowing Horse back?
Nah, you're way better than he was
That is kind but I miss @CorrectHorseBattery3's contributions. He added a good voice to this site. I do hope he is allowed back at some point.
In the meantime I will do my best to represent him where I can - but my knowledge of Hampshire is not as good as his, being a Surrey man myself.
The same for his excellent SW London knowledge. I am a fellow SW Londoner but living in Putney Bridge rather than over the river, I do not have as much knowledge as him.
I will try my best.
Have you considered flint knapping?
I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about.
I believe @CorrectHorseBattery3 was a software engineer (?). I myself am a Software Developer
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
The country is becoming more polarised just as the US is. We aren't there yet but I can see it coming if we don't derail it soon
I seem to live in a different country, one where the two main parties have 75% of the electorate between them, and have little major difference between their political policies on nearly every issue.
Really? Are you blind when one side is constantly othering the opposing side...think "never kissed a tory", "tories are scum", picketing of tory conferences where mp's get rape threats. Hell I don't like the tories either but when you have that level of dehumanisation of the other side then it doesn't lead to good things
Yes, but there has always been right and left wing rent-a-mobs. I remember NF vs SWP scraps 40 years ago. There is nothing new there.
Since when were the nf or bnp right wing....every policy they wanted was leftish except for the stance on immigration. Hint being hard on immigration but left wing on everything else does not make you a party of the right
I appreciate that you think almost everyone politically to the left of you, but I think that says more about you than them.
Reminds me of the Napper Wainwright speech from Porridge.
Wainwright: I've got this mean streak, see. I know it's despicable, but I'm prejudiced. McLaren: Oh, that'll make a nice change. Wainwright: Oh, sonny Jim, I'm not just prejudiced against your lot. Oh no. I'm prejudiced against liberals, longhairs, pillheads, whinos, queens, slags, squealers, pikeys, and greaseballs! [To Godber] Are you in there, sonny? Fletcher: Isn't everybody? Wainwright: Quiet Fletcher, I was talking to the boy! I said, are you in there? Godber: Don't think so, I'm Church of England.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
That reads like another 1 April joke.
Fringe protests does not even remotely relate to what we saw after the 2020 election. The other side knew and accepted they had lost, and there wasn't even a hint some other outcome would have occurred.
Does it really when every time the tories win there is a screed of articles in places like the guardian claiming the tories didn't really win because adding up all the votes for other parties add up to more than the tory vote percentage. How is that different from what happened in the us and the protests that turned violent are incited by such articles
You are equating writing a newspaper article discussing the alleged problems with the current voting system and advocating a legal change… with a bunch of people with murderous intent and weapons trying to overturn an election?
Without agreeing entirely with him, surely Pagan's point is that the immediate intent in both instances is the same - to undermine the validity of the winning candidate/party by claiming the electoral system has perverted democracy. The huge difference of course - and the reason Pagan is wrong in the final analysis - is that currently the official opposing sides in British politics do not regard use of violence as a valid tool. But that may not stay the same for ever. Indeed there have been times in the past when British political figures have attempted to bring down governments by means other than the ballot box. I would be concerned that, whilst we are a long way from the US lunacy, we are closer to that being attempted than we might think and the continual attempts to cast election victories as 'stolen' or otherwise invalid simply help to undermine respect for democracy.
I did point out I don't think labour is fascist but its a certain portion of the left that thinks violence is an answer to an election result they don't like which is showing facist tendencies and I agree its not labour instigating it.
I wasn't necessarily referring to Labour. Nor was I referring to any of the main parties at this time. I include the Reform Party in that.
But it is not inconceivable that a party could arise who do not hold the same views as currently prevail concerning the sanctity of democracy. I am not sure anyone 35 years ago would have predicted the January 6th events in the US. Things can change quite rapidly. And my point in agreement with you is that it is possible for the arguments pushed fairly innocently today - such as questioning the validity of a Government elected by FPTP - could be used in a few years to justify more aggressive actions by those who feel they are not being listened to.
The country is becoming more polarised just as the US is. We aren't there yet but I can see it coming if we don't derail it soon
I seem to live in a different country, one where the two main parties have 75% of the electorate between them, and have little major difference between their political policies on nearly every issue.
Really? Are you blind when one side is constantly othering the opposing side...think "never kissed a tory", "tories are scum", picketing of tory conferences where mp's get rape threats. Hell I don't like the tories either but when you have that level of dehumanisation of the other side then it doesn't lead to good things
Don't forget Ben Bradshaw's and Lloyd Russell-Moyne's behaviour in the Commons, particularly the latter's intimidation of a female MP.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Don't forget Ben Bradshaw's and Lloyd Russell-Moyne's behaviour in the Commons, particularly the latter's intimidation of a female MP.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
On topic. Biden has to win next year, next year's election will be as pivotal for humanity as Operation Overlord.
The fascist GOP and Trump need to be annihilated.
On that logic @TSE, you are in favour of the GOP being declared a proscribed organisation and legally banned from next year's election? Ditto Trump.
And, if you are not in favour, why not, given the language you have just used?
If there is a threat to democracy, it's people like yourself who believe only they have the right answer when it comes to what is and isn't allowed.
Your line of thinking - and those of a similar ilk - is the far greater threat to democracy than the buffoon Trump.
You absolute roaster.
'Buffoon Trump', trying to downplay his tyranny.
We got the beer hall putsch in 2021 thanks to that 'buffoon'.
I want them defeated at the ballot box, which is why I said they need to be annihilated.
For someone who proclaims their absolute immodestly, you are not very good at answering the question. Although, as a lawyer, I guess you may not be trying to give a straight answer.
You were the one who referenced next year as the most important date for democracy since Operation Overlord ie the D-Day landings against the Nazis. You called the GOP fascists. Your language and analogies clearly scream you think them equivalent to Fascists and / or Nazis, in which case why not ban them?
You clearly want them banned so why don't you stop being a coward and state what you truly want, as opposed to hiding behind some nominal fence-sitting behaviour because you realise it's a step too far.
Oh, and maybe have a reasonable argument as opposed to going all Gammon when you are challenged.
I prefer fascists to lose at the ballot box and or convicted of crimes they are guilty of.
If only you got this angry at Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
I did. But two wrongs don't make a right. In any event, what I did or did not do doesn't really excuse that type of language you used.
As I said, you are now backtracking and saying you want them defeated at the ballot box but your original language made it clear you would much rather see them proscribed and banned. If I hear someone saying "Black people are criminals" and then trying to backtrack by saying "yeah but what I really meant is.." it's clear where their sentiments lie.
One of the benchmarks for fascism is trying to overturn legitimate elections with violence.
The events subsequent to the 2020 election met that threshold.
Ah you mean like the left wing protests we often get in the uk when tories win that often devolve into violence?
Yeah who can forget that time Harperson led an armed militia to take over the Lords after Cameron won?
If she did, it would about put her in as much charge of the UK as taking over the Capitol put that group in charge of the US. That is to say 'not'.
That's because they did not succeed in what they attempted, they simply delayed it. It doesn't lessen the severity of the attempt, nor would someone here far more pointlessly trying to take over the Lords by force.
Unless we should also immediately release anyone convicted of attempted murder on the basis they didn't succeed.
It was a shocking event, that should have been classified as a 'terrorist attack' if they wanted maximum headline-grabbing nomenclature. Calling it a coup was totally innacurate, and these things need to be said, or what's the point of the truth?
People can differ in their of whether it was a coup, that's a matter for debate. There are many different types of coup, and I think some people try to diminish the events by cleaving to a particular type of one and saying 'See, it was not precisely like this so it wasn't one'. Some others do suggest a little bit too much planning of the specifics of the day's events when they refer to a coup, a machiavellian level of control which was not present, but I personally don't see a particularly issue with a general usage of the term, given the very clear intent of a particular faction to overturn the election without a care for the legal processes, and their clear incitement of the mob to do what they then did, as part of that process. The setting the scene and whipping up the action were done by those seeking to overturn, so it was part of their overall attempts, even though it then went very organic and chaotic.
At that point it is a rather semantic debate and the way it is labelled a marginal issue.
An attempted coup d’etat is a fair description. But, it was inept, like the Kapp Putsch.
A serious coup would have involved thousands of the army moving in to “restore order.”
Given subsequent events, and how many are now on record that he was the legitimate winner of the last election, it's probably not unfair to say that if he could have managed that he would have.
I flagged it up as a subsample, I never tried to pass it off as a full blown Scotland poll.
We need a list of house rules on banning offences. I'll start, just to help out like:
Passing off subsamples as full blown polls Being rude about Smithson Sr Annoying a moderator
He can make whatever rules he likes.
He runs the site and puts in the hours all year round - for free - so you can broadcast your bullshit below the line to a wider audience than it you could ever otherwise hope to have.
Don't like it? Get your own blog.
Fine English unwoke ale o'clock I sense.
Strange that you're blustering (yet again) about whether someone should 'broadcast their bullshit' on PB or not, hadn't realised you had even the tiniest say about who posts here.
I have no say on who posts here.
I do have a say in response to whoever posts here, and that's only by the grace of OGH.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
I had never considered the second Boer War as the beginning of the end of British hegemony in the world, but perhaps you are right. I would antedate the start of British hegemony to the Severn Years War, with our seizure of the first French Empire and defeat of the Spanish Empire.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
You make us sound like some sad old tart whose lover is going back to his wife. Russia bears the full moral responsibility for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the fact is that had the US *not* come into Europe two-footed again, Ukraine would still be an unhappy but nominally independent Russian satellite, not a warzone, Europe's economy would not have been shattered by an energy crisis, and thousands of people would still be alive. That being the net result of their attentions, being snubbed as an uninteresting backwater seems quite attractive.
I support the right of Ukraine to choose not to be a "nominally independent Russia satellite". I am very grateful that American money, logistics and kit have allowed that to be so. I am concerned that someone like Trump might end that support.
Being in the position of a supplicant is not great. I wish we weren't. But we need American power to protect us and reduce the threat of China to our independence and freedom to make choices. That is the real world so what goes on there matters to us.
There were two choices before Ukraine, nominally independent Russian satellite, or nominally independent US protectorate. I fully recognise that many more Ukrainian citizens support the second option than the first, but I don't think I back their right to a blank cheque to pursue that choice.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
Agreed. During that period we maintained a navy as powerful as the next 2 navies in the world put together. Even more importantly we maintained through our empire a financial grip and resource unmatched since the fields of Cannae sold at full value the day after the battle.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
I had never considered the second Boer War as the beginning of the end of British hegemony in the world, but perhaps you are right. I would antedate the start of British hegemony to the Severn Years War, with our seizure of the first French Empire and defeat of the Spanish Empire.
But, we lost that status in 1783. I would say that the UK was global hegemon, from roughly 1815 to 1920 or so. The US, from about 1948 onwards. The US was very eager to return home, after 1945, but by 1948, had realised that the UK and France simply could not afford to contain the Soviets and Red China.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
You make us sound like some sad old tart whose lover is going back to his wife. Russia bears the full moral responsibility for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the fact is that had the US *not* come into Europe two-footed again, Ukraine would still be an unhappy but nominally independent Russian satellite, not a warzone, Europe's economy would not have been shattered by an energy crisis, and thousands of people would still be alive. That being the net result of their attentions, being snubbed as an uninteresting backwater seems quite attractive.
I support the right of Ukraine to choose not to be a "nominally independent Russia satellite". I am very grateful that American money, logistics and kit have allowed that to be so. I am concerned that someone like Trump might end that support.
The forced neutrality argument was such a weird one. Independent neutrality is a choice of course. You have to accept any diplomatic consequences to taking such a stance, and some will take that. But if it is 'You will be neutral or you will be invaded', which is what literally happened in Ukraine as it was not yet an EU candidate and was never going to be in NATO, then it is obviously not neutral - everyone would be able to see that your actions are about doing what one side wants to avoid punishment.
That'd be like calling an opposing side in a war of two sides the League of the Unaligned.
Now, some might argue a kind of resigned 'Unfortunately that's the way the world works' in respect of a nation feeling the need to buckle under that kind of pressure. But it wouldn't be neutrality if they agreed in that circumstance.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
You make us sound like some sad old tart whose lover is going back to his wife. Russia bears the full moral responsibility for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the fact is that had the US *not* come into Europe two-footed again, Ukraine would still be an unhappy but nominally independent Russian satellite, not a warzone, Europe's economy would not have been shattered by an energy crisis, and thousands of people would still be alive. That being the net result of their attentions, being snubbed as an uninteresting backwater seems quite attractive.
Ukraine would be a warzone. Albeit, the war would be mostly partisan warfare on the Ukrainian side, matched by savage reprisals and ethnic cleansing, on the part of Russian forces.
And, in all likelihood, we would be on the point of a shooting war between Russia, on the one hand, and Poland and the Baltic States on the other. The world would be a frighteningly dangerous place.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
I had never considered the second Boer War as the beginning of the end of British hegemony in the world, but perhaps you are right. I would antedate the start of British hegemony to the Severn Years War, with our seizure of the first French Empire and defeat of the Spanish Empire.
Re the beginning, yes, you're right. The 2nd Boer War, was also the time when the British had to scrap their naval strength and withdraw from the East and start again with the Dreadnoughts. The near starvation in 1916-17 shows very clearly that the British had come close to losing control.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
I had never considered the second Boer War as the beginning of the end of British hegemony in the world, but perhaps you are right. I would antedate the start of British hegemony to the Severn Years War, with our seizure of the first French Empire and defeat of the Spanish Empire.
Re the beginning, yes, you're right. The 2nd Boer War, was also the time when the British had to scrap their naval strength and withdraw from the East and start again with the Dreadnoughts. The near starvation in 1916-17 shows very clearly that the British had come close to losing control.
The Boers lost the War, but by God, they won the peace.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
You make us sound like some sad old tart whose lover is going back to his wife. Russia bears the full moral responsibility for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the fact is that had the US *not* come into Europe two-footed again, Ukraine would still be an unhappy but nominally independent Russian satellite, not a warzone, Europe's economy would not have been shattered by an energy crisis, and thousands of people would still be alive. That being the net result of their attentions, being snubbed as an uninteresting backwater seems quite attractive.
Ukraine would be a warzone. Albeit, the war would be mostly partisan warfare on the Ukrainian side, matched by savage reprisals and ethnic cleansing, on the part of Russian forces.
And, in all likelihood, we would be on the point of a shooting war between Russia, on the one hand, and Poland and the Baltic States on the other. The world would be a frighteningly dangerous place.
Is everyone just skipping over the conspiracy claim that the US released COVID on the world?
Don't forget Ben Bradshaw's and Lloyd Russell-Moyne's behaviour in the Commons, particularly the latter's intimidation of a female MP.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
I very much hope those MPs will be deselected.
Bradshaw was apparently begged to restand in 2019, he has been a lonely Labour voice in the SW (though I think they have a few more now, even not counting Bristol), and I think won't be standing again.
Russell-Moyne is young and in a seat which is probably now safe as houses despite only being won in 2017. Unless he campaigns for an Independent Corbyn mayoralty or something I should think he would be safe.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Well on that basis there has never been a global hegemon. Not the US, which always faced competing powers, and certainly not your earlier suggestion of the Roman Empire, which only ever controlled about 4% of the globe.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
Don't forget Ben Bradshaw's and Lloyd Russell-Moyne's behaviour in the Commons, particularly the latter's intimidation of a female MP.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
I very much hope those MPs will be deselected.
Bradshaw was apparently begged to restand in 2019, he has been a lonely Labour voice in the SW (though I think they have a few more now, even not counting Bristol), and I think won't be standing again.
Russell-Moyne is young and in a seat which is probably now safe as houses despite only being won in 2017. Unless he campaigns for an Independent Corbyn mayoralty or something I should think he would be safe.
Rusell-Moyle might be the most loathsome of all 650 MPs, and he faces some stiff competition.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Well on that basis there has never been a global hegemon. Not the US, which always faced competing powers, and certainly not your earlier suggestion of the Roman Empire, which only ever controlled about 4% of the globe.
In a pre globalist world such a hegemon could only ever be regional.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
Russia was a failure, France we successfully rolled them back to monarchy, Portugal was maintained in the sphere of influence. How did the US get on in Vietnam?
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Don't forget Ben Bradshaw's and Lloyd Russell-Moyne's behaviour in the Commons, particularly the latter's intimidation of a female MP.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
I very much hope those MPs will be deselected.
Bradshaw was apparently begged to restand in 2019, he has been a lonely Labour voice in the SW (though I think they have a few more now, even not counting Bristol), and I think won't be standing again.
Russell-Moyne is young and in a seat which is probably now safe as houses despite only being won in 2017. Unless he campaigns for an Independent Corbyn mayoralty or something I should think he would be safe.
Rusell-Moyle might be the most loathsome of all 650 MPs, and he faces some stiff competition.
Thinking on the various loathsome MPs (which honestly is not that high a percentrage, thankfully), it made me wonder what is up with Chris Pincher. Not heard a peep since his moment of unglory.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
Are yoy really claiming the UK didn't interfere in Russian politics during their civil war? Or, you know, wage a two decade long war with France to halt their revolution? Portugal was a virtual British colony for twenty years.
And how did we get on in those two examples, given the claim that we held hegemonic power?
But how did America get on in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Don't forget Ben Bradshaw's and Lloyd Russell-Moyne's behaviour in the Commons, particularly the latter's intimidation of a female MP.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
I very much hope those MPs will be deselected.
Bradshaw was apparently begged to restand in 2019, he has been a lonely Labour voice in the SW (though I think they have a few more now, even not counting Bristol), and I think won't be standing again.
Russell-Moyne is young and in a seat which is probably now safe as houses despite only being won in 2017. Unless he campaigns for an Independent Corbyn mayoralty or something I should think he would be safe.
Rusell-Moyle might be the most loathsome of all 650 MPs, and he faces some stiff competition.
Thinking on the various loathsome MPs (which honestly is not that high a percentrage, thankfully), it made me wonder what is up with Chris Pincher. Not heard a peep since his moment of unglory.
You say that like it is a bad thing. If we never hear from him again it will be too soon.
Could Biden and Trump cut a deal such that Trump pleads guilty to a third set of impeachment charges on the understanding that Biden pardons him on all his other criminal charges?
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Well on that basis there has never been a global hegemon. Not the US, which always faced competing powers, and certainly not your earlier suggestion of the Roman Empire, which only ever controlled about 4% of the globe.
In a pre globalist world such a hegemon could only ever be regional.
Agreed but it was Luckyguy1983 who dismissed British hegemony on the basis it wasn't global, whilst proposing the Romans instead.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Well on that basis there has never been a global hegemon. Not the US, which always faced competing powers, and certainly not your earlier suggestion of the Roman Empire, which only ever controlled about 4% of the globe.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, no power has even come close to rivalling the US, until the relatively recent emergence of China. Yes, not everyone gladly acknowledged American sway, but nobody has come close to challenging it, and the country's ability to project its will beyond its borders has been unprecedented, through diplomacy, its Government agencies, military bases etc. Britain never had this.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
Being less crap than the enemy is how you win wars.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
The performance of the British army from 1793 to 1808 was abysmal. The Royal Navy, by contrast, had driven its enemies from the seas, and maintained a close blockade of France and its satellites.
The army that Wellington forged, after 1808 (which had very strong Portugese, German and Spanish contingents), was outstanding. At the same time, British money and munitions were sustaining every member of every coalition that fought the French.
By 1812, the British military was so strong that we could hand the Americans their arses when they tried to invade Canada, at the same time as fighting Napoleon.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
I had never considered the second Boer War as the beginning of the end of British hegemony in the world, but perhaps you are right. I would antedate the start of British hegemony to the Severn Years War, with our seizure of the first French Empire and defeat of the Spanish Empire.
Re the beginning, yes, you're right. The 2nd Boer War, was also the time when the British had to scrap their naval strength and withdraw from the East and start again with the Dreadnoughts. The near starvation in 1916-17 shows very clearly that the British had come close to losing control.
The Boers lost the War, but by God, they won the peace.
It must be one of the stupidest wars we ever fought. We fought to take them over but it actually led to a reverse take over by them.
It'd have been much better for history if Cape Colony/Natal had developed into nascent multi-racial democracies with Newfoundland levels of self-government and then, eventually, the Transvaal/Orange Free State opted in to federate once they'd grown up.
Don't forget Ben Bradshaw's and Lloyd Russell-Moyne's behaviour in the Commons, particularly the latter's intimidation of a female MP.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
I very much hope those MPs will be deselected.
Bradshaw was apparently begged to restand in 2019, he has been a lonely Labour voice in the SW (though I think they have a few more now, even not counting Bristol), and I think won't be standing again.
Russell-Moyne is young and in a seat which is probably now safe as houses despite only being won in 2017. Unless he campaigns for an Independent Corbyn mayoralty or something I should think he would be safe.
Rusell-Moyle might be the most loathsome of all 650 MPs, and he faces some stiff competition.
Thinking on the various loathsome MPs (which honestly is not that high a percentrage, thankfully), it made me wonder what is up with Chris Pincher. Not heard a peep since his moment of unglory.
You say that like it is a bad thing. If we never hear from him again it will be too soon.
Well, I'd like to hear that he was kicked out the party, or de-selected, or facing a recall.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
Whilst it's slightly humiliating given the hegemonic status we ourselves used to have it's also rational and in our national interest.
No, we didn't. We were never the global hegemon. Even in our pomp, America, Russia, Germany, and France were very powerful, and there were many second rank powers like the Ottoman Empire, Italy, Spain, to rival us. We were unmatched at sea - we were never global hegemon, thank goodness.
Well on that basis there has never been a global hegemon. Not the US, which always faced competing powers, and certainly not your earlier suggestion of the Roman Empire, which only ever controlled about 4% of the globe.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, no power has even come close to rivalling the US, until the relatively recent emergence of China. Yes, not everyone gladly acknowledged American sway, but nobody has come close to challenging it, and the country's ability to project its will beyond its borders has been unprecedented, through diplomacy, its Government agencies, military bases etc. Britain never had this.
We'll have to disagree on this. British dominance throughout the 19th century was on a par with US dominance from 1918 onwards, imo.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Point one - we should never have allowed ourselves to get into this situation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - even with the best of intentions. The world's number 1 superpower (assisted by the world's second superpower) just unleashed a devastating global pandemic on us, killing more people than the holocaust. What is the redress for that? Where does one register one's complaint?
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
It's why I care about US politics and their domestic choices. It's why I disagree with @Luckyguy1983 when he points out it is none of our business. We are directly affected by the choices that America makes. Their withdrawal from Europe, pre Ukraine, materially affected our national security. They are back here now and we should be thankful for that but their attention will switch back to the Pacific soon enough. Its why we are so keen to play there. We want to remain relevant to them.
You make us sound like some sad old tart whose lover is going back to his wife. Russia bears the full moral responsibility for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the fact is that had the US *not* come into Europe two-footed again, Ukraine would still be an unhappy but nominally independent Russian satellite, not a warzone, Europe's economy would not have been shattered by an energy crisis, and thousands of people would still be alive. That being the net result of their attentions, being snubbed as an uninteresting backwater seems quite attractive.
Ukraine would be a warzone. Albeit, the war would be mostly partisan warfare on the Ukrainian side, matched by savage reprisals and ethnic cleansing, on the part of Russian forces.
And, in all likelihood, we would be on the point of a shooting war between Russia, on the one hand, and Poland and the Baltic States on the other. The world would be a frighteningly dangerous place.
Poland is arming itself to the teeth even under the current order.
Could Biden and Trump cut a deal such that Trump pleads guilty to a third set of impeachment charges on the understanding that Biden pardons him on all his other criminal charges?
Trump's ego would never let him. In any case how can someone be impeached when they are not in am elected post?
Also, short of a Presidential pardon for all offences, Biden would not be able to stop other jurisdictions prosecuting him.
Incidentally, I don't think Trump a Fascist, more a narcisstic populist with some fascist supporters.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
Being less crap than the enemy is how you win wars.
"You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by making the other son of a bitch die for HIS country!"
Could Biden and Trump cut a deal such that Trump pleads guilty to a third set of impeachment charges on the understanding that Biden pardons him on all his other criminal charges?
Trump's ego would never let him. In any case how can someone be impeached when they are not in am elected post?
Also, short of a Presidential pardon for all offences, Biden would not be able to stop other jurisdictions prosecuting him.
Incidentally, I don't think Trump a Fascist, more a narcisstic populist with some fascist supporters.
Biden could only pardon for federal offences, so could not pardon for all offences?
The pardon power, and its potential lack of limits, is really worrisome.
I'm not sure it's recognised (probably because we don't admit it to ourselves) just how much the might of the US underpins the entire Western, nay global, order. Checking Russia, China, securing the IMF, UN, World Bank, WTO, OSCE. Everything.
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
The world will usually have a hegemon. As hegemons go, the US is about the most benign.
Who was the last one? It wasn't Britain. I think you have to go back to the Romans. I don't think having a hegemon is a usual or healthy state.
Most certainly was. 1815-1900 or so. Till the Boers shattered the illusion.
It was - in particular- from 1815 to 1870, economically and politically, and that dominance was absolutely akin to the USA today, which is what counts.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That is the salient point though. Britain had a lot of power to 'rule the waves' and keep trade going (to our own advantage), but no capacity whatever to intervene in the internal matters of the US, Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the Netherlands, etc. There was not the gulf in material wealth and military power between us and rivals that allowed us to exercise hegemonic influence. When we did bring force to bear, it was always against less developed opponents - till WW1, and we all know how that went.
We did defeat Russia in the Crimea, the Americans were too preoccupied with their own affairs (and a civil war) to do much, Germany didn't really exist and Austria-Hungary was occupied in the Balkans. The economic system was dominated by Britain and organised as such that any rival power would have to back down, save France, and that did influence their internal affairs on everything from free trade to abolition of the slave trade.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
The performance of the British army from 1793 to 1808 was abysmal. The Royal Navy, by contrast, had driven its enemies from the seas, and maintained a close blockade of France and its satellites.
The army that Wellington forged, after 1808 (which had very strong Portugese, German and Spanish contingents), was outstanding. At the same time, British money and munitions were sustaining every member of every coalition that fought the French.
By 1812, the British military was so strong that we could hand the Americans their arses when they tried to invade Canada, at the same time as fighting Napoleon.
Wellington was exceptional but there's not much I can find to write home about regarding its performance in the wars from 1820s onwards.
The British Army seemed to value only breeding and valour and, whilst often enough to win battles against inferior enemies, it was by no means a polished or well-led force.
Comments
I'm frustrated that Sunak does Boris Johnsonesque lies.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/25/sunak-used-incorrect-asylum-backlog-figures-statistics-watchdog-says
Today's Times has Tory MPs saying what I said last month, Suank is overpromising on boats and going to underdeliver (and also other Tory MPs moaning about the military bases being used in their constituencies.)
He's done well on a few things, Northern Ireland, a bit of sanity on the fiscal/tax front, general competence, the Imperial Veto on the GRR.
Edit - Every day he keeps Braverman at the Home Office is a stain on him and his premiership.
I'll start, just to help out like:
Passing off subsamples as full blown polls
Being rude about Smithson Sr
Annoying a moderator
No-one else could do it, even if we all banded together. Everyone.
That means if they go down, we go down. It will become a multipolar world where might will make right, and we don't have the might nor the self-confidence that using it would be right.
Thankfully, I don't think that likely.
Singlestick duel at dawn for that base calumny.
At that point it is a rather semantic debate and the way it is labelled a marginal issue.
He runs the site and puts in the hours all year round - for free - so you can broadcast your bullshit below the line to a wider audience than it you could ever otherwise hope to have.
Don't like it? Get your own blog.
By the end of it, Daenerys was about the only major character I sympathised with. That was absolutely not the intention of the show runners.
For your list, but not fully exhaustive
Don't be rude about Smithson Jnr
Deliberately/repeatedly posting incorrect polling/betting info
Don't post defamatory things that will get Smithson Snr into trouble
Don't drop the c bomb
Don't repeatedly violate paywalled content (most serious legal letters OGH has received is to do with this.)
Who knew?!
Questioning the genius of Ok Computer.
Not being SeanT
This piece from 40 years ago springs to mind:
https://youtu.be/8nxo0fS2VMM
Point two - having got ourselves here, we must make every effort to be able to defend our islands, rather than be dependent on the US, and then if they withdraw from the scene, have to somehow flutter our eyelashes at the Chinese. You make us sound like some sad old tart whose lover is going back to his wife. Russia bears the full moral responsibility for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the fact is that had the US *not* come into Europe two-footed again, Ukraine would still be an unhappy but nominally independent Russian satellite, not a warzone, Europe's economy would not have been shattered by an energy crisis, and thousands of people would still be alive. That being the net result of their attentions, being snubbed as an uninteresting backwater seems quite attractive.
A serious coup would have involved thousands of the army moving in to “restore order.”
Only you can resolve that conundrum.
Strange that you're blustering (yet again) about whether someone should 'broadcast their bullshit' on PB or not, hadn't realised you had even the tiniest say about who posts here.
In the meantime I will do my best to represent him where I can - but my knowledge of Hampshire is not as good as his, being a Surrey man myself.
The same for his excellent SW London knowledge. I am a fellow SW Londoner but living in Putney Bridge rather than over the river, I do not have as much knowledge as him.
I will try my best.
Being in the position of a supplicant is not great. I wish we weren't. But we need American power to protect us and reduce the threat of China to our independence and freedom to make choices. That is the real world so what goes on there matters to us.
I believe @CorrectHorseBattery3 was a software engineer (?). I myself am a Software Developer
Wainwright: I've got this mean streak, see. I know it's despicable, but I'm prejudiced.
McLaren: Oh, that'll make a nice change.
Wainwright: Oh, sonny Jim, I'm not just prejudiced against your lot. Oh no. I'm prejudiced against liberals, longhairs, pillheads, whinos, queens, slags, squealers, pikeys, and greaseballs! [To Godber] Are you in there, sonny?
Fletcher: Isn't everybody?
Wainwright: Quiet Fletcher, I was talking to the boy! I said, are you in there?
Godber: Don't think so, I'm Church of England.
Unfortunately, while you also get it on the Right, there does tend to be a larger tendency on the Left whose first question is "who did it?" rather than "is the action wrong?" before deciding to take a judgement.
I do have a say in response to whoever posts here, and that's only by the grace of OGH.
That the thought even occurred to you puts you on a watchlist.
At no stage during that time could we have fielded a massive land army to defeat a rival power. But, we didn't need to do so.
That'd be like calling an opposing side in a war of two sides the League of the Unaligned.
Now, some might argue a kind of resigned 'Unfortunately that's the way the world works' in respect of a nation feeling the need to buckle under that kind of pressure. But it wouldn't be neutrality if they agreed in that circumstance.
And, in all likelihood, we would be on the point of a shooting war between Russia, on the one hand, and Poland and the Baltic States on the other. The world would be a frighteningly dangerous place.
This is a huge moment from Starmer.
Russell-Moyne is young and in a seat which is probably now safe as houses despite only being won in 2017. Unless he campaigns for an Independent Corbyn mayoralty or something I should think he would be safe.
The British Army (note: not the Indian Army) was consistently pretty crap. It won in the Crimera only because Russia was far worse and in the Boer War it was initially abominable.
It only really started to professionalise in the run up to WW1.
Being hegemonic doesn't mean always winning.
The army that Wellington forged, after 1808 (which had very strong Portugese, German and Spanish contingents), was outstanding. At the same time, British money and munitions were sustaining every member of every coalition that fought the French.
By 1812, the British military was so strong that we could hand the Americans their arses when they tried to invade Canada, at the same time as fighting Napoleon.
It'd have been much better for history if Cape Colony/Natal had developed into nascent multi-racial democracies with Newfoundland levels of self-government and then, eventually, the Transvaal/Orange Free State opted in to federate once they'd grown up.
Given their history, I can't say I blame them.
Also, short of a Presidential pardon for all offences, Biden would not be able to stop other jurisdictions prosecuting him.
Incidentally, I don't think Trump a Fascist, more a narcisstic populist with some fascist supporters.
The pardon power, and its potential lack of limits, is really worrisome.
The British Army seemed to value only breeding and valour and, whilst often enough to win battles against inferior enemies, it was by no means a polished or well-led force.