Log in to discover that HY is already balls-deep in defending the opium trade.
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
It's not that indefensible is it? My understanding from prolonged study of the primary sources (Flashman) is it was the Chinese fat cats who opposed it because it affected the amount of labour they could extort from the oppressed underclass. Certainly de Quincey says it was immensely popular among the Manchester mill workers and the chemists had a real job distinguishing recreational users (fine to sell to) from wannabe suicides
My impression is that a very high proportion of the British early Victorian population was off its head on opium a lot of the time.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
I wonder how many people are more upset by the exploitation of cotton workers in the 18th century than they are of the exploitation of cotton workers who have actually produced the clothes they currently wear:
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
A problem which persists in the modern world. We buy lots of stuff from countries with awful human rights records.
Very true.
But my dig was at Andy JS's absurd thesis that there was "nil" correlation between slavery and the industrial revolution.
There were certainly connections, as there always has been throughout history until the present day.
There are very few of us who aren't benefitting from the exploitation of others but now we prefer it to be done as far away as possible.
The violent enslavement of people in West Africa and their brutal exploitation in the plantations of the West Indies and Southern USA was quite far away from most of the direct & indirect beneficiaries tbf. The stench from the occasional slave ship in Bristol was about as close as they got.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Just for clarity are you saying that if something is legal in a country then it is morally ok to do it in that country?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
All ok if legal?
Yes. From a religious ethics perspective. Because that is what that religion dictates (cf witches in Europe/US).
Once you buy into the whole religious thing you can't apply logic or "what is right" to anything because religion creates its own rules and morality.
In deciding what is right the question of God in itself is irrelevant, as Plato spotted when he asked "Does God command X because it is right, or is X right because God commands it?"
People claim to act in XYand Z ways because God commands it; in every case (apart from insane people) this is false. Ludicrous Christian fundamentalists claim to believe and follow the Bible as God's commands, and then ignore the racial genocides in the Old Testament, and thankfully, fail to follow them. Just as they are opposed to gays, but don't propose killing them.
Was my point. Once you introduce religion, logic goes out of the window. And everyone is right because it is their interpretation of the bible or god's word or whatever.
You say "apart from insane people"...and have drawn a line one side of which are the insane people and the other, your side are the sane, sensible ones. If you have a million religious people then there will be a million lines drawn.
Yet more Ulez-x whining this morning from the PB Bumpkins (Non London Division).
Again. AGAIN. It’s been in force inside the North Circ for 18 MONTHS. It’s working well.
Get. It. Done.
And south circular! I bought a new (second hand) car and got on with it. We are already reaping the benefits in terms of cleaner air.
It's another manifestation of the lack of investment mindset.
No question that there are upfront costs. But some would rather go for the cheaper option of continuing to make life worse for other people.
And yes, the pollution problem is less bad by the time you get to the edge of London. But the only two boundaries that work traffic wise are the N/S Circular and the M25. And the circle of the circulars is too small- especially on the south side.
One other thought; aren't people who quibble and chase a decision they don't like through the courts the bad guys? Enemies of the people?
The new zone isnt particularly aligned to the m25, especially in Herts and Surrey.
Are you against my modifications of:
7am-7pm £5 in expanded zone, phasing the price increase to full fare over 5 years but keeping the hours £3000 scrappage available for all who live in the zone First 2 visits free to avoid fines for once a year drivers
These would see more of the bad cars scrapped, shift traffic away from congestion times, support the evening and nighttime economies, be fairer and focus on growing support for the policy instead of winning but dividing into the enlightened and numpties.
Too sensible and intelligent for politicians.
The ULEZ scheme, because it runs off number plates has detail on the vehicle and the owner.
I’d have targeted pollution - large vehicles, with particular issues, with higher charges.
You could have scrapage targeted at residents or people who work in the area on lower incomes.
The current scheme is the simple solution - one big hammer. So it will, inevitably, hit some quite poor people.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
It's certainly historical though, given most Christians for a long time didn't seem to think slavery was against His message either.
Bit weird to see that same logical argument (aint no rule against x) advanced here and now though.
Interesting though typically lazy article, shooting off random half facts. The point he misses is that within western democratic culture generally there are a number of ways of running a country, with varying degrees of state, private, corporate and legislative engagement. These have left/right/conservative/liberal etc labels. All are flawed. All are OK in parts. All have points, from Texas to Norway.
Joe Public the voter is little interested in the nice distinctions. What we notice is competence of delivery by government and the integrity of parliament. If you fail to house people, bankrupt the young, miss every target, act dishonourably, fail to keep promises, address the extremes and raise taxes people will look elsewhere.
There are reasons why the current Overton window veers towards anything but the current government. It is both useless in delivery and no-one has any idea what its care principles are. Allister heath can't tell us either.
This government has become so inept that it doesn't even boast about its successful acheivments.
If I was them I'd continually mention full employment and 300k extra NHS workers since 2019.
But it probably thinks the first is a bad thing and doesn't know about the second.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
And, of course, the following day Johnson himself was forced to resign. Oh, blessed day!
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
’When we said he deserved twelve months, that wasn’t what we meant.’
Log in to discover that HY is already balls-deep in defending the opium trade.
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
It's not that indefensible is it? My understanding from prolonged study of the primary sources (Flashman) is it was the Chinese fat cats who opposed it because it affected the amount of labour they could extort from the oppressed underclass. Certainly de Quincey says it was immensely popular among the Manchester mill workers and the chemists had a real job distinguishing recreational users (fine to sell to) from wannabe suicides
My impression is that a very high proportion of the British early Victorian population was off its head on opium a lot of the time.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
For all the claims of 'Boris betrays everyone' he was bizarrely supportive of people who caused him trouble.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
And, of course, the following day Johnson himself was forced to resign. Oh, blessed day!
‘So thou hast slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!’ He chortled in his joy.
(Although to be fair there’s far less nonsense in Jabberwocky than comes out of Johnson’s mouth.)
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
I wonder how many people are more upset by the exploitation of cotton workers in the 18th century than they are of the exploitation of cotton workers who have actually produced the clothes they currently wear:
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
A problem which persists in the modern world. We buy lots of stuff from countries with awful human rights records.
Very true.
But my dig was at Andy JS's absurd thesis that there was "nil" correlation between slavery and the industrial revolution.
There were certainly connections, as there always has been throughout history until the present day.
There are very few of us who aren't benefitting from the exploitation of others but now we prefer it to be done as far away as possible.
Nah, just out of sight will be fine.
But clothes being made by children in a Bangladeshi sweatshop would be better.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
Yes, he did all those conservative things, like overturning tables in the Temple and being arrested by the authorities for breaking the law.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
For all the claims of 'Boris betrays everyone' he was bizarrely supportive of people who caused him trouble.
That includes the dreadful Stanley.
Theory is Boris Johnson is forgiving of sexual indiscretions because well.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
For all the claims of 'Boris betrays everyone' he was bizarrely supportive of people who caused him trouble.
That includes the dreadful Stanley.
From the Guardian Pincher piece. ...Johnson does not seem to have changed his view. The journalist Julia Macfarlane asked him in a recent interview if he regretted how he handled this affair and, as she told the News Agents podcast yesterday, he just pretended to fall asleep in response...
Log in to discover that HY is already balls-deep in defending the opium trade.
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
It's not that indefensible is it? My understanding from prolonged study of the primary sources (Flashman) is it was the Chinese fat cats who opposed it because it affected the amount of labour they could extort from the oppressed underclass. Certainly de Quincey says it was immensely popular among the Manchester mill workers and the chemists had a real job distinguishing recreational users (fine to sell to) from wannabe suicides
My impression is that a very high proportion of the British early Victorian population was off its head on opium a lot of the time.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
And, of course, the following day Johnson himself was forced to resign. Oh, blessed day!
‘So thou hast slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!’ He chortled in his joy.
(Although to be fair there’s far less nonsense in Jabberwocky than comes out of Johnson’s mouth.)
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
It's something that tends to get overlooked as a narrative is rewritten about how Tory MPs decided to listen to the woke lefty illuminati and force Boris out for no reason.
He got ousted because he kept lying and getting caught lying, forcing MPs to defend his shit, and they got sick of it.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
Yes, he did all those conservative things, like overturning tables in the Temple and being arrested by the authorities for breaking the law.
So he fucked business and got done by the rozzers for breaking their rules on gatherings?
Log in to discover that HY is already balls-deep in defending the opium trade.
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
It's not that indefensible is it? My understanding from prolonged study of the primary sources (Flashman) is it was the Chinese fat cats who opposed it because it affected the amount of labour they could extort from the oppressed underclass. Certainly de Quincey says it was immensely popular among the Manchester mill workers and the chemists had a real job distinguishing recreational users (fine to sell to) from wannabe suicides
My impression is that a very high proportion of the British early Victorian population was off its head on opium a lot of the time.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
And, of course, the following day Johnson himself was forced to resign. Oh, blessed day!
‘So thou hast slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!’ He chortled in his joy.
(Although to be fair there’s far less nonsense in Jabberwocky than comes out of Johnson’s mouth.)
On topic: I see that Donald Trump and Joe Biden are now equal ranked favs for their nominations at 1.5. My view that neither making it is more likely than both is getting thoroughly tested. Can I hold on? I think I can.
Interesting though typically lazy article, shooting off random half facts. The point he misses is that within western democratic culture generally there are a number of ways of running a country, with varying degrees of state, private, corporate and legislative engagement. These have left/right/conservative/liberal etc labels. All are flawed. All are OK in parts. All have points, from Texas to Norway.
Joe Public the voter is little interested in the nice distinctions. What we notice is competence of delivery by government and the integrity of parliament. If you fail to house people, bankrupt the young, miss every target, act dishonourably, fail to keep promises, address the extremes and raise taxes people will look elsewhere.
There are reasons why the current Overton window veers towards anything but the current government. It is both useless in delivery and no-one has any idea what its care principles are. Allister heath can't tell us either.
Great Post. The labels are mutable, people just care what works.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
You make it sound like it's a shame he was more keen on helping the poor as that's not socially conservative .
Log in to discover that HY is already balls-deep in defending the opium trade.
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
It's not that indefensible is it? My understanding from prolonged study of the primary sources (Flashman) is it was the Chinese fat cats who opposed it because it affected the amount of labour they could extort from the oppressed underclass. Certainly de Quincey says it was immensely popular among the Manchester mill workers and the chemists had a real job distinguishing recreational users (fine to sell to) from wannabe suicides
My impression is that a very high proportion of the British early Victorian population was off its head on opium a lot of the time.
Russian missile hit a residential building in Lviv, in the West of the courty near the Polish border, last night. Believed to be several civilians dead and wounded.
I am a bit confused. So, the report recommends 8 weeks. Then am I right that the Standards Committee then votes on that and can alter the recommendation? And then, presuming Pincher hasn't just resigned, it goes to a vote in the Commons?
On topic: I see that Donald Trump and Joe Biden are now equal ranked favs for their nominations at 1.5. My view that neither making it is more likely than both is getting thoroughly tested. Can I hold on? I think I can.
If 1.5 is correct.
Likelihood of neither making it 11% One of them 44% Both 44%
O/T but for PB Brains Trust - the mention of Jesus's teaching on bond portfolios reminds me that it's always a good idea to understand one's investments before one makes them.
I am getting confused about the merits of corporate bonds (and unit trusts etc. heavy on them) at the current time of high inflation and increasing bank rate. It seems to me that they are (a) riskier as the companies may be more likely to go bust and (b) not very good in terms of locking one into a lower rate when (c) one can get 4%+ and probably more soon in cash open access (for instance, I have just got a Bank Rate -0.7 tracker with Newcastle BS). Any views please?.
If interest rates eventually fall, the capital value of bonds will rise. So you need to take into account, not only the current yield on bonds, but the potential capital gain.
I’ve been up since 5am today, and have just finished my work in time for the start of the Ashes programme. Beer o’clock already, and looking forward to what the famously-polite Leeds crowd has to say, as the convicts take the field!
Weird, commentators who have spent almost a year referring to kangaroo committees, undermining the very process of member chastisement not simply the specific cases, don't seem to be doing so this morning. I guess when it's privileges it's totally different.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Just for clarity are you saying that if something is legal in a country then it is morally ok to do it in that country?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
All ok if legal?
Yes. From a religious ethics perspective. Because that is what that religion dictates (cf witches in Europe/US).
Once you buy into the whole religious thing you can't apply logic or "what is right" to anything because religion creates its own rules and morality.
In deciding what is right the question of God in itself is irrelevant, as Plato spotted when he asked "Does God command X because it is right, or is X right because God commands it?"
People claim to act in XYand Z ways because God commands it; in every case (apart from insane people) this is false. Ludicrous Christian fundamentalists claim to believe and follow the Bible as God's commands, and then ignore the racial genocides in the Old Testament, and thankfully, fail to follow them. Just as they are opposed to gays, but don't propose killing them.
Was my point. Once you introduce religion, logic goes out of the window. And everyone is right because it is their interpretation of the bible or god's word or whatever.
You say "apart from insane people"...and have drawn a line one side of which are the insane people and the other, your side are the sane, sensible ones. If you have a million religious people then there will be a million lines drawn.
Both religious and non religious (non theistic) ways of opinion forming do (from our point of view) egregiously wicked things. The history of Christianity when holding power, the Soviets, the regime in North Korea and China now all testify the same. For theists (I am one) belief in God may assist in opinion and action formation, but any divine command theory simply comes unstuck early on, as, unless you are insane, you in fact apply a filter to these 'divine' instructions.
As a contemporary example, English evangelicals are mostly anti gay. But are relaxed about divorce and remarriage. They look at the Bible and apply a filter. The New Testament, if you are a fundamentalist, is against both.
Thoughtful theists apply traditional texts texts, reason, experience and tradition in making judgements. Thoughtful non-theists go through something similar.
Log in to discover that HY is already balls-deep in defending the opium trade.
Didn't expect that on a cloudy Thursday morning.
It's not that indefensible is it? My understanding from prolonged study of the primary sources (Flashman) is it was the Chinese fat cats who opposed it because it affected the amount of labour they could extort from the oppressed underclass. Certainly de Quincey says it was immensely popular among the Manchester mill workers and the chemists had a real job distinguishing recreational users (fine to sell to) from wannabe suicides
My impression is that a very high proportion of the British early Victorian population was off its head on opium a lot of the time.
After they took the brandy out it tasted so revolting I refused to drink it any more.
Perhaps it's the alcoholic haze, but I don't recall.
Unlike Pincher, who will undoubtedly be recalled.
Ah, but unless he's admitted it he should use the Boris defence - if you do not believe my protestations of innocence that shows an outrageous level of bias and unfairness.
Everybody who had a chimney swept or used coal in the 19th century benefited from unfree labourers. If you read about the conditions faced by child chimney sweepers or coal miners in that era they are just as horrific to our modern sensibilities as those faced by slaves on sugar or coffee plantations, and they had about as much choice.
Let's just cancel everybody born before about 1940. It would do nothing to make any victim's life better, but would at least allow us to wallow in our smug moral superiority.
I am a bit confused. So, the report recommends 8 weeks. Then am I right that the Standards Committee then votes on that and can alter the recommendation? And then, presuming Pincher hasn't just resigned, it goes to a vote in the Commons?
Ah, no. The report from the Commissioner has gone to the Standards Committee and the Standards Committee has decided on 8 weeks as an appropriate suspension. This now has to be voted on.
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
I wonder how many people are more upset by the exploitation of cotton workers in the 18th century than they are of the exploitation of cotton workers who have actually produced the clothes they currently wear:
Yes, of course, the Industrial Revolution actually started in West Africa, went to Jamaica, via slaves, then evil Britons stole it away, and started their foundries in Coalbrookdale
It's probably bollocks but bigger picture-wise, the industrial revolution was probably largely inspired by slavery. People woke up to what unlimited cheap or free power could get you.
In reality the connection between slavery and the industrial revolution is probably nil.
Of course we didn't need cotton picked by slaves from the Southern states of the USA to ensure the mills of Lancashire ran smoothly. They could operate on fresh air which is why Boris Johnson's new clothes always looked so fine to Brexiteers.
A problem which persists in the modern world. We buy lots of stuff from countries with awful human rights records.
Very true.
But my dig was at Andy JS's absurd thesis that there was "nil" correlation between slavery and the industrial revolution.
Yes, that would be unsustainable.
Even when we switched to buying Egyptian cotton, it was being produced by unfree labourers.
Everybody who had a chimney swept or used coal in the 19th century benefited from unfree labourers. If you read about the conditions faced by child chimney sweepers or coal miners in that era they are just as horrific to our modern sensibilities as those faced by slaves on sugar or coffee plantations, and they had about as much choice.
And in Scotland in the 18th century the miners and saltmakers were actually unfree serfs or slaves. There is an interesting academic debate as to which term is more appropriate: but certainly they were in servitude, and tradable: there is an anecdote somewhere about a man later greeting a coal owner and saying "Don't you remember me? Your dad swapped me for a donkey". The system ended about 1800 I think.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
Everybody who had a chimney swept or used coal in the 19th century benefited from unfree labourers. If you read about the conditions faced by child chimney sweepers or coal miners in that era they are just as horrific to our modern sensibilities as those faced by slaves on sugar or coffee plantations, and they had about as much choice.
Let's just cancel everybody born before about 1940. It would do nothing to make any victim's life better, but would at least allow us to wallow in our smug moral superiority.
Or, more constructively, let's take away from this the message that things which are unacceptable can appear entirely acceptable to contemporaries, and examine our own world in that light.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
Mr Dancer. No one voted for him to be our Monarch. So he's truly nobody's King!
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
The total failure to understand Christ's whole message, teaching, ethos is truly astounding. Even for you.
I just don't interpret the Bible from a left liberal perspective unlike you
I'll be relieved when you have saved up for and read Volume 2: The New Testament.
Even Jesus was a social conservative, just forgiving of sinners who repented, yes he was more keen on helping the poor too but he also believed in thrift. See the parable of the talents
Laughable. Jesus was a radical, literally overthrowing the established order. And the parable of the talents extols a belief in thrift? Are you mad? The talent buried in the earth guy gets eviscerated.
It is as has been so obvious for ages. A holier than thou practitioner using religion to beat people with.
Everybody who had a chimney swept or used coal in the 19th century benefited from unfree labourers. If you read about the conditions faced by child chimney sweepers or coal miners in that era they are just as horrific to our modern sensibilities as those faced by slaves on sugar or coffee plantations, and they had about as much choice.
Let's just cancel everybody born before about 1940. It would do nothing to make any victim's life better, but would at least allow us to wallow in our smug moral superiority.
Or, more constructively, let's take away from this the message that things which are unacceptable can appear entirely acceptable to contemporaries, and examine our own world in that light.
I'm actually finding the JSO and the climate change movement an interesting comparison with slavery: not least the economic arguments, and the gradual vs immediate change arguments.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
The obvious explanation is that the people holding those signs were visiting from Norway and just wanted to clarify that King Harald V is their king, and not Charles.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
Mr Dancer. No one voted for him to be our Monarch. So he's truly nobody's King!
Not true, he got a universal thumbs up from the Accession Council.
I’ve been up since 5am today, and have just finished my work in time for the start of the Ashes programme. Beer o’clock already, and looking forward to what the famously-polite Leeds crowd has to say, as the convicts take the field!
[Sunil struggles to fight the urge to type "Yawwwwn!"]
Went well for the parasites in Edinburgh yesterday, popular as ever
Or alternatively a picture of a society in which a democratically elected parliament decides the constitutional settlement, which can be changed by abolishing the monarchy at any time, and where the monarch is open to any and every sort of lawful attack and doesn't answer back. The differences between this picture and North Korea are small but significant.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
It's down to me what I think about anybody. I don't think a Sir or Lord is anything at all and neither is a king. Sure, Chaz is the king, but I don't think of him as my king. He has zero influence on me, I'll never meet him and so he's not my king. You can think of him in any way you want.
Pincher report comes one year to the day after ‘resignations Wednesday’, which if you recall was triggered by Johnson’s blatant lie that he’d not been briefed about Pincher’s behaviour before appointing him as a whip.
For all the claims of 'Boris betrays everyone' he was bizarrely supportive of people who caused him trouble.
That includes the dreadful Stanley.
From the Guardian Pincher piece. ...Johnson does not seem to have changed his view. The journalist Julia Macfarlane asked him in a recent interview if he regretted how he handled this affair and, as she told the News Agents podcast yesterday, he just pretended to fall asleep in response...
I love this, but not for the reasons one might think. The Russians have mastered the art of using words as tools instead of means to transmit information. They sign treaties and brake them the next day, say things which they know to be false. Johnson has also grasped this. An interview should be a means of eliciting and extracting information, but Boris has grasped the meaninglessness of this and just avoids the question entirely, possibly by issuing meaningless phonemes or simply physically avoiding it.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
I know it is popular to blame immigration for British reluctance to invest capital, but I still make a distinction.
British wariness of capital investment seems to go back generations, and ultimately I want to blame a cultural nostalgia for feudalism. The British “dream” is to have other people run a business for you while you relax in your Georgian rectory…or even better, to just sell the business, invest the proceeds in property, and live off the rental income…
European migration, on the other hand, tended to be higher skilled, and - I maintain - improved overall firm productivity across very much most sectors.
I think you're right. The fantasy of many British people is to be "Lord/Lady of the Manor", living in a ridiculously large house or mansion, with lots of servants doing all your jobs for you so you never have to lift a finger.
I have always thought this - I even have a name for it - Lord of the Manor syndrome - it infects many areas of British life.
Was surprised and impressed to learn this about Canada the other day: like other countries they will give you citizenship if you are seriously loaded, can$ 10m in their case, but it has to be earned money. Inherited is no good.
I suppose they just have to hope that money doesn't turn out to have been earned from drug dealing.
Of course even the Canadian PM lives largely off inherited wealth, his own father being a previous PM, so they are a hardly a land made up solely of people going from poverty to riches either!
Drug dealing? Plenty posh folk in the UK inherited that money [edit]. Like anyoine whose forebears had East India Company stock or shares in many merchants to China in the C19.,
Yes but Opium was legal in those days
In China it wasn't. Hence the Opium War so we could force them to allow us to suck their people into addiction.
Yes but families in the UK who inherited funds from the Opium trade were inheriting funds made legally if they resided in the UK
You're supposed to be a Christian, remember. As well as believing in the rule of law. Or do furrin laws not count?
Nothing in the Bible against taking Opium, nor as I said was it illegal in the UK in the 19th century.
Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world today, so what? It is still legal in the UK
Just for clarity are you saying that if something is legal in a country then it is morally ok to do it in that country?
Some examples for you: Stoning homosexuals, depriving women of an education, exterminating people of a certain religion or race.
All ok if legal?
Legally it is OK in that nation.
If morally you want to remove all wealth and buildings and art funded from the Opium trade or slavery then there would not be many banks or family wealth or indeed historic buildings and sculptures and university colleges left.
What morals are in the 21st century UK were not exactly the same as those in previous centuries in the UK, many then would be shocked at levels of divorce or pre marital sex or homosexuality in today's UK for example
Confused by that answer.
I don't disagree with your 2nd para, but what has that got to do with it? I'm talking about the general principle that you espoused, which if it is legal then it is ok. I'm not talking about history. Lots of this stuff happened in the 20th century. It is even happening now all over the world. And legal in the countries it is practiced. Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Not true Malcolm, he gave an oath to the Church of Scotland at his Coronation. Not entirely clear what the performance in Edinburgh was about as a result. I am not so paranoid to think it was just to delay the conclusion of my current trial into next week (although it did have that effect).
Remember that the Union of the Crowns predated the Union of the Parliaments by a century. King Charles is also King of a large number of independent countries. Whilst you can argue about what his mother should have been called there is no doubt that he is the third King of Scots called Charles.
Comments
You say "apart from insane people"...and have drawn a line one side of which are the insane people and the other, your side are the sane, sensible ones. If you have a million religious people then there will be a million lines drawn.
I’d have targeted pollution - large vehicles, with particular issues, with higher charges.
You could have scrapage targeted at residents or people who work in the area on lower incomes.
The current scheme is the simple solution - one big hammer. So it will, inevitably, hit some quite poor people.
Chris Pincher should be suspended from Commons for eight weeks over ‘grave’ sexual misconduct, report says
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/jul/06/keir-starmer-class-ceiling-labour-debating-conservatives-chris-pincher-uk-politics-latest
They’ve selected the sitting MP for Walsall North as candidate.
Bit weird to see that same logical argument (aint no rule against x) advanced here and now though.
If I was them I'd continually mention full employment and 300k extra NHS workers since 2019.
But it probably thinks the first is a bad thing and doesn't know about the second.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripe_water
With the alcohol, back then.
That includes the dreadful Stanley.
14 years is not a bad run as far as time in office goes.
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!’
He chortled in his joy.
(Although to be fair there’s far less nonsense in Jabberwocky than comes out of Johnson’s mouth.)
But clothes being made by children in a Bangladeshi sweatshop would be better.
...Johnson does not seem to have changed his view. The journalist Julia Macfarlane asked him in a recent interview if he regretted how he handled this affair and, as she told the News Agents podcast yesterday, he just pretended to fall asleep in response...
He got ousted because he kept lying and getting caught lying, forcing MPs to defend his shit, and they got sick of it.
Sounds pretty conservative to me.
https://t.co/9yl1MT6Eu4 (Yay, Twitter links are working again!)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/07/06/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant/
Likelihood of neither making it 11%
One of them 44%
Both 44%
As a contemporary example, English evangelicals are mostly anti gay. But are relaxed about divorce and remarriage. They look at the Bible and apply a filter. The New Testament, if you are a fundamentalist, is against both.
Thoughtful theists apply traditional texts texts, reason, experience and tradition in making judgements. Thoughtful non-theists go through something similar.
Let's just cancel everybody born before about 1940. It would do nothing to make any victim's life better, but would at least allow us to wallow in our smug moral superiority.
https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/robs-if-its-nae-scottish-its-crap--53691420530650246/
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!"
It's too hot - "Not my winter!"
You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
It is as has been so obvious for ages. A holier than thou practitioner using religion to beat people with.
NEW THREAD
This thread has just been recalled
I don't disagree with your 2nd para, but what has that got to do with it? I'm talking about the general principle that you espoused, which if it is legal then it is ok. I'm not talking about history. Lots of this stuff happened in the 20th century. It is even happening now all over the world. And legal in the countries it is practiced. Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right
Remember that the Union of the Crowns predated the Union of the Parliaments by a century. King Charles is also King of a large number of independent countries. Whilst you can argue about what his mother should have been called there is no doubt that he is the third King of Scots called Charles.