Are you a top or a bottom? – politicalbetting.com

System

Are you a top or a bottom? – politicalbetting.com

When travelling on a double-decker bus, 43% of Britons prefer to sit on the top floor, while 37% would rather sit on the bottom floorhttps://t.co/KIAOlpIoyK pic.twitter.com/nQuKrIVnGm

Read the full story here

RobD

What’s a “bus”?

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

What’s a “bus”?

It’s what we in the working classes call a ‘peasant wagon’.

Alphabet_Soup

What is this that roareth thus?
Can it be a motor bus?
Yes, the smell and hideous hum
Indicat motorem bum.

TimS

Long journey top deck, for the views. Short journey bottom deck for the convenience.

williamglenn

They say that either option after the age of 30 means you’re a failure.

Daveyboy1961

RobD said:

What’s a “bus”?

All together now...omnibus.

kinabalu

Top. Legacy of when you could smoke. Also if possible the front seat where it's not unknown (if the coast is clear) for me to pretend I'm driving.

Sunil_Prasannan

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

RochdalePioneers

Bottom

EDIT. Oh! On a bus? Top.

noneoftheabove

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

I'd go for UK, Spain, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Netherlands, USA myself. And just the one policy, visa free travel for tourists.

Barnesian

noneoftheabove said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

I'd go for UK, Spain, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Netherlands, USA myself. And just the one policy, visa free travel for tourists.

I'd go for UK, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

I would rename it the English Union. EU for short.

OnlyLivingBoy

Always top, ideally front window seat, left hand side.

kinabalu

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Always top, ideally front window seat, left hand side.

Yep. Boss seat.

RobD

Barnesian said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

I'd go for UK, Spain, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Netherlands, USA myself. And just the one policy, visa free travel for tourists.

I'd go for UK, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

I would rename it the English Union. EU for short.

The French would never agree to that.

williamglenn

Barnesian said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

I'd go for UK, Spain, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Netherlands, USA myself. And just the one policy, visa free travel for tourists.

I'd go for UK, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

I would rename it the English Union. EU for short.

The UDA in French.

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

I just want to point out that when the Chagos Surrender happened and I went ape-shit on here, there was a lot of scoffing and “oh who cares it’s a tiny atoll you’ve never heard of before”

I responded that

1. I had definitely heard of it

2. The surrender was totally unnecessary and a strategic error of enormous proportions

And

3. One of the many reasons it was such a strategic error was that it would encourage all our enemies to take a run at us, perceiving us as weak and spineless with a stupid cowardly leader willing to yield to anything

Et voila

Indeed, there's no way that reparations or anything as stupid as that would be on the agenda had we not just paid billions to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands. The Carribbean sense weakness and Starmer appointing reparations supporters like Lammy such high roles is another reason they know they can go for it and win. Starmer is a cuck.

Starmer should just have said “nah. Fuck off, I’m not signing that, it commits us to reparations”

But of course he’s incapable of showing backbone because he doesn’t have one, and deep down he agrees that Britain is evil and should pay

And that's the difference between him and Blair. Blair would have just laughed the whole discussion off and told the commonwealth nations to get back in their box because he fundamentally loved this country. Starmer very clearly doesn't, he sees us as part of the evil colonialist axis as so many lefties were indoctrinated to believe when they went to university by Marxist professors.

Could anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher, or even John Major signing it!

I don’t believe he’ll ever commit the UK to paying billions.

What he will do is offer some abject, and completely insincere, apology for slavery, before agreeing to pay symbolic reparations to governments who’ll stick the money in their offshore accounts.

That will set a precedent for anyone with a grudge against the UK to come calling.

One can imagine Cameron taking a similar line if he were PM now. Times have changed since the Thatcher era.

Osborne, yes. Cameron, I think not.

Impossible to imagine a British PM now suggesting, as Cameron did, that he was proud of the Empire. But that was only 2013.

The last 10 years have really been a roller coaster.

So did Blair.

FWIW, I still think the Empire was on balance a good thing - and I don't even think it's on balance, but clearly a good thing.

Why do you think the Empire was a good thing?

The modern world would be unrecognisable without the Empire.

We wouldn't have free liberal democracies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand or Australia nor large multireligious and panethnic democratic states like India and South Africa. We would not have Carribean and African states endeavouring to follow that path. We would not have free international trade, we would not have been able to fight and win WW1 or WW2, we would not have the UN, Human Rights or the rule of law as an international principle. Countries like Singapore and South Korea wouldn't exist and Japan would have taken a different path.

We'd have a world of autocracy instead, with fewer rights, more suffering, more cruelty and less human development. It'd be China, Iran and Russia writ-large. Dictators and Theocracies where might made right.

The handwringing we have now is, I think, in direct relationship to our waning power and influence and is in some sense a response to it: it's to try and keep us at the centre of ongoing geopolitical conversations - ones that our rivals absolutely don't respect and, in fact, use to hold us in contempt.

I don't agree with all these points, but I do think we have a bizarre idea that handwringing gains us something either in terms of our national progression or in geopolitical terms, and I really don't think that is the case.

And I do think handwringing is distinct from acknowledging things, but the former is what is pushed.

If one doesn't agree one has to argue from where else democracy would have spawned and how it'd have been defended and advanced at the same time.

It's not a long list. France is probably the closest and they had a decidedly jittery and mixed record.

Why?

There are plenty of countries that ended up as democracies without having to have been colonized.

A country that hasn’t been colonised would be unpopulated.

Errrr.

Sure, sure.

Verulamius

I tend to switch between top and bottom depending on what I want from the journey experience.

rcs1000

On topic:

The correct answer (like with many things in life) is it depends.

How long is the journey? How windy are the roads? How interesting is the scenery I will see from the top floor? How crowded is the bus?

Big_G_NorthWales

Excluding tourist buses, I haven't been on a bus since I went to work on one daily in Edinburgh in 1964

viewcode

+++BETTING POST+++
Please be advised that today I waged another £100 on Kemi to be Con leader, this time at 1/6. This is (I think) the third bet I have placed on her. #bigboypants

rcs1000

Verulamius said:

I tend to switch between top and bottom depending on what I want from the journey experience.

Are you talking about sex?

BlancheLivermore

rcs1000 said:

Verulamius said:

I tend to switch between top and bottom depending on what I want from the journey experience.

Are you talking about sex?

Is that not what the thread's about?

Fairliered

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

What’s a “bus”?

It’s what we in the working classes call a ‘peasant wagon’.

A good teetotal muslim like yourself won’t need to take a bus as you won’t be going for a pint in the next village.

Carnyx

Obviously TSE lives beyond the pale of civilisation. Plenty of the professionals travel by bus in and around Edinburgh. Council owned Lothian Buses.

Eabhal

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Always top, ideally front window seat, left hand side.

Most modern double-deckers afford more leg room front right, for some reason.

Fairliered

rcs1000 said:

On topic:

The correct answer (like with many things in life) is it depends.

How long is the journey? How windy are the roads? How interesting is the scenery I will see from the top floor? How crowded is the bus?

Agreed. Most of my bus journeys are less than 15 minutes long, so it’s not worth going upstairs. For longer journeys, definitely upstairs. Having said that, most of our local buses are single deckers, so left hand side so I can see the road ahead.

TimS

Barnesian said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

I'd go for UK, Spain, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Netherlands, USA myself. And just the one policy, visa free travel for tourists.

I'd go for UK, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

I would rename it the English Union. EU for short.

I might keep Hungary out for now, and add Ukraine and Georgia.

Foxy

RobD said:

What’s a “bus”?

It's the vehicle blocking the path of your Chelsea Tractor.

TheScreamingEagles

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

Verulamius said:

I tend to switch between top and bottom depending on what I want from the journey experience.

Are you talking about sex?

Is that not what the thread's about?

No, it is about buses!

TheScreamingEagles

Carnyx said:

Obviously TSE lives beyond the pale of civilisation. Plenty of the professionals travel by bus in and around Edinburgh. Council owned Lothian Buses.

I work in Manchester (and occasionally live there) which is home to one of Europe's busiest bus routes.

Foxy

TimS said:

Barnesian said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

I'd go for UK, Spain, Austria, Australia, Portugal, Netherlands, USA myself. And just the one policy, visa free travel for tourists.

I'd go for UK, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

I would rename it the English Union. EU for short.

I might keep Hungary out for now, and add Ukraine and Georgia.

Clashing exit polls in Georgia giving the result different ways.

HYUFD

Top of the bus for me

Eabhal

HYUFD said:

Top of the bus for me

Like Mitt Romney's dog?

HYUFD

Conservative LNP coalition projected to win power and form a majority government in Queensland for the first time in a decade, ousting the Labor state government
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-26/queensland-election-live-updates-results-2024/104505940

rottenborough

I'm so old I remember 'no spitting' signs on Birmingham corporation buses.

rottenborough

viewcode said:

+++BETTING POST+++
Please be advised that today I waged another £100 on Kemi to be Con leader, this time at 1/6. This is (I think) the third bet I have placed on her. #bigboypants

I'm green on this market now. Hurrah! But get a few more £ if it is Kemi. Pretty pleased how this one has panned out.

Andy_JS

"Labour MP Mike Amesbury says he was involved in Cheshire 'incident' where he 'felt threatened'

Mike Amesbury, MP for Runcorn and Helsby, said he was involved in an incident where he "threatened on the street following an evening out with friends"."

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-mike-amesbury-says-he-was-involved-in-cheshire-incident-where-he-felt-threatened-13241866

Casino_Royale

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

Five Eyes and AUKUS, and similar deals like it, mean the realpolitik is increasingly heading in that direction.

I really worry about the direction India is going in.

It's starting to emulate Russia and China, not us.

SandyRentool

What's with this "top floor" and "bottom floor" nonsense?

They are decks, not floors - hence double decker.

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

On topic:

The correct answer (like with many things in life) is it depends.

How long is the journey? How windy are the roads? How interesting is the scenery I will see from the top floor? How crowded is the bus?

Are you talking about sex?

algarkirk

rottenborough said:

I'm so old I remember 'no spitting' signs on Birmingham corporation buses.

I remember trolley buses and went on them often in London, especially with my grandfather. Top right front so that you could drive the bus (aged about 7).

(Irrelevant note: John Betjeman's greatest religious poem mentions trolley buses. It still evokes memories).

SandyRentool

Back seat downstairs for the thrash from the engine. Especially from a Leyland Olympian.

Casino_Royale

SandyRentool said:

Back seat downstairs for the thrash from the engine. Especially from a Leyland Olympian.

Are you talking ab...

[Ed: oh, stop now]

Sunil_Prasannan

"This bus is a safe space" - message seen on the front of several buses in Cambridge earlier this week.

Malmesbury

Currently on the lower deck of a Boris Bus

Wonder how many people that will trigger…

algarkirk

SandyRentool said:

What's with this "top floor" and "bottom floor" nonsense?

They are decks, not floors - hence double decker.

And there is 'inside' and 'on top': ('move along inside, there's plenny o' room on top'). The 'inside' referring to the time when the top deck was open to all weathers.

OnlyLivingBoy

Eabhal said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Always top, ideally front window seat, left hand side.

Most modern double-deckers afford more leg room front right, for some reason.

Yes but left affords better opportunities for people watching.

Nigelb

algarkirk said:

rottenborough said:

I'm so old I remember 'no spitting' signs on Birmingham corporation buses.

I remember trolley buses and went on them often in London, especially with my grandfather. Top right front so that you could drive the bus (aged about 7).

(Irrelevant note: John Betjeman's greatest religious poem mentions trolley buses. It still evokes memories).

The last double decker I went on - many years ago - was a trolley bus.
Indeed it was the final journey of the last trolley bus in Huddersfield.

Top deck.

StillWaters

FPT

I don’t really want to start the whole reparations discussions again, but…

No one has commented on the phrase that matters the most in the communique…

The discussions will happen as follows:

the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.

“Equity” has a very specific meaning. It’s not damages or reparations. It’s a reallocation of resources such that all the participants end up with the same outcome. Very different.

algarkirk

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Eabhal said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Always top, ideally front window seat, left hand side.

Most modern double-deckers afford more leg room front right, for some reason.

Yes but left affords better opportunities for people watching.

You can't drive the bus properly unless sitting top front right (me aged 7). Is there still a front bar you can hold on to for steering?

SandyRentool

I was once on a bus where the driver had to go upstairs and ask a couple to get off as they were having sex on the back seat.

He told me he looked up his periscope to see the bloke's arse going up and down.

I was, of course, in the back seat downstairs, so missed all the action.

Taz

My wife and I are bottoms. X21 into Newcastle. As long as we can get a seat together of course. Otherwise we’re tops with the lowlife.

HYUFD

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

Five Eyes and AUKUS, and similar deals like it, mean the realpolitik is increasingly heading in that direction.

I really worry about the direction India is going in.

It's starting to emulate Russia and China, not us.

India is not anti Putin but does not have great relations with China due to border disputes

Stuartinromford

SandyRentool said:

I was once on a bus where the driver had to go upstairs and ask a couple to get off as they were having sex on the back seat.

He told me he looked up his periscope to see the bloke's arse going up and down.

I was, of course, in the back seat downstairs, so missed all the action.

Nowadays, they have CCTV showing you what's happening everywhere.

Ding ding!

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

No, we want the Commonwealth to stay as now, it is one of the best global forums and networks of exchange with developing nations and to contain China.

The US and Ireland would never join it anyway due to the legacy of Empire and wars they fought to leave the British Empire and remove the British crown, whereas most Commonwealth nations got independence peacefully. Some still have chosen to even keep the King too

Andy_JS

How do you get from the terminal to the plane if you don't uses buses.

StillWaters

Andy_JS said:

How do you get from the terminal to the plane if you don't uses buses.

You don’t have a driver take you?

noneoftheabove

Andy_JS said:

How do you get from the terminal to the plane if you don't uses buses.

Walk.

OldKingCole

Opportunity to go upstairs would be a fine thing. Have to find a bus with a walking aid space,

HYUFD

'Many of Donald Trump’s supporters left a Michigan rally before he arrived after the former president kept them waiting for three hours to tape a popular podcast interview.
Those who remained at the outdoor rally on an airport tarmac huddled in the cold Friday night as they waited for the former president to touch down in the battleground state.

Trump apologized to the crowd for the delay, which he blamed on an interview with Joe Rogan, the nation’s most listened-to podcaster and an influential voice with younger male voters Trump is aggressively courting.

The interview, taped in Austin, Texas, was released Friday night and ran three hours, with Trump telling many familiar stories from his rallies and other interviews but also engaging with Rogan on topics like the existence of UFOs.'


https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-10-26/trump-leaves-michigan-rallygoers-waiting-3-hours-in-the-cold-while-he-tapes-joe-rogan-podcast

OldKingCole

HYUFD said:

'Many of Donald Trump’s supporters left a Michigan rally before he arrived after the former president kept them waiting for three hours to tape a popular podcast interview.
Those who remained at the outdoor rally on an airport tarmac huddled in the cold Friday night as they waited for the former president to touch down in the battleground state.

Trump apologized to the crowd for the delay, which he blamed on an interview with Joe Rogan, the nation’s most listened-to podcaster and an influential voice with younger male voters Trump is aggressively courting.

The interview, taped in Austin, Texas, was released Friday night and ran three hours, with Trump telling many familiar stories from his rallies and other interviews but also engaging with Rogan on topics like the existence of UFOs.'


https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-10-26/trump-leaves-michigan-rallygoers-waiting-3-hours-in-the-cold-while-he-tapes-joe-rogan-podcast

He’s disturbed. Seriously disturbed.

Fffs

Andy_JS said:

How do you get from the terminal to the plane if you don't uses buses.

Turn left.

williamglenn

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

'Many of Donald Trump’s supporters left a Michigan rally before he arrived after the former president kept them waiting for three hours to tape a popular podcast interview.
Those who remained at the outdoor rally on an airport tarmac huddled in the cold Friday night as they waited for the former president to touch down in the battleground state.

Trump apologized to the crowd for the delay, which he blamed on an interview with Joe Rogan, the nation’s most listened-to podcaster and an influential voice with younger male voters Trump is aggressively courting.

The interview, taped in Austin, Texas, was released Friday night and ran three hours, with Trump telling many familiar stories from his rallies and other interviews but also engaging with Rogan on topics like the existence of UFOs.'


https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-10-26/trump-leaves-michigan-rallygoers-waiting-3-hours-in-the-cold-while-he-tapes-joe-rogan-podcast

He’s disturbed. Seriously disturbed.

Shades of Ed Miliband doing Russell Brand's podcast?

HYUFD

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

'Many of Donald Trump’s supporters left a Michigan rally before he arrived after the former president kept them waiting for three hours to tape a popular podcast interview.
Those who remained at the outdoor rally on an airport tarmac huddled in the cold Friday night as they waited for the former president to touch down in the battleground state.

Trump apologized to the crowd for the delay, which he blamed on an interview with Joe Rogan, the nation’s most listened-to podcaster and an influential voice with younger male voters Trump is aggressively courting.

The interview, taped in Austin, Texas, was released Friday night and ran three hours, with Trump telling many familiar stories from his rallies and other interviews but also engaging with Rogan on topics like the existence of UFOs.'


https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-10-26/trump-leaves-michigan-rallygoers-waiting-3-hours-in-the-cold-while-he-tapes-joe-rogan-podcast

He’s disturbed. Seriously disturbed.

Meanwhile Trump is doing a big rally in New York tomorrow following rallies in California earlier this month, while Obama is doing rally after rally for Harris in swing states.


Trump to win the popular vote but Harris the EC must be a serious prospect now
https://www.fox5ny.com/election/nyc-donald-trump-rally-at-msg-ny

https://apnews.com/article/trump-california-coachella-nevada-arizona-newsom-4557c2f98ffc179178fe5b6ec5bcf8aa

https://www.theguardian.com/music/video/2024/oct/23/obama-raps-eminem-harris-campaign-rally-detroit-video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/22/obama-rallies-with-walz-wisconsin-america-is-ready-turn-page/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/politics/harris-north-carolina-obama.html

dixiedean

Taz said:

My wife and I are bottoms. X21 into Newcastle. As long as we can get a seat together of course. Otherwise we’re tops with the lowlife.

I take it that's the one from Durham and Bish, not Newbiggin and Ashington?

Fairliered

SandyRentool said:

I was once on a bus where the driver had to go upstairs and ask a couple to get off as they were having sex on the back seat.

He told me he looked up his periscope to see the bloke's arse going up and down.

I was, of course, in the back seat downstairs, so missed all the action.

Looked up his periscope? Ooh, missus!

Sunil_Prasannan

Andy_JS said:

How do you get from the terminal to the plane if you don't uses buses.

Use the jet bridge?

stodge

Evening all

With free travel for over-60s in London (thank you Boris and Sadiq), I'm a regular user of buses.

Unfortunately, many of the routes I use are served only by single deck buses so the topic question is moot. If I'm going to Romford from East Ham, I prefer to sit upstairs but a short trip to Ilford, downstairs will suffice.

The buses on the Isle of Man are wonderful and the journey from Douglas to Ramsey on the top deck was delightful with wonderful views along the coast.

Northern_Al

It's complicated.
With dog: bottom.
With wife: bottom.
With wife and dog: bottom.
Without dog or wife: top.

turbotubbs

In Warminster we have an annual bus run out to Imber (taken by the army during WW2 and never returned). Lots of historic double deckers plus some modern. All in all a grand afternoon, although Imber is no more - the old buildings are mostly all gone and been replaced with brick and concrete shells only.
The answer to the question is top in the open top bus while waiting to set off in the sunshine and then thinking bollocks! Should have gone indoors as the wind at 30 mph is sodding freezing up here…

noneoftheabove

Northern_Al said:

It's complicated.
With dog: bottom.
With wife: bottom.
Without dog or wife: top.

Hope this is still the bus!

Northern_Al

noneoftheabove said:

Northern_Al said:

It's complicated.
With dog: bottom.
With wife: bottom.
Without dog or wife: top.

Hope this is still the bus!

For the avoidance of doubt, yes it is.

geoffw

How people populate a double-decker bus was our chemistry master's illustration of the laws of thermodynamics: a balance was obtained between minimising enthalpy - lower deck, less energy involved - and maximising entropy - upper deck, travellers spreading themselves about

nico679

I loathe buses !

Haven’t been on a bus in decades , wretched things.

BlancheLivermore

I prefer lightly whipped nougat with a hint of coffee over crispy cereal bits

Stuartinromford

geoffw said:

How people populate a double-decker bus was our chemistry master's illustration of the laws of thermodynamics: a balance was obtained between minimising enthalpy - lower deck, less energy involved - and maximising entropy - upper deck, travellers spreading themselves about

There's another bus seat rule in chemistry. Atomic orbitals can accommodate two electrons, but the electrons fill each orbital once before any of them are filled twice. Like people choosing where to sit.

Basically, if buses cease to be a thing, science education is stuffed.

GIN1138

My aunt and uncle, both in their 70s, LOVE the bus. But they're fearful Keir and Rachel are going to axe their bus passes

Northern_Al

nico679 said:

I loathe buses !

Haven’t been on a bus in decades , wretched things.

Buses are great. I regularly take the bus from Brighton to Eastbourne. I have no desire whatsoever to go to Eastbourne, of course, but the scenery on the coastal route is beautiful. It helps that I'm old enough for it to be free,

Omnium

BlancheLivermore said:

I prefer lightly whipped nougat with a hint of coffee over crispy cereal bits

People will talk!

The_Woodpecker

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

No, we want the Commonwealth to stay as now, it is one of the best global forums and networks of exchange with developing nations and to contain China.

The US and Ireland would never join it anyway due to the legacy of Empire and wars they fought to leave the British Empire and remove the British crown, whereas most Commonwealth nations got independence peacefully. Some still have chosen to even keep the King too

Ireland might join the Commonwealth as part of a reunification deal, if it would placate Unionists.

boulay

Is bus snobbery a British only thing? When I lived in Geneva I would take the bus from my village along with the head of one of the Swiss Banks, the guy who owned the village Manor House who was a British/swiss hedgie, we would pick up loads of other financiers on the way along the lake.

Nobody thought anything odd about it. Quite liked hoping off and switching to the water buses occasionally.

I use the buses at home happily when I am out all day followed by a boozy session as it gets me from home to town with no stress whatsoever. Many friends and acquaintances who are worth crazy millions do as well. I think maybe it’s one of those things where people like the “etiquette expert” William Hanson are so up their own backsides that they think it makes them look lower class. Strange.

Omnium

nico679 said:

I loathe buses !

Haven’t been on a bus in decades , wretched things.

I think it's more other people that I hate rather than buses.

Other people on the transfer bus after a long flight - especially those people.

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

Obviously TSE lives beyond the pale of civilisation. Plenty of the professionals travel by bus in and around Edinburgh. Council owned Lothian Buses.

I work in Manchester (and occasionally live there) which is home to one of Europe's busiest bus routes.

But that is, er, not the same thing at all.

Carnyx

boulay said:

Is bus snobbery a British only thing? When I lived in Geneva I would take the bus from my village along with the head of one of the Swiss Banks, the guy who owned the village Manor House who was a British/swiss hedgie, we would pick up loads of other financiers on the way along the lake.

Nobody thought anything odd about it. Quite liked hoping off and switching to the water buses occasionally.

I use the buses at home happily when I am out all day followed by a boozy session as it gets me from home to town with no stress whatsoever. Many friends and acquaintances who are worth crazy millions do as well. I think maybe it’s one of those things where people like the “etiquette expert” William Hanson are so up their own backsides that they think it makes them look lower class. Strange.

Not in Edinburgh, it isn't - the same thing is true.

SandyRentool

Stuartinromford said:

geoffw said:

How people populate a double-decker bus was our chemistry master's illustration of the laws of thermodynamics: a balance was obtained between minimising enthalpy - lower deck, less energy involved - and maximising entropy - upper deck, travellers spreading themselves about

There's another bus seat rule in chemistry. Atomic orbitals can accommodate two electrons, but the electrons fill each orbital once before any of them are filled twice. Like people choosing where to sit.

Basically, if buses cease to be a thing, science education is stuffed.

That rule breaks down when the nutter gets on the bus and sits next to you, despite there being plenty of empty double seats.

Carnyx

SandyRentool said:

Stuartinromford said:

geoffw said:

How people populate a double-decker bus was our chemistry master's illustration of the laws of thermodynamics: a balance was obtained between minimising enthalpy - lower deck, less energy involved - and maximising entropy - upper deck, travellers spreading themselves about

There's another bus seat rule in chemistry. Atomic orbitals can accommodate two electrons, but the electrons fill each orbital once before any of them are filled twice. Like people choosing where to sit.

Basically, if buses cease to be a thing, science education is stuffed.

That rule breaks down when the nutter gets on the bus and sits next to you, despite there being plenty of empty double seats.

Or if the nutter sits in all the seats at once, as Kekule showed (I seem to recall).

SandyRentool

Northern_Al said:

nico679 said:

I loathe buses !

Haven’t been on a bus in decades , wretched things.

Buses are great. I regularly take the bus from Brighton to Eastbourne. I have no desire whatsoever to go to Eastbourne, of course, but the scenery on the coastal route is beautiful. It helps that I'm old enough for it to be free,

The E1 from Sunderland to South Shields is a nice scenic run, best enjoyed from the right side upstairs (or left side if starting from Shields).

williamglenn

SandyRentool said:

Stuartinromford said:

geoffw said:

How people populate a double-decker bus was our chemistry master's illustration of the laws of thermodynamics: a balance was obtained between minimising enthalpy - lower deck, less energy involved - and maximising entropy - upper deck, travellers spreading themselves about

There's another bus seat rule in chemistry. Atomic orbitals can accommodate two electrons, but the electrons fill each orbital once before any of them are filled twice. Like people choosing where to sit.

Basically, if buses cease to be a thing, science education is stuffed.

That rule breaks down when the nutter gets on the bus and sits next to you, despite there being plenty of empty double seats.

The trick is to make sure you travel on Jasper Carrott's bus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5xy6r2ZrZM

HYUFD

The_Woodpecker said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

No, we want the Commonwealth to stay as now, it is one of the best global forums and networks of exchange with developing nations and to contain China.

The US and Ireland would never join it anyway due to the legacy of Empire and wars they fought to leave the British Empire and remove the British crown, whereas most Commonwealth nations got independence peacefully. Some still have chosen to even keep the King too

Ireland might join the Commonwealth as part of a reunification deal, if it would placate Unionists.

It wouldn't and nor would it placate Nationalists either who want Northern Ireland in a full Irish republic and no Commonwealth link

HYUFD

TIPP Harris 48% Trump 48%
https://tippinsights.com/tipp-tracking-poll-day-13-trump-and-harris-deadlocked-at-48/

Emerson Harris 49% Trump 49%
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/october-2024-national-poll-trump-49-harris-49/

Activote Harris 50.1% Trump 49.9%
https://www.activote.net/harris-and-trump-tied/

SandyRentool

I was once on the same bus as Roy Hattersley. He sat downstairs.

He was enjoying some good banter with fellow passengers.

TimS

Carnyx said:

boulay said:

Is bus snobbery a British only thing? When I lived in Geneva I would take the bus from my village along with the head of one of the Swiss Banks, the guy who owned the village Manor House who was a British/swiss hedgie, we would pick up loads of other financiers on the way along the lake.

Nobody thought anything odd about it. Quite liked hoping off and switching to the water buses occasionally.

I use the buses at home happily when I am out all day followed by a boozy session as it gets me from home to town with no stress whatsoever. Many friends and acquaintances who are worth crazy millions do as well. I think maybe it’s one of those things where people like the “etiquette expert” William Hanson are so up their own backsides that they think it makes them look lower class. Strange.

Not in Edinburgh, it isn't - the same thing is true.

It’s the same in all places where there are lots of buses. London of course, but plenty of other places.

It’s a snobbery of car-dominated regions.

Mexicanpete

SandyRentool said:

I was once on the same bus as Roy Hattersley. He sat downstairs.

He was enjoying some good banter with fellow passengers.

Are you sure it was Hattersley and not a tub of lard?

MaxPB

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

Five Eyes and AUKUS, and similar deals like it, mean the realpolitik is increasingly heading in that direction.

I really worry about the direction India is going in.

It's starting to emulate Russia and China, not us.

I'd say India is closer to Turkey than China or Russia. A religious conservative as a legitimately elected leader (at least for now) who has fired up the economy and got millions of people out of crushing poverty. It helps Modi that the opposition parties in India are so weak and have no answer for his muscular conservatism paired with very strong economic policies.

MarqueeMark

HYUFD said:

TIPP Harris 48% Trump 48%
https://tippinsights.com/tipp-tracking-poll-day-13-trump-and-harris-deadlocked-at-48/

Emerson Harris 49% Trump 49%
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/october-2024-national-poll-trump-49-harris-49/

Activote Harris 50.1% Trump 49.9%
https://www.activote.net/harris-and-trump-tied/

Good to see Activote not herding.

"Hey, we got no idea. If we're wrong, we all get painted with seven shades of shit..."

HYUFD

HYUFD said:

TIPP Harris 48% Trump 48%
https://tippinsights.com/tipp-tracking-poll-day-13-trump-and-harris-deadlocked-at-48/

Emerson Harris 49% Trump 49%
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/october-2024-national-poll-trump-49-harris-49/

Activote Harris 50.1% Trump 49.9%
https://www.activote.net/harris-and-trump-tied/

Activote has Harris and Walz doing 2% better with white voters than Biden did in 2020 and 6% better with white voters than Hillary did in 2016, Trump 1% worse with white voters than he did in 2020.

Harris is polling 6% worse with black voters and 10% worse with Latinos than Biden did in 2020 though where Trump has made gains

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics

https://www.activote.net/harris-and-trump-tied/

TheScreamingEagles

boulay said:

Is bus snobbery a British only thing? When I lived in Geneva I would take the bus from my village along with the head of one of the Swiss Banks, the guy who owned the village Manor House who was a British/swiss hedgie, we would pick up loads of other financiers on the way along the lake.

Nobody thought anything odd about it. Quite liked hoping off and switching to the water buses occasionally.

I use the buses at home happily when I am out all day followed by a boozy session as it gets me from home to town with no stress what. soever. Many friends and acquaintances who are worth crazy millions do as well. I think maybe it’s one of those things where people like the “etiquette expert” William Hanson are so up their own backsides that they think it makes them look lower class. Strange.

I am a huge fan of using public transport as a frequent train user and tram user.

My issue is that the buses just don't work for me.

I'm a few miles from a bus stop, so the car or a taxi is the best option.

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

No, we want the Commonwealth to stay as now

Who's "we"? The thing is too bloody unwieldy with too many member states. I want a union between all majority English-speaking nations.

HYUFD

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

Five Eyes and AUKUS, and similar deals like it, mean the realpolitik is increasingly heading in that direction.

I really worry about the direction India is going in.

It's starting to emulate Russia and China, not us.

I'd say India is closer to Turkey than China or Russia. A religious conservative as a legitimately elected leader (at least for now) who has fired up the economy and got millions of people out of crushing poverty. It helps Modi that the opposition parties in India are so weak and have no answer for his muscular conservatism paired with very strong economic policies.

Albeit Modi did lose his majority this year in the Indian election with a mini Congress resurgence

TimS

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

RandallFlagg said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s obvious from the reporting that the UK suffered a diplomatic defeat at the Commonwealth.

Reparations were not even on the agenda, so the UK has been “hijacked”. And despite Starmer’s pleading, it is not obvious at all the money is not to be discussed.

Starmer said none of the discussions at the summit had concerned money.

“Well, no figure,” Frederick Mitchell, the foreign minister of the Bahamas told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Saturday. “We’ll see what happens going forward.”

He said he hoped a report on the issue would follow, which nations would discuss in the future. Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout. “I have no doubt …. that the arc of history always goes in the right direction,” he said.

The Commonwealth no longer does our bidding, and why should it? After all KC3 is Head of State for a number of the countries pursuing reparations too. Sure we could have thrown our toys out of the pram and refused to sign the declaration, but that pretty much would bang in the final nail in its coffin.

We cannot praise the democratic institutions and rule of law that we bequeathed to the Commonwealth, then refuse to respond to those governments. Either we left them something valid, or we did not.

I don’t think the Commonwealth should do the UK’s bidding. That would be bizarre.

I simply note the UK’s diplomatic defeat on this issue.

The last government created a precedent, it seems:

"Mitchell also mentioned the UK government’s decision in 2013 to recognise the torture of Kenyans by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau uprising, which resulted in a £20m payout."

When you are in a minority you are not going to get your way. I guess the issue is whether you then walk out or just play along knowing you cannot be forced to do anything you do not want to do.

You don't walk out. You just say "No. You must be joking!" and sit there. You certainly don't sign a declaration that opens the door. You refuse to sign. Simple.

That's pretty much the same as walking out. Basically, you leave without a communique. I suspect that is what a lot of previous UK governments would have done. This one chose not to grandstand. Unlike others on here, I don't see that as an act of treason. We decide whether the door opens. It's all in our hands.

They all leave without a communique. It's not us walking out. They all walk out.
Not agreeing to reparations is not grandstanding. It's resisting blackmail and I'm sure would have the support of the vast majority in the UK. No doubt there will be a poll soon.

As much as you may wish it otherwise, the UK government has not agreed to reparations.

It has agreed the following:

"Heads, noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement and recognising the importance of this matter to member states of the Commonwealth, the majority of which share common historical experiences in relation to this abhorrent trade, agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity. Heads further agreed to continue playing an active role in bringing about such inclusive conversations addressing these harms."

So Starmer has agreed to a meaningful conversation on reparations, because that's what it's about. What else?

Perhaps it is a cynical kicking of the discussion into the long grass out of politeness.

I would simply say No. People alive now had nothing to do with slavery on either side. It's a scam.

Yep, to me that looks like a kick into the very long grass. It's very clearly not the UK agreeing to pay reparations.

I think Starmer's strategy was to find a way of saying no without aggravating the Caribbean nations so much they end up in China's sphere of influence. "A conversation towards forging a common future based on equity" can mean absolutely anything.

I think so. The resolution on reparatory justice is unwelcome and highly embarrassing for Starmer but these things happen. The UK wants warm words about how bad slavery is; the other members want lots of cash. Even if the UK does some relatively modest education or development programmes targeted at its Commonwealth it they will be seen as either extorted or tokenistic. The Commonwealth won't survive a big bust up; it just isn't important enough to anyone. So I think he will will want the discussions to go into the long grass to avoid that outcome.

The battle for the Commonwealth was lost before it even met.

It was catastrophic that India and South Africa didn't even show up.

How did the Foreign Office let that slip?

I would trim and modify the Commonwealth such that it only includes:

UK
AUS
CAN
NZ

their overseas territories

the 11 remaining Commonwealth Realms (until they do a Barbados!)

and, ideally, hopefully, because they are also overwhelmingly English-speaking:

USA
Ireland

I would rename it The Greater English Commonwealth.

Five Eyes and AUKUS, and similar deals like it, mean the realpolitik is increasingly heading in that direction.

I really worry about the direction India is going in.

It's starting to emulate Russia and China, not us.

I'd say India is closer to Turkey than China or Russia. A religious conservative as a legitimately elected leader (at least for now) who has fired up the economy and got millions of people out of crushing poverty. It helps Modi that the opposition parties in India are so weak and have no answer for his muscular conservatism paired with very strong economic policies.

Modi is playing on a strain of nationalist chauvinism and anti-Islamic sentiment which goes beyond Erdogan’s more bog standard national conservatism.