I see the national disaster of the fall of Singapore has now been superceded. Had to happen I suppose.
Singapore couldn't have been a disaster, Labour were not in power. Indian independence however...
Hong Kong negotiated by Maggie.
The inevitable outcome of another 99-year lease.
There was no lease on Hong Kong. That was ours. Very little to be done about it though when the Chinese would have sailed in and taken it anyway. Thatcher's Falkland's success made the Chinese even tetchier and harder to negotiate with apparently.
Realistically the only power capable of beating China militarily and economically is the USA so there is no point holding territory the Chinese may want, hence we gave up Hong Kong after the lease expired. Hence we have given up the Chagos Islands and left the US to defend the military base they have their
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
That sounds highly unlikely.
We very probably need a massively different navy than the one we have - for example the carriers are an expensive anachronism, since we're just not wealthy enough to properly pay for or really need such a capability - but we're an essential part of the defence of NATO's European waters (as well as our own).
No, really, I'm no expert
But yes, who knows. Maybe the navy we need to have is a fleet of one-man kiteboards with mini torpedoes and mini drones attached. Great hulks of irrelevance are not it though.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
I am sure your Mum will love that last line next Mother's Day
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
You're good at coining words - there should be a word for this. Putting aside strong emotion, and just getting on with normality. (I've no suggestions)
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
I agree, carriers without proper escorts capable of air, missile and submarine defence are highly at risk.
What we need is the equivalent of the Iron Dome, a military that has drones that are up to date and keeps up to date, the kind of protection from cyber attack that we, in fairness, seem to have, and some ability to ensure that the food we need to keep ourselves alive can make it here. I'm counting that as 1/4, tops.
Aircraft carriers need proper escorts (and all these need to be crewed) and really only needed as expeditionary Blue water fleets, outside the North Atlantic.
I think we have pretentious that we cannot afford with massive opportunity cost to our real defence needs.
I completely agree. It was obvious, even to our benighted rulers that history is going to be made in the Pacific in the next 50 years, not in the depressing and depressed back lands of Europe. So we bought carriers so that we could pretend that we can still play a part in the great game. But we can't afford to protect them properly, they work as well as anything else in our public sector and people are increasingly reluctant to pretend that we matter. In the meantime we are almost totally dependent upon others to protect us, despite a fairly respectable defence budget. And we do nothing to address our real issues.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
Presses sick parent into service for the cause. Lovely jubbly.
I just want to be explicit that this is not an invitation to Vladimir Putin to “nuke my mother” living as she does at 19 Diana Close TR6 3JS, just across from the co-op and she often shops around 11am weekdays
Nuking my mother would actually cross one of my red lines. I want to make that clear. We know Russian security reads this forum
Also if they do nuke her during one of her 40 minute mid afternoon strolls in her green anorak around the lower flowerbeds of Jubilee Gardens on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays then I’m not paying for the bomb
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I just want to be explicit that this is not an invitation to Vladimir Putin to “nuke my mother” living as she does at 19 Diana Close TR6 3JS, just across from the co-op and she often shops around 11am weekdays
Nuking my mother would actually cross one of my red lines. I want to make that clear. We know Russian security reads this forum
Also if they do nuke her during one of her 40 minute mid afternoon strolls in her green anorak around the lower flowerbeds of Jubilee Gardens on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays then I’m not paying for the bomb
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
Presses sick parent into service for the cause. Lovely jubbly.
You see. This is why you have no friends
Mewling; judgmental, unfunny, self righteous, ever so slightly dim, and decidedly cringe
I see the national disaster of the fall of Singapore has now been superceded. Had to happen I suppose.
Singapore couldn't have been a disaster, Labour were not in power. Indian independence however...
Hong Kong negotiated by Maggie.
She tried to get a 50 year lease extension on the New Territories, over and above what the foreign office wanted, and only did the deal when it was clear the alternative was invasion.
The default was expiry and she couldn't do much about it. She even tried to argue the UK should keep Hong Kong and Kowloon, until someone pointed out they would be at the mercy of China for power, water and supplies.
It is worth remembering that China always regarded the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing as something they were forced into at gunpoint, a stain of the opium wars they were desperate to reverse.
I don't think Maggie appreciated this when she headed to China to negotiate. The Chinese wanted Hong Kong back, and they knew full well that it was dependent on the New Territories for its water supply. They therefore took the hardline attitude that they were taking the New Territories back, and that Hong Kong would be without water if they we didn't hand that back too.
The threat, from a country willing to kill so many of its own citizens in the Cultural Revolution, was a real one. And Maggie sought the best outcome for the Hong Kong-ese as she could.
So Netanyahu now destroying Beirut and will probably bomb Iranian oil facilities causing oil prices to jump .
The west gets fxcked once again because the cancer on humanity needs to stay in power .
Yup. The guy should be rotting in a jail cell.
Of course the US, the Saudis and their allies will go along with this. They’re all exporters of oil.
The politicians who enabled this, should it happen, will just blame the oil companies for rising profits and the people will just lap it up because profits are evil, innit, and big business bad.
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl 🧵"Sincere" "Energising" "Personable" "Strong" "fresh" "Will fight for what she believes in" "not afraid" - Kemi Badenoch's conference pitch was pretty unanimously the favourite of our focus group of former Tory voters who left the party for Reform, the Lib Dems & Labour in July
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl Across the group people liked the fact that Kemi seemed more conversational and was genuinely passionate about what she believed, but also that her backstory meant she wasn't your typical Tory and she offered something new.
I just want to be explicit that this is not an invitation to Vladimir Putin to “nuke my mother” living as she does at 19 Diana Close TR6 3JS, just across from the co-op and she often shops around 11am weekdays
Nuking my mother would actually cross one of my red lines. I want to make that clear. We know Russian security reads this forum
Also if they do nuke her during one of her 40 minute mid afternoon strolls in her green anorak around the lower flowerbeds of Jubilee Gardens on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays then I’m not paying for the bomb
You can ask for the shrapnel back, Billy Joe Shaver style:
"In 2007, he was charged with shooting a man in the face at a bar near his home in Waco, Texas (he was acquitted by a jury, pleading self-defense). “I am very sorry about the incident,” Shaver said outside the courtroom. “Hopefully things will work out where we become friends enough so that he gives me back my bullet.”"
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
Presses sick parent into service for the cause. Lovely jubbly.
You see. This is why you have no friends
Mewling; judgmental, unfunny, self righteous, ever so slightly dim, and decidedly cringe
I just want to be explicit that this is not an invitation to Vladimir Putin to “nuke my mother” living as she does at 19 Diana Close TR6 3JS, just across from the co-op and she often shops around 11am weekdays
Nuking my mother would actually cross one of my red lines. I want to make that clear. We know Russian security reads this forum
Also if they do nuke her during one of her 40 minute mid afternoon strolls in her green anorak around the lower flowerbeds of Jubilee Gardens on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays then I’m not paying for the bomb
You can ask for the shrapnel back, Billy Joe Shaver style:
"In 2007, he was charged with shooting a man in the face at a bar near his home in Waco, Texas (he was acquitted by a jury, pleading self-defense). “I am very sorry about the incident,” Shaver said outside the courtroom. “Hopefully things will work out where we become friends enough so that he gives me back my bullet.”"
I just want to be explicit that this is not an invitation to Vladimir Putin to “nuke my mother” living as she does at 19 Diana Close TR6 3JS, just across from the co-op and she often shops around 11am weekdays
Nuking my mother would actually cross one of my red lines. I want to make that clear. We know Russian security reads this forum
Also if they do nuke her during one of her 40 minute mid afternoon strolls in her green anorak around the lower flowerbeds of Jubilee Gardens on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays then I’m not paying for the bomb
You can ask for the shrapnel back, Billy Joe Shaver style:
"In 2007, he was charged with shooting a man in the face at a bar near his home in Waco, Texas (he was acquitted by a jury, pleading self-defense). “I am very sorry about the incident,” Shaver said outside the courtroom. “Hopefully things will work out where we become friends enough so that he gives me back my bullet.”"
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl 🧵"Sincere" "Energising" "Personable" "Strong" "fresh" "Will fight for what she believes in" "not afraid" - Kemi Badenoch's conference pitch was pretty unanimously the favourite of our focus group of former Tory voters who left the party for Reform, the Lib Dems & Labour in July
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl Across the group people liked the fact that Kemi seemed more conversational and was genuinely passionate about what she believed, but also that her backstory meant she wasn't your typical Tory and she offered something new.
A focus group is as reliable as a Scottish subsample.
Plus I'm knackered today and I'm partying all day with JohnO tomorrow.
Children can't choose their names, so the least we can do is pick sensible ones. Giving her the middle name Thatcher because she's your political hero is just ridiculous.
Why on earth didn't he just give her as a middle name, Margaret, if he's so besotted. But Thatcher? Very strange.
Similarly, I know a Liverpuddlian who has given his son the surname 'Lennon'. If you really like John Lennon that much, the name 'John' works perfectly well. Although there are three more likeable Beatles you might look to first.
Although (pursuing my thrust on this one) that's a bit different because it's not political. Musical taste isn't as intrusive as politics. It's a 'safe' topic of conversation (well except on here sometimes when people get a bit aerated).
So if you're going to do it, which you still shouldn't, make it non political. Eg you could have named your daughters after your favourite Tors in the Peaks and that wouldn't be so terrible.
Well that's fine, but none of my favourite Tors have parts of their names which are recognisable names. I might give my daughter the middle name Shining (after Shining Tor). It would be insane, but not terrible. Cat (after Cat's Tor) would be better. But normally, when we name a child after a person - a grandparent, an aunt, a favourite singer - it is the first name which is used. Glenn Hoddle was named after Glenn Miller. He wasn't called Miller Hoddle. Because that would have been stupid. I have a vague memory an ancestor of mine was named after a rich aquaintance - first name and surname (as first name and middle name) in the hope of an inheritance. It didn't work.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
Yes, there's no such thing as pure objective pragmatism. The 'urges' dominate.
But there's one particular flavour dominating here today on this - and it's the one I got in with flagging first. "Brittania rules the waves".
'This is very disappointing. The decision over the future of the islands belongs the Chagossian people, it's not for the UK to bargain away. 60 years on from their exile, they've been let down again.
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl 🧵"Sincere" "Energising" "Personable" "Strong" "fresh" "Will fight for what she believes in" "not afraid" - Kemi Badenoch's conference pitch was pretty unanimously the favourite of our focus group of former Tory voters who left the party for Reform, the Lib Dems & Labour in July
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl Across the group people liked the fact that Kemi seemed more conversational and was genuinely passionate about what she believed, but also that her backstory meant she wasn't your typical Tory and she offered something new.
A focus group is as reliable as a Scottish subsample.
Plus I'm knackered today and I'm partying all day with JohnO tomorrow.
Please feel free to pay me for taking over any future sandcastles you may build at the seaside. My overseas sandcastle administration rates are the same too.
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl 🧵"Sincere" "Energising" "Personable" "Strong" "fresh" "Will fight for what she believes in" "not afraid" - Kemi Badenoch's conference pitch was pretty unanimously the favourite of our focus group of former Tory voters who left the party for Reform, the Lib Dems & Labour in July
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl Across the group people liked the fact that Kemi seemed more conversational and was genuinely passionate about what she believed, but also that her backstory meant she wasn't your typical Tory and she offered something new.
I do wonder if there is a smidgen of value on Kemi-kaze. If she makes the final 2 she is likely to win.
There's no such thing as bad publicity, after all!
'This is very disappointing. The decision over the future of the islands belongs the Chagossian people, it's not for the UK to bargain away. 60 years on from their exile, they've been let down again.
Along with the money WE are paying, this is the other inexplicable fatuity of this terrible terrible deal. Its not good for the Chagossians
All we’ve done is sign a truly shite deal handing over sovereign uk territory to a country chancing its arm from 1,300 miles away and all at the obvious behest of China. I imagine they cannot believe that we have so spinelessly agreed
And of course now every other tiny nation will have a go at ludicrous cowardly Britain under Labour
China has fully militarized at least three of several islands it built in the disputed South China Sea, arming them with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems, laser and jamming equipment and fighter jets in an increasingly aggressive move that threatens all nations operating nearby, a top US military commander said Sunday.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl 🧵"Sincere" "Energising" "Personable" "Strong" "fresh" "Will fight for what she believes in" "not afraid" - Kemi Badenoch's conference pitch was pretty unanimously the favourite of our focus group of former Tory voters who left the party for Reform, the Lib Dems & Labour in July
Luke Tryl @LukeTryl Across the group people liked the fact that Kemi seemed more conversational and was genuinely passionate about what she believed, but also that her backstory meant she wasn't your typical Tory and she offered something new.
A focus group is as reliable as a Scottish subsample.
Plus I'm knackered today and I'm partying all day with JohnO tomorrow.
Oh nice!
Hope you both have a good time. 👍
We, I promise you, will be slagging off Bobby J more than we will Kemi-kaze.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
This had occurred to me too.
If that's true, then we truly have reached the bottom of the toilet for the most facile and bankrupt type of short-sighted and morally bankrupt form of politics there is.
Cutting off the nation's face to spite a very small, fleeting and insignificant nose.
Eveb Labour aren't stupid enough to perceive James Cleverly as a threat.
None of them are, for the best part of a decade.
You'll be very lucky to get to a full term - and if you do it won't be with Starmer.
Nothing to do with my vote, for sure. Better blame that Leon...
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
Children can't choose their names, so the least we can do is pick sensible ones. Giving her the middle name Thatcher because she's your political hero is just ridiculous.
Why on earth didn't he just give her as a middle name, Margaret, if he's so besotted. But Thatcher? Very strange.
Similarly, I know a Liverpuddlian who has given his son the surname 'Lennon'. If you really like John Lennon that much, the name 'John' works perfectly well. Although there are three more likeable Beatles you might look to first.
Although (pursuing my thrust on this one) that's a bit different because it's not political. Musical taste isn't as intrusive as politics. It's a 'safe' topic of conversation (well except on here sometimes when people get a bit aerated).
So if you're going to do it, which you still shouldn't, make it non political. Eg you could have named your daughters after your favourite Tors in the Peaks and that wouldn't be so terrible.
Well that's fine, but none of my favourite Tors have parts of their names which are recognisable names. I might give my daughter the middle name Shining (after Shining Tor). It would be insane, but not terrible. Cat (after Cat's Tor) would be better. But normally, when we name a child after a person - a grandparent, an aunt, a favourite singer - it is the first name which is used. Glenn Hoddle was named after Glenn Miller. He wasn't called Miller Hoddle. Because that would have been stupid. I have a vague memory an ancestor of mine was named after a rich aquaintance - first name and surname (as first name and middle name) in the hope of an inheritance. It didn't work.
We named our son after my grandad who had just died. It stuck him with an old fashioned name but it came roaring back into fashion by the time he was a teenager. So that was a win/win.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
The UK should graciously accept the payments from the Caribbean leaders for the gratitude that they feel for being Caribbean leaders instead of West African poor.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
Yes, there's no such thing as pure objective pragmatism. The 'urges' dominate.
But there's one particular flavour dominating here today on this - and it's the one I got in with flagging first. "Brittania rules the waves".
Most people, and all older ones, still have the queen mother quite fresh in their minds; she was Empress of India, within the lifetime of millions still alive. This matter needs a little time to play out.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
The Chagos Islanders were treated badly, and with intentional contempt. It did look, for moment, that the wrong might be corrected. But no, they have been given to Mauritius, where they have been confined to camps.
Yes, I know that no-one in UK politics gives a fig, and any concern for these, or any other troubled people, is just dismissed as the reactions of snowflakes. You will mock; I despair.
Plenty on the left are pro-Empire, just so long as it's someone else's Empire.
When I pointed out that the Russian Empire is explicitly an empire, and always was, one poster, here, said that to call the Russian Empire an empire is to "remove the meaning from the word Imperialism".
I've had a Leninist tell me that because Lenin coined the word "imperialism" (he didn't) therefore the Leninist definition of the word "imperialism" is the only valid one (it isn't).
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
There are a few in the PLP who support it. At the moment a handful but this movement will grow and grow.
There are also,some who say we should pay ‘climate reparations’ too.
Always look at who supports these things. A fair few charities and NGOs are keen. Of course they’d be the recipients of such funds and be managing the support.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
They can't give reparations because there's a £22bn "black hole" right?
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
There are a few in the PLP who support it. At the moment a handful but this movement will grow and grow.
There are also,some who say we should pay ‘climate reparations’ too.
Always look at who supports these things. A fair few charities and NGOs are keen. Of course they’d be the recipients of such funds and be managing the support.
It is the type of thing Corbyn might have done had he got elected, Starmer was elected specifically as he was NOT Corbyn and his supporters
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
On that basis, shouldn't we ask Denmark to repay the Danegeld which was basically to stop the raids? As an aside, the Danegeld was paid in English silver which was the top north west European currency of the time and one of the reasons why William wanted England - it was a rich country with plenty of land and silver (and wool as well which was traded through Flanders (the country, not Homer's neightbour)).
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
They can't give reparations because there's a £22bn "black hole" right?
A rounding error when it comes to the demands for reparations.
The Chagos Islanders were treated badly, and with intentional contempt. It did look, for moment, that the wrong might be corrected. But no, they have been given to Mauritius, where they have been confined to camps.
Yes, I know that no-one in UK politics gives a fig, and any concern for these, or any other troubled people, is just dismissed as the reactions of snowflakes. You will mock; I despair.
Plenty on the left are pro-Empire, just so long as it's someone else's Empire.
When I pointed out that the Russian Empire is explicitly an empire, and always was, one poster, here, said that to call the Russian Empire an empire is to "remove the meaning from the word Imperialism".
I've had a Leninist tell me that because Lenin coined the word "imperialism" (he didn't) therefore the Leninist definition of the word "imperialism" is the only valid one (it isn't).
I think the Soviet Union was the most brutal of all the colonial empires.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Because we have nation states. And nation states have borders. And within that state we protect what is ours and give less (but not zero) consideration to others. People starving in Liverpool is a crisis that needs fixing NOW, people starving in Sudan is really sad and we should try and help, and we generally do, but you can't do everything
A nation is partly an imagined community, but it has some real basis in shared language, genes, culture, etc. And it is designed to look after those who possess that nationality
And the world as it stands is organised around the nation state
You can argue for a better system - global government - and that is a very valid argument. But until we attain such a utopia, beyond nations and nationality, then Britain's purpose is to serve and protect Britons. Unless you're Labour leader, then its purpose is to make him feel good by impoverishing us all
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
You're good at coining words - there should be a word for this. Putting aside strong emotion, and just getting on with normality. (I've no suggestions)
Being British is a candidate word(s). Apropos of which, all this stuff about 'broken Britain, nothing works, we're doomed, NHS-empty, broke, drunk, homeless and friendless in a waiting for Godot godless world, 194th in all world rankings' which dominates political discourse and media.
Can I Britishly suggest this is actually rubbish and that the great majority just quietly and dully get on with it, putting aside emotion and just getting on with normality. Politics has lost the thread, which is to get attached to the idea that UKplc is a glass half full and reasonably cheerful and can get better.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
On that basis, shouldn't we ask Denmark to repay the Danegeld which was basically to stop the raids? As an aside, the Danegeld was paid in English silver which was the top north west European currency of the time and one of the reasons why William wanted England - it was a rich country with plenty of land and silver (and wool as well which was traded through Flanders (the country, not Homer's neightbour)).
The Danegeld paid from 990 to 1014 was probably a significant proportion of England’s GDP at the time.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
A Farage, Reform and Jenrick wet dream if Starmer and Lammy were stupid enough to do that. You can imagine the posters and ads 'Labour take money from our NHS and your granny's heating in winter to fund woke reparations for sunny Jamaica and Barbados for something which happened before even your great granddad was born!'
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
I think we should demand reparations from the Italians, Austrians, Germans, Russians and Turks for the Roman Empire.
As all five states have claimed descent from the Roman Empire at one time or another, at least one of them should stump up.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
ETA: Oops, posted too quickly! My point is that, if I were a trustee of a donkey sanctuary, I'd be arguing strongly that we should try to encourage our donors to look elsewhere.
The UK is like a donkey sanctuary where, if we were willing to forego the gold plated hooves, we could ensure everyone who needs malaria drugs gets them.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
They can't give reparations because there's a £22bn "black hole" right?
A rounding error when it comes to the demands for reparations.
They’ve very kindly said they don’t expect it all immediately but are prepared to accept it over time.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Because we have nation states. And nation states have borders. And within that state we protect what is ours and give less (but not zero) consideration to others. People starving in Liverpool is a crisis that needs fixing NOW, people starving in Sudan is really sad and we should try and help, and we generally do, but you can't do everything
A nation is partly an imagined community, but it has some real basis in shared language, genes, culture, etc. And it is designed to look after those who possess that nationality
And the world as it stands is organised around the nation state
You can argue for a better system - global government - and that is a very valid argument. But until we attain such a utopia, beyond nations and nationality, then Britain's purpose is to serve and protect Britons. Unless you're Labour leader, then its purpose is to make him feel good by impoverishing us all
And, you could argue, striving for the utopia of global government historically has had limited success, to put it mildly.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Because it's the job of the French government to care about Breton fishermen, and they're not particularly interested in the welfare of British ones.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Because we have nation states. And nation states have borders. And within that state we protect what is ours and give less (but not zero) consideration to others. People starving in Liverpool is a crisis that needs fixing NOW, people starving in Sudan is really sad and we should try and help, and we generally do, but you can't do everything
A nation is partly an imagined community, but it has some real basis in shared language, genes, culture, etc. And it is designed to look after those who possess that nationality
And the world as it stands is organised around the nation state
You can argue for a better system - global government - and that is a very valid argument. But until we attain such a utopia, beyond nations and nationality, then Britain's purpose is to serve and protect Britons. Unless you're Labour leader, then its purpose is to make him feel good by impoverishing us all
And yet we are clearly not talking about absolutes. Which brings us back to donkey sanctuaries. If we can save lives for the cost of a cup of coffee but don't, it suggests we can afford to go a little way further along the trajectory towards utopian idealism without the wheels falling off, no?
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Because we have nation states. And nation states have borders. And within that state we protect what is ours and give less (but not zero) consideration to others. People starving in Liverpool is a crisis that needs fixing NOW, people starving in Sudan is really sad and we should try and help, and we generally do, but you can't do everything
A nation is partly an imagined community, but it has some real basis in shared language, genes, culture, etc. And it is designed to look after those who possess that nationality
And the world as it stands is organised around the nation state
You can argue for a better system - global government - and that is a very valid argument. But until we attain such a utopia, beyond nations and nationality, then Britain's purpose is to serve and protect Britons. Unless you're Labour leader, then its purpose is to make him feel good by impoverishing us all
And yet we are clearly not talking about absolutes. Which brings us back to donkey sanctuaries. If we can save lives for the cost of a cup of coffee but don't, it suggests we can afford to go a little way further along the trajectory towards utopian idealism without the wheels falling off, no?
Is increasing the amoung of human life on the planet a good thing in itself? Should we aim for a global population of 10 billion, or 15 billion, or 20 billion?
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Because we have nation states. And nation states have borders. And within that state we protect what is ours and give less (but not zero) consideration to others. People starving in Liverpool is a crisis that needs fixing NOW, people starving in Sudan is really sad and we should try and help, and we generally do, but you can't do everything
A nation is partly an imagined community, but it has some real basis in shared language, genes, culture, etc. And it is designed to look after those who possess that nationality
And the world as it stands is organised around the nation state
You can argue for a better system - global government - and that is a very valid argument. But until we attain such a utopia, beyond nations and nationality, then Britain's purpose is to serve and protect Britons. Unless you're Labour leader, then its purpose is to make him feel good by impoverishing us all
And yet we are clearly not talking about absolutes. Which brings us back to donkey sanctuaries. If we can save lives for the cost of a cup of coffee but don't, it suggests we can afford to go a little way further along the trajectory towards utopian idealism without the wheels falling off, no?
Is increasing the amoung of human life on the planet a good thing in itself? Should we aim for a global population of 10 billion, or 15 billion, or 20 billion?
Perhaps not, but reducing suffering is, which malaria drugs would do. In fact I'd argue reducing suffering might be the only good thing in itself.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Because we have nation states. And nation states have borders. And within that state we protect what is ours and give less (but not zero) consideration to others. People starving in Liverpool is a crisis that needs fixing NOW, people starving in Sudan is really sad and we should try and help, and we generally do, but you can't do everything
A nation is partly an imagined community, but it has some real basis in shared language, genes, culture, etc. And it is designed to look after those who possess that nationality
And the world as it stands is organised around the nation state
You can argue for a better system - global government - and that is a very valid argument. But until we attain such a utopia, beyond nations and nationality, then Britain's purpose is to serve and protect Britons. Unless you're Labour leader, then its purpose is to make him feel good by impoverishing us all
And yet we are clearly not talking about absolutes. Which brings us back to donkey sanctuaries. If we can save lives for the cost of a cup of coffee but don't, it suggests we can afford to go a little way further along the trajectory towards utopian idealism without the wheels falling off, no?
Is increasing the amoung of human life on the planet a good thing in itself? Should we aim for a global population of 10 billion, or 15 billion, or 20 billion?
Perhaps not, but reducing suffering is, which malaria drugs would do. In fact I'd argue reducing suffering might be the only good thing in itself.
That and freshly made scotch eggs.
Life necessarily involves suffering of one kind or another.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
I agree it's a question that needs asking. Others have supplied valid legal answers, but I wonder if you are more interested in the emotional one? It's true, I do care more about the welfare of British people than that of foreigners. Why? I can give the following answers: - the nation is a tier in the hierarchy of loyalty, which has family at the top. - it's a loyalty which is reciprocated. - we have a common culture which leads to a common understanding - we are the genetic descendents of humans who prioritised the interests of the ingroup over the outgroup. - I am more likely to benefit from better off Cornishmen than better off Bretons. - I am much more emotionally connected to Cornwall (or anywhere in Britain) than Brittany.
It's a mixture of self-interest, loyalty to a group, and an emotional connection to my country.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
They can't give reparations because there's a £22bn "black hole" right?
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
Yes, there's no such thing as pure objective pragmatism. The 'urges' dominate.
But there's one particular flavour dominating here today on this - and it's the one I got in with flagging first. "Brittania rules the waves".
Brittania RULE the waves, me ol' Tin o' Beans. It's an exhortation, not a statement of truth!
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
You're good at coining words - there should be a word for this. Putting aside strong emotion, and just getting on with normality. (I've no suggestions)
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
I agree it's a question that needs asking. Others have supplied valid legal answers, but I wonder if you are more interested in the emotional one? It's true, I do care more about the welfare of British people than that of foreigners. Why? I can give the following answers: - the nation is a tier in the hierarchy of loyalty, which has family at the top. - it's a loyalty which is reciprocated. - we have a common culture which leads to a common understanding - we are the genetic descendents of humans who prioritised the interests of the ingroup over the outgroup. - I am more likely to benefit from better off Cornishmen than better off Bretons. - I am much more emotionally connected to Cornwall (or anywhere in Britain) than Brittany.
It's a mixture of self-interest, loyalty to a group, and an emotional connection to my country.
Yeah, makes sense, thanks. And yes I'm interested in the emotional response, largely because I don't really have it. I do agree about the hierarchy of loyalty, but I find that tails off for me greatly beyond my local community (which also fits with a history of living in smaller communities). I find it difficult to muster much enthusiasm at the level of the nation, and find it easily outweighed by a feeling of loyalty to any fellow human who is suffering.
All the same, I can recognise the line I draw is as arbitrary as yours - many would argue that we should extend my own argument on a sliding scale to all sentient beings and, whilst I see the logic of that, it doesn't move me emotionally in the same way.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
You're good at coining words - there should be a word for this. Putting aside strong emotion, and just getting on with normality. (I've no suggestions)
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
ETA: Oops, posted too quickly! My point is that, if I were a trustee of a donkey sanctuary, I'd be arguing strongly that we should try to encourage our donors to look elsewhere.
The UK is like a donkey sanctuary where, if we were willing to forego the gold plated hooves, we could ensure everyone who needs malaria drugs gets them.
That’s straightforward. You can’t fulfil your ethical and legal obligations to The Donkey Sanctuary, so you ought not accept the role of Trustee.
Since we were discussing fantasy series yesterday, I’ll give the example of Tyrion, in Game of Thrones. He gives consistently dreadful military advice to Daenerys, costing thousands of her soldiers’ lives, because he’s desperate to protect his siblings, who are her enemies. But, he had no business taking the role of chief military adviser, to her, if he was so conflicted.
If you face a conflict of interest, you either decline to take the role that produces that conflict or you resign. Failing to do so makes you a traitor to the person or body that you are meant to be serving.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
Yes, there's no such thing as pure objective pragmatism. The 'urges' dominate.
But there's one particular flavour dominating here today on this - and it's the one I got in with flagging first. "Brittania rules the waves".
Brittania RULE the waves, me ol' Tin o' Beans. It's an exhortation, not a statement of truth!
Not a tin of beans till Nov 6th. Kamalabu until then.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Because we have nation states. And nation states have borders. And within that state we protect what is ours and give less (but not zero) consideration to others. People starving in Liverpool is a crisis that needs fixing NOW, people starving in Sudan is really sad and we should try and help, and we generally do, but you can't do everything
A nation is partly an imagined community, but it has some real basis in shared language, genes, culture, etc. And it is designed to look after those who possess that nationality
And the world as it stands is organised around the nation state
You can argue for a better system - global government - and that is a very valid argument. But until we attain such a utopia, beyond nations and nationality, then Britain's purpose is to serve and protect Britons. Unless you're Labour leader, then its purpose is to make him feel good by impoverishing us all
And yet we are clearly not talking about absolutes. Which brings us back to donkey sanctuaries. If we can save lives for the cost of a cup of coffee but don't, it suggests we can afford to go a little way further along the trajectory towards utopian idealism without the wheels falling off, no?
Is increasing the amoung of human life on the planet a good thing in itself? Should we aim for a global population of 10 billion, or 15 billion, or 20 billion?
Perhaps not, but reducing suffering is, which malaria drugs would do. In fact I'd argue reducing suffering might be the only good thing in itself.
That and freshly made scotch eggs.
Life necessarily involves suffering of one kind or another.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
ETA: Oops, posted too quickly! My point is that, if I were a trustee of a donkey sanctuary, I'd be arguing strongly that we should try to encourage our donors to look elsewhere.
The UK is like a donkey sanctuary where, if we were willing to forego the gold plated hooves, we could ensure everyone who needs malaria drugs gets them.
That’s straightforward. You can’t fulfil your ethical and legal obligations to The Donkey Sanctuary, so you ought not accept the role of Trustee.
Since we were discussing fantasy series yesterday, I’ll give the example of Tyrion, in Game of Thrones. He gives consistently dreadful military advice to Daenerys, costing thousands of her soldiers’ lives, because he’s desperate to protect his siblings, who are her enemies. But, he had no business taking the role of chief military adviser, to her, if he was so conflicted.
If you face a conflict of interest, you either decline to take the role that produces that conflict or you resign. Failing to do so makes you a traitor to the person or body that you are meant to be serving.
I think that only works if you are convinced that the particular model (trusteeship in this case) is sacrosanct.
I can absolutely understand a belief that might underlie your point of view along the lines of: moving away from the current model of nationalism (or, in the analogy, trustees whose only job is to advocate for their charity) risks unintended negative consequences and so whilst our current model isn't perfect we should defend it to the death.
Apparently Israel targeted Iranian and Syrian ammo near the main Russian base in Syria and the Russians tried shooting down the Israeli missiles. Given their flagging support in the west could I suggest it would be quite magnificent for Israel to destroy the Russian base in Syria. I'd pay good money to watch the video.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
Not unreasonable, but I'd say the mirror image is also true - there's a certain type of British left wing brain chemistry that is triggered by Britain having overseas territories, which Really Ought To Be Given To Someone Else. Because Empire, or something. David Lammy is certainly one of these, it looks like SKS is too. It's certainly not clear what the advantage to Britain is of this deal, nor whether this was a consideration. I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest. I don't think that's a right-wing view. I think that would be the view of most people in most countries.
I'd rather the British government tried to do diplomacy in the British interest.
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Politicians represent their voters. They don’t represent humanity in general.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Good analogy, thanks.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
ETA: Oops, posted too quickly! My point is that, if I were a trustee of a donkey sanctuary, I'd be arguing strongly that we should try to encourage our donors to look elsewhere.
The UK is like a donkey sanctuary where, if we were willing to forego the gold plated hooves, we could ensure everyone who needs malaria drugs gets them.
That’s straightforward. You can’t fulfil your ethical and legal obligations to The Donkey Sanctuary, so you ought not accept the role of Trustee.
Since we were discussing fantasy series yesterday, I’ll give the example of Tyrion, in Game of Thrones. He gives consistently dreadful military advice to Daenerys, costing thousands of her soldiers’ lives, because he’s desperate to protect his siblings, who are her enemies. But, he had no business taking the role of chief military adviser, to her, if he was so conflicted.
If you face a conflict of interest, you either decline to take the role that produces that conflict or you resign. Failing to do so makes you a traitor to the person or body that you are meant to be serving.
I think that only works if you are convinced that the particular model (trusteeship in this case) is sacrosanct.
I can absolutely understand a belief that might underlie your point of view along the lines of: moving away from the current model of nationalism (or, in the analogy, trustees whose only job is to advocate for their charity) risks unintended negative consequences and so whilst our current model isn't perfect we should defend it to the death.
Is that your view?
My view is that you can’t easily promote the interests of multiple competing parties.
So, you must promote the interests of those parties who have appointed/elected you to your position.
And, if you have an ethical objection to that, then you find another role, such as working for an NGO
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
You're good at coining words - there should be a word for this. Putting aside strong emotion, and just getting on with normality. (I've no suggestions)
The Times is BREAKING the news that the USA "privately" warned Starmer AGAINST doing this
If that is the case, it gets worse for Skyr Toolmakersson
To be fair there might be something to be said for the government finally refusing to do what USA tells them to do...
Except, in this case the Labour PM has ignored the USA and instead decided to make the worst geopolitical deal in British history, delivering British territory into foreign hands, and we have to pay for it, and all for a group of people who - it turns out- will not benefit and were excluded from the talks
Mr Trump is in Saginaw Michigan and is blaming Biden for how small the crowd is at his rally
BTW it really could be the lowest turn-out at this sort of event since the campaign started in 2015. Perhaps an effort to stop so many being filmed leaving early?
Comments
We need pedalos.
Laura must be devastated
Jenrick 21
Badenoch 20
Tugendhat 11
Cleverly 10
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z66vstPc0ZRXDAVxUBwoi6sAia4DnXKRESta32k85dM/edit?gid=1325150590#gid=1325150590
Nuking my mother would actually cross one of my red lines. I want to make that clear. We know Russian security reads this forum
Also if they do nuke her during one of her 40 minute mid afternoon strolls in her green anorak around the lower flowerbeds of Jubilee Gardens on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays then I’m not paying for the bomb
Mewling; judgmental, unfunny, self righteous, ever so slightly dim, and decidedly cringe
I don't think Maggie appreciated this when she headed to China to negotiate. The Chinese wanted Hong Kong back, and they knew full well that it was dependent on the New Territories for its water supply. They therefore took the hardline attitude that they were taking the New Territories back, and that Hong Kong would be without water if they we didn't hand that back too.
The threat, from a country willing to kill so many of its own citizens in the Cultural Revolution, was a real one. And Maggie sought the best outcome for the Hong Kong-ese as she could.
Of course the US, the Saudis and their allies will go along with this. They’re all exporters of oil.
The politicians who enabled this, should it happen, will just blame the oil companies for rising profits and the people will just lap it up because profits are evil, innit, and big business bad.
Luke Tryl
@LukeTryl
🧵"Sincere" "Energising" "Personable" "Strong" "fresh" "Will fight for what she believes in" "not afraid" - Kemi Badenoch's conference pitch was pretty unanimously the favourite of our focus group of former Tory voters who left the party for Reform, the Lib Dems & Labour in July
Luke Tryl
@LukeTryl
Across the group people liked the fact that Kemi seemed more conversational and was genuinely passionate about what she believed, but also that her backstory meant she wasn't your typical Tory and she offered something new.
"In 2007, he was charged with shooting a man in the face at a bar near his home in Waco, Texas (he was acquitted by a jury, pleading self-defense). “I am very sorry about the incident,” Shaver said outside the courtroom. “Hopefully things will work out where we become friends enough so that he gives me back my bullet.”"
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/qa-billy-joe-shaver-on-his-career-suicide-attempt-and-waco-63176/
It is around 2m above the sea level.
Climate change over next 99 years will do for it.
They have lost their minds.
Plus I'm knackered today and I'm partying all day with JohnO tomorrow.
I might give my daughter the middle name Shining (after Shining Tor). It would be insane, but not terrible. Cat (after Cat's Tor) would be better.
But normally, when we name a child after a person - a grandparent, an aunt, a favourite singer - it is the first name which is used. Glenn Hoddle was named after Glenn Miller. He wasn't called Miller Hoddle. Because that would have been stupid.
I have a vague memory an ancestor of mine was named after a rich aquaintance - first name and surname (as first name and middle name) in the hope of an inheritance. It didn't work.
But there's one particular flavour dominating here today on this - and it's the one I got in with flagging first. "Brittania rules the waves".
'This is very disappointing. The decision over the future of the islands belongs the Chagossian people, it's not for the UK to bargain away. 60 years on from their exile, they've been let down again.
UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius'
https://x.com/PeterKLamb/status/1841804859294597173
Hope you both have a good time. 👍
Guido is going to shit his pants when he finds out Boris Johnson is also good friends with Mr Sands via his ex wife Marina Wheeler.
There's no such thing as bad publicity, after all!
All we’ve done is sign a truly shite deal handing over sovereign uk territory to a country chancing its arm from 1,300 miles away and all at the obvious behest of China. I imagine they cannot believe that we have so spinelessly agreed
And of course now every other tiny nation will have a go at ludicrous cowardly Britain under Labour
China has fully militarized at least three of several islands it built in the disputed South China Sea, arming them with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems, laser and jamming equipment and fighter jets in an increasingly aggressive move that threatens all nations operating nearby, a top US military commander said Sunday.
Caribbean leaders hope that Britain under its new Labour government might shift its long-standing position on slavery reparations and agree to discuss how to address past wrongs and their current day legacy.
Consecutive British governments have rejected calls for reparations but the chairman of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) reparations commission, Hilary Beckles, said this stance might change under the new Labour administration.
Britain's new foreign minister David Lammy is of Caribbean descent and often refers to himself as a descendant of enslaved people. In an interview, opens new tab with The Guardian newspaper before the election, Lammy said his family history would inform his work.
"(Lammy) has been a supporter of the (reparations) discourse while he was in opposition," Beckles said. "The question is whether he would be given a free hand in his government... to take the matter to a higher level."
I am going to delete this thread because I have found out that 'Bobby J' is a well known sexual idiom and I cannot condone such filth.
Mind bleach.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bobby J
bookpluginterview now on ITV tomorrow at 7 PM.I’ll pass.
What next, do we ask for reparations from Denmark for the Viking raids?
Out of interest, why?
Don't get me wrong, I agree yours is not a right wing view but a very common one.
But what makes you care more about, say, a Cornish fishermen than a Breton fisherman? What makes you want the British government to prioritise British interests per se rather than e.g. seek to reduce global inequality?
Genuine question - I find you often talk sense and am interested in how you (or others) justify nationalism.
Mauritius is apparently a threat to our national interest but Russia isn't.
There are also,some who say we should pay ‘climate reparations’ too.
Always look at who supports these things. A fair few charities and NGOs are keen. Of course they’d be the recipients of such funds and be managing the support.
Think of it as being like a trustee. You’re there to advance the interests of the beneficiaries. You can’t hand out the trust’s assets to people who are not beneficiaries.
Need to keep the "nothing to do with me, guv" escape route open.
A nation is partly an imagined community, but it has some real basis in shared language, genes, culture, etc. And it is designed to look after those who possess that nationality
And the world as it stands is organised around the nation state
You can argue for a better system - global government - and that is a very valid argument. But until we attain such a utopia, beyond nations and nationality, then Britain's purpose is to serve and protect Britons. Unless you're Labour leader, then its purpose is to make him feel good by impoverishing us all
Can I Britishly suggest this is actually rubbish and that the great majority just quietly and dully get on with it, putting aside emotion and just getting on with normality. Politics has lost the thread, which is to get attached to the idea that UKplc is a glass half full and reasonably cheerful and can get better.
Aethelred was a truly appalling king.
As all five states have claimed descent from the Roman Empire at one time or another, at least one of them should stump up.
But, to extend it, how do you feel about donkey sanctuaries?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/domestic-abuse-donkey-charity-funding-b2607499.html
ETA: Oops, posted too quickly! My point is that, if I were a trustee of a donkey sanctuary, I'd be arguing strongly that we should try to encourage our donors to look elsewhere.
The UK is like a donkey sanctuary where, if we were willing to forego the gold plated hooves, we could ensure everyone who needs malaria drugs gets them.
Thanks.
That and freshly made scotch eggs.
- the nation is a tier in the hierarchy of loyalty, which has family at the top.
- it's a loyalty which is reciprocated.
- we have a common culture which leads to a common understanding
- we are the genetic descendents of humans who prioritised the interests of the ingroup over the outgroup.
- I am more likely to benefit from better off Cornishmen than better off Bretons.
- I am much more emotionally connected to Cornwall (or anywhere in Britain) than Brittany.
It's a mixture of self-interest, loyalty to a group, and an emotional connection to my country.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z66vstPc0ZRXDAVxUBwoi6sAia4DnXKRESta32k85dM/edit?gid=1325150590#gid=1325150590
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Cocking
Sorry PB 😭
All the same, I can recognise the line I draw is as arbitrary as yours - many would argue that we should extend my own argument on a sliding scale to all sentient beings and, whilst I see the logic of that, it doesn't move me emotionally in the same way.
Thanks for the reply.
Since we were discussing fantasy series yesterday, I’ll give the example of Tyrion, in Game of Thrones. He gives consistently dreadful military advice to Daenerys, costing thousands of her soldiers’ lives, because he’s desperate to protect his siblings, who are her enemies. But, he had no business taking the role of chief military adviser, to her, if he was so conflicted.
If you face a conflict of interest, you either decline to take the role that produces that conflict or you resign. Failing to do so makes you a traitor to the person or body that you are meant to be serving.
I can absolutely understand a belief that might underlie your point of view along the lines of: moving away from the current model of nationalism (or, in the analogy, trustees whose only job is to advocate for their charity) risks unintended negative consequences and so whilst our current model isn't perfect we should defend it to the death.
Is that your view?
If that is the case, it gets worse for Skyr Toolmakersson
So, you must promote the interests of those parties who have appointed/elected you to your position.
And, if you have an ethical objection to that, then you find another role, such as working for an NGO
Thank you.
Have I missed anything?
Labour have mightily fucked up, here
Mr Trump is in Saginaw Michigan and is blaming Biden for how small the crowd is at his rally
BTW it really could be the lowest turn-out at this sort of event since the campaign started in 2015. Perhaps an effort to stop so many being filmed leaving early?