re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
No idea what reach Geraldo has in the US (perhaps one of our PB Septic experts can confirm), but I have heard of him.
Geraldo Rivera @GeraldoRivera Latino men, for the love of your parents and children, for your pride and your honor tell this little gringo shit to go fuck himself.
From my friends on the ground… I think there’s real betting value in betting on a big Harris win. The betting markets have been screwed by a few rich individuals trying to get richer - dump a load of money on Trump, hope that average punter does the same, combined with many questionable polls to aid this fact, then these rich punters will cash out a few days before the election having made a profit.
Democrats in key swing states are telling me it feels much more like 2012 than 2016… I also think the ‘shy Trump’ vote barely exists these days - if you’re Trump you’re out and proud. If you’re a female republican you might be a Shy Harris voter…
(1)This implied Reeves plan : Short-Term spending cuts /Long-Term borrow-to-invest works badly politically (jam tomorrow/ dry bread today) . It works badly for public services- a poorly staffed, demoralised service can't manage investment. But.... Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 27s (2)...It may be attractive to Reeves & co. because the long-term investments allow them to play at prestige investments, give out contracts, and make friends for a post-Ministerial career. Your bus journey comes second to their future limousine
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
Careful, Topping, or you might join me in the lonely world of believing nation states are nonsense-constructs that should be dismantled in favour of anarcho-syndicalist communities.
I expect we’ll see an apology of sorts by Trump at his rally in Allentown today. Yes rare as hens teeth but he’ll have to say something .
Although the media have highlighted the Puerto Rico joke it’s really what came after that was truly disgusting.
In terms of polling we should see a load this week but overall it’s been a polling desert relative to previous elections. Because of that GOP biased pollsters have made up a much larger percentage.
It’s irrelevant whether models down weight them , if there’s enough they’re still going to skew the average .
The "joke" was vetted in advance - and cleared.
We know this because a joke about "c***" Kamala Harris - specifically using that c-word - was removed.
So the Republicans are just getting tied in more knots....
The Republicans say the joke was improvised and was not vetted.
There was more than one such joke.
No one believes them anyway, as they are notorious liars. And in any event, no speaker at the event saw fit to disavow it.
Anecdotally, it's cutting through. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/28/trump-rally-puerto-rico-pennsylvania-fallout-00185935 ... “If we weren’t engaged before, we’re all paying attention now,” Martinez said. He added the morning radio show he hosts was chock-full of callers Monday sounding off on the Trump rally comments, including a Puerto Rican Trump supporter who is now telling people not to vote for the former president...
And after a day consider a more thoughtful response, this is what Vance came up .. “Our country was built by frontiersmen who conquered the wilderness,” Vance said. “We’re not going to restore the greatness of American civilization if we get offended at every little thing. Let’s have a sense of humor and let’s have a little fun.”.
So I think it's fair to say they're good with the racist jokes. It is what they are.
"Conquered the wilderness" lol. Because the country was empty before the white man turned up.
For the country was young then And had God on its side.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
And yet fourteen years of your party in government failed to make any of that anything like a reality.
But you delivered Brexit. Which is now barely more popular than Keir Starmer.
Wrong IDS when in Cabinet brought in Universal Credit which ensured it always paid more to work even part time without losing all your benefits. Cameron, Clegg and Osborne when in government took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Brexit was voted for by the British people themselves in 2016 despite the Tory PM at the time campaigning against it
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
(1)This implied Reeves plan : Short-Term spending cuts /Long-Term borrow-to-invest works badly politically (jam tomorrow/ dry bread today) . It works badly for public services- a poorly staffed, demoralised service can't manage investment. But.... Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 27s (2)...It may be attractive to Reeves & co. because the long-term investments allow them to play at prestige investments, give out contracts, and make friends for a post-Ministerial career. Your bus journey comes second to their future limousine
Nobody who doesn't understand that capital spend and revenue spend shouldn't be interchangeable, even though they are both measured in pounds, should be let near anything involving serious amounts of money.
From my friends on the ground… I think there’s real betting value in betting on a big Harris win. The betting markets have been screwed by a few rich individuals trying to get richer - dump a load of money on Trump, hope that average punter does the same, combined with many questionable polls to aid this fact, then these rich punters will cash out a few days before the election having made a profit.
Democrats in key swing states are telling me it feels much more like 2012 than 2016… I also think the ‘shy Trump’ vote barely exists these days - if you’re Trump you’re out and proud. If you’re a female republican you might be a Shy Harris voter…
Harris to get 319 EC votes 4/1 at the moment
Trump to win the popular vote but Harris the EC is the value
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
Most of that polling was done before “ joke gate “ and the hate rally .
Whether it moves the needle given everything associated with Trump is questionable. There are currently 4 decent quality Pennsylvania polls in the field so it will be interesting to see what they show .
From my friends on the ground… I think there’s real betting value in betting on a big Harris win. The betting markets have been screwed by a few rich individuals trying to get richer - dump a load of money on Trump, hope that average punter does the same, combined with many questionable polls to aid this fact, then these rich punters will cash out a few days before the election having made a profit.
Democrats in key swing states are telling me it feels much more like 2012 than 2016… I also think the ‘shy Trump’ vote barely exists these days - if you’re Trump you’re out and proud. If you’re a female republican you might be a Shy Harris voter…
Harris to get 319 EC votes 4/1 at the moment
Trump to win the popular vote but Harris the EC is the value
Hmm, given the GOP have topped the popular vote once in a third of a century I think Trump with all his known political negatives is spectacularly unlikely to do so.
Mr. F, some people also get off on being publicly humiliated.
I've always thought exhibitionism a highly obnoxious fetish. Others don't get to refuse consent to see two idiots in public. Or an idiotic political party putting everyone else on the hook for untold trillions so they can feel virtuous for wallowing in the vicarious shame of their ancestors.
I really want Jenrick to win the leadership just to watch it crash and burn
That's what Conservatives said of Corbyn. And then he almost won an election.
Corbyn was just terminally stupid, Jenrick knows exactly what he is saying and doing.
Corbyn in 2017 got more voteshare than Starmer in 2024 and Blair in 2005. Even Corbyn in 2019 got a higher voteshare than Brown in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015 as he united the left behind him, even if he turned off centrist swing voters
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
(1)This implied Reeves plan : Short-Term spending cuts /Long-Term borrow-to-invest works badly politically (jam tomorrow/ dry bread today) . It works badly for public services- a poorly staffed, demoralised service can't manage investment. But.... Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 27s (2)...It may be attractive to Reeves & co. because the long-term investments allow them to play at prestige investments, give out contracts, and make friends for a post-Ministerial career. Your bus journey comes second to their future limousine
This person seems to have overlooked the fact that the election isn't until 2029.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
It was the industrial revolution which enabled the development of the cotton and textile industry
@MattW from previous thread I think - I bookmarked to read later - your images all led to this totally unreadable thing: https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/wb/1woii3vevd2r.png - I find your disability posts very interesting from a perspective I don't know anything about, have you got more readable versions?
@Dumbosaurus , thank-you for that response, I appreciate it.
That is perhaps an impact of uploader-crunch, though when I did a Right-Click -> Open Image in new Tab I could read them (ish), but not as well as I would like.
The general idea is to unpack the thousands of pages of guidance that is buried in regulations and guidance, and make it more understandable, and to try improve it.
If you want to be on the inside, there's a thing called DCAN (Disabled Cycling Activists Network), which is slightly misnamed because the big theme has shifted over the last year or two to common issues across walking / wheeling / cycling, which is a far larger scope than conflicts.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
My own view is that nobody in Germany today has anything to be guilty about. We can all agree that the Nazis (and their helpers), were a vile bunch.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
Careful, Topping, or you might join me in the lonely world of believing nation states are nonsense-constructs that should be dismantled in favour of anarcho-syndicalist communities.
Well nation states are nonsense constructs that said, you know what they say about democracy.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
My own view is that nobody in Germany today has anything to be guilty about. We can all agree that the Nazis (and their helpers), were a vile bunch.
I wouldn't call it guilt but I do think modern Germans have a responsibility to remember and understand what happened. The Nazis are in the past but they are in *their* past. I feel the same way about the crimes of British colonialism. I don't feel guilty about them but I think I have a responsibility to remember them and acknowledge that they caused harm to other people, and that that harm is still felt, to some extent, in the present day.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
(1)This implied Reeves plan : Short-Term spending cuts /Long-Term borrow-to-invest works badly politically (jam tomorrow/ dry bread today) . It works badly for public services- a poorly staffed, demoralised service can't manage investment. But.... Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 27s (2)...It may be attractive to Reeves & co. because the long-term investments allow them to play at prestige investments, give out contracts, and make friends for a post-Ministerial career. Your bus journey comes second to their future limousine
Nobody who doesn't understand that capital spend and revenue spend shouldn't be interchangeable, even though they are both measured in pounds, should be let near anything involving serious amounts of money.
Unfortunately, that disqualifies Rishi Sunak.
Trouble is that governments have a nasty tendency to try and call revenue spend "investment" and pretend it's like capital spending. Gordon Brown was a master at this, and it's one of the root causes of the whole mess we're in now.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
I suspect she is making a different mistake. If 70% of folk in LA were for Trump then Harris would hardly have a 25 point margin in the state of California.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
My own view is that nobody in Germany today has anything to be guilty about. We can all agree that the Nazis (and their helpers), were a vile bunch.
It seems that there's a considerable number of Germans who don't agree that.
And an even larger proportion in the east with favourable views about the old Stasi state.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
(1)This implied Reeves plan : Short-Term spending cuts /Long-Term borrow-to-invest works badly politically (jam tomorrow/ dry bread today) . It works badly for public services- a poorly staffed, demoralised service can't manage investment. But.... Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 27s (2)...It may be attractive to Reeves & co. because the long-term investments allow them to play at prestige investments, give out contracts, and make friends for a post-Ministerial career. Your bus journey comes second to their future limousine
Nobody who doesn't understand that capital spend and revenue spend shouldn't be interchangeable, even though they are both measured in pounds, should be let near anything involving serious amounts of money.
Unfortunately, that disqualifies Rishi Sunak.
Trouble is that governments have a nasty tendency to try and call revenue spend "investment" and pretend it's like capital spending. Gordon Brown was a master at this, and it's one of the root causes of the whole mess we're in now.
I think there were a couple of early examples (Surestart say) where that statement was valid and the day to day expenditure created long term benefits but most of them was lies for political convenience.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
So why the demands for money ?
It's more complicated than that, they are not requesting cash but rather an apology and help to deal with specific legacies of the slave trade. Read the Caricom plan:
From my friends on the ground… I think there’s real betting value in betting on a big Harris win. The betting markets have been screwed by a few rich individuals trying to get richer - dump a load of money on Trump, hope that average punter does the same, combined with many questionable polls to aid this fact, then these rich punters will cash out a few days before the election having made a profit.
Democrats in key swing states are telling me it feels much more like 2012 than 2016… I also think the ‘shy Trump’ vote barely exists these days - if you’re Trump you’re out and proud. If you’re a female republican you might be a Shy Harris voter…
Harris to get 319 EC votes 4/1 at the moment
Trump to win the popular vote but Harris the EC is the value
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
It makes employment for them almost impossible. To have that much after tax you need to earn something like £50k a year. People with a poor employment record and uncertain attendance are just unemployable at that kind of level, no matter what their qualifications. How on earth do you make work pay in such a scenario?
So there's a conversation about incentives there.
I don't see any reason why she should get more than the basic Universal Credit, and live with friends or relatives or with other people in a similar position.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
They don't need to earn that much, Pip is not means tested and will continued to be paid whatever you earn.
Also, that indicates they are receiving the LCWRA element of UC, and if they are indeed getting Housing Benefit (and not the housing element of UC) will be in supported housing of some sort.
So someone who probably counts as "disabled" and unable to work.
Still criminal that they can fork out 33K tax free to peopel yet workers get hammered and pensioners on 13K get their measly heating allowance taken away, this country is a real shithole run by morons.
Those people won the lottery by being born or moving down south.
I'm not sure how you fix it however without building a few million homes down south...
In one of the Mars Trilogy books there's an amusing passage where some kids play a game of diverting one of their reluctant scientist-become-teachers from the lesson by getting them to answer a series of "why" questions that takes up the whole lesson and ends up with explanations about the fundamental sub-atomic particles.
It does feel like all of British politics ultimately ends up in a similar way with the conclusion that millions of homes need to be built.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
I think recognition and an acknowledgement that "today" such behaviour is reprehensible, together with a commitment, such as one is possible, to learn about such episodes.
@OnlyLivingBoy's screed was as good as any but "apology" was missing from his post, save to say that Germany had already apologised. But he didn't clarify what exactly the apology was for.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
Absolutely and hence my comments about positive discrimination. We systematically discriminated against, eg black people in this country for decades so frankly, I have no problem with some active and positive discrimination now. It attempts to right a long-standing wrong and give people an "unfair" advantage that in this case white people had enjoyed for years.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
I suspect she is making a different mistake. If 70% of folk in LA were for Trump then Harris would hardly have a 25 point margin in the state of California.
In the echo chamber I'm not aware that I've created for myself 70% of the folk I know in LA are for Trump..
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
I suspect she is making a different mistake. If 70% of folk in LA were for Trump then Harris would hardly have a 25 point margin in the state of California.
Well, I did wonder if she meant Louisiana, in which case that number would make sense.
That said, she plainly is not a supporter of Trump, and does not like what she is seeing.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Those were all factors, but the agrarian revolution (allowing vast amounts more food to be produced and changing historical working patterns) is also seen as a major factor.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
So why the demands for money ?
It's more complicated than that, they are not requesting cash but rather an apology and help to deal with specific legacies of the slave trade. Read the Caricom plan:
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
So why the demands for money ?
It's more complicated than that, they are not requesting cash but rather an apology and help to deal with specific legacies of the slave trade. Read the Caricom plan:
How very dare you bring the voices of those actually affected into this debate?
To be serious, though, I like many of the ten points there but would need convincing that hypertension and diabetes today can be convincingly linked back to slavery.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Also good transport links (very few major cities are not on a navigable river and most of the country is in easy reach of the coast) and an abundance of useful resources in close proximity, especially coal, iron ore and limestone.
Mr. Topping, why are you in favour of discriminating against white people? And Arabs, Chinese, and everyone except black people?
Being bigoted against people based on their ancestors to favour some other people (also due to their ancestors) is still racism. And it's still damned stupid.
You put 'unfair' in quotes, but a modern white person had nothing to do with slavery. And are you tracking all the black people whose ancestors were capturing, selling, and profiteering from selling slaves, or just assuming they're all slave descendants?
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
Absolutely and hence my comments about positive discrimination. We systematically discriminated against, eg black people in this country for decades so frankly, I have no problem with some active and positive discrimination now. It attempts to right a long-standing wrong and give people an "unfair" advantage that in this case white people had enjoyed for years.
But apology? Well I just don't see it.
Perhaps it's semantics. Or perhaps you're right, apology is not quite the right word. But it is apology-adjacent. An acknowledgement. I do think we are intimately connected to the deeds of our ancestors even if we are not responsible for them. And the people of the Caribbean are our friends, our allies, and in many cases our family. If they want something from us we should at the very least engage with them. Simply saying nothing doing is profoundly unwise and ungenerous imho.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
This is how 'progress' works - it is a pseudo religion.
Interesting to see local Government re-organisation is back on the political agenda and will be an integral part of the English Devolution Bill, due to be published next month.
Will this finally mark the end of the two-tier system in England? If so, how will this impact the 2025 County Council elections especially if the authorities being elected could cease to exist within the life of the current Parliament?
Taking Surrey for example, will the County take over the functions of the eleven Districts and Boroughs (the Cornwall solution) ir will the County be divided into three with each having the population of a London Borough (roughly 350,000) ?
I am trying not to be cynical, but I am imagining Sir Humphrey rubbing his hands with glee at some ineffectual new layer of regional government being set up and a whole new Whitehall department being created to oversee the poor loves.
In Durham they just got rid of the district councils and the county council took on all duties. Sadly it did not adopt the name County of County Durham County Council.
Two tier is just daft. Rubbish in your bin - District Council; rubbish you take to the tip* - County Council.
*I believe that they are referring to as "Household Waste Recycling Centres" in wokespeak. But tip is shorter.
If we are going to combine more district and county councils into unitaries then we also need stronger Parish and Town councils. Otherwise many could find most of their council decisions taken over the other side of the county
I agree if you take a county like Surrey (population 1.2 million) and try to make it a single council (as the County Council Conservatives want) it would become ridiculous. The alternative might be to create three Unitary authorities each of about 300,000-350,000 residents centred on Guildford/Woking, Dorking and Reigate/Redhill.
Not all of Surrey has Parish Councils (the more rural areas have retained theirs).
Essex would be interesting as well - any thoughts?
I'm not convinced by reorganisations as proposed solution. I was working in Oswestry District Council around 2005 when Hazel Blears pulled Shropshire to pieces.
Nottinghamshire seems to me to be fairly logically divided since 1972 (I think) geographically, with 7/8 Districts of roughly the same size which used to be ~100k and is now ~120k, and the City of Nottingham as a unitary. There are issues, but they are more around service delivery / location (eg household waste centres) and a decades long starvation policy on funding, rather than organisation - and that should have more focus. Notts Unitary-ised would perhaps be North Notts / Nottingham / South Notts, with Rushcliffe folded into Nottingham City (there would be a revolt, just like last time).
If the speculation is true, then I think it is more likely related to trying to bring in a stronger regional tier (ie Mayors), and tidy up below that to reflect the changes. Mayors have generally imo been a notable success.
If Counties or Districts are abolished and we have Regions-Unitaries, then he genuinely is "Two Tier Keir".
Research across countries indicates that the exact detailed structure does not make that much difference afaics. I agree that Parishes or Town Councils would need strengthening.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Those were all factors, but the agrarian revolution (allowing vast amounts more food to be produced and changing historical working patterns) is also seen as a major factor.
I did about 80% of my undergrad course on industrialisation. Don’t forget about the Protestant work ethic….
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Those were all factors, but the agrarian revolution (allowing vast amounts more food to be produced and changing historical working patterns) is also seen as a major factor.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
That's my (limited) understanding too, though one can continue to ask why eg why did the technical knowhow arise in UK rather than elsewhere? Prisoners of Geography was an interesting book that I think tries to address this sort of question properly, as in it's own way did Guns, Germs and Steel.
I wonder how important it was that the UK was an island? (Protection from invasion, access to seaborne trade).
Interesting to see local Government re-organisation is back on the political agenda and will be an integral part of the English Devolution Bill, due to be published next month.
Will this finally mark the end of the two-tier system in England? If so, how will this impact the 2025 County Council elections especially if the authorities being elected could cease to exist within the life of the current Parliament?
Taking Surrey for example, will the County take over the functions of the eleven Districts and Boroughs (the Cornwall solution) ir will the County be divided into three with each having the population of a London Borough (roughly 350,000) ?
I am trying not to be cynical, but I am imagining Sir Humphrey rubbing his hands with glee at some ineffectual new layer of regional government being set up and a whole new Whitehall department being created to oversee the poor loves.
In Durham they just got rid of the district councils and the county council took on all duties. Sadly it did not adopt the name County of County Durham County Council.
Two tier is just daft. Rubbish in your bin - District Council; rubbish you take to the tip* - County Council.
*I believe that they are referring to as "Household Waste Recycling Centres" in wokespeak. But tip is shorter.
If we are going to combine more district and county councils into unitaries then we also need stronger Parish and Town councils. Otherwise many could find most of their council decisions taken over the other side of the county
I agree if you take a county like Surrey (population 1.2 million) and try to make it a single council (as the County Council Conservatives want) it would become ridiculous. The alternative might be to create three Unitary authorities each of about 300,000-350,000 residents centred on Guildford/Woking, Dorking and Reigate/Redhill.
Not all of Surrey has Parish Councils (the more rural areas have retained theirs).
Essex would be interesting as well - any thoughts?
I'm not convinced by reorganisations as proposed solution. I was working in Oswestry District Council around 2005 when Hazel Blears pulled Shropshire to pieces.
Nottinghamshire seems to me to be fairly logically divided since 1972 (I think) geographically, with 7/8 Districts of roughly the same size which used to be ~100k and is now ~120k, and the City of Nottingham as a unitary. There are issues, but they are more around service delivery / location (eg household waste centres) and a decades long starvation policy on funding, rather than organisation - and that should have more focus.
If the speculation is true, then I think it is more likely related to trying to bring in a stronger regional tier (ie Mayors), and tidy up below that to reflect the changes. Mayors have generally imo been a notable success.
If Counties or Districts are abolished and we have Regions-Unitaries, then he genuinely is "Two Tier Keir".
Research across countries indicates that the exact detailed structure does not make that much difference afaics. I agree that Parishes or Town Councils would need strengthening.
Living in one of the smallest unitary authorities in the country - my advice would be that you want a population of at least 200,000 rather than 100,000 for the figures to make sense...
(1)This implied Reeves plan : Short-Term spending cuts /Long-Term borrow-to-invest works badly politically (jam tomorrow/ dry bread today) . It works badly for public services- a poorly staffed, demoralised service can't manage investment. But.... Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter · 27s (2)...It may be attractive to Reeves & co. because the long-term investments allow them to play at prestige investments, give out contracts, and make friends for a post-Ministerial career. Your bus journey comes second to their future limousine
This person seems to have overlooked the fact that the election isn't until 2029.
They're discounting the future value of investment spending by making the claim that it's impossible if day-to-day spending is insufficient.
If that link in the argument fails then the whole argument fails, because the implied Reeves plan is then simply about creating enough headroom to escape the low investment trap Britain is in, which would allow greater day-to-day spending in the future, and the cynicism about personal motivation is a complete red herring.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
It doesn't work in the case of Germany. It would give those being apologised to a feeling of superiority to those apologising which in the case of todays UK and Germany is undeserved. If it was Israel apologising to the Palestinians that would be a different matter. It's both deserved and might actually do some good.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
That's my (limited) understanding too, though one can continue to ask why eg why did the technical knowhow arise in UK rather than elsewhere? Prisoners of Geography was an interesting book that I think tries to address this sort of question properly, as in it's own way did Guns, Germs and Steel.
I wonder how important it was that the UK was an island? (Protection from invasion, access to seaborne trade).
The other point will be knowledge and local competition - you only have to compare and 1820's locomotion with a 1830s one to see how rapid the initial improvements were.
I was going to make a comparison with AI here but that would trigger Leon off so I won't...
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
It doesn't work in the case of Germany. It would give those being apologised to a feeling of superiority to those apologising which in the case of todays UK and Germany is undeserved. If it was Israel apologising to the Palestinians that would be a different matter. It's both deserved and might actually do some good.
I expect we’ll see an apology of sorts by Trump at his rally in Allentown today. Yes rare as hens teeth but he’ll have to say something .
Although the media have highlighted the Puerto Rico joke it’s really what came after that was truly disgusting.
In terms of polling we should see a load this week but overall it’s been a polling desert relative to previous elections. Because of that GOP biased pollsters have made up a much larger percentage.
It’s irrelevant whether models down weight them , if there’s enough they’re still going to skew the average .
The "joke" was vetted in advance - and cleared.
We know this because a joke about "c***" Kamala Harris - specifically using that c-word - was removed.
So the Republicans are just getting tied in more knots....
The Republicans say the joke was improvised and was not vetted.
There was more than one such joke.
No one believes them anyway, as they are notorious liars. And in any event, no speaker at the event saw fit to disavow it.
Anecdotally, it's cutting through. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/28/trump-rally-puerto-rico-pennsylvania-fallout-00185935 ... “If we weren’t engaged before, we’re all paying attention now,” Martinez said. He added the morning radio show he hosts was chock-full of callers Monday sounding off on the Trump rally comments, including a Puerto Rican Trump supporter who is now telling people not to vote for the former president...
And after a day consider a more thoughtful response, this is what Vance came up .. “Our country was built by frontiersmen who conquered the wilderness,” Vance said. “We’re not going to restore the greatness of American civilization if we get offended at every little thing. Let’s have a sense of humor and let’s have a little fun.”.
So I think it's fair to say they're good with the racist jokes. It is what they are.
Almost as if the whole thing was organised by Ricky Gervais to see everyone outraged at a bunch of jokes.
Gervais isn't usually running on a manifesto of deporting several million people, and splitting up American families, though.
When would be despots are making the jokes, it pays to take them a bit more seriously.
AFAICS they want to deport the illegal immigrants, "illegal" being the operative word. Didn't you hear the speech?
Does Lab not want to deport illegal immigrants. Do any countries not want to.
You haven't been following this, have you ?
Sounds like you have only been following the bits which confirm your pre-existing views. You should get out more (on twitter).
Lame.
OK, so you appear to be ignorant of the differences between us and the US in your comparison with Labour.
Are we a nation founded by, and composed almost entirely of the dependents of immigrants ? Do we have constitutionally mandated birthright citizenship ? Are we proposing to deport 6% of the entire population, setting up internment camps, and using the army to do so ?
Have a think about those questions, and get back to me.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
That's my (limited) understanding too, though one can continue to ask why eg why did the technical knowhow arise in UK rather than elsewhere? Prisoners of Geography was an interesting book that I think tries to address this sort of question properly, as in it's own way did Guns, Germs and Steel.
I wonder how important it was that the UK was an island? (Protection from invasion, access to seaborne trade).
The other point will be knowledge and local competition - you only have to compare and 1820's locomotion with a 1830s one to see how rapid the initial improvements were.
I was going to make a comparison with AI here but that would trigger Leon off so I won't...
I think he's in the sin bin at the moment, so you're safe.
I expect we’ll see an apology of sorts by Trump at his rally in Allentown today. Yes rare as hens teeth but he’ll have to say something .
Although the media have highlighted the Puerto Rico joke it’s really what came after that was truly disgusting.
In terms of polling we should see a load this week but overall it’s been a polling desert relative to previous elections. Because of that GOP biased pollsters have made up a much larger percentage.
It’s irrelevant whether models down weight them , if there’s enough they’re still going to skew the average .
The "joke" was vetted in advance - and cleared.
We know this because a joke about "c***" Kamala Harris - specifically using that c-word - was removed.
So the Republicans are just getting tied in more knots....
The Republicans say the joke was improvised and was not vetted.
There was more than one such joke.
No one believes them anyway, as they are notorious liars. And in any event, no speaker at the event saw fit to disavow it.
Anecdotally, it's cutting through. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/28/trump-rally-puerto-rico-pennsylvania-fallout-00185935 ... “If we weren’t engaged before, we’re all paying attention now,” Martinez said. He added the morning radio show he hosts was chock-full of callers Monday sounding off on the Trump rally comments, including a Puerto Rican Trump supporter who is now telling people not to vote for the former president...
And after a day consider a more thoughtful response, this is what Vance came up .. “Our country was built by frontiersmen who conquered the wilderness,” Vance said. “We’re not going to restore the greatness of American civilization if we get offended at every little thing. Let’s have a sense of humor and let’s have a little fun.”.
So I think it's fair to say they're good with the racist jokes. It is what they are.
"Conquered the wilderness" lol. Because the country was empty before the white man turned up.
There are several comments to be made about "American civilisation", too. But I resisted.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
That's my (limited) understanding too, though one can continue to ask why eg why did the technical knowhow arise in UK rather than elsewhere? Prisoners of Geography was an interesting book that I think tries to address this sort of question properly, as in it's own way did Guns, Germs and Steel.
I wonder how important it was that the UK was an island? (Protection from invasion, access to seaborne trade).
I think too, the wars of 1793-1815 stimulated manufacturing in this country, while severely undermining early industrialisation in France and the Low Countries. The UK played much the same role, economically, as the US did in WWII.
Also, French inventors got earmarked for the National Razor, which was a real case of shooting oneself in the foot.
I expect we’ll see an apology of sorts by Trump at his rally in Allentown today. Yes rare as hens teeth but he’ll have to say something .
Although the media have highlighted the Puerto Rico joke it’s really what came after that was truly disgusting.
In terms of polling we should see a load this week but overall it’s been a polling desert relative to previous elections. Because of that GOP biased pollsters have made up a much larger percentage.
It’s irrelevant whether models down weight them , if there’s enough they’re still going to skew the average .
The "joke" was vetted in advance - and cleared.
We know this because a joke about "c***" Kamala Harris - specifically using that c-word - was removed.
So the Republicans are just getting tied in more knots....
The Republicans say the joke was improvised and was not vetted.
There was more than one such joke.
No one believes them anyway, as they are notorious liars. And in any event, no speaker at the event saw fit to disavow it.
Anecdotally, it's cutting through. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/28/trump-rally-puerto-rico-pennsylvania-fallout-00185935 ... “If we weren’t engaged before, we’re all paying attention now,” Martinez said. He added the morning radio show he hosts was chock-full of callers Monday sounding off on the Trump rally comments, including a Puerto Rican Trump supporter who is now telling people not to vote for the former president...
And after a day consider a more thoughtful response, this is what Vance came up .. “Our country was built by frontiersmen who conquered the wilderness,” Vance said. “We’re not going to restore the greatness of American civilization if we get offended at every little thing. Let’s have a sense of humor and let’s have a little fun.”.
So I think it's fair to say they're good with the racist jokes. It is what they are.
Almost as if the whole thing was organised by Ricky Gervais to see everyone outraged at a bunch of jokes.
Gervais isn't usually running on a manifesto of deporting several million people, and splitting up American families, though...
Interesting to see local Government re-organisation is back on the political agenda and will be an integral part of the English Devolution Bill, due to be published next month.
Will this finally mark the end of the two-tier system in England? If so, how will this impact the 2025 County Council elections especially if the authorities being elected could cease to exist within the life of the current Parliament?
Taking Surrey for example, will the County take over the functions of the eleven Districts and Boroughs (the Cornwall solution) ir will the County be divided into three with each having the population of a London Borough (roughly 350,000) ?
I am trying not to be cynical, but I am imagining Sir Humphrey rubbing his hands with glee at some ineffectual new layer of regional government being set up and a whole new Whitehall department being created to oversee the poor loves.
In Durham they just got rid of the district councils and the county council took on all duties. Sadly it did not adopt the name County of County Durham County Council.
Two tier is just daft. Rubbish in your bin - District Council; rubbish you take to the tip* - County Council.
*I believe that they are referring to as "Household Waste Recycling Centres" in wokespeak. But tip is shorter.
If we are going to combine more district and county councils into unitaries then we also need stronger Parish and Town councils. Otherwise many could find most of their council decisions taken over the other side of the county
I agree if you take a county like Surrey (population 1.2 million) and try to make it a single council (as the County Council Conservatives want) it would become ridiculous. The alternative might be to create three Unitary authorities each of about 300,000-350,000 residents centred on Guildford/Woking, Dorking and Reigate/Redhill.
Not all of Surrey has Parish Councils (the more rural areas have retained theirs).
Essex would be interesting as well - any thoughts?
I'm not convinced by reorganisations as proposed solution. I was working in Oswestry District Council around 2005 when Hazel Blears pulled Shropshire to pieces.
Nottinghamshire seems to me to be fairly logically divided since 1972 (I think) geographically, with 7/8 Districts of roughly the same size which used to be ~100k and is now ~120k, and the City of Nottingham as a unitary. There are issues, but they are more around service delivery / location (eg household waste centres) and a decades long starvation policy on funding, rather than organisation - and that should have more focus. Notts Unitary-ised would perhaps be North Notts / Nottingham / South Notts, with Rushcliffe folded into Nottingham City (there would be a revolt, just like last time).
If the speculation is true, then I think it is more likely related to trying to bring in a stronger regional tier (ie Mayors), and tidy up below that to reflect the changes. Mayors have generally imo been a notable success.
If Counties or Districts are abolished and we have Regions-Unitaries, then he genuinely is "Two Tier Keir".
Research across countries indicates that the exact detailed structure does not make that much difference afaics. I agree that Parishes or Town Councils would need strengthening.
Is anyone proposing Regional Assemblies in England?
The two-tier (yes, I know, it stopped being funny on July 6th) system currently in place in parts of England looks and feels anachronistic but I'm not a fan of "big" councils covering wide geographical areas. BIrmingham can function as a single council even with the population of Surrey because it's not as geographically spread.
I'm not sure the Cornwall solution works but it bent to a historical view but the likes of Cheshire were divided and it may be units of around 300,000-350,000 (the number proposed by the last Government and about the size of a London Borough) is where Labour will go which will mean three councils (West, Mid and East probably) replacing the single County and eleven District/Borough Councils in Surrey.
Reorganisation creates a huge amount of work but some cost-saving opportunities if done right and the opportunity to sell off some surplus administrative buildings.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Those were all factors, but the agrarian revolution (allowing vast amounts more food to be produced and changing historical working patterns) is also seen as a major factor.
I did about 80% of my undergrad course on industrialisation. Don’t forget about the Protestant work ethic….
Spending any time in a community where children have to hike two hours to and from a mountainous school each day, or individuals will carry food and resources for a community for hours belies the false exceptionalism of the protestant work ethic in my view.
Of all the factors listed thus far (agrarian revolution freeing up human resources, good transport links, resource abundance) it's hard to argue that any confer a moral right to benefit from modern wealth disparities by accident of birth a couple of centuries later.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
So why the demands for money ?
It's more complicated than that, they are not requesting cash but rather an apology and help to deal with specific legacies of the slave trade. Read the Caricom plan:
The thing is pretty much every individual and every community can produce manifestos and plans explaining why they've been disadvantaged by geography, history or just bad luck. And why someone else should give them more to make it better.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
My own view is that nobody in Germany today has anything to be guilty about. We can all agree that the Nazis (and their helpers), were a vile bunch.
I don't go with that last sentence. Most of the helpers of the Nazis were ordinary everyday people, groomed and manipulated into being beasts, or compliant. I do not know whether, when push comes to shove and the stormtrooper is on my doorstep, or the administrator demanding I tick off the identities of X Y or Z group on the list on his clipboard, subject to my children being banned from higher education and my mum being thrown out of the old peoples' residence, I would have it in me to be a hero. Debates around the first sentence are more complex / nuanced.
On the last sentence, "There but for the grace of God", or similar by anyone who wants to write a non-God-referencing version, is a true statement.
Morality and practical ethics are fragile, and can easily be shattered or undermined. Consider Guantanamo in the last 20 years, and the abuses in the 'war on terror', and waterboarding, and the efforts made to justify the values underlying those practices.
That is in large measure what the 'rules based order', and whether it will be preserved is about. It is a deeply inadequate structure, but will what emerges after any putative collapse be better?
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Those were all factors, but the agrarian revolution (allowing vast amounts more food to be produced and changing historical working patterns) is also seen as a major factor.
I did about 80% of my undergrad course on industrialisation. Don’t forget about the Protestant work ethic….
Spending any time in a community where children have to hike two hours to and from a mountainous school each day, or individuals will carry food and resources for a community for hours belies the false exceptionalism of the protestant work ethic in my view.
Of all the factors listed thus far (agrarian revolution freeing up human resources, good transport links, resource abundance) it's hard to argue that any confer a moral right to benefit from modern wealth disparities by accident of birth a couple of centuries later.
The irony here is that people of the countries demanding money are not that badly off when you compare them to the poorest in other Commonwealth or former countries...
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
I don't disagree with that broad sentiment Casino (some extreme cases excepted).
I became a paraplegic at 19 and was lucky enough to forge a career in IT and finance. But that was because, if I say so myself, I am reasonably bright and good at managing people and projects. Most manual jobs would be unsuitable for me - I am not going to forge a career on a building site. So if I was below average intellect, I would have struggled to find work.
Now I'm retired the issue with a lot of people I see at Citizens Advice, particularly those with mental problems, is that they are unemployable. I would not employ them, nor would you.
I have an allotment here in Flatland Central for various historic reasons.
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
I expect we’ll see an apology of sorts by Trump at his rally in Allentown today. Yes rare as hens teeth but he’ll have to say something .
Although the media have highlighted the Puerto Rico joke it’s really what came after that was truly disgusting.
In terms of polling we should see a load this week but overall it’s been a polling desert relative to previous elections. Because of that GOP biased pollsters have made up a much larger percentage.
It’s irrelevant whether models down weight them , if there’s enough they’re still going to skew the average .
The "joke" was vetted in advance - and cleared.
We know this because a joke about "c***" Kamala Harris - specifically using that c-word - was removed.
So the Republicans are just getting tied in more knots....
The Republicans say the joke was improvised and was not vetted.
There was more than one such joke.
No one believes them anyway, as they are notorious liars. And in any event, no speaker at the event saw fit to disavow it.
Anecdotally, it's cutting through. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/28/trump-rally-puerto-rico-pennsylvania-fallout-00185935 ... “If we weren’t engaged before, we’re all paying attention now,” Martinez said. He added the morning radio show he hosts was chock-full of callers Monday sounding off on the Trump rally comments, including a Puerto Rican Trump supporter who is now telling people not to vote for the former president...
And after a day consider a more thoughtful response, this is what Vance came up .. “Our country was built by frontiersmen who conquered the wilderness,” Vance said. “We’re not going to restore the greatness of American civilization if we get offended at every little thing. Let’s have a sense of humor and let’s have a little fun.”.
So I think it's fair to say they're good with the racist jokes. It is what they are.
Almost as if the whole thing was organised by Ricky Gervais to see everyone outraged at a bunch of jokes.
Gervais isn't usually running on a manifesto of deporting several million people, and splitting up American families, though.
When would be despots are making the jokes, it pays to take them a bit more seriously.
AFAICS they want to deport the illegal immigrants, "illegal" being the operative word. Didn't you hear the speech?
Does Lab not want to deport illegal immigrants. Do any countries not want to.
You haven't been following this, have you ?
Sounds like you have only been following the bits which confirm your pre-existing views. You should get out more (on twitter).
Lame.
OK, so you appear to be ignorant of the differences between us and the US in your comparison with Labour.
Are we a nation founded by, and composed almost entirely of the dependents of immigrants ? Do we have constitutionally mandated birthright citizenship ? Are we proposing to deport 6% of the entire population, setting up internment camps, and using the army to do so ?
Have a think about those questions, and get back to me.
"Illegal" - I know it doesn't fit with what you would like to think but they are as it stands (in a democracy, just before it falls by all accounts once Trump is elected - did I say "elected"?) illegal. Because America tries to operate according to the rule of law.
But for sure - get outraged. And you didn't answer the question. Does Labour want to deport illegal immigrants.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
It doesn't work in the case of Germany. It would give those being apologised to a feeling of superiority to those apologising which in the case of todays UK and Germany is undeserved. If it was Israel apologising to the Palestinians that would be a different matter. It's both deserved and might actually do some good.
Was it Dayan or Meir who said Israel will never forgive Palestinians for forcing us to kill their children? Perhaps the Palestinians should be offering an apology to Israel.
Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy, and quite possibly the freedom of the entire planet.
Idiot.
Complacent idiot.
What's the bet that if elected Trump does/does not overturn democracy. £100 from me at your odds to say that if elected by the end of his term the US will have an election.
Oh and what odds that we face a danger to "the freedom of the entire planet".
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
I think she means 70% of millionaires living in LA willing to be friends with Piers Morgan and his wife are voting for Trump which narrows it down a bit.
Though yes, Trump is making bigger gains in California and New York on 2020 than he is in say Michigan and Pennsylvania which makes a Trump popular vote win but Harris EC win possible if still unlikely
Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy, and quite possibly the freedom of the entire planet.
Idiot.
Complacent idiot.
What's the bet that if elected Trump does/does not overturn democracy. £100 from me at your odds to say that if elected by the end of his term the US will have an election.
Oh and what odds that we face a danger to "the freedom of the entire planet".
LOL
Do we have a deal?
You might actually want to watch the Programme, or read Project 2025 before you sound off.
Authoritarian is the most polite way I can say it, but Fascist is also an objective description, not an opinion.
If you do not understand that, you do not understand anything.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
So why the demands for money ?
It's more complicated than that, they are not requesting cash but rather an apology and help to deal with specific legacies of the slave trade. Read the Caricom plan:
How very dare you bring the voices of those actually affected into this debate?
To be serious, though, I like many of the ten points there but would need convincing that hypertension and diabetes today can be convincingly linked back to slavery.
Poor food habits, due partly to lack of growing & preparation time. So West African food preparation techniques were forgotten. One of the features of West Indian and Southern USA slavery was that people from all sorts of African cultures were mixed together as generic 'blacks'.
This new Doyle comms fellow can't arrive in No. 10 fast enough.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Starmer and Reeves have spent a significant amount of public money protecting the public from the full impact of the Tory's decision to axe the bus-fare cap. But they've bungled the presentation, so it looks like a Labour fare hike. That doesn't bode well for tomorrow. https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1851198838838600053
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Those were all factors, but the agrarian revolution (allowing vast amounts more food to be produced and changing historical working patterns) is also seen as a major factor.
I did about 80% of my undergrad course on industrialisation. Don’t forget about the Protestant work ethic….
Spending any time in a community where children have to hike two hours to and from a mountainous school each day, or individuals will carry food and resources for a community for hours belies the false exceptionalism of the protestant work ethic in my view.
Of all the factors listed thus far (agrarian revolution freeing up human resources, good transport links, resource abundance) it's hard to argue that any confer a moral right to benefit from modern wealth disparities by accident of birth a couple of centuries later.
The irony here is that people of the countries demanding money are not that badly off when you compare them to the poorest in other Commonwealth or former countries...
I'd be curious as to whether the GDP/capita differences between the Caribbean countries already existed at independence or whether its something that developed afterwards.
Why for example is Jamaica less successful than the smaller islands.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
My own view is that nobody in Germany today has anything to be guilty about. We can all agree that the Nazis (and their helpers), were a vile bunch.
I don't go with that last sentence. Most of the helpers of the Nazis were ordinary everyday people, groomed and manipulated into being beasts, or compliant. I do not know whether, when push comes to shove and the stormtrooper is on my doorstep, or the administrator demanding I tick off the identities of the Jews on the list on his clipboard subject to my children being banned from education, I would have it in me to be a hero. Debates around the first sentence are more complex / nuanced.
On the last sentence, "There but for the grace of God", or similar by anyone who wants to write a non-God-referencing version, is a true statement.
Morality and practical ethics are fragile, and can easily be shattered or undermined. Consider Guantanamo in the last 20 years, and the abuses in the 'war on terror', and waterboarding, and the efforts made to justify the values underlying those practices.
That is in large measure what the 'rules based order', and whether it will be preserved is about. It is a deeply inadequate structure, but will what emerges after any putative collapse be better?
That's fair too. Browning's Ordinary Men, makes your point, very well. So, too, the TV play, Conspiracy.
People were rarely placed in a position where they had to be heroes, in order to resist. Rather, those who were not strongly committed to Nazism, mainly acted mainly out of group loyalty.
And, I suppose, going back to the discussion about colonialism, if it's a choice between your family and community of European settlers, and the local Indian tribe, well that's a choice that's going to make itself (as it would, for members of the Indian tribe, in the opposite direction).
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Those were all factors, but the agrarian revolution (allowing vast amounts more food to be produced and changing historical working patterns) is also seen as a major factor.
I did about 80% of my undergrad course on industrialisation. Don’t forget about the Protestant work ethic….
Spending any time in a community where children have to hike two hours to and from a mountainous school each day, or individuals will carry food and resources for a community for hours belies the false exceptionalism of the protestant work ethic in my view.
Of all the factors listed thus far (agrarian revolution freeing up human resources, good transport links, resource abundance) it's hard to argue that any confer a moral right to benefit from modern wealth disparities by accident of birth a couple of centuries later.
The irony here is that people of the countries demanding money are not that badly off when you compare them to the poorest in other Commonwealth or former countries...
Agreed, I'm not really talking about reparations, which I think is a cul-de-sac and a distraction.
For me it's more that we justify nonsense to ourselves and convince ourselves of it eg I'm sitting in a coffee shop in Spain drinking several cups of espresso waiting for the weather to improve so that I can throw myself out of a plane repeatedly (sorry @Topping I should have added a trigger warning for climate-related hypocrisy here).
Convert the money I'm spending on this holiday into an equivalent amount of malaria drugs, bed nets and research into malaria prevention and treatment and I could be saving many lives whilst sacrificing little.
Meh, it's the world we live in, and individual action isn't going to change that other than to make me less of a hypocrite. But let's tone down the self-aggrandising and exceptionalism. We are wealthy off the back of deep immorality and continue to implement national policies that use our wealth in deeply immoral ways.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
That's my (limited) understanding too, though one can continue to ask why eg why did the technical knowhow arise in UK rather than elsewhere? Prisoners of Geography was an interesting book that I think tries to address this sort of question properly, as in it's own way did Guns, Germs and Steel.
I wonder how important it was that the UK was an island? (Protection from invasion, access to seaborne trade).
I briefly studied this at Uni and much was made of the agricultural revolution that came before.
Now that only 1% of the population work in farming, I think it's worth revisiting as a topic given the rise of AI and robots which could be just as epochal.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
That's my (limited) understanding too, though one can continue to ask why eg why did the technical knowhow arise in UK rather than elsewhere? Prisoners of Geography was an interesting book that I think tries to address this sort of question properly, as in it's own way did Guns, Germs and Steel.
I wonder how important it was that the UK was an island? (Protection from invasion, access to seaborne trade).
I think too, the wars of 1793-1815 stimulated manufacturing in this country, while severely undermining early industrialisation in France and the Low Countries. The UK played much the same role, economically, as the US did in WWII.
Also, French inventors got earmarked for the National Razor, which was a real case of shooting oneself in the foot.
The Tribunal which condemned Lavoisier used a phrase which I understand translates to 'The Republic has no need of scientists."
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
"Reparations as apologies" I agree.
But what I think gets lost in the wailing and knashing of teeth on this is Foxy's astute point about compensation for ending slavery - it gave slave owners capital just as capital began to create a self-reinforcing cycle of wealth that we still benefit from today.
Just as decimating the cotton production in India in favour of that in UK created an imbalance that we still benefit from today.
So guilt about slavery? Hell no. But a recognition that we shouldn't have a massively more comfortable life than a rural Indian by accident of being born into a country that undertook some fairly horrendous policies in that past? That's more worthy of interrogation in my view.
It was the industrial revolution largely started in Britain in the late 18th century which improved the lives of both most Indians and Britons.
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
You're missing a counterfactual there.
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Would India have pioneered the Industrial Revolution, without the actions of the East India Company? Possibly. There were however, many exploitative local rulers in India, and surrounding countries, even without John Company. One big power might have taken control, and industrialised India, or The Anarchy might have continued for decades.
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
Agreed, I think it is an open question whether the conditions for something analogous to the Industrial Revolution could have pertained elsewhere in the world, and I think it is quite persuasive to make the argument that, even if they had, imbalances in current global wealth would be at least as bad as they are today, but perhaps just with other nations at the top of the pile and perhaps ones that are less respectful of the rule of law.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
It's s question for @ydoethur and others but I think the industrial revolution occurred in the UK thanks to a combination of technical knowhow starting point, available capital (from the slave trade repatriations if nothing else) and a relatively peaceful country within the world.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
Control of raw material producing colonies, and control of the high seas was probably part of it, too.
Cotton was among the commodities not as easily available to our potential competitors, for example, which probably also gave us a head start.
At this moment, the gentlemen of the Libyan Coastguard are capturing those attempting to sail from Africa to Europe. Imprisoning them in vile conditions. And selling their prison labour to make a profit.
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
So why the demands for money ?
It's more complicated than that, they are not requesting cash but rather an apology and help to deal with specific legacies of the slave trade. Read the Caricom plan:
How very dare you bring the voices of those actually affected into this debate?
To be serious, though, I like many of the ten points there but would need convincing that hypertension and diabetes today can be convincingly linked back to slavery.
Poor food habits, due partly to lack of growing & preparation time. So West African food preparation techniques were forgotten. One of the features of West Indian and Southern USA slavery was that people from all sorts of African cultures were mixed together as generic 'blacks'.
Thanks, makes more sense and chimes with what I'd read and forgotten. Though, I think there is a risk of denying agency to those who had choices over food habits in the intervening years between the nominal end of slavery and now.
Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy, and quite possibly the freedom of the entire planet.
Idiot.
Complacent idiot.
What's the bet that if elected Trump does/does not overturn democracy. £100 from me at your odds to say that if elected by the end of his term the US will have an election.
Oh and what odds that we face a danger to "the freedom of the entire planet".
This new Doyle comms fellow can't arrive in No. 10 fast enough.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Starmer and Reeves have spent a significant amount of public money protecting the public from the full impact of the Tory's decision to axe the bus-fare cap. But they've bungled the presentation, so it looks like a Labour fare hike. That doesn't bode well for tomorrow. https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1851198838838600053
It was time limited (until I think December 31st) at which point the cost disappeared from the forecasts.
The crap presentation skills are becoming a massive problem for Labour - they need someone to fix it quickly and it seems Morgan McSweeney isn't that person...
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
To me, it’s more that any such apology will be insincere and an exercise in patting oneself on the back about how much better we are than those awful people. It’s possible for people to take pride in their shame.
It's interesting how this discussion focuses entirely on the motivations and needs of the apologisers and not the people being apologised to. I don't know if I'm the only person on here who has spent a considerable amount of time in the Caribbean, but perhaps that's why the whole discussion seems so lopsided to me. People there are living with the legacy of slavery every day, it is absolutely not ancient history to them. It is also absolutely not a shakedown exercise.
Objectively there are enormous differences in income and standard of living between the West and the developing world, far greater than any explanation based on hard work could cover. If I was on the receiving end of that disparity, I'm not sure I'd be very interested in an apology - rather, a plan to do something about it, going beyond the 0.7% of GDP which we fail to reach anyway and partly spend on asylum hotels in Britain.
Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy, and quite possibly the freedom of the entire planet.
Idiot.
Complacent idiot.
What's the bet that if elected Trump does/does not overturn democracy. £100 from me at your odds to say that if elected by the end of his term the US will have an election.
Oh and what odds that we face a danger to "the freedom of the entire planet".
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
I don't disagree with that broad sentiment Casino (some extreme cases excepted).
I became a paraplegic at 19 and was lucky enough to forge a career in IT and finance. But that was because, if I say so myself, I am reasonably bright and good at managing people and projects. Most manual jobs would be unsuitable for me - I am not going to forge a career on a building site. So if I was below average intellect, I would have struggled to find work.
Now I'm retired the issue with a lot of people I see at Citizens Advice, particularly those with mental problems, is that they are unemployable. I would not employ them, nor would you.
I have an allotment here in Flatland Central for various historic reasons.
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
Even if someone is signed off into the ESA support group (i.e. can't work nor expected to even do work-related back to work activities at jobcentre) on mental health in theory they can still do a few hours of "permitted work" a week.
The problem is that very few are willing to do because they don't trust that it will not be used as a reason to take them off ESA at next review ("look, you can do a few hours at the computer at home, therefore you are no longer ill" etc). This is entirely rational response by people on ESA.
The system is hellbent on finding reasons to throw people off the benefit.
The other side of the coin to the GOP 'cannibalising' its vote with early voters.
Amazing story out of DeKalb County today. Hispanic woman comes into polling place after voting last week. Tells the polling worker that after hearing about the Madison Sq Garden event she needs to change her vote. (Needless to say, you can't do that.) https://x.com/joshtpm/status/1851065233739067435
Comments
In the 17th century the life of a peasant in the rural British Isles wasn't much different to that of a peasant in rural India despite the slave trade
Geraldo Rivera
@GeraldoRivera
Latino men, for the love of your parents and children, for your pride and your honor tell this little gringo shit to go fuck himself.
https://x.com/GeraldoRivera/status/1850878091104591883
Democrats in key swing states are telling me it feels much more like 2012 than 2016…
I also think the ‘shy Trump’ vote barely exists these days - if you’re Trump you’re out and proud. If you’re a female republican you might be a Shy Harris voter…
Harris to get 319 EC votes 4/1 at the moment
https://x.com/SolHughesWriter/status/1851184567043998048
(1)This implied Reeves plan : Short-Term spending cuts /Long-Term borrow-to-invest works badly politically (jam tomorrow/ dry bread today) . It works badly for public services- a poorly staffed, demoralised service can't manage investment. But....
Solomon Hughes
@SolHughesWriter
·
27s
(2)...It may be attractive to Reeves & co. because the long-term investments allow them to play at prestige investments, give out contracts, and make friends for a post-Ministerial career. Your bus journey comes second to their future limousine
Star comedy by Democrats.
And had God on its side.
Brexit was voted for by the British people themselves in 2016 despite the Tory PM at the time campaigning against it
An alternative history in which the world's largest cotton producer hadn't been scuppered by nakedly protectionist tariffs and forced foreign undercutting of its markets would be interesting.
Without such a history, your comment is largely meaningless.
Corbyn was just terminally stupid, Jenrick knows exactly what he is saying and doing.
Unfortunately, that disqualifies Rishi Sunak.
Harris 50 (-)
Trump 47 (+1)
Most of that polling was done before “ joke gate “ and the hate rally .
Whether it moves the needle given everything associated with Trump is questionable. There are currently 4 decent quality Pennsylvania polls in the field so it will be interesting to see what they show .
I've always thought exhibitionism a highly obnoxious fetish. Others don't get to refuse consent to see two idiots in public. Or an idiotic political party putting everyone else on the hook for untold trillions so they can feel virtuous for wallowing in the vicarious shame of their ancestors.
The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
I think there’s not much doubt that the Industrial Revolution, for all its cruelty, kick-started a rate of economic growth that has benefitted almost everybody worldwide, over two centuries. Had it never happened, I’m quite sure that conquest, genocide, enslavement would remain a lot more common than they are today.
That is perhaps an impact of uploader-crunch, though when I did a Right-Click -> Open Image in new Tab I could read them (ish), but not as well as I would like.
The separate diagrams are all in this web page about public seating at different , with a short para of commentary on each point:
https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/benches-and-seating-in-public-spaces/
They have done quite a number of this sort of thing, now. And have an index page here (to which this latest guide has not been added yet):
https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/our-campaigns/resources/
The general idea is to unpack the thousands of pages of guidance that is buried in regulations and guidance, and make it more understandable, and to try improve it.
If you want to be on the inside, there's a thing called DCAN (Disabled Cycling Activists Network), which is slightly misnamed because the big theme has shifted over the last year or two to common issues across walking / wheeling / cycling, which is a far larger scope than conflicts.
HTH.
In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again
Celia Walden"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/29/in-la-people-are-telling-me-theyll-vote-for-trump/
Partition stopped civil war between Hindu and Muslim in India
And an even larger proportion in the east with favourable views about the old Stasi state.
I'm making a slightly different argument: wherever the acceleration of capitalism had occurred, it required resources and exploitation of many communities across the global who, on a moral basis, should have received a more balanced dividend from then until now than is actually the case.
Thus, today, there is a decent case for a rebalancing in global wealth. Not reparations, as that implies a false guilt, but a recognition that we are where we are because we are standing on the shoulders of many people around the world who lived over the last 200 years, not just those who lived in UK.
Added to that, done well, such a rebalancing would contribute to solving many global problems that currently seem intractable (large scale migration, technological responses to climate change, resource wars, religious extremism (possibly)).
https://caricom.org/caricom-ten-point-plan-for-reparatory-justice/
Latest polling shows Harris improving her poll numbers with black men .
It does feel like all of British politics ultimately ends up in a similar way with the conclusion that millions of homes need to be built.
@OnlyLivingBoy's screed was as good as any but "apology" was missing from his post, save to say that Germany had already apologised. But he didn't clarify what exactly the apology was for.
It's hard to build a factory if next door is looking to invade every 10 minutes..
But apology? Well I just don't see it.
That said, she plainly is not a supporter of Trump, and does not like what she is seeing.
To be serious, though, I like many of the ten points there but would need convincing that hypertension and diabetes today can be convincingly linked back to slavery.
Being bigoted against people based on their ancestors to favour some other people (also due to their ancestors) is still racism. And it's still damned stupid.
You put 'unfair' in quotes, but a modern white person had nothing to do with slavery. And are you tracking all the black people whose ancestors were capturing, selling, and profiteering from selling slaves, or just assuming they're all slave descendants?
Nottinghamshire seems to me to be fairly logically divided since 1972 (I think) geographically, with 7/8 Districts of roughly the same size which used to be ~100k and is now ~120k, and the City of Nottingham as a unitary. There are issues, but they are more around service delivery / location (eg household waste centres) and a decades long starvation policy on funding, rather than organisation - and that should have more focus. Notts Unitary-ised would perhaps be North Notts / Nottingham / South Notts, with Rushcliffe folded into Nottingham City (there would be a revolt, just like last time).
If the speculation is true, then I think it is more likely related to trying to bring in a stronger regional tier (ie Mayors), and tidy up below that to reflect the changes. Mayors have generally imo been a notable success.
If Counties or Districts are abolished and we have Regions-Unitaries, then he genuinely is "Two Tier Keir".
Research across countries indicates that the exact detailed structure does not make that much difference afaics. I agree that Parishes or Town Councils would need strengthening.
I wonder how important it was that the UK was an island? (Protection from invasion, access to seaborne trade).
If that link in the argument fails then the whole argument fails, because the implied Reeves plan is then simply about creating enough headroom to escape the low investment trap Britain is in, which would allow greater day-to-day spending in the future, and the cynicism about personal motivation is a complete red herring.
I was going to make a comparison with AI here but that would trigger Leon off so I won't...
OK, so you appear to be ignorant of the differences between us and the US in your comparison with Labour.
Are we a nation founded by, and composed almost entirely of the dependents of immigrants ?
Do we have constitutionally mandated birthright citizenship ?
Are we proposing to deport 6% of the entire population, setting up internment camps, and using the army to do so ?
Have a think about those questions, and get back to me.
Also, French inventors got earmarked for the National Razor, which was a real case of shooting oneself in the foot.
The two-tier (yes, I know, it stopped being funny on July 6th) system currently in place in parts of England looks and feels anachronistic but I'm not a fan of "big" councils covering wide geographical areas. BIrmingham can function as a single council even with the population of Surrey because it's not as geographically spread.
I'm not sure the Cornwall solution works but it bent to a historical view but the likes of Cheshire were divided and it may be units of around 300,000-350,000 (the number proposed by the last Government and about the size of a London Borough) is where Labour will go which will mean three councils (West, Mid and East probably) replacing the single County and eleven District/Borough Councils in Surrey.
Reorganisation creates a huge amount of work but some cost-saving opportunities if done right and the opportunity to sell off some surplus administrative buildings.
Of all the factors listed thus far (agrarian revolution freeing up human resources, good transport links, resource abundance) it's hard to argue that any confer a moral right to benefit from modern wealth disparities by accident of birth a couple of centuries later.
For example, its claims about education contradict those of first generation emigrants.
And its 'right to repatriation to Africa' is almost comical - perhaps they think Wakanda is a real place somewhere between Ghana and Nigeria.
Not to mention that the UK already does provide development aid for the Caribbean:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-caribbean-region-development-partnership-summary/a8ac4844-d44c-48c5-ad40-ec308ef5d54f
The thing is pretty much every individual and every community can produce manifestos and plans explaining why they've been disadvantaged by geography, history or just bad luck. And why someone else should give them more to make it better.
On the last sentence, "There but for the grace of God", or similar by anyone who wants to write a non-God-referencing version, is a true statement.
Morality and practical ethics are fragile, and can easily be shattered or undermined. Consider Guantanamo in the last 20 years, and the abuses in the 'war on terror', and waterboarding, and the efforts made to justify the values underlying those practices.
That is in large measure what the 'rules based order', and whether it will be preserved is about. It is a deeply inadequate structure, but will what emerges after any putative collapse be better?
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
But for sure - get outraged. And you didn't answer the question. Does Labour want to deport illegal immigrants.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyv8y68e25o
Endless fun judging others' circumstances on limited information.
Perhaps the Palestinians should be offering an apology to Israel.
Oh and what odds that we face a danger to "the freedom of the entire planet".
LOL
Do we have a deal?
Though yes, Trump is making bigger gains in California and New York on 2020 than he is in say Michigan and Pennsylvania which makes a Trump popular vote win but Harris EC win possible if still unlikely
Authoritarian is the most polite way I can say it, but Fascist is also an objective description, not an opinion.
If you do not understand that, you do not understand anything.
One of the features of West Indian and Southern USA slavery was that people from all sorts of African cultures were mixed together as generic 'blacks'.
This new Doyle comms fellow can't arrive in No. 10 fast enough.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
15m
Starmer and Reeves have spent a significant amount of public money protecting the public from the full impact of the Tory's decision to axe the bus-fare cap. But they've bungled the presentation, so it looks like a Labour fare hike. That doesn't bode well for tomorrow.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1851198838838600053
Why for example is Jamaica less successful than the smaller islands.
People were rarely placed in a position where they had to be heroes, in order to resist. Rather, those who were not strongly committed to Nazism, mainly acted mainly out of group loyalty.
And, I suppose, going back to the discussion about colonialism, if it's a choice between your family and community of European settlers, and the local Indian tribe, well that's a choice that's going to make itself (as it would, for members of the Indian tribe, in the opposite direction).
For me it's more that we justify nonsense to ourselves and convince ourselves of it eg I'm sitting in a coffee shop in Spain drinking several cups of espresso waiting for the weather to improve so that I can throw myself out of a plane repeatedly (sorry @Topping I should have added a trigger warning for climate-related hypocrisy here).
Convert the money I'm spending on this holiday into an equivalent amount of malaria drugs, bed nets and research into malaria prevention and treatment and I could be saving many lives whilst sacrificing little.
Meh, it's the world we live in, and individual action isn't going to change that other than to make me less of a hypocrite. But let's tone down the self-aggrandising and exceptionalism. We are wealthy off the back of deep immorality and continue to implement national policies that use our wealth in deeply immoral ways.
On that note, time for another espresso methinks.
Now that only 1% of the population work in farming, I think it's worth revisiting as a topic given the rise of AI and robots which could be just as epochal.
https://x.com/Streettough/status/1851128216724922408
Cotton was among the commodities not as easily available to our potential competitors, for example, which probably also gave us a head start.
The crap presentation skills are becoming a massive problem for Labour - they need someone to fix it quickly and it seems Morgan McSweeney isn't that person...
The problem is that very few are willing to do because they don't trust that it will not be used as a reason to take them off ESA at next review ("look, you can do a few hours at the computer at home, therefore you are no longer ill" etc). This is entirely rational response by people on ESA.
The system is hellbent on finding reasons to throw people off the benefit.
Amazing story out of DeKalb County today. Hispanic woman comes into polling place after voting last week. Tells the polling worker that after hearing about the Madison Sq Garden event she needs to change her vote. (Needless to say, you can't do that.)
https://x.com/joshtpm/status/1851065233739067435