Mid Beds update. I've just received an email from the LibDems. They think the latest poll is great! Compared to the June poll it shows Labour have "stalled", adding just 0.8% whereas the LibDems have added 6.5%.
Frankly, looking at their bar chart it doesn't matter, as the Tories have added 4.8%...
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
An heir would certainly have made opposition to a permanent restoration of Catholicism very hard indeed. Mary was a remarkable figure who is historically underrated for what might have been. Even heiress, had she possessed Elizabeth's longevity, history would have been massively different.
What would England have been without the Elizabethan age ?
It didn't stop Scotland becoming largely Protestant.
Perhaps we would have had an earlier civil war and a Presbyterian church as they did.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
On terminology: In the US, books for teenagers used to be called "juveniles". For example, the series Robert Heinlein wrote for Scribners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein_bibliography (I think some of them, for example, "Farmer in the Sky", "The Star Beast", and "Have Space Suit, Will Travel", are among his best works.)
Now they would be called books for "young adults".
Neither seems exactly right, but I can't think of a good alternative.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA
China
USSR (pending VAR)
I would dispute China - they are only a regional superpower in my view
Spain has an argument to be included as the first global superpower
'Global' is an unfair qualifier before 1495 anyway.
Imperial Rome was undoubtedly the superpower of it's time; the Mongol Empire of the 13th century similarly was a superpower imo.
It's not 'unfair' - rather a deferent category which didn't previously exist.
As an aside, I was surprised to discover that the relatively small tourist city in S Korea I'm currently visiting, was, as the capital of the unified Silla kingdom, for a time the fourth largest city in the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Silla
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
Mary Queen of Scots was backed by France and Spain so may still have arranged a marriage for her son to the daughter of the Catholic English heir or her own marriage to the heir.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Taylor Swift is fab! I love her
She’s one of the last of the fashioned pop stars who writes good tunes, with memorable lyrics, that actualiy say something meaningful, and don’t drone on and on like a 6 year old about hos bitches drugs and motherfuckers, and she is also rather attractive and she plays it herself
She would have been a middling talent in the glut of the 60s-90s, but with today’s meagre offering, she is huge. Like, say, Canaletto re the Renaissance
Yes, quite chuffed with getting the tickets. Though I'm not her biggest fan I think this is going to be one of those tours that people will talk about for a long time so glad to be going and have that experience. I know a few people from work who have been to it in the US and they've all said it's incredible 3h long set, she does all of the big hitter classics, all of the crowd pleasers and generally gives the fans what they want.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Ancient Rome were the first superpower.
They were not a global superpower - and there are several previous civilisations with equivalent regional power to Rome.
They were not a global superpower, but they were a superpower.
The UK was probably the first global superpower (Spain never really got going in Asia AFAIK) but Rome were a superpower for its day.
"From 1565 to 1821, the Philippines was governed as part of the Mexico-based Viceroyalty of New Spain until the independence of the Mexican Empire from Spain in 1821. This resulted in direct Spanish control during a period of governmental instability there. The Philippines was under direct royal governance from 1821 to 1898."
What you saw after 1790 was not so much the decline of Spain as the collapse of Spain. Three men, Carlos IV, Ferdinand VII, and Manuel Godoy, wrecked the place.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
The 1960s had moments of Edwardian or Pre-War nostalgia - Your Mother Should Know. Or maybe it is simply a fondness for the “nursery”.
American nostalgia tends to be antediluvian. John Wesley Harding, the Night they Drove Ole Dixie Down. When men were men etc
Maybe it's as simple as recording technology.
When music from the 60s to the 80s paid tribute to earlier times, it had to be indirect hat-tipping. Because the actual recordings were rare and rubbish.
Whereas now, we have perfect digital recordings, so what's left for the music writers of today to do? Child 2 (aged 10) has just discovered Duran Duran and is entranced.
Definitely true pre-1925 or so: you recorded on wax by shouting into a horn. After 1925 the electrical method meant the quality of recordings was no longer audibly limited for recorded live performances: radio and speaker tech being the common limited factor. You still couldn't multitrack without repeatedly recording over the same wax, though.
Then after the war (no joke), Bing Crosby paid to convert a looted Nazi tape recorder, gave one of the first ones to Les Paul, and suddenly there were clean multitrack recordings.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Clapton was a boring session guitarist who ripped off proper bluesmen, indulged in casual racism and wrote some trite, mawkish bobbins. I’ve never understood his ‘legend’ status (see also, for different reasons, Rod Stewart).
He didn’t even do the riff on his most famous song.
Amidst the incandescent talent in British music of the 60s I have no idea why he’s remembered as anything other than a footnote.
Try out for size his guitar work on his version of JJ Cale's "Cocaine".
His politics may be less wholesome. He used to be seen at the Hawthorns occasionally during the "Three Degrees" years. It was said he was a Chelsea fan (figures) but after a Playboy interview which hinted at a less than positive attitude to (shall we say) the Windrush generation, following Cunningham, Regis and Batson at West Brom was his redemption. See his Baggies scarf on his wrist on the back of the Slowhand album.
I have seen his very nice house in Antigua, so maybe my story is simply. urban legend
Mid Beds update. I've just received an email from the LibDems. They think the latest poll is great! Compared to the June poll it shows Labour have "stalled", adding just 0.8% whereas the LibDems have added 6.5%.
Frankly, looking at their bar chart it doesn't matter, as the Tories have added 4.8%...
5/12 of don’t knows returning to Tory? Sees plausible
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
China's ascent began when the sane was true of it. Whether India will do something similar is very much an open question. Similarly with Brazil.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
Back in the day, widespread poverty mattered less, in terms of power projection, than it does today. Everyone was dirt poor. Today, logistics aren’t everything in war, but they’re almost everything.
Despite looking impressive on paper, India’s armed forces might actually not be very impressive in combat, simply because they can’t afford good equipment.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Taylor Swift is fab! I love her
She’s one of the last of the fashioned pop stars who writes good tunes, with memorable lyrics, that actualiy say something meaningful, and don’t drone on and on like a 6 year old about hos bitches drugs and motherfuckers, and she is also rather attractive and she plays it herself
She would have been a middling talent in the glut of the 60s-90s, but with today’s meagre offering, she is huge. Like, say, Canaletto re the Renaissance
I remember being in a café in St John’s Wood (around 2010) having been to see a house with my fiancé and there was a commotion with flashbulbs and in walked this throng of people with a very tall and pretty young girl. I had no idea who she was until I got back to the hotel and on tv they were showing this new singing sensation called Taylor Swift who was in London doing interviews etc. she was very very striking in the flesh - not my type but quite remarkable. She can make music too.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
Mary Queen of Scots was backed by France and Spain so may still have arranged a marriage for her son to the daughter of the Catholic English heir or her own marriage to the heir.
None of which would have made a union of the crowns. MQOS son James would be the king of Scotland, and the son (or daughter if no son) of Mary and Philip would be the English monarch.
The significance of James VI/I being king of both cannot be underestimated in Scotland and England eventually (and of course permanently) becoming parts of a single state.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
I'd have assumed Ms Truss was more of a Miley Cyrus fan, considering the way she came in like a wrecking ball.
Or Britney, given that her fiscal plans turned out to be toxic to the markets.
Or Cher?
She thought she was Strong Enough and all she had to do was just Believe, but was no doubt thinking afterwards If I Could Turn Back Time?
Truss might be thinking You Haven't Seen The Last Of Me (confession: I looked that one up) but the Conservative membership will probably want their next leader to be someone who is suitably aggressive towards Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
An heir would certainly have made opposition to a permanent restoration of Catholicism very hard indeed. Mary was a remarkable figure who is historically underrated for what might have been. Even heiress, had she possessed Elizabeth's longevity, history would have been massively different.
What would England have been without the Elizabethan age ?
It didn't stop Scotland becoming largely Protestant.
Perhaps we would have had an earlier civil war and a Presbyterian church as they did.
Scotland's Mary had nothing of Mary Tudor's political nous.
Bing emerges in the late 20s using electrical recording to "croon", i.e. using wider dynamic range, not shouting at the recorder or the audience. Sinatra follows and has the youth factor on his side: the first celebrity pop star, if we have to choose one. Soon as Sinatra makes his mark, performer credit switches from the bandleader "and his orchestra" to the singer. That's a sign that the recordings were high-quality enough that the personality and traits of a fine singer could shine through, whereas previously you had demand for a half-dozen covers of the same song, one per label.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
The 1960s had moments of Edwardian or Pre-War nostalgia - Your Mother Should Know. Or maybe it is simply a fondness for the “nursery”.
American nostalgia tends to be antediluvian. John Wesley Harding, the Night they Drove Ole Dixie Down. When men were men etc
Maybe it's as simple as recording technology.
When music from the 60s to the 80s paid tribute to earlier times, it had to be indirect hat-tipping. Because the actual recordings were rare and rubbish.
Whereas now, we have perfect digital recordings, so what's left for the music writers of today to do? Child 2 (aged 10) has just discovered Duran Duran and is entranced.
I think this points to a key second plank.
The drives forward of the 1960's to the 1980's didn't just depend on ideas of the political future which had diminished by the early 1990's, but also what now looks like quite a quaint idea of the avant-garde, from our point of view. It's much more difficult to incubate an alternative culture and release it on the mainstream when not only is there no longer much intellectual or political support for this idea, but everything is visible to much of the world, much of the time, through global interconnectedness and information technology. This includes not only both our internet storehouse of all past cultures and musics, which understandably sharpens the focus and interest on what has already made and completed, but also the immediate international visibility of whatever is new.
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
Nigeria is not a “fabulously talented and dynamic country”, FFS
It is no better than Egypt: it is an African country with a lot of people. That’s it
For a possibly rising African country I’d look to Morocco, or possibly Ethiopia (despite its many problems)
I have managed to secure 2 tickets to the final night of the Eras tour at Wembley, I haven't told my wife yet. She thinks we missed out but one of my colleagues managed to get 4 tickets from somewhere and has given me two of them.
I think this is probably going to be the best birthday present she's ever had, by August baby number 2 will be old enough to have my mum come and stay to look after it as well as the first one.
I'm legit excited for her, the only downside is that she's definitely going to give me a crash course on Taylor Swift, which I'm not sure I'm going to enjoy.
Who are the Eras?
LOL. That, I have to say, was my first thought.
Is this Ms Taylor popular with younger people?
Popular with Ms Truss, apparently. But haters gonna hate.
Meanwhile, in boring news, the Conservatives can't shake off the sense of impending doom.
Bing emerges in the late 20s using electrical recording to "croon", i.e. using wider dynamic range, not shouting at the recorder or the audience. Sinatra follows and has the youth factor on his side: the first celebrity pop star, if we have to choose one. Soon as Sinatra makes his mark, performer credit switches from the bandleader "and his orchestra" to the singer. That's a sign that the recordings were high-quality enough that the personality and traits of a fine singer could shine through, whereas previously you had demand for a half-dozen covers of the same song, one per label.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; loss of confidence, postmodernism, and recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
Something in this.
When I moved to New York I observed that all the shops and sports bars seemed to be playing “Greatest Hits of 1986”. It’s like they decided that was the best greatest of times, and decided to stay there.
Because they are probably right. Art forms rise and fall. Pop music almost certainly peaked between Hard Day’s Night and something-in-the-noughties
It is complexly related to demographics, media, politics, you name it, but it is over and done
Lyric poetry peaked with the English romantics. No one even writes it now, even though poetry was once so dominant the Times would dedicate two pages to a new work by Tennyson
As I was driving to the Languedoc I listened to Joni Mitchell’s Both Sides Now. it is hard to imagine anyone writing something simultaneously so exquisite, so personal, so pure and simple, yet so universal and also so intimate, and then ALSO performing it, with such grace
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
But that economic rise is limited because those rural poor have not been given a role in India's big economic gains. If well over 50% of the nation's workers won't benefit from an economic boom then that limits the potential quite substantially. Whatever one thinks of China, they ensured high participation in their boom by ensuring ordinary workers benefited from it. India's boom is enriching a few people at the top like Ambani and his cronies but ordinary people are still eking out a living on the margins.
The other part is that India is a democracy, there's no way for the state to expropriate labour from rural areas and dump them in factories like China did at the beginning of the boom, those people have to want to go.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
No wonder your generation doesn’t have any sex and barely registers on the testosterone-o-meter
if you have an age of consent, you have an age of consent. What are you gonna do, barge into hotel bedrooms saying aha! She is but 19 and you are 31, you must go to prison for 63 years!
In many countries the age of consent is 18, albeit there's an exception for prosecution for those of comparable ages.
Quite frankly 16 year olds are children, anyone middle aged or older sleeping with them is wrong.
Please list the countries with an age of consent of 18, and I believe you - even you - will realise the insanity of your argument
Most states of America. India, Turkiye and many more have a simply age of consent of 18, but that's not what I said.
In Germany the unrestricted age of consent is 18, like I said in my post you responded to there's a younger age of consent if both parties are under 21 but if one party is over 21 then it can be illegal.
The UK too the unrestricted age of consent is 18, sex with 16-17 year old children can be illegal in some circumstances. Same in France, Japan, Spain, Canada, Korea, Netherlands, Switzerland and many more.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
Does it? In what sense? The UK hasn't even agreed a trade deal with India yet and in military terms NATO is more important to the UK regionally than India, even if it can help contain China
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
Mary Queen of Scots was backed by France and Spain so may still have arranged a marriage for her son to the daughter of the Catholic English heir or her own marriage to the heir.
None of which would have made a union of the crowns. MQOS son James would be the king of Scotland, and the son (or daughter if no son) of Mary and Philip would be the English monarch.
The significance of James VI/I being king of both cannot be underestimated in Scotland and England eventually (and of course permanently) becoming parts of a single state.
James could have married a daughter of Mary and Philip
Labour and the Libs are going to pay big style for the inability to forge a deal on Mid Beds. Naive in the extreme, the Tory will come through the middle.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
Nigeria is not a “fabulously talented and dynamic country”, FFS
It is no better than Egypt: it is an African country with a lot of people. That’s it
For a possibly rising African country I’d look to Morocco, or possibly Ethiopia (despite its many problems)
The tech scene in Nigeria is quite strong. Stronger than I'm aware of any other. Quite possibly selection bias of my area of tech/industry - but it's quite noticeable.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
Mary Queen of Scots was backed by France and Spain so may still have arranged a marriage for her son to the daughter of the Catholic English heir or her own marriage to the heir.
None of which would have made a union of the crowns. MQOS son James would be the king of Scotland, and the son (or daughter if no son) of Mary and Philip would be the English monarch.
The significance of James VI/I being king of both cannot be underestimated in Scotland and England eventually (and of course permanently) becoming parts of a single state.
James could have married a daughter of Mary and Philip
I'm regretting taking any part in starting this, because of all the bizarre counterfactuals we've had on PB over the years, this is definitely getting towards the top.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
This was little nostalgia for the 1950's in the 1960's and '70s, in my sometimes very young and not-quite-as-young memories. There was a period when there was a genuinely unique level of optimism.
It took about 20 years to wear off, from about 1973, I would say.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
Nigeria is not a “fabulously talented and dynamic country”, FFS
It is no better than Egypt: it is an African country with a lot of people. That’s it
For a possibly rising African country I’d look to Morocco, or possibly Ethiopia (despite its many problems)
Nigeria has the advantage of a very capable diaspora, including the favourite for next Con leader. And as I pointed out earlier the best educated migrant population in the USA.
Loads of problems certainly, but a very dynamic and talented population.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
Oh, there's already a lot of 90's nostalgia, celebration of house etc. It's nostalgia for the noughties I don't think I'm ready for.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
Nigeria is not a “fabulously talented and dynamic country”, FFS
It is no better than Egypt: it is an African country with a lot of people. That’s it
For a possibly rising African country I’d look to Morocco, or possibly Ethiopia (despite its many problems)
Nigeria has the advantage of a very capable diaspora, including the favourite for next Con leader. And as I pointed out earlier the best educated migrant population in the USA.
Loads of problems certainly, but a very dynamic and talented population.
As Ireland knows in its heart, if your talented young are leaving it's not a good sign...
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
This was little nostalgia for the 1950's in the 1960's and '70s, in my sometimes very young and not-quite-as-young memories. There was a period when there was a genuinely unique level of optimism.
It took about 20 years to wear off, from about 1973, I would say.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
Oh, there's already a lot of 90's nostalgia, celebration of house etc. It's nostalgia for the noughties I don't think I'm ready for.
If Bez makes it to mayor of Manchester - I think we know we're too old.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
In the 1970s, it was "Happy Days", of course! And, erm, Showaddywaddy. In the 90s you had the 70s ABBA revival, by the end of the decade disco was back as a main influence on dance music. Then Calvin Harris invented the 80s in 2007 (joking). Feels like it is dialing back, presumably for the same reason. Honestly I'd invest in Oasis shares at this rate.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
This was little nostalgia for the 1950's in the 1960's and '70s, in my sometimes very young and not-quite-as-young memories. There was a period when there was a genuinely unique level of optimism.
It took about 20 years to wear off, from about 1973, I would say.
So... about a generation?
Yes.
We're due a revival of futurist optimism ; the 1990's was almost 25 years ago. The cyclical nature of these things doesn't preclude structural political and intellectual changes playing a role in them, however.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
No wonder your generation doesn’t have any sex and barely registers on the testosterone-o-meter
if you have an age of consent, you have an age of consent. What are you gonna do, barge into hotel bedrooms saying aha! She is but 19 and you are 31, you must go to prison for 63 years!
In many countries the age of consent is 18, albeit there's an exception for prosecution for those of comparable ages.
Quite frankly 16 year olds are children, anyone middle aged or older sleeping with them is wrong.
Please list the countries with an age of consent of 18, and I believe you - even you - will realise the insanity of your argument
Most states of America. India, Turkiye and many more have a simply age of consent of 18, but that's not what I said.
In Germany the unrestricted age of consent is 18, like I said in my post you responded to there's a younger age of consent if both parties are under 21 but if one party is over 21 then it can be illegal.
The UK too the unrestricted age of consent is 18, sex with 16-17 year old children can be illegal in some circumstances. Same in France, Japan, Spain, Canada, Korea, Netherlands, Switzerland and many more.
OK, as you are too cowardly to admit what you said
Here is what you said
“In many countries the age of consent is 18….”
I jibed at this, and asked you to list them, you refused, so here, alphabetically, is the list of countries with an age of consent of 18 or over)
Argentina Bahrain Bhutan Burundi Djibouti Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Guatemala Gabon Gambia Haiti Liberia….
And so on. An age of consent of 18 is an exact correlative with human under-development - it means the law generally isn’t enforced and it exists as some desperate, gestural attempt to prevent child abuse
Labour and the Libs are going to pay big style for the inability to forge a deal on Mid Beds. Naive in the extreme, the Tory will come through the middle.
Nah. It doesn't matter who wins. It doesn't affect the majority, and neither is likely to hold it at the GE.
Let's see who can appeal more in shire England, and revel in the halving of the Tory vote in what should be a safe seat. Tories could come first or third.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
Mary Queen of Scots was backed by France and Spain so may still have arranged a marriage for her son to the daughter of the Catholic English heir or her own marriage to the heir.
None of which would have made a union of the crowns. MQOS son James would be the king of Scotland, and the son (or daughter if no son) of Mary and Philip would be the English monarch.
The significance of James VI/I being king of both cannot be underestimated in Scotland and England eventually (and of course permanently) becoming parts of a single state.
James could have married a daughter of Mary and Philip
Would have meant the instant overthrow from the throne of Scotland, and England too (but that came later). Even Charles I had terrible trouble with his RC Queen and her tame friars in Denmark House IIRC.
Edit: but James VI was too canny. KCI, not nearly so much.
Labour and the Libs are going to pay big style for the inability to forge a deal on Mid Beds. Naive in the extreme, the Tory will come through the middle.
I’m relaxed about this. FPTP is a stupid system and tactical voting is a practical personal choice. When there’s a clear challenger, it makes sense. When both parties have an equal chance, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that both are going for it.
Labour and the LibDems are different parties. They believe in different things. If the Tories scrape through to a win, it is not a great tragedy. The Conservatives have a large majority in the Commons anyway. The Mid Beds result isn’t going to change that.
The Tories will cheer if they win Mid Beds, but winning Mid Beds isn’t going to make then win the next general election. (If anything, it will make them too complacent!)
Let Labour and the LibDems duke it out. Locals can make their choices.
A relevant point in these Brand accusations is a political one, rather than alleged crimes: should a 30-year old having sex with a 16+year old be legal given the imbalance in maturity and power?
As someone in my early 30s, I'm amazed people my age can view someone so young as anything other than a child. So my answer would be 'no' and that the general age of consent should be raised, with an exception for teenagers having sex with people their own age.
No wonder your generation doesn’t have any sex and barely registers on the testosterone-o-meter
if you have an age of consent, you have an age of consent. What are you gonna do, barge into hotel bedrooms saying aha! She is but 19 and you are 31, you must go to prison for 63 years!
In many countries the age of consent is 18, albeit there's an exception for prosecution for those of comparable ages.
Quite frankly 16 year olds are children, anyone middle aged or older sleeping with them is wrong.
Please list the countries with an age of consent of 18, and I believe you - even you - will realise the insanity of your argument
Most states of America. India, Turkiye and many more have a simply age of consent of 18, but that's not what I said.
In Germany the unrestricted age of consent is 18, like I said in my post you responded to there's a younger age of consent if both parties are under 21 but if one party is over 21 then it can be illegal.
The UK too the unrestricted age of consent is 18, sex with 16-17 year old children can be illegal in some circumstances. Same in France, Japan, Spain, Canada, Korea, Netherlands, Switzerland and many more.
OK, as you are too cowardly to admit what you said
Here is what you said
“In many countries the age of consent is 18….”
I jibed at this, and asked you to list them, you refused, so here, alphabetically, is the list of countries with an age of consent of 18 or over)
Argentina Bahrain Bhutan Burundi Djibouti Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Guatemala Gabon Gambia Haiti Liberia….
And so on. An age of consent of 18 is an exact correlative with human under-development - it means the law generally isn’t enforced and it exists as some desperate, gestural attempt to prevent child abuse
What I said continued with 'albeit' ...
The unrestricted age of consent is 18 in almost all the developed world, as well as the less developed world.
A recognition that teenagers are going to shag each other in the developed world doesn't translate into a 'grass on the wicket so lets play cricket' anything goes legal attitude for adults shagging teenagers too.
Labour and the Libs are going to pay big style for the inability to forge a deal on Mid Beds. Naive in the extreme, the Tory will come through the middle.
Ironically a failure to win that by either Labour or the Lib Dems will hopefully knock some sense into both parties .
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
Nigeria is not a “fabulously talented and dynamic country”, FFS
It is no better than Egypt: it is an African country with a lot of people. That’s it
For a possibly rising African country I’d look to Morocco, or possibly Ethiopia (despite its many problems)
Nigeria has the advantage of a very capable diaspora, including the favourite for next Con leader. And as I pointed out earlier the best educated migrant population in the USA.
Loads of problems certainly, but a very dynamic and talented population.
As Ireland knows in its heart, if your talented young are leaving it's not a good sign...
It was only in the 1980's that we switched to net immigration. At the height of empire we had mass emigration.
Labour and the Libs are going to pay big style for the inability to forge a deal on Mid Beds. Naive in the extreme, the Tory will come through the middle.
I’m relaxed about this. FPTP is a stupid system and tactical voting is a practical personal choice. When there’s a clear challenger, it makes sense. When both parties have an equal chance, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that both are going for it.
Labour and the LibDems are different parties. They believe in different things. If the Tories scrape through to a win, it is not a great tragedy. The Conservatives have a large majority in the Commons anyway. The Mid Beds result isn’t going to change that.
The Tories will cheer if they win Mid Beds, but winning Mid Beds isn’t going to make then win the next general election. (If anything, it will make them too complacent!)
Let Labour and the LibDems duke it out. Locals can make their choices.
I thought that, when everyone was squaring up for the fight, the Indie was widely expected to do much better than just about save his deposit.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Wasn’t Philip II actually King of England? We just pretend it doesn’t count.
Yes, but he was not allowed to rule in his own right.
Charters were issued in the joint names of himself and his wife, and I have a coin with both of them on it.
But when she died, he forfeited the throne.
In fairness to him, as well, he came under considerable pressure to mount a coup, which he not only rejected but actively undermined by endorsing Elizabeth as Mary's rightful successor.
An interesting counterfactual is if he and Mary had had a son. England would have become the third Hapsburg power, and remained Catholic.
And he would presumably have been regent during his son's minority.
I wonder if he would then have spent more time in England rather than running around Europe?
Edit - that would however have made a Union between England and Scotland rather harder...
In particular the union of crowns would not have happened in 1603.
Mary Queen of Scots was backed by France and Spain so may still have arranged a marriage for her son to the daughter of the Catholic English heir or her own marriage to the heir.
None of which would have made a union of the crowns. MQOS son James would be the king of Scotland, and the son (or daughter if no son) of Mary and Philip would be the English monarch.
The significance of James VI/I being king of both cannot be underestimated in Scotland and England eventually (and of course permanently) becoming parts of a single state.
James could have married a daughter of Mary and Philip
Would have meant the instant overthrow from the throne of Scotland, and England too (but that came later). Even Charles I had terrible trouble with his RC Queen and her tame friars in Denmark House IIRC.
Edit: but James VI was too canny. KCI, not nearly so much.
With James having the support of Spain, the Pope, the Hapsburgs and England too? The Calvinists couldn't have beaten that alliance even if they tried a guerrilla campaign
I won't link to it as it's truly horrific but there's a video circulating on Twitter of the fatal Bully XL attack in Staffordshire. I don't think the government will be able to get away with just a registration scheme.
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
Oh, there's already a lot of 90's nostalgia, celebration of house etc. It's nostalgia for the noughties I don't think I'm ready for.
Yep. Just passed a huge line of teens and twenties queueing to get into "House Sounds of the 90's" night at NZ Newcastle. And during a Toon home game, too.
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
It just needs to be killed at this stage. We have to remember that this was not conceived because it was 'needed' to make Britain's economy work. It is the Northern spur of a Europe-wide railway network - a project dreamed up in the 1950's, before even the Beeching cuts. All the arguments in its favour are generalised 'we should be a nation that spends more on infrastructure and does it properly' - sure, but this is like spending more on the army and buying all one type of tank that isn't particularly good. It is 'an' infrastructure project but not necessarily 'the' infrastructure project. Just make a new, cheap exit plan to make something of what's there, and shitcan the rest.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Britain, the USA, France, Spain, China, Ottomans, etc were all tolerant of poverty and inequality at our peaks. Why not India too?
But look at how China ascended, the median income level of a Chinese person rose 10x and 100x for the lowest decile. China's rise was built on the backs of the rural poor but they also benefited from that boom. They had a stake in the success of the nation. India isn't giving those same rural poor that are needed to do the work any kind of benefit. Indian workers would rather go and be indentured labourers in Qatar because Indian companies are such thieves and they are supported by a corrupt government at every level.
I despise Modi's Hindutva Fascism, but there is no denying the economic rise of India, to the point that it tells its former colonial power what to do. Not more than a regional military power (the USS is the only worldwide military), but economically and culturally definitely on the rise.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
Nigeria is not a “fabulously talented and dynamic country”, FFS
It is no better than Egypt: it is an African country with a lot of people. That’s it
For a possibly rising African country I’d look to Morocco, or possibly Ethiopia (despite its many problems)
Nigeria has the advantage of a very capable diaspora, including the favourite for next Con leader. And as I pointed out earlier the best educated migrant population in the USA.
Loads of problems certainly, but a very dynamic and talented population.
I was going to pop in with this - Nigeria has a hugely capable and influential diaspora, not just in terms of tech or academia but increasingly culturally too - not just in sub-Saharan Africa, where it has always been a cultural heavyweight, but moving more globally too.
And there’s a lot to be said for having such an internationally connected nation (as well as being on the much-vaunted west African coastal megalopolis). Much more so than Ethiopia, which despite its many truly incredible aspects (including cuisine, PB *passim*) lacks the international dimension that Nigeria has.
The nation is a couple of bad turns away from basket case, unfortunately, but in terms of potential - it is certainly has it.
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
It just needs to be killed at this stage. We have to remember that this was not conceived as being something 'needed' to make Britain's economy work. It is the Northern spur of a Europe-wide railway network - a project dreamed up in the 1950's, before even the Beeching cuts. All the arguments in its favour are generalised 'we should be a nation that spends more on infrastructure and does it properly' - sure, but this is like spending more on the army and buying all one type of tank that isn't particularly good. It is 'an' infrastructure project but not necessarily 'the' project. Just make a new, cheap exit plan to make something of what's there, and shitcan the rest.
There's no real point in building a bridge half-way across the river and then linking to a ferry
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
It just needs to be killed at this stage. We have to remember that this was not conceived as being something 'needed' to make Britain's economy work. It is the Northern spur of a Europe-wide railway network - a project dreamed up in the 1950's, before even the Beeching cuts. All the arguments in its favour are generalised 'we should be a nation that spends more on infrastructure and does it properly' - sure, but this is like spending more on the army and buying all one type of tank that isn't particularly good. It is 'an' infrastructure project but not necessarily 'the' project. Just make a new, cheap exit plan to make something of what's there, and shitcan the rest.
There's no real point in building a bridge half-way across the river and then linking to a ferry
There is if the actual bridge was a crap idea and the money to finish it could be better spent elsewhere.
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
Totes explicable, given his CV. He's from finance, not business. His job is to squeeze out any costs so that there's more cash left over at the end.
Speaking tangentially of crap MPs, we had our first ever doorstep visit from our local (Conservative) member today.
We weren’t in; trust someone whose finger is so on the pulse as to canvas her constituency’s most Jewish area on Rosh Hashana, so I was with the family at our synagogue for a really beautiful service (Shana Tova to anyone for whom that is significant btw.)
We did get left some quite sad literature and a survey with an SAE to convey what our most pressing concerns are. Tempted to just write ‘get you lot out!’ but tbh felt a bit mean and petty, even though she is a fairly shit MP who lives out of area and seldom sets foot in her non-Tory areas (though interestingly, every council ward in her seat has now binned off the Tories, so writing is on wall).
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
The Treasury appears to be run by idiots. Burn it down, the Treasury not HS2, and start again would be a good idea.
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
Totes explicable, given his CV. He's from finance, not business. His job is to squeeze out any costs so that there's more cash left over at the end.
There wasn't more cash left over at the end of his covid splurge. He was one of the most profligate Chancellors ever. He's not exactly been mean with the French over the boats or the Bank of England and its bond flog off either. If he is canning HS2 to save money it'll be a turn up for the books.
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
The Treasury appears to be run by idiots. Burn it down, the Treasury not HS2, and start again would be a good idea.
There wasn't more cash left over at the end of his covid splurge. He was one of the most profligate Chancellors ever. He's not exactly been mean with the French over the boats or the Bank of England and its bond flog off either. If he is canning HS2 to save money it'll be a turn up for the books.
We build very little infrastructure in this country despite having a population that is growing quite rapidly. We seem to be coasting on things built either by the Victorians or in the post-war era. This is not a good plan for the long term. We have decades of construction deficit to make up for, in public transport, sewers, power generation, roads, airports, and more.
There wasn't more cash left over at the end of his covid splurge. He was one of the most profligate Chancellors ever. He's not exactly been mean with the French over the boats or the Bank of England and its bond flog off either. If he is canning HS2 to save money it'll be a turn up for the books.
We build very little infrastructure in this country despite having a population that is growing quite rapidly. We seem to be coasting on things built either by the Victorians or in the post-war era. This is not a good plan for the long term. We have decades of construction deficit to make up for, in public transport, sewers, power generation, roads, airports, and more.
I thought Cameron’s ‘big society’ was going to solve all that, by getting unqualified people to do everything for free?
So we're going to be presented with a vastly over-engineered HS2 which connects a station by itself in Birmingham to a building site in west London.
Other countries manage to do infrastructure projects like this. We're just absolutely shit.
Should have spent the money on roads from the beginning.
New motorways would have far greater economic return and allow far more traffic including both goods and people.
However having said that, we've spent all this money already and half-building it is just bloody stupid. If you're going to do this stupid thing, then do it properly.
Next time though that there's any big cross country infrastructure like this, start construction in the North, make London the last place that's connected not the first. Then the Treasury can't weasel out of it. The second construction began at London it was obvious that once the bit London wanted was done (relieving pressure on the Southern tracks) then why bother with the rest of the country would be the Treasuries attitude.
There wasn't more cash left over at the end of his covid splurge. He was one of the most profligate Chancellors ever. He's not exactly been mean with the French over the boats or the Bank of England and its bond flog off either. If he is canning HS2 to save money it'll be a turn up for the books.
We build very little infrastructure in this country despite having a population that is growing quite rapidly. We seem to be coasting on things built either by the Victorians or in the post-war era. This is not a good plan for the long term. We have decades of construction deficit to make up for, in public transport, sewers, power generation, roads, airports, and more.
I don't disagree, but HS2 won't do all those things.
AND forgive me for being a stuck record, but new water infrastructure was actively prevented by UK agencies gold-plating EU regulations.
90s? Went into a bar at lunchtime in dirty Leeds ( for work). Place was empty. Talking to the manager and a certain song starts playing. And it's joyous.
So we're going to be presented with a vastly over-engineered HS2 which connects a station by itself in Birmingham to a building site in west London.
Other countries manage to do infrastructure projects like this. We're just absolutely shit.
Should have spent the money on roads from the beginning.
New motorways would have far greater economic return and allow far more traffic including both goods and people.
However having said that, we've spent all this money already and half-building it is just bloody stupid. If you're going to do this stupid thing, then do it properly.
Next time though that there's any big cross country infrastructure like this, start construction in the North, make London the last place that's connected not the first. Then the Treasury can't weasel out of it. The second construction began at London it was obvious that once the bit London wanted was done (relieving pressure on the Southern tracks) then why bother with the rest of the country would be the Treasuries attitude.
Except it now looks like the plan isn't even to do that. Birmingham - Old Oak Common won't even unclog the Euston/St Pancras/Kings Cross suburban and regional networks. (And whilst it's tactless to say it, that was a large part of the point of the scheme; getting the fast trains off the existing tracks to leave a lot more space for slower ones.) The Flying Scotsman et al are still going to have to go on their heritage lines to get close enough to the centre of London.
So we're going to be presented with a vastly over-engineered HS2 which connects a station by itself in Birmingham to a building site in west London.
Other countries manage to do infrastructure projects like this. We're just absolutely shit.
Should have spent the money on roads from the beginning.
New motorways would have far greater economic return and allow far more traffic including both goods and people.
However having said that, we've spent all this money already and half-building it is just bloody stupid. If you're going to do this stupid thing, then do it properly.
Next time though that there's any big cross country infrastructure like this, start construction in the North, make London the last place that's connected not the first. Then the Treasury can't weasel out of it. The second construction began at London it was obvious that once the bit London wanted was done (relieving pressure on the Southern tracks) then why bother with the rest of the country would be the Treasuries attitude.
Except it now looks like the plan isn't even to do that. Birmingham - Old Oak Common won't even unclog the Euston/St Pancras/Kings Cross suburban and regional networks. (And whilst it's tactless to say it, that was a large part of the point of the scheme; getting the fast trains off the existing tracks to leave a lot more space for slower ones.) The Flying Scotsman et al are still going to have to go on their heritage lines to get close enough to the centre of London.
So what was the point of any of this? Its all been just pissed up the wall.
A new "M6" to relieve the existing one would have added a lot of capacity too, relieved the existing network too, and on top of that allowed the construction or expansion of new towns and not just pre-existing ones. Far greater return on investment, but the DfT has been captured by a rail lobby that won't even do rail properly. Bloody imbeciles should be nuked from orbit, just to be sure.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Hmm. We could do with some of that thinking applied to the UK.
The sensible range for when America became a superpower is between 1898 and 1945. And date outside those ranges is wrong, and any date within those ranges is justifiable.
It's perhaps helpful to think of it as a gradual becoming rather than happening one bright April morning.
I disagree
The US only took over the UK/Empire economically in 1911. Arguably it wasn’t even a great power (no ability to force project) at that point
“Superpower” had no meaning as a term in a multipolar world. After 1946 that changed and the US/Russia were superpowers
That puts you at the 1945 end, surely? If you can't name the USA a superpower when it was fighting a naval and air war in the Pacific, a land and air war in Europe and Africa, and being the only country in the world with nuclear weapons, then what even is a superpower?
1946 is already definitively too late. The USA was a superpower before that point.
A reasonable definition for a superpower, that I’ve seen, is “a power able to exert significant military and economic influence all around the world, at will”
By this definition, Britain was the first, then America (and it remains so today), then maybe the USSR (but the economics is disputable), now we have America and China. That’s pretty much it
Britain is notable coz we are such a relatively tiny country., The others are enormous. Yay, us
I would suggest there are very strong arguments for naming Portugal, Spain, France, and Germany in that field. Germany is the sketchiest in terms of reach and duration, but the others seem pretty nailed on for some durations in their histories. Perhaps others?
The nature of military power has obviously changed a lot, and the speed of being able to act at long distance has increased hugely, but I don't see how that falls down on your definition or any other reasonable definition.
Nope. None of those powers could exert power globally pre the Industrial Revolution, so they are out. Later on, France and Germany could always be thwarted by the Royal Navy (much to the chagrin of Napoleon and the Kaiser), whereas Britain roamed free
I believe my list of historical superpowers is canonical
UK USA China
USSR (pending VAR)
Spain could and did exert power globally - their activities in the “new world”, the Philippines, the Low Countries, the Med - what is now Italy, and despite it failing,their Armada to invade England were a projection of power more remarkable by having a lower level of tech available to do this than the later superpowers.
Spain is the closest pre-industrially, I agree, but I don’t think they make the grade simply because the world was still being discovered when they peaked, so they could hardly bestride it - eg the English in North America were outwith their ambit, likewise virtually of all of mainland Asia
They should have a new name. I’ve just thought of one but I’m contentedly drunk in the Languedoc and it’s rude so I’ll shut up
There’s a whole theory of hegemony which goes something like
Florence Spain Netherlands France Britain USA
It tends to focus in financial hegemony, perhaps because military and cultural dominance are lagging indicators.
I wonder if the next on the list will be non-obvious or whether China will continue its ascent.
It is not obvious to me that China is in ascent anymore.
Who is? Perhaps pick from the following:
Poland Saudi Arabia Vietnam Brazil Australia
India
No it isn't. Despite what the Indian government would have us believe there are hundreds of millions of Indians in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty. Until that changes and India builds an economy where the rising tide lifts all boats and not just those of people who are in power and their friends.
Hmm. We could do with some of that thinking applied to the UK.
The UK has its problems, but there's nobody in the UK living in absolutely crushingly desperate poverty, India-style.
Relative poverty in the UK is nothing like poverty in the slums of India.
Is Sunak really going to leave HS2 unfinished? I mean…I think that would easily sum up the woeful record of this government
They've been trying to wriggle out of it for two years, ever since that silly Integrated Rail Plan which was clearly a first step in justifying abandonment.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
It just needs to be killed at this stage. We have to remember that this was not conceived because it was 'needed' to make Britain's economy work. It is the Northern spur of a Europe-wide railway network - a project dreamed up in the 1950's, before even the Beeching cuts. All the arguments in its favour are generalised 'we should be a nation that spends more on infrastructure and does it properly' - sure, but this is like spending more on the army and buying all one type of tank that isn't particularly good. It is 'an' infrastructure project but not necessarily 'the' infrastructure project. Just make a new, cheap exit plan to make something of what's there, and shitcan the rest.
"make a new cheap exit plan" seems to have been the theory driving a fair bit of the decision making that's resulted in it turning out so crap, so I am sceptical that it is the right answer now...
The amazing thing is there are music channels where you can listen to the tunes of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s as well as general "oldie" music so if you want to listen to ABBA, The Beatles, early Stones, Roxy Music or whatever it's not that far away (and that's before YouTube or whatever).
Waterloo was recorded nearly 50 years ago yet the winning performance from Eurovision at Brighton is there for all to view. Had I, growing up in the 1970s, wanted to listen to the music of the 1920s, I'd have been laughed at.
It was as though for my generation music began in the 1950s (Elvis, Bill Haley etc) and even the likes of swing and big band music from the 1940s were never played or heard on the radio.
I wonder if culturally and perhaps politically the availability of what "was" has fuelled a desire for nostalgia and encouraged those with populist messages around change, tradition and identity.
When the past was less in the present, you thought more about the future and the 60s and to an extent the 70s were a time of modernity and the future (the White Heat of Technology, Star Trek for example). Political messaging was about the future and wanting to make it better - now, it seems the past has been romanticised as much as politicised.
I'm still reminded of the old maxim - nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
A key element here was the 1990's ; a gradual loss of confidence in both political and artistic ideas of the future, postmodernism, and the beginning of the recycling of the 1960's and '70s.
That didn’t just happen in the 1990's,in the 1980's there was a big resurgence in 1950's culture, and I am sure there was similar nostalgia in the 1970's though I wasn't around to pinpoint it accurately.
See the current nostalgia for the 80s (and I'm sure soon to be 90s). I'm sure it's something to do with one generation discovering what their parents were shagging to. And as the generations get longer so does the nostalgia.
Oh, there's already a lot of 90's nostalgia, celebration of house etc. It's nostalgia for the noughties I don't think I'm ready for.
Yep. Just passed a huge line of teens and twenties queueing to get into "House Sounds of the 90's" night at NZ Newcastle. And during a Toon home game, too.
Dance music was the big hope of cultural "futurism" of the late 1980's and turn of the 1990s, possibly the last big hope of this type.
Much of this heady optmism ended with the ban on unlicensed raves and good old Michael Howard';s Criminal Justice Act in 1994, after which it became much more heavily consumerist.
90s? Went into a bar at lunchtime in dirty Leeds ( for work). Place was empty. Talking to the manager and a certain song starts playing. And it's joyous.
Do you remember the first time?
Saw Jarvis Cocker at Latitude earlier in the summer, still as brilliant as ever
Comments
Frankly, looking at their bar chart it doesn't matter, as the Tories have added 4.8%...
ReformUK up 6% on 2019 for the Tories to squeeze however, as well as DKs
Perhaps we would have had an earlier civil war and a Presbyterian church as they did.
Now they would be called books for "young adults".
Neither seems exactly right, but I can't think of a good alternative.
As an aside, I was surprised to discover that the relatively small tourist city in S Korea I'm currently visiting, was, as the capital of the unified Silla kingdom, for a time the fourth largest city in the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Silla
https://youtu.be/sc1DitLzFQk?si=JZeKFtvt0tz7QuqA
Then after the war (no joke), Bing Crosby paid to convert a looted Nazi tape recorder, gave one of the first ones to Les Paul, and suddenly there were clean multitrack recordings.
She thought she was Strong Enough and all she had to do was just Believe, but was no doubt thinking afterwards If I Could Turn Back Time?
His politics may be less wholesome. He used to be seen at the Hawthorns occasionally during the "Three Degrees" years. It was said he was a Chelsea fan (figures) but after a Playboy interview which hinted at a less than positive attitude to (shall we say) the Windrush generation, following Cunningham, Regis and Batson at West Brom was his redemption. See his Baggies scarf on his wrist on the back of the Slowhand album.
I have seen his very nice house in Antigua, so maybe my story is simply. urban legend
Whether India will do something similar is very much an open question. Similarly with Brazil.
They might; they might not.
Despite looking impressive on paper, India’s armed forces might actually not be very impressive in combat, simply because they can’t
afford good equipment.
Results incl. undecided voters:
Alistair Strathern, Labour 20%
Festus Akinbusoye, Conservative 20%
Emma Holland-Lindsay, Lib Dem 15%
Gareth Mackey, Ind. 4%
Dave Holland, Reform UK 5%
https://x.com/michaelsavage/status/1703031993544425827?s=20
The significance of James VI/I being king of both cannot be underestimated in Scotland and England eventually (and of course permanently) becoming parts of a single state.
Nigeria too in the longer term. A fabulously talented and dynamic country and people, held back by a corrupt political class too.
The drives forward of the 1960's to the 1980's didn't just depend on ideas of the political future which had diminished by the early 1990's, but also what now looks like quite a quaint idea of the avant-garde, from our point of view. It's much more difficult to incubate an alternative culture and release it on the mainstream when not only is there no longer much intellectual or political support for this idea, but everything is visible to much of the world, much of the time, through global interconnectedness and information technology. This includes not only both our internet storehouse of all past cultures and musics, which understandably sharpens the focus and interest on what has already made and completed, but also the immediate international visibility of whatever is new.
It is no better than Egypt: it is an African country with a lot of people. That’s it
For a possibly rising African country I’d look to Morocco, or possibly Ethiopia (despite its many problems)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wjtQYKYtIH0&pp=ygUbSSdtIHRpY2tsZWQgdG8gZGVhdGggSSdtIG1l
The other part is that India is a democracy, there's no way for the state to expropriate labour from rural areas and dump them in factories like China did at the beginning of the boom, those people have to want to go.
In Germany the unrestricted age of consent is 18, like I said in my post you responded to there's a younger age of consent if both parties are under 21 but if one party is over 21 then it can be illegal.
The UK too the unrestricted age of consent is 18, sex with 16-17 year old children can be illegal in some circumstances. Same in France, Japan, Spain, Canada, Korea, Netherlands, Switzerland and many more.
No. Labour won’t win Mid Beds or Tamworth, IMO
·
3h
Really grateful to colleagues for selecting me as the Conservative candidate for Mayor of the East Midlands!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/16/lauren-boebert-apology-beetlejuice-video
It took about 20 years to wear off, from about 1973, I would say.
Loads of problems certainly, but a very dynamic and talented population.
We're due a revival of futurist optimism ; the 1990's was almost 25 years ago. The cyclical nature of these things doesn't preclude structural political and intellectual changes playing a role in them, however.
Here is what you said
“In many countries the age of consent is 18….”
I jibed at this, and asked you to list them, you refused, so here, alphabetically, is the list of countries with an age of consent of 18 or over)
Argentina
Bahrain
Bhutan
Burundi
Djibouti
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Guatemala
Gabon
Gambia
Haiti
Liberia….
And so on. An age of consent of 18 is an exact correlative with human under-development - it means the law generally isn’t enforced and it exists as some desperate, gestural attempt to prevent child abuse
Let's see who can appeal more in shire England, and revel in the halving of the Tory vote in what should be a safe seat. Tories could come first or third.
Edit: but James VI was too canny. KCI, not nearly so much.
Labour and the LibDems are different parties. They believe in different things. If the Tories scrape through to a win, it is not a great tragedy. The Conservatives have a large majority in the Commons anyway. The Mid Beds result isn’t going to change that.
The Tories will cheer if they win Mid Beds, but winning Mid Beds isn’t going to make then win the next general election. (If anything, it will make them too complacent!)
Let Labour and the LibDems duke it out. Locals can make their choices.
The unrestricted age of consent is 18 in almost all the developed world, as well as the less developed world.
A recognition that teenagers are going to shag each other in the developed world doesn't translate into a 'grass on the wicket so lets play cricket' anything goes legal attitude for adults shagging teenagers too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001p474
Some of it was the 1970's BBC at its best. Slow, thoughtful direction, excellent acting, no signs of being afraid of the audience's attention span.
The issue I think is that Sunak isn't very good at managing money. He doesn't understand how to spend it to generate a solid return. And the Treasury and DfT, who never spend money outside London if they can help it, have never wanted HS2. Indeed, they've put every possible barrier in its way from the start, including deliberately inflating its cost by putting impossible specs in place. So without a political will they're getting what they want.
It is also possible of course that he got burned by Eat out to Help Out and is spooked by the Chesham by-election.
Other countries manage to do infrastructure projects like this. We're just absolutely shit.
Just passed a huge line of teens and twenties queueing to get into "House Sounds of the 90's" night at NZ Newcastle.
And during a Toon home game, too.
And there’s a lot to be said for having such an internationally connected nation (as well as being on the much-vaunted west African coastal megalopolis). Much more so than Ethiopia, which despite its many truly incredible aspects (including cuisine, PB *passim*) lacks the international dimension that Nigeria has.
The nation is a couple of bad turns away from basket case, unfortunately, but in terms of potential - it is certainly has it.
Agree on the potential of Morocco btw.
We weren’t in; trust someone whose finger is so on the pulse as to canvas her constituency’s most Jewish area on Rosh Hashana, so I was with the family at our synagogue for a really beautiful service (Shana Tova to anyone for whom that is significant btw.)
We did get left some quite sad literature and a survey with an SAE to convey what our most pressing concerns are. Tempted to just write ‘get you lot out!’ but tbh felt a bit mean and petty, even though she is a fairly shit MP who lives out of area and seldom sets foot in her non-Tory areas (though interestingly, every council ward in her seat has now binned off the Tories, so writing is on wall).
In fact, we are not far off a 00s revival.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGwR9LLKhpM
New motorways would have far greater economic return and allow far more traffic including both goods and people.
However having said that, we've spent all this money already and half-building it is just bloody stupid. If you're going to do this stupid thing, then do it properly.
Next time though that there's any big cross country infrastructure like this, start construction in the North, make London the last place that's connected not the first. Then the Treasury can't weasel out of it. The second construction began at London it was obvious that once the bit London wanted was done (relieving pressure on the Southern tracks) then why bother with the rest of the country would be the Treasuries attitude.
AND forgive me for being a stuck record, but new water infrastructure was actively prevented by UK agencies gold-plating EU regulations.
Do you remember the first time?
https://x.com/skynews/status/1703110362281750848?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
A new "M6" to relieve the existing one would have added a lot of capacity too, relieved the existing network too, and on top of that allowed the construction or expansion of new towns and not just pre-existing ones. Far greater return on investment, but the DfT has been captured by a rail lobby that won't even do rail properly. Bloody imbeciles should be nuked from orbit, just to be sure.
Relative poverty in the UK is nothing like poverty in the slums of India.
https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-visas-for-cash-scandal-anti-immigrant-government-slammed/
Including the fascinating:
"According to some reports, migrants used Polish multiple-entry visas to travel to Mexico and then enter the United States."
Is this because Mexico assumes anyone who can get a Polish visa is ok for visa-on-arrival at Mexico?
Much of this heady optmism ended with the ban on unlicensed raves and good old Michael Howard';s Criminal Justice Act in 1994, after which it became much more heavily consumerist.