I think the start of the Conservative recovery is simple: select excellent talented candidates.
Don't do it on loyalty, arse scratching or ideology. Just pick very good candidates.
This can easily be done badly - see "A-list" - and it can be entirely cosmetic but look/ sound like what you want and you end up picking people who aren't committed to politics or who aren't actually Conservatives.
But start with the basics: Advertise. CV. Why are you a Conservative? Vision. What do you want to change? Evidence / appetite for public service - what have you done in the past? - and ask lots of competency-based questions about values and ethics, and look for references.
Select very good candidates.
Trouble is it's done by Conservative Constituency Parties. The ones that thought Truss was a good idea.
And IDS. Never forget that one.
IDS never lost a GE as leader!
And neither did Truss. It doesn't make either of them a good idea.
The members didn't think Truss or IDS were 'a good idea' ; they were offered a binary choice and felt that they were better on balance than Kenneth Clark and Sunak. Kenneth Clark was uncompromisingly opposed to the settled view of the party on one of the defining issues of the day, and Sunak was just plain crap - something which has been painfully proven true in the event. If Tory MPs want the members to stop choosing duds, stop passing them duds to choose between.
I heard Ken Clarke on the radio yesterday discussing the problems with indeterminate sentences, something he got abolished when Home Secretary but it was beyond his powers of persuasion to do this retrospectively. Some 1400 men are still trapped on these sentences unable to obtain their liberty many years after any rational sentence for their offence would have expired.
As usual, he was humane, warm, intelligent and sensible. It made me all nostalgic for when the Tory party was like that.
I am glad he appears that way for you, and I would agree he has considerable capabilities. However, I also think his election as leader would have split the party disastrously, whilst still not offering a compelling alternative to the public electing Blair - central as Clark was to the Major Government. The PCP gave the Party a choice between the unthinkable and the merely uninspiring.
I am not sure that the muscle definition on the forearms is quite right. Too smooth and no bunch at the elbow as you would expect an athlete to have. But yes, it works.
Well no it's not perfect, but it is proof that in a very short time (that took me a minute) you can get really quite impressive results
With some fine tuning In reckon I could make that indistinguishable from reality in about half an hour. And this is a complicated request
If you simply ask for a face - in the right way - you will get images that are perfectly real immediately
See the NYT article below. Try the test. It is humbling when you keep getting it wrong and you can't tell AI from reality
I don't subscribe to the NYT so I can't see it but I have seen similar things before. Machines can create realistic images, even of faces which our biology makes us particularly skilled at noticing in detail. Not sure this has anything to do with intelligence per se though. It is ultimately no more complex than creating a machine tool.
PS you should, by the way, subscribe to the NYT if you can time it right
They often give British readers insanely good deals that you can't get in America. eg 50p a week for the whole site
It is definitely worth "50p a week"; the sports coverage in the Athletic alone - often superb - is worth a lot more than that
Also, NYTGames and cooking are both excellent.
I find the cooking a bit hit and miss, and the American measures are annoying, and anything spicy is underpowered (because of the delicate American palate). But occasionally it suggests a corker
But the foreign news is admirable, and better - I fear - than any British paper, probably. Partly coz they have so much money?
And the mobile site is best in class, wonderful mingling of video and text
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
He really records no post-war decline until Thatcher gets in? Wow. Must have blinkers like a Shire pony.
I am not sure that the muscle definition on the forearms is quite right. Too smooth and no bunch at the elbow as you would expect an athlete to have. But yes, it works.
Well no it's not perfect, but it is proof that in a very short time (that took me a minute) you can get really quite impressive results
With some fine tuning In reckon I could make that indistinguishable from reality in about half an hour. And this is a complicated request
If you simply ask for a face - in the right way - you will get images that are perfectly real immediately
See the NYT article below. Try the test. It is humbling when you keep getting it wrong and you can't tell AI from reality
I don't subscribe to the NYT so I can't see it but I have seen similar things before. Machines can create realistic images, even of faces which our biology makes us particularly skilled at noticing in detail. Not sure this has anything to do with intelligence per se though. It is ultimately no more complex than creating a machine tool.
Perhaps. I confess I was a little unnerved I got so many wrong - it's a shame you can't access it.
I was also disquited by the revelation people now think AI images are more "believable" than real images. AI reality is seen as more convincing and authentic than actual reality
"The idea that A.I.-generated faces could be deemed more authentic than actual people startled experts like Dr. Dawel, who fear that digital fakes could help the spread of false and misleading messages online."
Spend a few minutes pondering that, and the philosophical implications are wild, and profound
I just can't get excited about the ability to create an image. I get a lot more concerned about such technology's ability to take, manipulate and use the actual image of an actual person. The inability to differentiate between that and the real thing strikes me as far more problematic.
I think the start of the Conservative recovery is simple: select excellent talented candidates.
Don't do it on loyalty, arse scratching or ideology. Just pick very good candidates.
This can easily be done badly - see "A-list" - and it can be entirely cosmetic but look/ sound like what you want and you end up picking people who aren't committed to politics or who aren't actually Conservatives.
But start with the basics: Advertise. CV. Why are you a Conservative? Vision. What do you want to change? Evidence / appetite for public service - what have you done in the past? - and ask lots of competency-based questions about values and ethics, and look for references.
Select very good candidates.
Trouble is it's done by Conservative Constituency Parties. The ones that thought Truss was a good idea.
And IDS. Never forget that one.
IDS never lost a GE as leader!
And neither did Truss. It doesn't make either of them a good idea.
The members didn't think Truss or IDS were 'a good idea' ; they were offered a binary choice and felt that they were better on balance than Kenneth Clark and Sunak. Kenneth Clark was uncompromisingly opposed to the settled view of the party on one of the defining issues of the day, and Sunak was just plain crap - something which has been painfully proven true in the event. If Tory MPs want the members to stop choosing duds, stop passing them duds to choose between.
I heard Ken Clarke on the radio yesterday discussing the problems with indeterminate sentences, something he got abolished when Home Secretary but it was beyond his powers of persuasion to do this retrospectively. Some 1400 men are still trapped on these sentences unable to obtain their liberty many years after any rational sentence for their offence would have expired.
As usual, he was humane, warm, intelligent and sensible. It made me all nostalgic for when the Tory party was like that.
I am glad he appears that way for you, and I would agree he has considerable capabilities. However, I also think his election as leader would have split the party disastrously, whilst still not offering a compelling alternative to the public electing Blair - central as Clark was to the Major Government. The PCP gave the Party a choice between the unthinkable and the merely uninspiring.
As you know I did not agree with Ken Clarke on Europe but that choice still struck me as a choice between the sane and the insane. A bit like Sunak and Truss. Both times the membership went for the bat shit crazy option. It is not a great record, nor one that inspires confidence.
I am not sure that the muscle definition on the forearms is quite right. Too smooth and no bunch at the elbow as you would expect an athlete to have. But yes, it works.
Well no it's not perfect, but it is proof that in a very short time (that took me a minute) you can get really quite impressive results
With some fine tuning In reckon I could make that indistinguishable from reality in about half an hour. And this is a complicated request
If you simply ask for a face - in the right way - you will get images that are perfectly real immediately
See the NYT article below. Try the test. It is humbling when you keep getting it wrong and you can't tell AI from reality
I don't subscribe to the NYT so I can't see it but I have seen similar things before. Machines can create realistic images, even of faces which our biology makes us particularly skilled at noticing in detail. Not sure this has anything to do with intelligence per se though. It is ultimately no more complex than creating a machine tool.
Perhaps. I confess I was a little unnerved I got so many wrong - it's a shame you can't access it.
I was also disquited by the revelation people now think AI images are more "believable" than real images. AI reality is seen as more convincing and authentic than actual reality
"The idea that A.I.-generated faces could be deemed more authentic than actual people startled experts like Dr. Dawel, who fear that digital fakes could help the spread of false and misleading messages online."
Spend a few minutes pondering that, and the philosophical implications are wild, and profound
I just can't get excited about the ability to create an image. I get a lot more concerned about such technology's ability to take, manipulate and use the actual image of an actual person. The inability to differentiate between that and the real thing strikes me as far more problematic.
I find that mystifying. This is a remarkable discovery. We used to think AI images were rubbish (and they were), then we thought they were stuck in Uncanny Valley. We've now reached the stage where, for some unfathomable reason, human beings, when they are given a choice of AI images and real images, and asked to say which are real, tend to think AI images are more likely to be real, than the real ones
How can that not fascinate an inquiring mind?? WTF is happening in our heads when we do that?
On Deepfakes of course I agree with you. They are a masssive threat, and voice cloning and lip syncing only makes it worse
The next US elex will be a horrific mess of misinfo
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people merely shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
I think the start of the Conservative recovery is simple: select excellent talented candidates.
Don't do it on loyalty, arse scratching or ideology. Just pick very good candidates.
This can easily be done badly - see "A-list" - and it can be entirely cosmetic but look/ sound like what you want and you end up picking people who aren't committed to politics or who aren't actually Conservatives.
But start with the basics: Advertise. CV. Why are you a Conservative? Vision. What do you want to change? Evidence / appetite for public service - what have you done in the past? - and ask lots of competency-based questions about values and ethics, and look for references.
Select very good candidates.
Trouble is it's done by Conservative Constituency Parties. The ones that thought Truss was a good idea.
And IDS. Never forget that one.
IDS never lost a GE as leader!
And neither did Truss. It doesn't make either of them a good idea.
The members didn't think Truss or IDS were 'a good idea' ; they were offered a binary choice and felt that they were better on balance than Kenneth Clark and Sunak. Kenneth Clark was uncompromisingly opposed to the settled view of the party on one of the defining issues of the day, and Sunak was just plain crap - something which has been painfully proven true in the event. If Tory MPs want the members to stop choosing duds, stop passing them duds to choose between.
I heard Ken Clarke on the radio yesterday discussing the problems with indeterminate sentences, something he got abolished when Home Secretary but it was beyond his powers of persuasion to do this retrospectively. Some 1400 men are still trapped on these sentences unable to obtain their liberty many years after any rational sentence for their offence would have expired.
As usual, he was humane, warm, intelligent and sensible. It made me all nostalgic for when the Tory party was like that.
I am glad he appears that way for you, and I would agree he has considerable capabilities. However, I also think his election as leader would have split the party disastrously, whilst still not offering a compelling alternative to the public electing Blair - central as Clark was to the Major Government. The PCP gave the Party a choice between the unthinkable and the merely uninspiring.
As you know I did not agree with Ken Clarke on Europe but that choice still struck me as a choice between the sane and the insane. A bit like Sunak and Truss. Both times the membership went for the bat shit crazy option. It is not a great record, nor one that inspires confidence.
Labour went for Foot over Healey and Corbyn over Burnham or Cooper and Ed Miliband over David Miliband in opposition too.
Sometimes parties do prefer the ideologue over a centrist statesman, only when out of power long enough are they more likely to compromise with the electorate and elect a centrist. It took 15 years in opposition for Labour to elect Blair as leader (and even 13 years in opposition to elect John Smith), 8 years in opposition for the Tories to elect Cameron as leader and 10 years in opposition for Labour to elect Starmer as leader
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people merely shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
I concur. It is deeply depressing. Likewise the Birsalbingh case
As @Gardenwalker says below, sometimes it feels like Britain has abandoned any sense of what Britain is, or should be, or could be
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
I think the start of the Conservative recovery is simple: select excellent talented candidates.
Don't do it on loyalty, arse scratching or ideology. Just pick very good candidates.
This can easily be done badly - see "A-list" - and it can be entirely cosmetic but look/ sound like what you want and you end up picking people who aren't committed to politics or who aren't actually Conservatives.
But start with the basics: Advertise. CV. Why are you a Conservative? Vision. What do you want to change? Evidence / appetite for public service - what have you done in the past? - and ask lots of competency-based questions about values and ethics, and look for references.
Select very good candidates.
Trouble is it's done by Conservative Constituency Parties. The ones that thought Truss was a good idea.
And IDS. Never forget that one.
IDS never lost a GE as leader!
And neither did Truss. It doesn't make either of them a good idea.
The members didn't think Truss or IDS were 'a good idea' ; they were offered a binary choice and felt that they were better on balance than Kenneth Clark and Sunak. Kenneth Clark was uncompromisingly opposed to the settled view of the party on one of the defining issues of the day, and Sunak was just plain crap - something which has been painfully proven true in the event. If Tory MPs want the members to stop choosing duds, stop passing them duds to choose between.
I heard Ken Clarke on the radio yesterday discussing the problems with indeterminate sentences, something he got abolished when Home Secretary but it was beyond his powers of persuasion to do this retrospectively. Some 1400 men are still trapped on these sentences unable to obtain their liberty many years after any rational sentence for their offence would have expired.
As usual, he was humane, warm, intelligent and sensible. It made me all nostalgic for when the Tory party was like that.
I am glad he appears that way for you, and I would agree he has considerable capabilities. However, I also think his election as leader would have split the party disastrously, whilst still not offering a compelling alternative to the public electing Blair - central as Clark was to the Major Government. The PCP gave the Party a choice between the unthinkable and the merely uninspiring.
If Duncan Smith had merely been 'uninspiring' he would have been a much better leader.
Met up with JohnO at a working man’s champagne bar and put us in charge of the Tory party and we’ll save the party.
PS I debuted my new trainers today.
I got endless grief about buying myself a pair of white Lacoste trainers. My children eventually bought me new trainers for Christmas on the basis it was just too embarrassing being seen out with me. Even more than normal, apparently. So I am glad to see that I am not the only one who thought they were a good idea.
My mother bought me a Lacoste shirt as she thought the crocodile was cute. That was 60 years ago, though. Fashion? Pah!
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
I’d put the turning point well past 1979.
I do think the people who experienced WWI and WWII and the immediate generation that succeeded them, had a toughness of character, a willingness to take hard decisions, a public spirit, that is entirely lacking in the current governing class. I suspect many of them see nothing worth defending in this country, other than their own perks and privileges.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
Edgerton's thesis is explains a lot -including my own sense of nostalgia for a state and nation that no longer exists.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
I’d put the turning point well past 1979.
I do think the people who experienced WWI and WWII and the immediate generation that succeeded them, had a toughness of character, a willingness to take hard decisions, a public spirit, that is entirely lacking in the current governing class. I suspect many of them see nothing worth defending in this country, other than their own perks and privileges.
Yes and that generation had seen their many of their contemporaries killed in the trenches or at Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain or D Day or Monte Cassino and that gives a different outlook
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
I’d put the turning point well past 1979.
I do think the people who experienced WWI and WWII and the immediate generation that succeeded them, had a toughness of character, a willingness to take hard decisions, a public spirit, that is entirely lacking in the current governing class. I suspect many of them see nothing worth defending in this country, other than their own perks and privileges.
Yes and that generation had seen their many of their contemporaries killed in the trenches or at Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain or D Day or Monte Cassino and that gives a different outlook
I can’t find much at all to fault in the outlook that Attlee, Truman, and contemporaries took towards military matters and foreign affairs. They knew that the world was not a nice place, and they neither cosplayed at being patriots, nor were they ashamed of their countries.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Talking of snakes, I had a relatively new acquaintance banging on to me today about basketball and I told him I have no idea what he’s talking about. Turns out he thought I was a huge basketball fan as all the women we know call me Magic Johnson.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
I got 3 out of 10, pretty feeble - and I pride myself on being good at spotting AI images, as I write about them so often for the Gazette. See how you do
Here is the kicker tho, and maybe an explanation for my errors. It now seems that AI image creation is so good people tend to see AI inages as more likely to be real than real images. Try and wrap your head round that. I'm still attempting to understand the implications. AI is more real than reality??
As the article puts it:
"Distinguishing between a real versus an A.I.-generated face has proved especially confounding.
Research published across multiple studies found that faces of white people created by A.I. systems were perceived as more realistic than genuine photographs of white people, a phenomenon called hyper-realism."
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
I’d put the turning point well past 1979.
I do think the people who experienced WWI and WWII and the immediate generation that succeeded them, had a toughness of character, a willingness to take hard decisions, a public spirit, that is entirely lacking in the current governing class. I suspect many of them see nothing worth defending in this country, other than their own perks and privileges.
Yes and that generation had seen their many of their contemporaries killed in the trenches or at Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain or D Day or Monte Cassino and that gives a different outlook
We feel to have gone fairly quickly from 'The last man to die who served in WWI' (about 2011 I think) to 'there's almost no-one left who served in WWII'. A friend died recently aged 97. Though he did national service, he was to young to be in WWII.
And in this era of transition a significant number of younger people already believe the holocaust to be a myth (1 in 5 young Americans); and attitudes to Israel in the west are not going to return to where they were pre 7th October.
It would be worth polling younger people in the UK (and their mothers) how many would serve as and when we have our own renewed existential war, as in 1939-1945. I wouldn't like to guess.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
I think the start of the Conservative recovery is simple: select excellent talented candidates.
Don't do it on loyalty, arse scratching or ideology. Just pick very good candidates.
This can easily be done badly - see "A-list" - and it can be entirely cosmetic but look/ sound like what you want and you end up picking people who aren't committed to politics or who aren't actually Conservatives.
But start with the basics: Advertise. CV. Why are you a Conservative? Vision. What do you want to change? Evidence / appetite for public service - what have you done in the past? - and ask lots of competency-based questions about values and ethics, and look for references.
Select very good candidates.
Trouble is it's done by Conservative Constituency Parties. The ones that thought Truss was a good idea.
And IDS. Never forget that one.
IDS never lost a GE as leader!
And neither did Truss. It doesn't make either of them a good idea.
The members didn't think Truss or IDS were 'a good idea' ; they were offered a binary choice and felt that they were better on balance than Kenneth Clark and Sunak. Kenneth Clark was uncompromisingly opposed to the settled view of the party on one of the defining issues of the day, and Sunak was just plain crap - something which has been painfully proven true in the event. If Tory MPs want the members to stop choosing duds, stop passing them duds to choose between.
I heard Ken Clarke on the radio yesterday discussing the problems with indeterminate sentences, something he got abolished when Home Secretary but it was beyond his powers of persuasion to do this retrospectively. Some 1400 men are still trapped on these sentences unable to obtain their liberty many years after any rational sentence for their offence would have expired.
As usual, he was humane, warm, intelligent and sensible. It made me all nostalgic for when the Tory party was like that.
I am glad he appears that way for you, and I would agree he has considerable capabilities. However, I also think his election as leader would have split the party disastrously, whilst still not offering a compelling alternative to the public electing Blair - central as Clark was to the Major Government. The PCP gave the Party a choice between the unthinkable and the merely uninspiring.
As you know I did not agree with Ken Clarke on Europe but that choice still struck me as a choice between the sane and the insane. A bit like Sunak and Truss. Both times the membership went for the bat shit crazy option. It is not a great record, nor one that inspires confidence.
In the latter case, I flat out disagree. I am sure Yougov is now recording poll ratings for the Sunk Government in line with Truss's October polling - I find it inconceivable that even Truss herself would not have managed a more impressive polling rally simply with the passage of time. He's crap, he always looked crap, he got crapper with every hustings - they made 100% the right choice. In the former case, yes Clark was the stronger candidate in most particulars, but again, the blame must go back to the PCP for putting forward two deeply flawed candidates and leaving a good compromise candidate (Portillo) on the bench.
It's a continuing obsession with too clever by half wet Tories to present electorates with a forced choice between something unpalatable, and something that seems 'batshit crazy'. That lay behind Brexit also. It was considered very clever of Cameron to force the British public to endorse the EU by offering it in contrast to an 'unthinkable' alternative like Brexit. Sunak's campaign team did the same by ensuring that Truss, the weakest candidate, was placed against him in the run off. More often than not in this situation the voters deliver a big 'fuck you' in response.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
I’d put the turning point well past 1979.
I do think the people who experienced WWI and WWII and the immediate generation that succeeded them, had a toughness of character, a willingness to take hard decisions, a public spirit, that is entirely lacking in the current governing class. I suspect many of them see nothing worth defending in this country, other than their own perks and privileges.
Yes and that generation had seen their many of their contemporaries killed in the trenches or at Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain or D Day or Monte Cassino and that gives a different outlook
That generation overwhelmingly voted to change Britain via the Attlee government.
I got 3 out of 10, pretty feeble - and I pride myself on being good at spotting AI images, as I write about them so often for the Gazette. See how you do
Here is the kicker tho, and maybe an explanation for my errors. It now seems that AI image creation is so good people tend to see AI inages as more likely to be real than real images. Try and wrap your head round that. I'm still attempting to understand the implications. AI is more real than reality??
As the article puts it:
"Distinguishing between a real versus an A.I.-generated face has proved especially confounding.
Research published across multiple studies found that faces of white people created by A.I. systems were perceived as more realistic than genuine photographs of white people, a phenomenon called hyper-realism."
It's a shame the quiz doesn't work on that link, I'd be interested to know if PBers are as bad as me at detectihg the AI faces over the real faces. I got 3/10 right
The NYT quiz is much more interesting coz it is using the very best new AI images. And most people are completely unable to detect them, to the extent they find them MORE authentic than real images
Again, the philosophical implications of this are absolutely mind-boggling
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
It all hinges on what we want to preserve and cherish about Britain. The Welfare State and NHS? Our countryside? Our towns and cities? The Royal Family and its liturgy?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
I’d put the turning point well past 1979.
I do think the people who experienced WWI and WWII and the immediate generation that succeeded them, had a toughness of character, a willingness to take hard decisions, a public spirit, that is entirely lacking in the current governing class. I suspect many of them see nothing worth defending in this country, other than their own perks and privileges.
Yes and that generation had seen their many of their contemporaries killed in the trenches or at Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain or D Day or Monte Cassino and that gives a different outlook
We feel to have gone fairly quickly from 'The last man to die who served in WWI' (about 2011 I think) to 'there's almost no-one left who served in WWII'. A friend died recently aged 97. Though he did national service, he was to young to be in WWII.
And in this era of transition a significant number of younger people already believe the holocaust to be a myth (1 in 5 young Americans); and attitudes to Israel in the west are not going to return to where they were pre 7th October.
It would be worth polling younger people in the UK (and their mothers) how many would serve as and when we have our own renewed existential war, as in 1939-1945. I wouldn't like to guess.
If you had polled Britons in the mid 1930's you would have had a lot say they would refuse to serve too.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
Public safety for a school should not directly be a matter for the school at all, which, as long as it is acting lawfully, should be allowed to get on with its daily life. Those who don't like its lawful policies will find another school more to their liking. It is the police, not schools, who are our law enforcers.
If law enforcers and politicians are pusillanimous in protecting heads and others making judgements and acting for the general good chaos will ensue and schools will be intimidated into pandering to aggressive groups who make and imply threats.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
The mainstream political left has always been a vehicle for lobbies that felt poorly treated by the system. The right dominated by people with money and class aspirations. Thatcher must have been rooted in the wartime experience of 1939-45. Many of the younger people who lapped up her freedoms were not. Blair gets a lot of grief but I think in his own way he was patriotic. He just thought success equaled being modern and didn't understand the decay taking place.
I don't think we can ignore Europe. For those who saw our future in the EU, Gaitskell's 1000 years of history was a millstone around our necks. The best bet was to try and ignore our roots and become part of something else.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
It all hinges on what we want to preserve and cherish about Britain. The Welfare State and NHS? Our countryside? Our towns and cities? The Royal Family and its liturgy?
And that's partly why the breakdown of the postwar consensus in 1979 matters- before that, most mainstream politics was working off the same map, with agreement about what Britain looked like.
For a lot of the 80's, there wasn't a shared map; Thatcher remade a lot of things, for better or worse, but even the good bits took a while to be widely embraced.
There was another shared map, roughly when Blair accepted the post-Thatcher settlement, but that had Britain less clearly marked- was Cool Britannia to be embraced or shunned? Besides, that map fell apart pretty quickly (2008?), and we have all been navigating by different things ever since.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
In its absence, we have a kind of displacement activity where having "a seat at the table" and "punching above our weight" become ends in themselves without having a clear view of our own interests, let alone a strategy to pursue them.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
It all hinges on what we want to preserve and cherish about Britain. The Welfare State and NHS? Our countryside? Our towns and cities? The Royal Family and its liturgy?
And that's partly why the breakdown of the postwar consensus in 1979 matters- before that, most mainstream politics was working off the same map, with agreement about what Britain looked like.
For a lot of the 80's, there wasn't a shared map; Thatcher remade a lot of things, for better or worse, but even the good bits took a while to be widely embraced.
There was another shared map, roughly when Blair accepted the post-Thatcher settlement, but that had Britain less clearly marked- was Cool Britannia to be embraced or shunned? Besides, that map fell apart pretty quickly (2008?), and we have all been navigating by different things ever since.
Though, while this feels true, it seems to me the political Overton window has never been narrower, and such map as there is, is actually shared; and the only group actually seeking government, Labour, differs only in trivia and small things from the Tories; they hope to get in on the promise of integrity and competence alone. (And I hope they do).
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
In its absence, we have a kind of displacement activity where having "a seat at the table" and "punching above our weight" become ends in themselves without having a clear view of our own interests, let alone a strategy to pursue them.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
No I think you have a point. Violent behaviour by students or parents is unacceptable. Back in the 1970s violence in schools could be met with violence. Palestinian flags are a side issue.
A teacher should not be threatened by anyone. Both my parents were teachers.
Pandering to left wing sensitivities has got us where we are. Perhaps some cruelty from the likes of Jenrick and Braverman is what we need as a nation.
You inferred I was taking the piss. I am serious about schools and the police having whatever means they need to get society back on track.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Thatcher didn't make that happen (the tendency has always been there, and long periods of peace and prosperity will make a society decadent), but she was a long way from discouraging or constraining that instinct.
The Victorian Values stuff, the Grantham Methodism, wasn't just cant, it was needed to make the project work. Without it, you end up with... roughly what the Conservatives have decended to.
I don't think I'm being unfair in assuming that, if the worst did happen, a fair significant chunk of the current governing party would bugger off to a private island for the duration.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The America one is interesting though; to an amazing extent it appears as two settler nations, two rival and utterly incompatible philosophies with no capacity to debate on a basis of common principles whatsoever, and no common ground even on fundamentals like 'How is truth distinguished from untruth'. It's like a debate between Kant and Nietzsche
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
The irony is that in breaking down class barriers over time the ruling classes were then relieved of some sort of sacred (to them) noblesse oblige.
If you are told you are not special anymore because of your “birthright” then you will inevitably think about whether it’s worth bothering behaving differently.
For example a childhood friend who is a Lord, worth millions, had estates that employed many people and were very worthwhile sold them all when his old man died. His father had kept them running at a high cost to the estate because that’s what he was supposed to do, he had a duty to those who lived and worked on these estates and stately homes. My friend however just saw that he was given grief about his title (he doesn’t even use it now), grief about his wealth even though he wasn’t flash and just decided to screw it, got the trustees to sell up where he had the power to instruct, and just lives like any other very wealthy banker or partner with no ties or obligations.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
He really records no post-war decline until Thatcher gets in? Wow. Must have blinkers like a Shire pony.
You're thinking economically, not nationally. Up to a point in the 20th century, the British patria was the Empire and the UK was a warfare state (his term), geared to producing ships and guns and coal to police the Empire and seas. Companies included Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and Imperial Airways. Then it contracted and the British patria became the UK and the UK was a welfare state (his term), a process of adjustment over some decades. Companies include British Steel, British Coal, the National Health Service. During the neoliberal period this national base was abandoned and the British patria became diffuse, spreading out to Europe or Anglosphere or India or global, depending on taste.
Edgerton notes these patterns, and his book "The Fall And Rise Of The British Nation" summarises this. Gardenwalker described this summary.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
In its absence, we have a kind of displacement activity where having "a seat at the table" and "punching above our weight" become ends in themselves without having a clear view of our own interests, let alone a strategy to pursue them.
It's odd. As a recent example, look at Peter Mandelson's intervention with Blair on the horizon scandal. 'We don't want to upset Fujitsu, or the Japanese Government' - I mean I get sucking up to the USA or even the Saudis, but since when were we that supine in the face of a computer company getting loads of our money and Japan??
It's easy to put it down to being a small nation at the mercy of stronger powers like the US, larger polities like the EU, and richer powers like Saudi Arabia, but we forget that most of Britain and England's history we have been a small player and had to negotiate and jostle with bigger powers like Spain and France. Through all that, those responsible for our statecraft seemed to have an instinct for the survival of Britain (and before that England), perhaps because they were mostly Kings and Queens, so were tied dynastically to the country's survival. We have lost a basic understanding that whilst we must sometimes bend, do deals, act nice etc., we don't actually put the country on a plate and sell to the highest bidder.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
No I think you have a point. Violent behaviour by students or parents is unacceptable. Back in the 1970s violence in schools could be met with violence. Palestinian flags are a side issue.
A teacher should not be threatened by anyone. Both my parents were teachers.
Pandering to left wing sensitivities has got us where we are. Perhaps some cruelty from the likes of Jenrick and Braverman is what we need as a nation.
You inferred I was taking the piss. I am serious about schools and the police having whatever means they need to get society back on track.
The actual troublemakers might not actually be pupils OR parents of course.
I am not sure that the muscle definition on the forearms is quite right. Too smooth and no bunch at the elbow as you would expect an athlete to have. But yes, it works.
Well no it's not perfect, but it is proof that in a very short time (that took me a minute) you can get really quite impressive results
With some fine tuning In reckon I could make that indistinguishable from reality in about half an hour. And this is a complicated request
If you simply ask for a face - in the right way - you will get images that are perfectly real immediately
See the NYT article below. Try the test. It is humbling when you keep getting it wrong and you can't tell AI from reality
I don't subscribe to the NYT so I can't see it but I have seen similar things before. Machines can create realistic images, even of faces which our biology makes us particularly skilled at noticing in detail. Not sure this has anything to do with intelligence per se though. It is ultimately no more complex than creating a machine tool.
Perhaps. I confess I was a little unnerved I got so many wrong - it's a shame you can't access it.
I was also disquited by the revelation people now think AI images are more "believable" than real images. AI reality is seen as more convincing and authentic than actual reality
"The idea that A.I.-generated faces could be deemed more authentic than actual people startled experts like Dr. Dawel, who fear that digital fakes could help the spread of false and misleading messages online."
Spend a few minutes pondering that, and the philosophical implications are wild, and profound
I just can't get excited about the ability to create an image. I get a lot more concerned about such technology's ability to take, manipulate and use the actual image of an actual person. The inability to differentiate between that and the real thing strikes me as far more problematic.
Indeed. If you can use an AI to translate a politician’s speech in a plausible way, including their lip movements, then it’s a very short path from there to having someone write a fake speech (or even subtly alter an actual speech) by a real politician, indistinguishable from a real speech.
Which is almost certain to happen in both the US and UK elections this year.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
He really records no post-war decline until Thatcher gets in? Wow. Must have blinkers like a Shire pony.
You're thinking economically, not nationally. Up to a point in the 20th century, the British patria was the Empire and the UK was a warfare state (his term), geared to producing ships and guns and coal to police the Empire and seas. Companies included Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and Imperial Airways. Then it contracted and the British patria became the UK and the UK was a welfare state (his term), a process of adjustment over some decades. Companies include British Steel, British Coal, the National Health Service. During the neoliberal period this national base was abandoned and the British patria became diffuse, spreading out to Europe or Anglosphere or India or global, depending on taste.
Edgerton notes these patterns, and his book "The Fall And Rise Of The British Nation" summarises this. Gardenwalker described this summary.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
I see on the issue of Britain, particularly it's elite, having lost any purpose we seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room - foreign money. I'm not sure you can understand our universities now without it.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
In its absence, we have a kind of displacement activity where having "a seat at the table" and "punching above our weight" become ends in themselves without having a clear view of our own interests, let alone a strategy to pursue them.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The America one is interesting though; to an amazing extent it appears as two settler nations, two rival and utterly incompatible philosophies with no capacity to debate on a basis of common principles whatsoever, and no common ground even on fundamentals like 'How is truth distinguished from untruth'. It's like a debate between Kant and Nietzsche
America is just the most fascinating polity. It has a range of insane issues, including the dichotomy you talk of.
As I’ve read more about US history, it’s clear that the “two nations” have been there from the beginning and the tension has driven much of American political history.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
I see on the issue of Britain, particularly it's elite, having lost any purpose we seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room - foreign money. I'm not sure you can understand our universities now without it.
It’s essentially the same phenomenon. Selling itself out to the highest bidder.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
The irony is that in breaking down class barriers over time the ruling classes were then relieved of some sort of sacred (to them) noblesse oblige.
If you are told you are not special anymore because of your “birthright” then you will inevitably think about whether it’s worth bothering behaving differently.
For example a childhood friend who is a Lord, worth millions, had estates that employed many people and were very worthwhile sold them all when his old man died. His father had kept them running at a high cost to the estate because that’s what he was supposed to do, he had a duty to those who lived and worked on these estates and stately homes. My friend however just saw that he was given grief about his title (he doesn’t even use it now), grief about his wealth even though he wasn’t flash and just decided to screw it, got the trustees to sell up where he had the power to instruct, and just lives like any other very wealthy banker or partner with no ties or obligations.
I agree up to a point, but an unfair system that depends on people voluntarily being decent isn't really sound - one could point to the existence of kind slave-owners (I'm sure there were some). They should get credit for it, but it doesn't make slavery acceptable. Conversely, people who are genuinely decent will be helpful to others whether they get credit for it or not, surely?
I am not sure that the muscle definition on the forearms is quite right. Too smooth and no bunch at the elbow as you would expect an athlete to have. But yes, it works.
Well no it's not perfect, but it is proof that in a very short time (that took me a minute) you can get really quite impressive results
With some fine tuning In reckon I could make that indistinguishable from reality in about half an hour. And this is a complicated request
If you simply ask for a face - in the right way - you will get images that are perfectly real immediately
See the NYT article below. Try the test. It is humbling when you keep getting it wrong and you can't tell AI from reality
I don't subscribe to the NYT so I can't see it but I have seen similar things before. Machines can create realistic images, even of faces which our biology makes us particularly skilled at noticing in detail. Not sure this has anything to do with intelligence per se though. It is ultimately no more complex than creating a machine tool.
Perhaps. I confess I was a little unnerved I got so many wrong - it's a shame you can't access it.
I was also disquited by the revelation people now think AI images are more "believable" than real images. AI reality is seen as more convincing and authentic than actual reality
"The idea that A.I.-generated faces could be deemed more authentic than actual people startled experts like Dr. Dawel, who fear that digital fakes could help the spread of false and misleading messages online."
Spend a few minutes pondering that, and the philosophical implications are wild, and profound
I just can't get excited about the ability to create an image. I get a lot more concerned about such technology's ability to take, manipulate and use the actual image of an actual person. The inability to differentiate between that and the real thing strikes me as far more problematic.
Indeed. If you can use an AI to translate a politician’s speech in a plausible way, including their lip movements, then it’s a very short path from there to having someone write a fake speech (or even subtly alter an actual speech) by a real politician, indistinguishable from a real speech.
Which is almost certain to happen in both the US and UK elections this year.
What's more, the evidence from that NYT article suggests that viewers will "prefer" the AI version, the deepfake, the AI speech by an AI simulacrum. They are more likely to believe it is real, than the real version
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
I’d put the turning point well past 1979.
I do think the people who experienced WWI and WWII and the immediate generation that succeeded them, had a toughness of character, a willingness to take hard decisions, a public spirit, that is entirely lacking in the current governing class. I suspect many of them see nothing worth defending in this country, other than their own perks and privileges.
Yes and that generation had seen their many of their contemporaries killed in the trenches or at Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain or D Day or Monte Cassino and that gives a different outlook
That generation overwhelmingly voted to change Britain via the Attlee government.
After six years of being subservient to the officer class, they realised they could run the country better than them, and voted accordingly. We need the same attitude now.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
He really records no post-war decline until Thatcher gets in? Wow. Must have blinkers like a Shire pony.
You're thinking economically, not nationally. Up to a point in the 20th century, the British patria was the Empire and the UK was a warfare state (his term), geared to producing ships and guns and coal to police the Empire and seas. Companies included Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and Imperial Airways. Then it contracted and the British patria became the UK and the UK was a welfare state (his term), a process of adjustment over some decades. Companies include British Steel, British Coal, the National Health Service. During the neoliberal period this national base was abandoned and the British patria became diffuse, spreading out to Europe or Anglosphere or India or global, depending on taste.
Edgerton notes these patterns, and his book "The Fall And Rise Of The British Nation" summarises this. Gardenwalker described this summary.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
In its absence, we have a kind of displacement activity where having "a seat at the table" and "punching above our weight" become ends in themselves without having a clear view of our own interests, let alone a strategy to pursue them.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The America one is interesting though; to an amazing extent it appears as two settler nations, two rival and utterly incompatible philosophies with no capacity to debate on a basis of common principles whatsoever, and no common ground even on fundamentals like 'How is truth distinguished from untruth'. It's like a debate between Kant and Nietzsche
America is just the most fascinating polity. It has a range of insane issues, including the dichotomy you talk of.
As I’ve read more about US history, it’s clear that the “two nations” have been there from the beginning and the tension has driven much of American political history.
Agreed, there has always been a tension between the different reasons for settling the US. On one hand you had the religious fundamentalists who wanted freedom to practice their “extreme” religious views and on the other you had the financial adventurers who wanted to use that new land and opportunity to make money. They aren’t really overly compatible.
At first a lot of immigrants were going for the freedoms from European politics or religious issues but later immigration seemed to be about the life opportunities.
From my limited understanding different states at the time of the revolution had vastly different priorities and drivers for what they wanted the result to be based on whether they had been “religious colonies” or “plantation/wealth building”colonies.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
In its absence, we have a kind of displacement activity where having "a seat at the table" and "punching above our weight" become ends in themselves without having a clear view of our own interests, let alone a strategy to pursue them.
It's odd. As a recent example, look at Peter Mandelson's intervention with Blair on the horizon scandal. 'We don't want to upset Fujitsu, or the Japanese Government' - I mean I get sucking up to the USA or even the Saudis, but since when were we that supine in the face of a computer company getting loads of our money and Japan??
Perhaps we've become a caricature of the Japanese stereotype of being obsessed with not losing face. Everything is assessed from the perspective of whether it's a good look or not.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
No I think you have a point. Violent behaviour by students or parents is unacceptable. Back in the 1970s violence in schools could be met with violence. Palestinian flags are a side issue.
A teacher should not be threatened by anyone. Both my parents were teachers.
Pandering to left wing sensitivities has got us where we are. Perhaps some cruelty from the likes of Jenrick and Braverman is what we need as a nation.
You inferred I was taking the piss. I am serious about schools and the police having whatever means they need to get society back on track.
The actual troublemakers might not actually be pupils OR parents of course.
The article also mentions right wing groups wading in too.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
He really records no post-war decline until Thatcher gets in? Wow. Must have blinkers like a Shire pony.
You're thinking economically, not nationally. Up to a point in the 20th century, the British patria was the Empire and the UK was a warfare state (his term), geared to producing ships and guns and coal to police the Empire and seas. Companies included Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and Imperial Airways. Then it contracted and the British patria became the UK and the UK was a welfare state (his term), a process of adjustment over some decades. Companies include British Steel, British Coal, the National Health Service. During the neoliberal period this national base was abandoned and the British patria became diffuse, spreading out to Europe or Anglosphere or India or global, depending on taste.
Edgerton notes these patterns, and his book "The Fall And Rise Of The British Nation" summarises this. Gardenwalker described this summary.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
In its absence, we have a kind of displacement activity where having "a seat at the table" and "punching above our weight" become ends in themselves without having a clear view of our own interests, let alone a strategy to pursue them.
It's odd. As a recent example, look at Peter Mandelson's intervention with Blair on the horizon scandal. 'We don't want to upset Fujitsu, or the Japanese Government' - I mean I get sucking up to the USA or even the Saudis, but since when were we that supine in the face of a computer company getting loads of our money and Japan??
Perhaps we've become a caricature of the Japanese stereotype of being obsessed with not losing face. Everything is assessed from the perspective of whether it's a good look or not.
It's the polar opposite. Howling terror of gaining any face.
I see on the issue of Britain, particularly it's elite, having lost any purpose we seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room - foreign money. I'm not sure you can understand our universities now without it.
It’s essentially the same phenomenon. Selling itself out to the highest bidder.
Which makes perfect sense if you don't have a concept of something (a society, for want of a better word) reaching back or forward in time. If you ignore that the thing you are flogging off was constructed by ancestors (at considerable expense) or might be a thing that your grandchildren might want, why not sell it now and have a nice holiday with the proceeds?
To a greater or lesser extent, we're all at it, unfortunately.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
The same is surely true of many other countries too. Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, Germany, Sweden Italy, Spain etc etc.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
He really records no post-war decline until Thatcher gets in? Wow. Must have blinkers like a Shire pony.
You're thinking economically, not nationally. Up to a point in the 20th century, the British patria was the Empire and the UK was a warfare state (his term), geared to producing ships and guns and coal to police the Empire and seas. Companies included Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and Imperial Airways. Then it contracted and the British patria became the UK and the UK was a welfare state (his term), a process of adjustment over some decades. Companies include British Steel, British Coal, the National Health Service. During the neoliberal period this national base was abandoned and the British patria became diffuse, spreading out to Europe or Anglosphere or India or global, depending on taste.
Edgerton notes these patterns, and his book "The Fall And Rise Of The British Nation" summarises this. Gardenwalker described this summary.
The economy and the nation. The economy is just the nation in numbers.
Um, I'm surprised to hear you say that. The nation is a group of people who describe themselves as "us". The economy is what the people do. I am not my job. What we are is different from what we do.
For all the negativity one must acknowledge that Britain retains some quite formidable strengths. A desire for moderation, a focus on what works, mighty institutions, an assertive global approach to a liberal foreign policy and a clear distaste for strongmen.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Some years ago I was at a City dinner. The conversation was descending into Brexit. So I tried to change subjects. I bought up the account by an ex-Cameron Spad, who’d asked “why should we care more for the people of the U.K. than those of any other country?”
From the conversation that followed, it was clear that among the impeccably right on folk at the table, the inhabitants of the UK were much *less* deserving. The attitude was somewhere between anger, hatred and contempt.
We were all fairly hammered by this stage. An HAC officer noted that if the Government didn’t owe anything to the people, why should he owe anything to the Government? And since, because of a TA exercise and his being in charge of it, he had more armed men under his command than anyone in London, apart from the Guards….
At this point I asked who was planning the coup. He detected my sense of humour and started knitting a tale that involved a one-eyed, one armed colonel in the Staff, plotting Operation Angel. I genially promoted him with questions.
We only stopped after it became clear from the horror at the table, that they thought something serious was being discussed.
My takeaway from this was that many of the modern great and the good dislike nearly everything of this country. Apart from the absolute obedience of the permanent structures of the state. To themselves.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
I asked my family which is higher legal or illegal immigration
They all said illegal
They are not really interested in politics and it does indicate how much illegal dominates the media generally
I should add that when I said approx 1.5 million in the last 2 years they were astonished
I see on the issue of Britain, particularly it's elite, having lost any purpose we seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room - foreign money. I'm not sure you can understand our universities now without it.
It’s essentially the same phenomenon. Selling itself out to the highest bidder.
Which makes perfect sense if you don't have a concept of something (a society, for want of a better word) reaching back or forward in time. If you ignore that the thing you are flogging off was constructed by ancestors (at considerable expense) or might be a thing that your grandchildren might want, why not sell it now and have a nice holiday with the proceeds?
To a greater or lesser extent, we're all at it, unfortunately.
Ultimately, as @DavidL repeatedly points out if we run a massive trade deficit year after year, decade after decade then the only way to finance it is by flogging our assets to foreigners. Where once we owned railways in China, factories in India and plantations in Malaysia, now these places own our assets, and we have to doff our caps to them.
The steelworks in Port Talbot and Scunthorpe have been Indian owned for years, so have no sense of obligation to the British communities or government.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
If you haven't already, get a copy of LM Studio or GPT4All and start downloading custom (uncensored) LLMs from huggingface.co/thebloke
(Assuming your computer can handle it - you'll need a decent graphics card or an M1/M2/M3 mac).
I very much doubt my computer can handle it, and I am annoyingly illiterate at complex coding. Is it hard to do?
If you don't have the above hardware (e.g. you have a bog standard pc laptop), you won't be able to run the models.
It used to be hard to do because you had to install software at the command line, but now it's relatively easy with LM studio or GPT4All which are one click installs. Then you download a single file containing your LLM (TheBloke is reliable), load it into LM Studio, and chat like it's chatgpt.
But you'll need a PC with an up to date non-integrated graphics card (e.g. an Nvidia 3090 or later) or an M1/M2/M3 mac to do it.
Edit: even if you can't run this stuff yourself, I strongly suggest you check out the open source community just to see how fast things are moving. It's getting like being able to 3d print a nuclear bomb at home with a 9gb download... the idea that OpenAI or whoever can keep a lid on it is for the birds.
Based on this post (thanks!) I decided to give it a go.
I downloaded both LM Studio and GPT4All and a model in each.
LM Studio seems to work better for me on linux and I'm now running 'TheBloke'. Total time: 15 minutes, plus the background model downloads.
This isn't going away, is it?
[I have a 16GB GPU and a 16 core processor and get about 3 or 4 words/sec out of it]
I so wish I could do this! What are you discovering?
Nothing yet, other than that it runs and spools bullshit just like ChatGPT. It is remarkable that you can run this on your own PC, though.
At the moment it looks like an amusement without much utility. I shall see how it is at writing the odd bit of code.
What I would like to do is get it to ingest local documents to use as a reference. Not sure how easy that is.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
He really records no post-war decline until Thatcher gets in? Wow. Must have blinkers like a Shire pony.
You're thinking economically, not nationally. Up to a point in the 20th century, the British patria was the Empire and the UK was a warfare state (his term), geared to producing ships and guns and coal to police the Empire and seas. Companies included Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and Imperial Airways. Then it contracted and the British patria became the UK and the UK was a welfare state (his term), a process of adjustment over some decades. Companies include British Steel, British Coal, the National Health Service. During the neoliberal period this national base was abandoned and the British patria became diffuse, spreading out to Europe or Anglosphere or India or global, depending on taste.
Edgerton notes these patterns, and his book "The Fall And Rise Of The British Nation" summarises this. Gardenwalker described this summary.
The economy and the nation. The economy is just the nation in numbers.
Um, I'm surprised to hear you say that. The nation is a group of people who describe themselves as "us". The economy is what the people do. I am not my job. What we are is different from what we do.
They are two ways of looking at the same thing. One can see the nation through the lense of its economic activity, its health statistics, its religious choices etc. If one knew everything about everyone's actions as participants in the economy, one would know everything about them.
But my point is really that the dismantlement and sell-off of the nationalised industries cannot be critiqued without understanding how nationalisation had made them joke industries staffed by joke workers and producing joke products. It is nationalisation that is responsible for this, not privatisation. As an example, private enterprise covered the country in railways - nationalisation enabled their decimation. These things happened between 1945 and 1979.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
Public safety for a school should not directly be a matter for the school at all, which, as long as it is acting lawfully, should be allowed to get on with its daily life. Those who don't like its lawful policies will find another school more to their liking. It is the police, not schools, who are our law enforcers.
If law enforcers and politicians are pusillanimous in protecting heads and others making judgements and acting for the general good chaos will ensue and schools will be intimidated into pandering to aggressive groups who make and imply threats.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
It's of more recent vintage, but certainly in Leicester people of other ethnicities are happy to identify as British. I remember a recent Perry Grayson series where he interviewed a Brummy Sikh, and asked him when he feels most English. He replied "when I visit India" to much mirth and nodding from his Sikh friends at the same table. Many of my British South Asian friends would say the same. Distinct traditions but now British.
Multiculturalism means different things to different people, but what you describe of hyphenated Americans is multiculturalism.
Contrast with France, which is explicitly not "multicultural" indeed refuses to keep official figures on ethnicity. It isn't noticeably successful at doing better in terms of race relations.
The solution is presumably to go back to the immigration policies of the early 1990s, which wasn’t that long ago, was it?
It has something fundamental changed in the global economy such that we simply can no longer control immigration volumes.
Immigration is a bit like crack. Economies seem to become addicted to it. I am in favour of moderate-to-high immigration, but my definition of that is probably 100-200k per annum, not 1m+ per annum.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Not least because George Orwell was one of our leading left wing intellectuals when he said it, and definitely a patriot.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
I asked my family which is higher legal or illegal immigration
They all said illegal
They are not really interested in politics and it does indicate how much illegal dominates the media generally
I should add that when I said approx 1.5 million in the last 2 years they were astonished
And the legal migrants are here because, one way or another, we need them.
Foreign students prop up our universities and, since they're the customers, they get to say under what terms they are prepared to come here.
Foreign workers prop up a lot of the economy, especially in the public sector. We're desperate, so they have leverage.
Neither of those is inevitable, but I don't think we'd like the necessary changes to avoid them.
Much easier to make a noise about a much smaller flow.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Ah, the provincial quack who knows better than George Orwell. Never change, PB
Comments
But the foreign news is admirable, and better - I fear - than any British paper, probably. Partly coz they have so much money?
And the mobile site is best in class, wonderful mingling of video and text
A maximum of 15 years seems more like it.
I can't leave the house unless I am suitably tailored by Kilgour, French and Stanbury.
How can that not fascinate an inquiring mind?? WTF is happening in our heads when we do that?
On Deepfakes of course I agree with you. They are a masssive threat, and voice cloning and lip syncing only makes it worse
The next US elex will be a horrific mess of misinfo
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people merely shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Sometimes parties do prefer the ideologue over a centrist statesman, only when out of power long enough are they more likely to compromise with the electorate and elect a centrist. It took 15 years in opposition for Labour to elect Blair as leader (and even 13 years in opposition to elect John Smith), 8 years in opposition for the Tories to elect Cameron as leader and 10 years in opposition for Labour to elect Starmer as leader
As @Gardenwalker says below, sometimes it feels like Britain has abandoned any sense of what Britain is, or should be, or could be
https://www.staffordshire-live.co.uk/news/burton-news/hundreds-call-sacking-de-ferrers-5451536
I do think the people who experienced WWI and WWII and the immediate generation that succeeded them, had a toughness of character, a willingness to take hard decisions, a public spirit, that is entirely lacking in the current governing class. I suspect many of them see nothing worth defending in this country, other than their own perks and privileges.
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
I think it was a πthon.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
And in this era of transition a significant number of younger people already believe the holocaust to be a myth (1 in 5 young Americans); and attitudes to Israel in the west are not going to return to where they were pre 7th October.
It would be worth polling younger people in the UK (and their mothers) how many would serve as and when we have our own renewed existential war, as in 1939-1945. I wouldn't like to guess.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
It's a continuing obsession with too clever by half wet Tories to present electorates with a forced choice between something unpalatable, and something that seems 'batshit crazy'. That lay behind Brexit also. It was considered very clever of Cameron to force the British public to endorse the EU by offering it in contrast to an 'unthinkable' alternative like Brexit. Sunak's campaign team did the same by ensuring that Truss, the weakest candidate, was placed against him in the run off. More often than not in this situation the voters deliver a big 'fuck you' in response.
The NYT quiz is much more interesting coz it is using the very best new AI images. And most people are completely unable to detect them, to the extent they find them MORE authentic than real images
Again, the philosophical implications of this are absolutely mind-boggling
It all hinges on what we want to preserve and cherish about Britain. The Welfare State and NHS? Our countryside? Our towns and cities? The Royal Family and its liturgy?
If law enforcers and politicians are pusillanimous in protecting heads and others making judgements and acting for the general good chaos will ensue and schools will be intimidated into pandering to aggressive groups who make and imply threats.
I don't think we can ignore Europe. For those who saw our future in the EU, Gaitskell's 1000 years of history was a millstone around our necks. The best bet was to try and ignore our roots and become part of something else.
For a lot of the 80's, there wasn't a shared map; Thatcher remade a lot of things, for better or worse, but even the good bits took a while to be widely embraced.
There was another shared map, roughly when Blair accepted the post-Thatcher settlement, but that had Britain less clearly marked- was Cool Britannia to be embraced or shunned? Besides, that map fell apart pretty quickly (2008?), and we have all been navigating by different things ever since.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
A teacher should not be threatened by anyone. Both my parents were teachers.
Pandering to left wing sensitivities has got us where we are. Perhaps some cruelty from the likes of Jenrick and Braverman is what we need as a nation.
You inferred I was taking the piss. I am serious about schools and the police having whatever means they need to get society back on track.
The Victorian Values stuff, the Grantham Methodism, wasn't just cant, it was needed to make the project work. Without it, you end up with... roughly what the Conservatives have decended to.
I don't think I'm being unfair in assuming that, if the worst did happen, a fair significant chunk of the current governing party would bugger off to a private island for the duration.
If you are told you are not special anymore because of your “birthright” then you will inevitably think about whether it’s worth bothering behaving differently.
For example a childhood friend who is a Lord, worth millions, had estates that employed many people and were very worthwhile sold them all when his old man died. His father had kept them running at a high cost to the estate because that’s what he was supposed to do, he had a duty to those who lived and worked on these estates and stately homes. My friend however just saw that he was given grief about his title (he doesn’t even use it now), grief about his wealth even though he wasn’t flash and just decided to screw it, got the trustees to sell up where he had the power to instruct, and just lives like any other very wealthy banker or partner with no ties or obligations.
Edgerton notes these patterns, and his book "The Fall And Rise Of The British Nation" summarises this. Gardenwalker described this summary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Edgerton_(historian)
The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History (2018) ISBN 978-1-8461-4775-3
It's easy to put it down to being a small nation at the mercy of stronger powers like the US, larger polities like the EU, and richer powers like Saudi Arabia, but we forget that most of Britain and England's history we have been a small player and had to negotiate and jostle with bigger powers like Spain and France. Through all that, those responsible for our statecraft seemed to have an instinct for the survival of Britain (and before that England), perhaps because they were mostly Kings and Queens, so were tied dynastically to the country's survival. We have lost a basic understanding that whilst we must sometimes bend, do deals, act nice etc., we don't actually put the country on a plate and sell to the highest bidder.
Which is almost certain to happen in both the US and UK elections this year.
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
It has a range of insane issues, including the dichotomy you talk of.
As I’ve read more about US history, it’s clear that the “two nations” have been there from the beginning and the tension has driven much of American political history.
It’s mind-boggling.
Selling itself out to the highest bidder.
That is explosively dangerous
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
At first a lot of immigrants were going for the freedoms from European politics or religious issues but later immigration seemed to be about the life opportunities.
From my limited understanding different states at the time of the revolution had vastly different priorities and drivers for what they wanted the result to be based on whether they had been “religious colonies” or “plantation/wealth building”colonies.
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
https://x.com/asfarasdelgados/status/1719809370823799252?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/19/style/winston-churchill-false-teeth-auction-intl-scli-gbr/index.html
To a greater or lesser extent, we're all at it, unfortunately.
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
From the conversation that followed, it was clear that among the impeccably right on folk at the table, the inhabitants of the UK were much *less* deserving. The attitude was somewhere between anger, hatred and contempt.
We were all fairly hammered by this stage. An HAC officer noted that if the Government didn’t owe anything to the people, why should he owe anything to the Government? And since, because of a TA exercise and his being in charge of it, he had more armed men under his command than anyone in London, apart from the Guards….
At this point I asked who was planning the coup. He detected my sense of humour and started knitting a tale that involved a one-eyed, one armed colonel in the Staff, plotting Operation Angel. I genially promoted him with questions.
We only stopped after it became clear from the horror at the table, that they thought something serious was being discussed.
My takeaway from this was that many of the modern great and the good dislike nearly everything of this country. Apart from the absolute obedience of the permanent structures of the state. To themselves.
They all said illegal
They are not really interested in politics and it does indicate how much illegal dominates the media generally
I should add that when I said approx 1.5 million in the last 2 years they were astonished
The steelworks in Port Talbot and Scunthorpe have been Indian owned for years, so have no sense of obligation to the British communities or government.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
At the moment it looks like an amusement without much utility. I shall see how it is at writing the odd bit of code.
What I would like to do is get it to ingest local documents to use as a reference. Not sure how easy that is.
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
But my point is really that the dismantlement and sell-off of the nationalised industries cannot be critiqued without understanding how nationalisation had made them joke industries staffed by joke workers and producing joke products. It is nationalisation that is responsible for this, not privatisation. As an example, private enterprise covered the country in railways - nationalisation enabled their decimation. These things happened between 1945 and 1979.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/muslim-pupil-taking-school-to-court-prayer-ban-on-legal-aid/
Multiculturalism means different things to different people, but what you describe of hyphenated Americans is multiculturalism.
Contrast with France, which is explicitly not "multicultural" indeed refuses to keep official figures on ethnicity. It isn't noticeably successful at doing better in terms of race relations.
It has something fundamental changed in the global economy such that we simply can no longer control immigration volumes.
Immigration is a bit like crack. Economies seem to become addicted to it. I am in favour of moderate-to-high immigration, but my definition of that is probably 100-200k per annum, not 1m+ per annum.
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Not least because George Orwell was one of our leading left wing intellectuals when he said it, and definitely a patriot.
Foreign students prop up our universities and, since they're the customers, they get to say under what terms they are prepared to come here.
Foreign workers prop up a lot of the economy, especially in the public sector. We're desperate, so they have leverage.
Neither of those is inevitable, but I don't think we'd like the necessary changes to avoid them.
Much easier to make a noise about a much smaller flow.