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.
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
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.
Kind of, but you could think of it as an excited state, that gains relaxation when you move away.
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 but 6% worse with black voters and 10% worse with Latinos than Biden did in 2020 where Trump has made gains
Those changes are fascinating, because they suggest that Harris will go backwards in the Sun Belt and in North Carolina, but potentially do better than Biden in the Rust Belt.
The three whitest battleground states are Wisconsin (80%), Pennsylvania (77%) and Michigan (76%). If Harris holds all three, then she is President.
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
Well, I did say ideally above! I guess we could always become a republic. The first incarnation of the Commonwealth was a republic after all.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
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.
Does the Turkish government assassinate its political opponents in friendly countries?
It's interesting how evenly split they are across the income and education ranges.
Clearly though women and younger people and non whites and urban voters are generally for Harris and men and older people and whites and rural voters for Trump albeit with little difference on income or education and suburban voters also split.
It is a less racially polarised electorate than 2016 or 2020 however with Harris gains with white women and Trump gains with black and latino men especially
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
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.
Indeed. In that respect they're not worse than the train and clearly the concentration of rude people islower than in Nico's car. The bus is by far the best way of getting into Cambridge from where I live so I take them all the time.
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.
Does the Turkish government assassinate its political opponents in friendly countries?
Yes? At least they definitely have tried to have dissidents offed, Gulen needed protection from the US government to avoid it.
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.
Does the Turkish government assassinate its political opponents in friendly countries?
Do we have any PBers from Nottingham? Whenever I look at transport stats it always comes out really well - or at least compared to other mid-sized English cities. I'd love to know the history as to why.
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.
I quite often use the bus. We have a Hospital Hopper that goes between our three sites, with useful stops along the way such as the railway station. It runs until late, and is free with hospital ID, but also used by the public. Alas, it is a single decker.
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.
On my bus journey home from work there used to be a guy who clearly had some sort of mental health problem. He'd sit next to you no matter if there were empty bays or not, fold his arms, and with the hand nearest you poke right into your ribs with his finger.
Over the course of many years I perfected my bus stop and seat choice to minimise the chance he'd choose me.
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.
Does the Turkish government assassinate its political opponents in friendly countries?
They have been involved in some quite... er.... muscular interactions with Kurdish groups, overseas. Not sure if they've actually killed people, but it's got quite concerning in some countries, IIRC.
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.
Prompted me to revisit this wonderful viral video from some years ago, where a passenger complaining about the bus being held up by the wheelchair passenger boarding process is taken to task - and apart:
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
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.
He's also taking out dissidents abroad, trashing culture and history at home unless it's directly Hindu Nationalist and not backing the rule of law against illegal force.
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.
Michigan Muslims endorse Donald J. Trump for president:
"He promises peace not war!"
Turkeys and Christmas?
Seeing as Biden seems to be allowing the wholesale slaughter of men and boys over the age of 13 in Northern Gaza, what good will voting Democrat do if that's the decider of your vote ?
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.
On my bus journey home from work there used to be a guy who clearly had some sort of mental health problem. He'd sit next to you no matter if there were empty bays or not, fold his arms, and with the hand nearest you poke right into your ribs with his finger.
Over the course of many years I perfected my bus stop and seat choice to minimise the chance he'd choose me.
My mother comes from a village called Fulbourn which was noted for having a very large asylum/psychiatric hospital. She used to dread the bus home from school as it was always full of the interestingly insane who'd been let out into Cambridge for the day.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
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.
He's also taking out dissidents abroad, trashing culture and history at home unless it's directly Hindu Nationalist and not backing the rule of law against illegal force.
Don't like him.
A good friend of your current party leader though.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I wouldn't go that far!
Besides, a Commonwealth with 1.5 billion Indians in it would be dominated by, er, India. Trim the Commonwealth down to size as I described upthread.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
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.
He's also taking out dissidents abroad, trashing culture and history at home unless it's directly Hindu Nationalist and not backing the rule of law against illegal force.
Don't like him.
A good friend of your current party leader though.
You obviously missed the stuff in the pro-Modi press about Sunak being a Hindu sell out, because he didn't align the UK to do whatever Modi wanted.
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.
He's also taking out dissidents abroad, trashing culture and history at home unless it's directly Hindu Nationalist and not backing the rule of law against illegal force.
Don't like him.
A good friend of your current party leader though.
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.
An honest one, and one saying Trump will win so he can claim it was stolen?
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
We could do it like last time, by recruiting local allies as Sepoys.
The Sikhs aren't too keen on Modi. Divide and Rule, like the good old days.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
Most of the tanks would be in Scotland anyway I guess.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
Quite interesting to war-game an invasion of India though. Do you go amphibious, up the Bay of Bengal to Calcutta and along the Ganges valley from there, or on to the coast of Gujarat and secure the NW? Or, like Putin going through Belarus, come down from Pakistan into the Punjab? Or make the perilous crossing over the Himalayas to a surprise descent straight on Delhi? Or do you work your way up, like the Americans in WW2 Italy, from Tamil Nadu Northwards?
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
We could do it like last time, by recruiting local allies as Sepoys.
The Sikhs aren't too keen on Modi. Divide and Rule, like the good old days.
So you’d opt for the land route down from Pakistan through Punjab then.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
Quite interesting to war-game an invasion of India though. Do you go amphibious, up the Bay of Bengal to Calcutta and along the Ganges valley from there, or on to the coast of Gujarat and secure the NW? Or, like Putin going through Belarus, come down from Pakistan into the Punjab? Or make the perilous crossing over the Himalayas to a surprise descent straight on Delhi? Or do you work your way up, like the Americans in WW2 Italy, from Tamil Nadu Northwards?
Hmmm... Robert Clive did the Bay of Bengal/Calcutta thing!
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.
An honest one, and one saying Trump will win so he can claim it was stolen?
Slightly different Georgia but equally fixed by the Pro-Putin side.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
We could do it like last time, by recruiting local allies as Sepoys.
The Sikhs aren't too keen on Modi. Divide and Rule, like the good old days.
So you’d opt for the land route down from Pakistan through Punjab then.
If we could recruit Pakistan to our side by buying them off with Kashmir, it's the best prospect.
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 but 6% worse with black voters and 10% worse with Latinos than Biden did in 2020 where Trump has made gains
Those changes are fascinating, because they suggest that Harris will go backwards in the Sun Belt and in North Carolina, but potentially do better than Biden in the Rust Belt.
The three whitest battleground states are Wisconsin (80%), Pennsylvania (77%) and Michigan (76%). If Harris holds all three, then she is President.
Compared with 2020, if Harris lost Nevada and Arizona, retained Wisconsin and Michigan but fell short in Pennsylvania then you would get a tie in the electoral college.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
Quite interesting to war-game an invasion of India though. Do you go amphibious, up the Bay of Bengal to Calcutta and along the Ganges valley from there, or on to the coast of Gujarat and secure the NW? Or, like Putin going through Belarus, come down from Pakistan into the Punjab? Or make the perilous crossing over the Himalayas to a surprise descent straight on Delhi? Or do you work your way up, like the Americans in WW2 Italy, from Tamil Nadu Northwards?
You couldn't invade an organised state that large and win.
You'd need the princely states as allies, and regional rulers and religious leaders to choose sides.
Eventually, you could then coalesce the apparatus of the state around a new viceroy.
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
Well, I did say ideally above! I guess we could always become a republic. The first incarnation of the Commonwealth was a republic after all.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
Wars also in Malaya and Kenya.
No the Commonwealth has always been headed by the crown.
There was no Indian War of Independence against the British unlike the US and Irish Wars of Independence
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
Quite interesting to war-game an invasion of India though. Do you go amphibious, up the Bay of Bengal to Calcutta and along the Ganges valley from there, or on to the coast of Gujarat and secure the NW? Or, like Putin going through Belarus, come down from Pakistan into the Punjab? Or make the perilous crossing over the Himalayas to a surprise descent straight on Delhi? Or do you work your way up, like the Americans in WW2 Italy, from Tamil Nadu Northwards?
You couldn't invade an organised state that large and win.
You'd need the princely states as allies, and regional rulers and religious leaders to choose sides.
Eventually, you could then coalesce the apparatus of the state around a new viceroy.
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 but 6% worse with black voters and 10% worse with Latinos than Biden did in 2020 where Trump has made gains
Those changes are fascinating, because they suggest that Harris will go backwards in the Sun Belt and in North Carolina, but potentially do better than Biden in the Rust Belt.
The three whitest battleground states are Wisconsin (80%), Pennsylvania (77%) and Michigan (76%). If Harris holds all three, then she is President.
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
Well, I did say ideally above! I guess we could always become a republic. The first incarnation of the Commonwealth was a republic after all.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
Wars also in Malaya and Kenya.
No the Commonwealth has always been headed by the crown.
There was no Indian War of Independence against the British unlike the US and Irish Wars of Independence
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
Quite interesting to war-game an invasion of India though. Do you go amphibious, up the Bay of Bengal to Calcutta and along the Ganges valley from there, or on to the coast of Gujarat and secure the NW? Or, like Putin going through Belarus, come down from Pakistan into the Punjab? Or make the perilous crossing over the Himalayas to a surprise descent straight on Delhi? Or do you work your way up, like the Americans in WW2 Italy, from Tamil Nadu Northwards?
You couldn't invade an organised state that large and win.
You'd need the princely states as allies, and regional rulers and religious leaders to choose sides.
Eventually, you could then coalesce the apparatus of the state around a new viceroy.
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
Well, I did say ideally above! I guess we could always become a republic. The first incarnation of the Commonwealth was a republic after all.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
Wars also in Malaya and Kenya.
No the Commonwealth has always been headed by the crown.
There was no Indian War of Independence against the British unlike the US and Irish Wars of Independence
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
Well, I did say ideally above! I guess we could always become a republic. The first incarnation of the Commonwealth was a republic after all.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
Wars also in Malaya and Kenya.
No the Commonwealth has always been headed by the crown.
There was no Indian War of Independence against the British unlike the US and Irish Wars of Independence
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 but 6% worse with black voters and 10% worse with Latinos than Biden did in 2020 where Trump has made gains
Those changes are fascinating, because they suggest that Harris will go backwards in the Sun Belt and in North Carolina, but potentially do better than Biden in the Rust Belt.
The three whitest battleground states are Wisconsin (80%), Pennsylvania (77%) and Michigan (76%). If Harris holds all three, then she is President.
Compared with 2020, if Harris lost Nevada and Arizona, retained Wisconsin and Michigan but fell short in Pennsylvania then you would get a tie in the electoral college.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
Quite interesting to war-game an invasion of India though. Do you go amphibious, up the Bay of Bengal to Calcutta and along the Ganges valley from there, or on to the coast of Gujarat and secure the NW? Or, like Putin going through Belarus, come down from Pakistan into the Punjab? Or make the perilous crossing over the Himalayas to a surprise descent straight on Delhi? Or do you work your way up, like the Americans in WW2 Italy, from Tamil Nadu Northwards?
You couldn't invade an organised state that large and win.
You'd need the princely states as allies, and regional rulers and religious leaders to choose sides.
Eventually, you could then coalesce the apparatus of the state around a new viceroy.
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
Well, I did say ideally above! I guess we could always become a republic. The first incarnation of the Commonwealth was a republic after all.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
Wars also in Malaya and Kenya.
No the Commonwealth has always been headed by the crown.
There was no Indian War of Independence against the British unlike the US and Irish Wars of Independence
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
Well, I did say ideally above! I guess we could always become a republic. The first incarnation of the Commonwealth was a republic after all.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
Wars also in Malaya and Kenya.
No the Commonwealth has always been headed by the crown.
There was no Indian War of Independence against the British unlike the US and Irish Wars of Independence
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 but 6% worse with black voters and 10% worse with Latinos than Biden did in 2020 where Trump has made gains
Those changes are fascinating, because they suggest that Harris will go backwards in the Sun Belt and in North Carolina, but potentially do better than Biden in the Rust Belt.
The three whitest battleground states are Wisconsin (80%), Pennsylvania (77%) and Michigan (76%). If Harris holds all three, then she is President.
Compared with 2020, if Harris lost Nevada and Arizona, retained Wisconsin and Michigan but fell short in Pennsylvania then you would get a tie in the electoral college.
That's strange. I checked twice on 270towin by resetting to the 2020 result and flipping those states and it showed as a tie. I must have had something stuck to a different result for one of the micro states.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
Quite interesting to war-game an invasion of India though. Do you go amphibious, up the Bay of Bengal to Calcutta and along the Ganges valley from there, or on to the coast of Gujarat and secure the NW? Or, like Putin going through Belarus, come down from Pakistan into the Punjab? Or make the perilous crossing over the Himalayas to a surprise descent straight on Delhi? Or do you work your way up, like the Americans in WW2 Italy, from Tamil Nadu Northwards?
You couldn't invade an organised state that large and win.
You'd need the princely states as allies, and regional rulers and religious leaders to choose sides.
Eventually, you could then coalesce the apparatus of the state around a new viceroy.
If only we had a PM that likes a curry...
Currie did you say?
She suggested that her favourite PM liked a bottom ride. To keep it on topic…
GD apparently on 53% after 70% of votes counted, despite exit polls showing the pro-Western coalition winning.
Will this be like Moldova with a late shift, or has Georgia now decisively moved across the river Styx into the Russki Mir? It would be sad if it has. I was there this time last year and didn’t meet a single pro-Russian the whole time.
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.
You think adding the USA would make it more unwieldy? They would never join a group headed by a British monarch anyway given the US War of Independence
Well, I did say ideally above! I guess we could always become a republic. The first incarnation of the Commonwealth was a republic after all.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
Wars also in Malaya and Kenya.
No the Commonwealth has always been headed by the crown.
There was no Indian War of Independence against the British unlike the US and Irish Wars of Independence
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
We could do it like last time, by recruiting local allies as Sepoys.
The Sikhs aren't too keen on Modi. Divide and Rule, like the good old days.
So you’d opt for the land route down from Pakistan through Punjab then.
If we could recruit Pakistan to our side by buying them off with Kashmir, it's the best prospect.
Something I’ve never understood is how the Moghul Empire fell apart so swiftly. It was one of the world’s great powers in 1700. It was in free fall by 1720, and Nadir Shah destroyed the last of its prestige, by sacking Delhi in 1739.
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.
In wealthy countries, even the wealthy use public transport. Stockholm and Copenhagen are very good examples. In Oslo, even the King, when he was well, used the trams quite regularly.
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 but 6% worse with black voters and 10% worse with Latinos than Biden did in 2020 where Trump has made gains
Those changes are fascinating, because they suggest that Harris will go backwards in the Sun Belt and in North Carolina, but potentially do better than Biden in the Rust Belt.
The three whitest battleground states are Wisconsin (80%), Pennsylvania (77%) and Michigan (76%). If Harris holds all three, then she is President.
Compared with 2020, if Harris lost Nevada and Arizona, retained Wisconsin and Michigan but fell short in Pennsylvania then you would get a tie in the electoral college.
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
We could do it like last time, by recruiting local allies as Sepoys.
The Sikhs aren't too keen on Modi. Divide and Rule, like the good old days.
So you’d opt for the land route down from Pakistan through Punjab then.
If we could recruit Pakistan to our side by buying them off with Kashmir, it's the best prospect.
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 but 6% worse with black voters and 10% worse with Latinos than Biden did in 2020 where Trump has made gains
Those changes are fascinating, because they suggest that Harris will go backwards in the Sun Belt and in North Carolina, but potentially do better than Biden in the Rust Belt.
The three whitest battleground states are Wisconsin (80%), Pennsylvania (77%) and Michigan (76%). If Harris holds all three, then she is President.
Compared with 2020, if Harris lost Nevada and Arizona, retained Wisconsin and Michigan but fell short in Pennsylvania then you would get a tie in the electoral college.
But needs to retain GA.
Seems unlikely???
Also Nebraska 2.
If she loses Pennsylvania she will surely lose that vote too.
Invasion of Russia? Up from Kazakhstan through Tatarstan to Moscow.
China? Up from the South using Vietnam as a staging post.
USA? Obviously down from Canada through the Great Plains, down to New Orleans and cut the country in two.
A francophone army would meet pretty stiff resistance until they reached greater Louisiana. On the other hand an Hispanic army via Mexico would get a warm welcome right from the start. Some would argue this is already happening.
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.
In wealthy countries, even the wealthy use public transport. Stockholm and Copenhagen are very good examples. In Oslo, even the King, when he was well, used the trams quite regularly.
Something apparently is going to drop on Monday re Trump .
This wouldn’t be a surprise . Some GOP cult members have been suggesting next week and trying to get ahead by saying anything you see is a deep fake AI . . It will have to be something major to move the polls as Trump seems immune from the normal rules of politics.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Nuns push back after GOP political activist casts doubt on their Pennsylvania voting registration
ERIE, Pa. (AP) — A group of Pennsylvania nuns says a conservative political organizer posted “false and misleading information” about them by claiming no one lives at their home in Erie and making vague threats to consult his lawyers about them.
The Benedictine Sisters of Erie put out a news release this week in response to the post by Cliff Maloney that said someone working with him had knocked on the door of their monastery “and NO ONE lives there.”
They certainly do, according to the religious group.
“We want to call Cliff Maloney to account for his blatantly false post that accuses our sisters of fraud,” they said. “We do live at Mount Saint Benedict Monastery and a simple web search would alert him to our active presence in a number of ministries in Erie.”
Maloney’s group, PA Chase, pays people to knock on doors in an effort to drive up Republican turnout and use of mail-in ballots. Messages seeking comment were left on Friday for Maloney and for Citizens Alliance Pennsylvania, a Lemoyne-based conservative group connected to PA Chase. . . .
Names of 53 nuns were posted online, but the nuns say there are currently 55 of them living there, and that three of the 53 on the video of names that Maloney put on X no longer live there.
Maloney later posted on X that if the nuns are legal voters “then I encourage them to participate in their right to vote,” adding that “right now, we’ve got our legal team continuing to analyze the situation.”
Sister Linda Romey, who coordinates the nuns’ communications and development efforts, said Friday: “I mean, there’s nothing to analyze.” And with news crews filming them in recent days, she said “there’s plenty of proof that we’re here.” . . .
FOX 66 - Erie's Benedictine Sisters defend themselves against GOP group's claim of voter fraud
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
We could do it like last time, by recruiting local allies as Sepoys.
The Sikhs aren't too keen on Modi. Divide and Rule, like the good old days.
So you’d opt for the land route down from Pakistan through Punjab then.
If we could recruit Pakistan to our side by buying them off with Kashmir, it's the best prospect.
Something I’ve never understood is how the Moghul Empire fell apart so swiftly. It was one of the world’s great powers in 1700. It was in free fall by 1720, and Nadir Shah destroyed the last of its prestige, by sacking Delhi in 1739.
These things happen quickly. In the 20 years from 1947 the British Empire went from a quarter of the world to Hong Kong and a few distant islands.
Michigan Muslims endorse Donald J. Trump for president:
"He promises peace not war!"
I think their influence is overrated, a mere 2.4% of Michigan's population is Muslim.
Though of course if Trump won he would back Israel going to war with Iran as well as Hamas and Hezbollah so their idiocy would get what it deserves
It’s like they forgot about Trumps 4 years and his attempts at the Muslim travel ban . And it’s clear that Harris will be tougher on Israel if she wins , now she can’t say much . I’m astonished that this bunch of muppets have fallen for Trumps bullshxt .
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.
Recent actions show Modi clearly values sucking up to Putin rather than to Starmer!
He’s a menace. Erdogan (like Lukashenko) is just a basic mobster.
Yes. We need to reestablish colonial rule of India for the benefit of all.
I don't think our armed forces are exactly in a shape to invade India at the moment not to mention the hypocrisy of attacking Putin for invading Ukraine to try and restore the USSR. While we then went and invaded India to try and restore the British Empire
We could do it like last time, by recruiting local allies as Sepoys.
The Sikhs aren't too keen on Modi. Divide and Rule, like the good old days.
So you’d opt for the land route down from Pakistan through Punjab then.
If we could recruit Pakistan to our side by buying them off with Kashmir, it's the best prospect.
Something I’ve never understood is how the Moghul Empire fell apart so swiftly. It was one of the world’s great powers in 1700. It was in free fall by 1720, and Nadir Shah destroyed the last of its prestige, by sacking Delhi in 1739.
Michigan Muslims endorse Donald J. Trump for president:
"He promises peace not war!"
I think their influence is overrated, a mere 2.4% of Michigan's population is Muslim.
Though of course if Trump won he would back Israel going to war with Iran as well as Hamas and Hezbollah so their idiocy would get what it deserves
It’s like they forgot about Trumps 4 years and his attempts at the Muslim travel ban . And it’s clear that Harris will be tougher on Israel if she wins , now she can’t say much . I’m astonished that this bunch of muppets have fallen for Trumps bullshxt .
They will so rue the day when Trump is elected. Idiots.
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.
On my bus journey home from work there used to be a guy who clearly had some sort of mental health problem. He'd sit next to you no matter if there were empty bays or not, fold his arms, and with the hand nearest you poke right into your ribs with his finger.
Over the course of many years I perfected my bus stop and seat choice to minimise the chance he'd choose me.
I don't suppose the bus driver liked you sitting on his lap though.
Something apparently is going to drop on Monday re Trump .
This wouldn’t be a surprise . Some GOP cult members have been suggesting next week and trying to get ahead by saying anything you see is a deep fake AI . . It will have to be something major to move the polls as Trump seems immune from the normal rules of politics.
Bottom was hilariously funny! Ade Edmondson and the late, great Rik Mayall at their best!
From memory, not only was it excellent, but it was also quite simple, old-fashioned slapstick with a 'modern' setting and twist. Or am I misremembering?
Michigan Muslims endorse Donald J. Trump for president:
"He promises peace not war!"
I think their influence is overrated, a mere 2.4% of Michigan's population is Muslim.
Though of course if Trump won he would back Israel going to war with Iran as well as Hamas and Hezbollah so their idiocy would get what it deserves
It’s like they forgot about Trumps 4 years and his attempts at the Muslim travel ban . And it’s clear that Harris will be tougher on Israel if she wins , now she can’t say much . I’m astonished that this bunch of muppets have fallen for Trumps bullshxt .
Populist authoritarianism works by convincing all the members of the crowd that The Big Dude is listening to *you*. Is going to fix *your* problems.
As opposed to the regular politicians who offer “A reduction in the tax on stembolts and a small increase in the tax on latinum that will lead to a predicted increase of GDP of 0.017%…”
Bottom was hilariously funny! Ade Edmondson and the late, great Rik Mayall at their best!
From memory, not only was it excellent, but it was also quite simple, old-fashioned slapstick with a 'modern' setting and twist. Or am I misremembering?
Bottom was hilariously funny! Ade Edmondson and the late, great Rik Mayall at their best!
From memory, not only was it excellent, but it was also quite simple, old-fashioned slapstick with a 'modern' setting and twist. Or am I misremembering?
"You know, it's funny. They say that television encourages violence. But I'm smashing his face in, and we haven't got one!"
Comments
The three whitest battleground states are Wisconsin (80%), Pennsylvania (77%) and Michigan (76%). If Harris holds all three, then she is President.
Indian independence was accompanied by a lot of violence too.
Wars also in Malaya and Kenya.
It is a less racially polarised electorate than 2016 or 2020 however with Harris gains with white women and Trump gains with black and latino men especially
Michigan Muslims endorse Donald J. Trump for president:
"He promises peace not war!"
When I was still agile enough to get upstairs, I always preferred downstairs for lesser motion sickness. Nowadays it's Hobson's choice anyway.
Over the course of many years I perfected my bus stop and seat choice to minimise the chance he'd choose me.
https://youtu.be/VyeA9Ackiik
25 or 86 bus from Ilford to Stratford = 26 mins
But we do have a great tram service to the airport 😄
Don't like him.
Might also be good for the attainment gap.
Besides, a Commonwealth with 1.5 billion Indians in it would be dominated by, er, India. Trim the Commonwealth down to size as I described upthread.
Though of course if Trump won he would back Israel going to war with Iran as well as Hamas and Hezbollah so their idiocy would get what it deserves
The Sikhs aren't too keen on Modi. Divide and Rule, like the good old days.
China? Up from the South using Vietnam as a staging post.
USA? Obviously down from Canada through the Great Plains, down to New Orleans and cut the country in two.
You'd need the princely states as allies, and regional rulers and religious leaders to choose sides.
Eventually, you could then coalesce the apparatus of the state around a new viceroy.
There was no Indian War of Independence against the British unlike the US and Irish Wars of Independence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Indian_War_of_Independence_(book)
https://www.270towin.com/
Indian Nationalism grew out of them not being granted the same rights as other subjects of Queen Victoria, which were originally promised to them.
Gandhi started off very loyal to the Empire.
Will this be like Moldova with a late shift, or has Georgia now decisively moved across the river Styx into the Russki Mir? It would be sad if it has. I was there this time last year and didn’t meet a single pro-Russian the whole time.
Seems unlikely???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD
If she loses Pennsylvania she will surely lose that vote too.
This wouldn’t be a surprise . Some GOP cult members have been suggesting next week and trying to get ahead by saying anything you see is a deep fake AI . . It will have to be something major to move the polls as Trump seems immune from the normal rules of politics.
ERIE, Pa. (AP) — A group of Pennsylvania nuns says a conservative political organizer posted “false and misleading information” about them by claiming no one lives at their home in Erie and making vague threats to consult his lawyers about them.
The Benedictine Sisters of Erie put out a news release this week in response to the post by Cliff Maloney that said someone working with him had knocked on the door of their monastery “and NO ONE lives there.”
They certainly do, according to the religious group.
“We want to call Cliff Maloney to account for his blatantly false post that accuses our sisters of fraud,” they said. “We do live at Mount Saint Benedict Monastery and a simple web search would alert him to our active presence in a number of ministries in Erie.”
Maloney’s group, PA Chase, pays people to knock on doors in an effort to drive up Republican turnout and use of mail-in ballots. Messages seeking comment were left on Friday for Maloney and for Citizens Alliance Pennsylvania, a Lemoyne-based conservative group connected to PA Chase. . . .
Names of 53 nuns were posted online, but the nuns say there are currently 55 of them living there, and that three of the 53 on the video of names that Maloney put on X no longer live there.
Maloney later posted on X that if the nuns are legal voters “then I encourage them to participate in their right to vote,” adding that “right now, we’ve got our legal team continuing to analyze the situation.”
Sister Linda Romey, who coordinates the nuns’ communications and development efforts, said Friday: “I mean, there’s nothing to analyze.” And with news crews filming them in recent days, she said “there’s plenty of proof that we’re here.” . . .
FOX 66 - Erie's Benedictine Sisters defend themselves against GOP group's claim of voter fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sfrwx_yDTs
This is empirical observation by an actual bus user.
https://x.com/nypost/status/1850269125232193781
Different to Bottom Men
Anything they say is treated as nonsense unless we have hard evidence to the contrary.
Nice to see the BST/GMT change included like that.
That name is one for the Trade Descriptions Act.
As opposed to the regular politicians who offer “A reduction in the tax on stembolts and a small increase in the tax on latinum that will lead to a predicted increase of GDP of 0.017%…”
Vote Boulanger! He will make us stronger than the German Empire!