Mr. F, to be fair, Japan doesn't have a self-hating Metropolitan middle class that might buckle and pay reparations, so they don't have to put up with this bullshit.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
Short answer is yes. All of the above would have been better.
But James Clyburn made it pretty clear "anyone but Harris" was off the table.
I don't think there was time for anyone else.
And I do wonder if Harris encouraged Biden to keep going long enough for herself to become the only possible replacement.
I wonder why anyone would think anyone could have had such influence over Biden's decision.
It's pretty obvious he was determined to carry on - until it became absolutely obvious, even to a stubborn old guy, that it was going to cost the Democrats the election.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
They can vote how they like after they've got Musk's money. The publicity he's bought with the stunt has paid off way more than the cost to him. If Starmer gave me a million quid tommorow I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
So you think it's acceptable to do this during an election period? You'd have no trouble with it happening in the UK?
Well I'm not a train driver so I'm unlikely to experience it tbh.
a) That's a totally different thing. b) That occurred after the GE.
The transmogrification of the charming, level-headed Lib Dem Remainer @Pulpstar to election-bribe Musk apologist Trumpian hard-rightwinger is one of the weirdest, and saddest, journeys ever witnessed on PB.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Although just to make clear I think what Musk is doing is so close to buying votes that it is illegal or should be if it isn't.
How can you buy votes in a secret ballot? The voters might just take your money, and vote the wrong way, the double-crossing swine.
Given than governments of all stripes pretty much everywhere dole out money to their voters (e.g. right now, we have a budget black hole caused by Labour signing up for big pay rises for the public sector), although it's pretty morally dubious, I can't see how that sort of bribery can be stopped.
Musk doling out cash for signing some meaningless petition merely ensures everyone knows the petition is particularly meaningless - I can't see how it changes a single vote in the actual Presidential election.
OK if you think so try offering £5 to voters in the UK in exchange for their vote in a UK election where we have a secret ballot and try arguing that being secret you really didn't impact their vote.
Your feet won't touch the ground before finding yourself in prison. The political parties are scrupulous in avoiding that.
For those old enough do you remember the days where in an election day committee room you had a plate for donations for tea and biscuits to ensure plod didn't come around and do you for bribery (as if).
And it was also always a good excuse for the candidate to avoid their round.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Reckoning would be accepting the facts of what happened and changing your ways so your nation doesn't act that way in future. Unsatisfying for some, perhaps, but arguably more effective in the long run, than some bizarre actuarial calculation and financial extraction which will inevitably lead to a game of 'more oppressed than thou' and hypocritical focus on or ignoring of 'national' sins in some cases but not others.
Edit - It would never end. No doubt in 100 years time when political winds change, some places would demand reparations be paid in recompense for the reparations 'they' paid 100 years earlier, at that point feeling it was unfair to have done so!
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
They can vote how they like after they've got Musk's money. The publicity he's bought with the stunt has paid off way more than the cost to him. If Starmer gave me a million quid tommorow I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
So you think it's acceptable to do this during an election period? You'd have no trouble with it happening in the UK?
Well I'm not a train driver so I'm unlikely to experience it tbh.
a) That's a totally different thing. b) That occurred after the GE.
That was a really weird comparison to make...
It was. Weird is the apt word.
I’m beginning to think his account has been hacked. Genuinely.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
They can vote how they like after they've got Musk's money. The publicity he's bought with the stunt has paid off way more than the cost to him. If Starmer gave me a million quid tommorow I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
So you think it's acceptable to do this during an election period? You'd have no trouble with it happening in the UK?
Well I'm not a train driver so I'm unlikely to experience it tbh.
a) That's a totally different thing. b) That occurred after the GE.
That was a really weird comparison to make...
There are no more elections?
Pay deals are not the same thing, as you well know.
Mr. F, to be fair, Japan doesn't have a self-hating Metropolitan middle class that might buckle and pay reparations, so they don't have to put up with this bullshit.
@MaxPB is surely right that many Asians see Western liberals as stupid
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
Short answer is yes. All of the above would have been better.
But James Clyburn made it pretty clear "anyone but Harris" was off the table.
I don't think there was time for anyone else.
And I do wonder if Harris encouraged Biden to keep going long enough for herself to become the only possible replacement.
I wonder why anyone would think anyone could have had such influence over Biden's decision.
It's pretty obvious he was determined to carry on - until it became absolutely obvious, even to a stubborn old guy, that it was going to cost the Democrats the election.
It seems the most likely explanation. It seems very unlikely he would have won, but we'll probably hear talk of how they might have turned it around, if Harris ends up losing, just as the Boris fans believe he would have won in 2024 (a possibility? Sure. But they don't tend to factor in why he was ousted, because of the problems he was causing, and therefore whether that would have had a long term impact).
He must be furious though, since Trump regularly says or does things worse than what got him hounded out of the race.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
Mr. F, to be fair, Japan doesn't have a self-hating Metropolitan middle class that might buckle and pay reparations, so they don't have to put up with this bullshit.
Having said that, the plan to deindustrialise Japan, and hand over a large part of its industrial resources to the parts of Asia where it had inflicted the most damage, was rapidly reneged on - when it became clear to the US that it needed a strong industrial ally against Soviet Russia in the region. (Which ought anyway to have been obvious, after the lessons of Versailles.)
Oh for goodness sake the Telegraph has lost the plot. Every single day another budget scare story. Some have to be true as otherwise there will be nothing Reeves can do, but the headlines are bizarre panic. It is like @leon on steroids.
Are they trying to compete with the Express on Princess Diana and House prices.
It would serve them right if Reeves introduced a newspaper tax.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
Short answer is yes. All of the above would have been better.
But James Clyburn made it pretty clear "anyone but Harris" was off the table.
I don't think there was time for anyone else.
And I do wonder if Harris encouraged Biden to keep going long enough for herself to become the only possible replacement.
I wonder why anyone would think anyone could have had such influence over Biden's decision.
It's pretty obvious he was determined to carry on - until it became absolutely obvious, even to a stubborn old guy, that it was going to cost the Democrats the election.
Lots of political leaders have been determined to carry on but the 'grey suits' forced them out.
If Biden's entire cabinet goes to him and tells him he cannot manage a second term then he'd have to listen.
Even more so if they're backed up by Schumer and Jeffries.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Although just to make clear I think what Musk is doing is so close to buying votes that it is illegal or should be if it isn't.
How can you buy votes in a secret ballot? The voters might just take your money, and vote the wrong way, the double-crossing swine.
Given than governments of all stripes pretty much everywhere dole out money to their voters (e.g. right now, we have a budget black hole caused by Labour signing up for big pay rises for the public sector), although it's pretty morally dubious, I can't see how that sort of bribery can be stopped.
Musk doling out cash for signing some meaningless petition merely ensures everyone knows the petition is particularly meaningless - I can't see how it changes a single vote in the actual Presidential election.
OK if you think so try offering £5 to voters in the UK in exchange for their vote in a UK election where we have a secret ballot and try arguing that being secret you really didn't impact their vote.
Your feet won't touch the ground before finding yourself in prison. The political parties are scrupulous in avoiding that.
For those old enough do you remember the days where in an election day committee room you had a plate for donations for tea and biscuits to ensure plod didn't come around and do you for bribery (as if).
And it was also always a good excuse for the candidate to avoid their round.
Oh. Don't they do that (bikkie money) any more? If not, why not?
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Since Starmer and Lammy were quite voluble about reparations being a good thing before they won their landslide majority one might think they had a plan contained somewhere within their Ming vase (looted from somewhere else no doubt). Otoh they might just have been chatting any old shit to get elected.
To clarify I'm not sure if I'd vote for Trump if I had a vote in the US election. I mean I'd have a serious think about it, but I'm afraid I can't take elections where I don't have a vote as seriously as those that do. I wouldn't rule it out out of hand though nor would I rule voting for Harris. I do find it all amusing though as the US looks from pig to man and man to pig.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
Reparations just strike me as people looking for a really simplistic way of righting some wrong - it's relatively quick, ostensibly morally straightforward, and a dramatic gesture - in particular as it is something they can claim they are doing 'now', but the practicalities are insuperable, and the morality of it less clear cut the more you look into it, since coming up with either a cut off date, or a ranking of historical tragedies, is inevitable. There's just no way to decide why certain things deserve it and others do not without that calculation.
And that's before you even get into the issues of who pays today and to whom, in a globalist world where people's descent and therefore, presumed national culpability, is far from obvious, adding a layer of sins of the father nonsense onto specific groups but not others, even for the very same activities. It also adds to the removal of agency for others by adding into a narrative of helplessness, and even the core message of dumping of cash to someone to address a wrong is the way to go is strange, as outside of civil wrongs I don't think we want to go the way of weregild again.
Sure, some may be arguing for reparations and actual concrete action to address lingering issues from past wrongs which do exist, but demanding the former probably hinders the latter, which ultimately is more important.
So ultimately I think the moral case is shakier than pretended, and it is likely to be counter productive anyway. At best a decent idea which does not actually work - the communism of proposals.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
The trouble is people and countries are getting confused between the question of reparations from those - usually wealthy families - that benefited financially from theft of labour or assets in the past (and continue to, through their inherited endowments), and the much more sketchy question of paying reparations for past wrongs more generally.
If you are rich, and one of the reasons you are rich is because your forebears nicked stuff that wasn't theirs, then I think there is a case to answer. If you just happen to live in a country whose people did bad stuff to other people in the past, well then you are probably about 99% of the world population.
Mr. Eagles, the fire of slavery was already raging in Africa before Europeans arrived.
You need some history lessons, again.
I know, but we took it to a whole new level.
Thank God for Tories like William Wilberforce.
No we didn’t. The Arab Muslim slave trade was bigger than ours, crueller than ours, and started centuries before and carried on decades after (arguably until now)
Truly vast slave trains would march on foot across the Sahara from black Africa to the ports and cities of the Islamic Mediterranean and into Arabia and beyond
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
Will India and Pakistan pay each other reparations for their actions after independence?
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
If you just happen to live in a country whose people did bad stuff to other people in the past, well then you are probably about 99% of the world population.
Thank you for saying in one sentence what took me about 1000 words to attempt to suggest.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
Short answer is yes. All of the above would have been better.
But James Clyburn made it pretty clear "anyone but Harris" was off the table.
I don't think there was time for anyone else.
And I do wonder if Harris encouraged Biden to keep going long enough for herself to become the only possible replacement.
I wonder why anyone would think anyone could have had such influence over Biden's decision.
It's pretty obvious he was determined to carry on - until it became absolutely obvious, even to a stubborn old guy, that it was going to cost the Democrats the election.
Lots of political leaders have been determined to carry on but the 'grey suits' forced them out.
If Biden's entire cabinet goes to him and tells him he cannot manage a second term then he'd have to listen.
Even more so if they're backed up by Schumer and Jeffries.
That's more or less what happened, in the end (though it was Pelosi who got the message through). Which is what I said.
The idea that Harris might have been instrumental in persuading him to stay on, is for the birds.
I love the fact the Nips also call red light districts “soap lands”
An interesting fact is that Japan produced some of the best 1970"s jazz in the world. This in the musical sense ; I've no idea if this was also true in the 1970's, lewd-type slang sense.
To clarify I'm not sure if I'd vote for Trump if I had a vote in the US election. I mean I'd have a serious think about it, but I'm afraid I can't take elections where I don't have a vote as seriously as those that do. I wouldn't rule it out out of hand though nor would I rule voting for Harris. I do find it all amusing though as the US looks from pig to man and man to pig.
It's very possible, and I'm guessing not uncommon, to find Trump more worrying than Harris yet, thinking more broadly, the Dems more worrying than the Reps.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
To clarify I'm not sure if I'd vote for Trump if I had a vote in the US election. I mean I'd have a serious think about it, but I'm afraid I can't take elections where I don't have a vote as seriously as those that do. I wouldn't rule it out out of hand though nor would I rule voting for Harris. I do find it all amusing though as the US looks from pig to man and man to pig.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
Will India and Pakistan pay each other reparations for their actions after independence?
That was the result of the botched British partition, again the UK’s responsibility.
If Ukraine wins in Russia, many of the same people screeching for the UK to pay reparations will be screeching: "Remember the Versailles Treaty! If Russia pays too much reparations to Ukraine it may cause another war!!!!!!!!"
As usual with Ukraine, Kenya leads the way. It's been a strong advocate for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. Many other commonwealth countries, not so much.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
The trouble is people and countries are getting confused between the question of reparations from those - usually wealthy families - that benefited financially from theft of labour or assets in the past (and continue to, through their inherited endowments), and the much more sketchy question of paying reparations for past wrongs more generally.
If you are rich, and one of the reasons you are rich is because your forebears nicked stuff that wasn't theirs, then I think there is a case to answer. If you just happen to live in a country whose people did bad stuff to other people in the past, well then you are probably about 99% of the world population.
Well quite, if the guilt tripped progeny of the Trevelyan family want to pay the £26,898 they received in 1835 money from HMT for the purchase of their slaves to Barbados and Jamaica (£2,870,952.53 in today's money) that's their business. If the King does, that's his business too albeit it should be out of his personal wealth and not the state's.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
You're claiming an opt-out from being British?
Well Matt Goodwin is arguing that I am not British so perhaps he is right..
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I think there are drawbacks to raising a generation of kids to think that their country is uniquely wicked - which is why most culture tend not to.
If Ukraine wins in Russia, many of the same people screeching for the UK to pay reparations will be screeching: "Remember the Versailles Treaty! If Russia pays too much reparations to Ukraine it may cause another war!!!!!!!!"
From the very beginning some argued against Russia being 'beaten' too much on that very basis, for example saying Ukraine should stop at the 2014 boundaries if they are on the offensive.
I sadly don't think they'll get back even to 2014, but people seriously felt that would be too embarrassing for Russia to accept and so, naturally, the nuclear threats might start if it got to that.
I think it might be my favourite inner urban district in the world. I’m trying hard to think of anywhere that combines its incredible mix of charm food sex neon and fun and more neon
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Although just to make clear I think what Musk is doing is so close to buying votes that it is illegal or should be if it isn't.
How can you buy votes in a secret ballot? The voters might just take your money, and vote the wrong way, the double-crossing swine.
Given than governments of all stripes pretty much everywhere dole out money to their voters (e.g. right now, we have a budget black hole caused by Labour signing up for big pay rises for the public sector), although it's pretty morally dubious, I can't see how that sort of bribery can be stopped.
Musk doling out cash for signing some meaningless petition merely ensures everyone knows the petition is particularly meaningless - I can't see how it changes a single vote in the actual Presidential election.
OK if you think so try offering £5 to voters in the UK in exchange for their vote in a UK election where we have a secret ballot and try arguing that being secret you really didn't impact their vote.
Your feet won't touch the ground before finding yourself in prison. The political parties are scrupulous in avoiding that.
For those old enough do you remember the days where in an election day committee room you had a plate for donations for tea and biscuits to ensure plod didn't come around and do you for bribery (as if).
And it was also always a good excuse for the candidate to avoid their round.
Oh. Don't they do that (bikkie money) any more? If not, why not?
You don't need committee rooms anymore. Knock up done via mobile phone and internet so not relevant. However at the last GE we had boxes positioned at various houses with water, sweets, energy bars, paracetamol, sun cream, etc which I was surprised at so I assume there has been some change in the rules or a sensible relaxation.
Mr. F, to be fair, Japan doesn't have a self-hating Metropolitan middle class that might buckle and pay reparations, so they don't have to put up with this bullshit.
Having said that, the plan to deindustrialise Japan, and hand over a large part of its industrial resources to the parts of Asia where it had inflicted the most damage, was rapidly reneged on - when it became clear to the US that it needed a strong industrial ally against Soviet Russia in the region. (Which ought anyway to have been obvious, after the lessons of Versailles.)
More that, like the Morgenthau Plan, such action would reduce the carry capacity of the country massively.
As if a large chunk of the population would either have to starve to death or be exported to another country. If you de-industrialise a country in any meaningful sense, that's what happens.
So, unlike the Nazi (with their Hunger Plan, in Eastern Europe and Western Russia), the Americans and allies decided not to starve most of the Germans and Japanese to death, after the war.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
My guess is that the best thing you can be as an imperial power is preferable to the previous lot (or the alternatives).
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I think there are drawbacks to raising a generation of kids to think that their country is uniquely wicked - which is why most culture tend not to.
Not the only reason they don't I imagine.
It's one reason I think a lot of complaints about English (more than British) exceptionalism are themselves usually exceptionalist, as it seems to paint pretty regular historical actions as uniquely terrible, as if a part of the character of the country.
It is probably hard to design and deliver what might be called an unvarnished take on a nation's history, good with the bad and very bad, without the sorts of people who will ignore one or the other, focusing on rosy pictured nostalgia or emotive self flagellation. Even if properly designed it would go that way.
And yet once you get past about 500 years ago we manage it just fine, no one feels any shared guilt over things happening before that point.
There was a pretty bad Terry Goodkind fantasy novel which involved a nation which had helped a bunch of essentially refugees, then to make them feel better taught them a false history of their oppression, and then those people ended up taking over and teaching it as truth and the original inhabitants full of self hatred for imagined past sins. I think he was later revealed to be a bit of a nutjob.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
Mine was similar but started, sketchily and as I've since discovered, erroneously, with the Neanderthals and terminated around the War of Jenkins Ear in the early 18th Century. After that, at 14+ I elected to go to the Science Fourth which prevented me having any history education whatsoever. I was pleased to see that first my children and then my grandchildren had a more balanced syllabus. Indeed, one of them took both History and Physics at A level.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
The trouble is people and countries are getting confused between the question of reparations from those - usually wealthy families - that benefited financially from theft of labour or assets in the past (and continue to, through their inherited endowments), and the much more sketchy question of paying reparations for past wrongs more generally.
If you are rich, and one of the reasons you are rich is because your forebears nicked stuff that wasn't theirs, then I think there is a case to answer. If you just happen to live in a country whose people did bad stuff to other people in the past, well then you are probably about 99% of the world population.
I think if someone feels that they personally want to contribute something of their inherited wealth to assuage their conscience, that is absolutely fine and and quite a worthy view (though who you give it to is a bigger question). I don’t think you’re obliged to, though - it’s not your actions after all. But yes, morally, I understand the argument.
But, like you, I do not agree that there is some generic obligation on nations and peoples to compensate for stuff that that nation did that no-one in charge today had any responsibility for. The framing of the debate is frustrating though. Morally, many would argue that through the principles of charity etc it is incumbent on more wealthy/powerful countries to support poorer ones. It’s why we have an overseas aid budget, of course. Dressing support up in the language of reparations etc just generates and sustains grievances.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
My guess is that the best thing you can be as an imperial power is preferable to the previous lot (or the alternatives).
Well there is the probably apocryphal joke about a peasant in an Indian village being asked post independence what things were like now the British were gone, and them not realising they had even been there. In a game of Imperial top trumps some might look a bit better than others, but empire is an inherently extractive enterprise. It's why most don't do it anymore outside of Russia apparently.
Just scrap the Commonwealth. South Africa and India have left and the rest don't matter, apart from the old White Dominions and the nations still under the Crown. We are linked with the Dominions via Aukus or NATO, so that's all fine
The rest literally just see it as a grift, and a way of guilt-tripping a weak Britain and a weak Labour government that just gave away the Chagos and will make us pay for the privilege. Fuck it, them, all of it
No, it is still a useful tool for cultural exchange and trading links. India may be neutral on Putin but is sceptical of China over border disputes so it is also useful for containing Beijing still.
In terms of loyalty and the closest links to the UK though yes it is only really the Commonwealth realms and Australia, New Zealand and Canada in particular we can count on now as staunch allies
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
The trouble is people and countries are getting confused between the question of reparations from those - usually wealthy families - that benefited financially from theft of labour or assets in the past (and continue to, through their inherited endowments), and the much more sketchy question of paying reparations for past wrongs more generally.
If you are rich, and one of the reasons you are rich is because your forebears nicked stuff that wasn't theirs, then I think there is a case to answer. If you just happen to live in a country whose people did bad stuff to other people in the past, well then you are probably about 99% of the world population.
I think if someone feels that they personally want to contribute something of their inherited wealth to assuage their conscience, that is absolutely fine and and quite a worthy view (though who you give it to is a bigger question). I don’t think you’re obliged to, though - it’s not your actions after all. But yes, morally, I understand the argument.
But, like you, I do not agree that there is some generic obligation on nations and peoples to compensate for stuff that that nation did that no-one in charge today had any responsibility for. The framing of the debate is frustrating though. Morally, many would argue that through the principles of charity etc it is incumbent on more wealthy/powerful countries to support poorer ones. It’s why we have an overseas aid budget, of course. Dressing support up in the language of reparations etc just generates and sustains grievances.
I wouldn't say it is the core reason many people are against the overseas aid budget, but I think such talk does increase the reasons for the grievance aspect you mention.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Although just to make clear I think what Musk is doing is so close to buying votes that it is illegal or should be if it isn't.
How can you buy votes in a secret ballot? The voters might just take your money, and vote the wrong way, the double-crossing swine.
Given than governments of all stripes pretty much everywhere dole out money to their voters (e.g. right now, we have a budget black hole caused by Labour signing up for big pay rises for the public sector), although it's pretty morally dubious, I can't see how that sort of bribery can be stopped.
Musk doling out cash for signing some meaningless petition merely ensures everyone knows the petition is particularly meaningless - I can't see how it changes a single vote in the actual Presidential election.
OK if you think so try offering £5 to voters in the UK in exchange for their vote in a UK election where we have a secret ballot and try arguing that being secret you really didn't impact their vote.
Your feet won't touch the ground before finding yourself in prison. The political parties are scrupulous in avoiding that.
For those old enough do you remember the days where in an election day committee room you had a plate for donations for tea and biscuits to ensure plod didn't come around and do you for bribery (as if).
And it was also always a good excuse for the candidate to avoid their round.
Oh. Don't they do that (bikkie money) any more? If not, why not?
You don't need committee rooms anymore. Knock up done via mobile phone and internet so not relevant. However at the last GE we had boxes positioned at various houses with water, sweets, energy bars, paracetamol, sun cream, etc which I was surprised at so I assume there has been some change in the rules or a sensible relaxation.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
Mine was similar but started, sketchily and as I've since discovered, erroneously, with the Neanderthals and terminated around the War of Jenkins Ear in the early 18th Century. After that, at 14+ I elected to go to the Science Fourth which prevented me having any history education whatsoever. I was pleased to see that first my children and then my grandchildren had a more balanced syllabus. Indeed, one of them took both History and Physics at A level.
Me too! (also law). Did terrible on the physics though.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
Was he at Cassino? I was there a few days ago, and saw hundreds of graves to Indian soldiers.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
Was he at Cassino? I was there a few days ago, and saw hundreds of graves to Indian soldiers.
As far as I am aware he only fought in the Asian theatre.
If Ukraine wins in Russia, many of the same people screeching for the UK to pay reparations will be screeching: "Remember the Versailles Treaty! If Russia pays too much reparations to Ukraine it may cause another war!!!!!!!!"
From the very beginning some argued against Russia being 'beaten' too much on that very basis, for example saying Ukraine should stop at the 2014 boundaries if they are on the offensive.
I sadly don't think they'll get back even to 2014, but people seriously felt that would be too embarrassing for Russia to accept and so, naturally, the nuclear threats might start if it got to that.
The Versailles Treaty didn't cause WWII.
What caused that was the belief, in Germany, that they hadn't lost the war - that they had stopped at a draw, and then been treated as losers.
It was less harsh as a treaty than 1870 or Brest-Litovsk. But German exceptionalism wasn't punctured, so....
The disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty actually worked. The idea was that if Germany broke out from the treaty, it would take a decade for her to be able to wage war. The government *before* Hitler started making those preparations all through the 20s. The first pocket battleships were laid down *before* Hitler came to power. A reasonable estimate of the start of German rearmament was 1932. As it turned out, Germany would have been fully ready for war in 1942*. Hitler went early, which was why the German Navy had no chance against the RN, for example.
*UK rearmament was in depth (expanding factories) and was predicated on 1941 for full readiness. The emphasis on factories, not weapons was that weapons made in 1939 would be obsolete in 1941. For example, the plan was that by 1941 all anti-tank guns would be 17lbr, all fighter aircraft would the generation beyond the Spitfire and Hurricane (400mph, all cannon armament, 2000hp engines), there would be 4000 bombers, all of the Standard Bomber project design etc etc.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
What about the treatment of the English by the Normans, eh?
To be fair there, in England the language used by the royals downwards (!) has had considerable Saxon influence. Ever since Chaucer.
Thank goodness King John was so crap, really forced the Anglo-Norman nobility to focus more on the local lingo.
I watched the BBC adaptation of the Shakespeare play of King John, or whatever it is called, on Tuesday.
If Ukraine wins in Russia, many of the same people screeching for the UK to pay reparations will be screeching: "Remember the Versailles Treaty! If Russia pays too much reparations to Ukraine it may cause another war!!!!!!!!"
From the very beginning some argued against Russia being 'beaten' too much on that very basis, for example saying Ukraine should stop at the 2014 boundaries if they are on the offensive.
I sadly don't think they'll get back even to 2014, but people seriously felt that would be too embarrassing for Russia to accept and so, naturally, the nuclear threats might start if it got to that.
The Versailles Treaty didn't cause WWII.
What caused that was the belief, in Germany, that they hadn't lost the war - that they had stopped at a draw, and then been treated as losers.
It was less harsh as a treaty than 1870 or Brest-Litovsk. But German exceptionalism wasn't punctured, so....
The disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty actually worked. The idea was that if Germany broke out from the treaty, it would take a decade for her to be able to wage war. The government *before* Hitler started making those preparations all through the 20s. The first pocket battleships were laid down *before* Hitler came to power. A reasonable estimate of the start of German rearmament was 1932. As it turned out, Germany would have been fully ready for war in 1942*. Hitler went early, which was why the German Navy had no chance against the RN, for example.
*UK rearmament was in depth (expanding factories) and was predicated on 1941 for full readiness. The emphasis on factories, not weapons was that weapons made in 1939 would be obsolete in 1941. For example, the plan was that by 1941 all anti-tank guns would be 17lbr, all fighter aircraft would the generation beyond the Spitfire and Hurricane (400mph, all cannon armament, 2000hp engines), there would be 4000 bombers, all of the Standard Bomber project design etc etc.
As far back as the twenties, the German army beat the treaty by sending troops to train in ... Russia.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
Was he at Cassino? I was there a few days ago, and saw hundreds of graves to Indian soldiers.
As far as I am aware he only fought in the Asian theatre.
Count yourself lucky we gave you railways, abolished widow burning, and then graciously allowed you to live in <<< checks notes >>> er….. Manchester
OK you may be owed reparations on the last point. BUT THATS IT
Oh for goodness sake the Telegraph has lost the plot. Every single day another budget scare story. Some have to be true as otherwise there will be nothing Reeves can do, but the headlines are bizarre panic. It is like @leon on steroids.
Are they trying to compete with the Express on Princess Diana and House prices.
It would serve them right if Reeves introduced a newspaper tax.
Given the consensus here, can I pass on a handy tip (in Firefox at least) that gets around quite a few paywalls like the Telegraph's. When you click on the link normally, you glimpse the text and then it gets overwritten with a "sign up" message or similar. On some sites if you then click the "reader view" button (in Firefox the page icon in the address bar) you can read the whole text. But that does not work for The telegraph - you get "reader view" style but still truncated.
But... if you then move to any another page and hit the browser back button - hallelujah - the full text appears.
Gotta love client side security (for some reason it's always right wing rags that use it!)
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
What about the treatment of the English by the Normans, eh?
To be fair there, in England the language used by the royals downwards (!) has had considerable Saxon influence. Ever since Chaucer.
Thank goodness King John was so crap, really forced the Anglo-Norman nobility to focus more on the local lingo.
I watched the BBC adaptation of the Shakespeare play of King John, or whatever it is called, on Tuesday.
Leonard Rossiter was in it.
Those BBC Shakespeares are really good. I hadn't realized that they ploughed through (almost) all of them over many years.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are. Everyone can see how they caved on Chagos
From the guardian
“Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said”
I bet he’s confident. Labour will buckle but they will try and disguise it as something else. Spineless fucking cretins
“Hard to overstate what a sinister figure Elon Musk is. Never seen one oligarch in a western democracy intervene on anything like this scale with unending Goebbels-grade lies.”
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
I think there are lots of different ways this could go. An election board in a state might refuse to verify the results to prevent Harris from getting the votes, and that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
“Hard to overstate what a sinister figure Elon Musk is. Never seen one oligarch in a western democracy intervene on anything like this scale with unending Goebbels-grade lies.”
Does that include the goons calling Harris a communist? Two of said goons being Musk and Trump.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
He folded on Chagos. I'd be surprised if he didn't fold on this.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
It seems to me inevitable in modern human nature that most people will develop some sort of narrative - story like - about the 'history that leads up to this moment for me and mine'. This has to be in some sense a national/ethnic even if also global story.
I think in England/UK we suffer from several of these. When done badly they are not great. There is the 'Roast beef, imperial greatness and Johnny Foreigner' one; there is the 'everything about England (especially England) is awful' one; there is the 'long decline of the west especially us' one; the is the old whig history one of picking out a golden thread of progress one; in Ireland there is the long history of British oppression one. There are others to choose from.
Worst of all is where a nation is so badly educated culturally that it does not have the materials from which to frame a realistic narrative that gives scope for thinking together about the future.
To clarify I'm not sure if I'd vote for Trump if I had a vote in the US election. I mean I'd have a serious think about it, but I'm afraid I can't take elections where I don't have a vote as seriously as those that do. I wouldn't rule it out out of hand though nor would I rule voting for Harris. I do find it all amusing though as the US looks from pig to man and man to pig.
It's very possible, and I'm guessing not uncommon, to find Trump more worrying than Harris yet, thinking more broadly, the Dems more worrying than the Reps.
Yes, even if Harris wins I expect the Republicans to win Congress. A lot of Independents will vote Harris for President, Republican for Senate and House
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
Was he at Cassino? I was there a few days ago, and saw hundreds of graves to Indian soldiers.
As far as I am aware he only fought in the Asian theatre.
Count yourself lucky we gave you railways, abolished widow burning, and then graciously allowed you to live in <<< checks notes >>> er….. Manchester
OK you may be owed reparations on the last point. BUT THATS IT
As far as I recall, TSE was living in style when he was in the North West.
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
Was he at Cassino? I was there a few days ago, and saw hundreds of graves to Indian soldiers.
As far as I am aware he only fought in the Asian theatre.
In Burma? I find hearing about the real people who fought in WW2 fascinating.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
Was he at Cassino? I was there a few days ago, and saw hundreds of graves to Indian soldiers.
As far as I am aware he only fought in the Asian theatre.
Count yourself lucky we gave you railways, abolished widow burning, and then graciously allowed you to live in <<< checks notes >>> er….. Manchester
OK you may be owed reparations on the last point. BUT THATS IT
As far as I recall, TSE was living in style when he was in the North West.
Or maybe living in Styal. My memory is fuzzy...
I used to live in Styal between 2008 and 2011.
I lived in Manchester 2011 to 2013.
Been living back in Sheffield since 2013 but I work in Manchester.
Living in Styal was a nightmare, being that close to a prison full of women tested my self control.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
What about the treatment of the English by the Normans, eh?
To be fair there, in England the language used by the royals downwards (!) has had considerable Saxon influence. Ever since Chaucer.
Thank goodness King John was so crap, really forced the Anglo-Norman nobility to focus more on the local lingo.
I watched the BBC adaptation of the Shakespeare play of King John, or whatever it is called, on Tuesday.
Leonard Rossiter was in it.
I've just read David Starkey's "Magna Carta". It's interesting, especially the interplay between all the dramatis personae. I didn't realise there were more than one version and that the final version wasn't certified until after John's death.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
Mine was similar but started, sketchily and as I've since discovered, erroneously, with the Neanderthals and terminated around the War of Jenkins Ear in the early 18th Century. After that, at 14+ I elected to go to the Science Fourth which prevented me having any history education whatsoever. I was pleased to see that first my children and then my grandchildren had a more balanced syllabus. Indeed, one of them took both History and Physics at A level.
Me too! (also law). Did terrible on the physics though.
Dreadful subject. Had major difficulties with it myself, and only ever passed one exam in it ...... but that took me to the stage of my course, so all that was needed. Grandson got A in them both though!
I hope that the people who are essentially saying that Trump is lying about ceasing support for Ukraine, not following NATO Article 5 and imposing tariffs on all imports are right. He is certainly a liar, so there is a chance.
But why would any sensible person believe some random internet voice over people like Milley, Esper, Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly? Essentially all the ex-military/defence/security people who worked with Trump are as one saying "he's a fascist, he's a threat to the US, he's a threat to the world order".
The mental gymnastics required to disregard the warnings from very serious people with first-hand experience of Trump and intead go with your feelings is plainly ridiculous.
People who still support Trump, despite mountains of evidence against him, have lost the plot almost as much as Trump himself.
Hmm. Wonder if Sir Keir has played an unintentional blinder with TrumpGate. All those 'Trump vs Starmer' front pages I saw on the way to work this morning surely won't do him any harm with the Great British public. Sir Keir is something of an enigma - outwardly uninspiring but with an extraordinary lucky touch. Is he smiled upon by the political gods?
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
Comments
You need some history lessons, again.
It's pretty obvious he was determined to carry on - until it became absolutely obvious, even to a stubborn old guy, that it was going to cost the Democrats the election.
Your feet won't touch the ground before finding yourself in prison. The political parties are scrupulous in avoiding that.
For those old enough do you remember the days where in an election day committee room you had a plate for donations for tea and biscuits to ensure plod didn't come around and do you for bribery (as if).
And it was also always a good excuse for the candidate to avoid their round.
Edit - It would never end. No doubt in 100 years time when political winds change, some places would demand reparations be paid in recompense for the reparations 'they' paid 100 years earlier, at that point feeling it was unfair to have done so!
I’m beginning to think his account has been hacked. Genuinely.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd6vy79p750o
Did Japan pay that out for something that happened centuries ago?
As for India: Delhi itself acquired the diamond by looting it.
He must be furious though, since Trump regularly says or does things worse than what got him hounded out of the race.
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco
Having said that, the plan to deindustrialise Japan, and hand over a large part of its industrial resources to the parts of Asia where it had inflicted the most damage, was rapidly reneged on - when it became clear to the US that it needed a strong industrial ally against Soviet Russia in the region.
(Which ought anyway to have been obvious, after the lessons of Versailles.)
You need some history lessons, again.
If Biden's entire cabinet goes to him and tells him he cannot manage a second term then he'd have to listen.
Even more so if they're backed up by Schumer and Jeffries.
I'm not sure if I'd vote for Trump if I had a vote in the US election. I mean I'd have a serious think about it, but I'm afraid I can't take elections where I don't have a vote as seriously as those that do. I wouldn't rule it out out of hand though nor would I rule voting for Harris.
I do find it all amusing though as the US looks from pig to man and man to pig.
Thank God for Tories like William Wilberforce.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
And that's before you even get into the issues of who pays today and to whom, in a globalist world where people's descent and therefore, presumed national culpability, is far from obvious, adding a layer of sins of the father nonsense onto specific groups but not others, even for the very same activities. It also adds to the removal of agency for others by adding into a narrative of helplessness, and even the core message of dumping of cash to someone to address a wrong is the way to go is strange, as outside of civil wrongs I don't think we want to go the way of weregild again.
Sure, some may be arguing for reparations and actual concrete action to address lingering issues from past wrongs which do exist, but demanding the former probably hinders the latter, which ultimately is more important.
So ultimately I think the moral case is shakier than pretended, and it is likely to be counter productive anyway. At best a decent idea which does not actually work - the communism of proposals.
If you are rich, and one of the reasons you are rich is because your forebears nicked stuff that wasn't theirs, then I think there is a case to answer. If you just happen to live in a country whose people did bad stuff to other people in the past, well then you are probably about 99% of the world population.
Truly vast slave trains would march on foot across the Sahara from black Africa to the ports and cities of the Islamic Mediterranean and into Arabia and beyond
Which is what I said.
The idea that Harris might have been instrumental in persuading him to stay on, is for the birds.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/15/un-calls-for-russia-to-pay-reparations-how-did-countries-vote
As usual with Ukraine, Kenya leads the way. It's been a strong advocate for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. Many other commonwealth countries, not so much.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/cjl6pgye9zwt
I sadly don't think they'll get back even to 2014, but people seriously felt that would be too embarrassing for Russia to accept and so, naturally, the nuclear threats might start if it got to that.
Kurosawa also drank here
https://www.ikura-app.com/guides/tracing-yukio-mishima-a-journey-through-his-japan
I LOVE TOKYO and most of all I love Shinjuku
I think it might be my favourite inner urban district in the world. I’m trying hard to think of anywhere that combines its incredible mix of charm food sex neon and fun and more neon
Currently 2.76 YES, 1.56 NO (100.3 book).
I'm on Yes and I still think there is a bit of value there.
As if a large chunk of the population would either have to starve to death or be exported to another country. If you de-industrialise a country in any meaningful sense, that's what happens.
So, unlike the Nazi (with their Hunger Plan, in Eastern Europe and Western Russia), the Americans and allies decided not to starve most of the Germans and Japanese to death, after the war.
It's one reason I think a lot of complaints about English (more than British) exceptionalism are themselves usually exceptionalist, as it seems to paint pretty regular historical actions as uniquely terrible, as if a part of the character of the country.
It is probably hard to design and deliver what might be called an unvarnished take on a nation's history, good with the bad and very bad, without the sorts of people who will ignore one or the other, focusing on rosy pictured nostalgia or emotive self flagellation. Even if properly designed it would go that way.
And yet once you get past about 500 years ago we manage it just fine, no one feels any shared guilt over things happening before that point.
There was a pretty bad Terry Goodkind fantasy novel which involved a nation which had helped a bunch of essentially refugees, then to make them feel better taught them a false history of their oppression, and then those people ended up taking over and teaching it as truth and the original inhabitants full of self hatred for imagined past sins. I think he was later revealed to be a bit of a nutjob.
After that, at 14+ I elected to go to the Science Fourth which prevented me having any history education whatsoever.
I was pleased to see that first my children and then my grandchildren had a more balanced syllabus. Indeed, one of them took both History and Physics at A level.
But, like you, I do not agree that there is some generic obligation on nations and peoples to compensate for stuff that that nation did that no-one in charge today had any responsibility for. The framing of the debate is frustrating though. Morally, many would argue that through the principles of charity etc it is incumbent on more wealthy/powerful countries to support poorer ones. It’s why we have an overseas aid budget, of course. Dressing support up in the language of reparations etc just generates and sustains grievances.
(Just been reading a book by a journalist who had operated, in part, in that area.)
In terms of loyalty and the closest links to the UK though yes it is only really the Commonwealth realms and Australia, New Zealand and Canada in particular we can count on now as staunch allies
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
What caused that was the belief, in Germany, that they hadn't lost the war - that they had stopped at a draw, and then been treated as losers.
It was less harsh as a treaty than 1870 or Brest-Litovsk. But German exceptionalism wasn't punctured, so....
The disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty actually worked. The idea was that if Germany broke out from the treaty, it would take a decade for her to be able to wage war. The government *before* Hitler started making those preparations all through the 20s. The first pocket battleships were laid down *before* Hitler came to power. A reasonable estimate of the start of German rearmament was 1932. As it turned out, Germany would have been fully ready for war in 1942*. Hitler went early, which was why the German Navy had no chance against the RN, for example.
*UK rearmament was in depth (expanding factories) and was predicated on 1941 for full readiness. The emphasis on factories, not weapons was that weapons made in 1939 would be obsolete in 1941. For example, the plan was that by 1941 all anti-tank guns would be 17lbr, all fighter aircraft would the generation beyond the Spitfire and Hurricane (400mph, all cannon armament, 2000hp engines), there would be 4000 bombers, all of the Standard Bomber project design etc etc.
Leonard Rossiter was in it.
OK you may be owed reparations on the last point. BUT THATS IT
It's always been burning
Since the worlds been turning.
When you click on the link normally, you glimpse the text and then it gets overwritten with a "sign up" message or similar.
On some sites if you then click the "reader view" button (in Firefox the page icon in the address bar) you can read the whole text.
But that does not work for The telegraph - you get "reader view" style but still truncated.
But... if you then move to any another page and hit the browser back button - hallelujah - the full text appears.
Gotta love client side security (for some reason it's always right wing rags that use it!)
ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Television_Shakespeare
From the guardian
“Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree
Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start.
Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there.
But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today.
Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said”
I bet he’s confident. Labour will buckle but they will try and disguise it as something else. Spineless fucking cretins
https://x.com/edwardgluce/status/1849229802529501578?s=46&t=Vp6NqNN4ktoNY0DO98xlGA
Edward Luce (FT)
“Hard to overstate what a sinister figure Elon Musk is. Never seen one oligarch in a western democracy intervene on anything like this scale with unending Goebbels-grade lies.”
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Two of said goons being Musk and Trump.
I think in England/UK we suffer from several of these. When done badly they are not great. There is the 'Roast beef, imperial greatness and Johnny Foreigner' one; there is the 'everything about England (especially England) is awful' one; there is the 'long decline of the west especially us' one; the is the old whig history one of picking out a golden thread of progress one; in Ireland there is the long history of British oppression one. There are others to choose from.
Worst of all is where a nation is so badly educated culturally that it does not have the materials from which to frame a realistic narrative that gives scope for thinking together about the future.
Or maybe living in Styal. My memory is fuzzy...
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
Harris 50 ( +1)
Trump 47 (-)
That’s the third straight day where she’s gained in the poll.
I find hearing about the real people who fought in WW2 fascinating.
I lived in Manchester 2011 to 2013.
Been living back in Sheffield since 2013 but I work in Manchester.
Living in Styal was a nightmare, being that close to a prison full of women tested my self control.
Grandson got A in them both though!
The mental gymnastics required to disregard the warnings from very serious people with first-hand experience of Trump and intead go with your feelings is plainly ridiculous.
People who still support Trump, despite mountains of evidence against him, have lost the plot almost as much as Trump himself.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.