I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
The flaw in that approach is expecting other nations to play by your rules - when they play by their own.
It’s worth noting that international law, to a man like Philippe Sands, is merely a means to strike at a State that he detests. Like war, it’s a continuation of politics by other means.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
Denmark works, up to a point
Social democracy in many areas, but an antipathy to Wokeness and a fierce clampdown on migration and asylum
It has
1. Got the Danish Social Democrats re-elected, almost uniquely amongst left wing parties in Europe
and
2. The Danish economy is trotting along nicely, mainly thanks to Ozempic but still, it's growing
If Farage is smart (which he is) he should offer exactly what they did
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
Denmark works, up to a point
Social democracy in many areas, but an antipathy to Wokeness and a fierce clampdown on migration and asylum
It has
1. Got the Danish Social Democrats re-elected, almost uniquely amongst left wing parties in Europe
and
2. The Danish economy is trotting along nicely, mainly thanks to Ozempic but still, it's growing
If Farage is smart (which he is) he should offer exactly what they did
Farage is NOT a Social Democrat.
Never said he was. I'm saying that's the road he should take, if he sincerely wants to become PM
Of course, it's balls. Thousands of unionist-inclined voters switching to "Yes" on the promise of a Scottish Republic? Hmm.
The only way IndyRef2 can be won is if the Yes team can take heat out of the debate and make a move to independence seem natural, friction-free, and inevitable.
Needlessly introducing another constitutional change, which will only enrage and motivate a section of the unionist community, is hardly going to smooth the way.
It's little wonder that Salmond, Sturgeon, Swinney, et al, have carefully skirted the issue for years whatever the SNP rank and file may think.
I understood it was lost last time not because there wasn’t appetite to be free of London, but because many voters believed freedom would come with feeling worse off in the pocket.
Mentioning things like North Sea Oil, nearest refinery, other successfully industry in Scotland was a facile weakness for yes during the campaign, as it didn’t get near the suspected truth how Scottish economy is actually owned and organised.
If there is zilch in your pocket, you don’t have freedom, arguably.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
Of course you’re completely right but it begs the question where does this mass of,voters go,once Reform inevitably fail ?
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
That also makes you a fucking wanker.
Hardly breaking news.
Flaubert once said: Voyager rend modeste.
How wrong he was.
Well, we don't actually know what Leon was like before travel broadened his mind.
Indeed, he only joined three or four years ago. We knew nothing of his opinions before that date.
@Dura_Ace should note, in addition, that Flaubert also said:
"I am dreaming of hairless c**ts under cloudless skies"
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
Of course you’re completely right but it begs the question where does this mass of voters go, once Reform inevitably fail ?
Everyone fails in gov't, so there's a way to go for Reform yet before the inevitable disappointment. They'll get a further boost in the early 2030s if they're not in power by then over the end of gas boilers and stuff. Maybe the Lib Dems will get a crack at gov't at some point - who knows
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
The flaw in that approach is expecting other nations to play by your rules - when they play by their own.
Also, the whole "international rules" thing is nonsense in Crocs. The two modern periods of RELATIVE peace - 1815-1914, 1945-2000-ish?, came about because there was a hegemonic power, not because we had some stupid courts with wankers like Sands and Starmer pontificating about islands
The first was Britain, the second was America. Both were sufficiently strong to maintain world order, as that benefitted them (and the world) so they could freely trade. Yes France and other powers challenged Britain, as the USSR challenged the USA but these rival powers were still clearly inferior, allowing the hegemon to impose that peace
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
The flaw in that approach is expecting other nations to play by your rules - when they play by their own.
It’s worth noting that international law, to a man like Philippe Sands, is merely a means to strike at a State that he detests. Like war, it’s a continuation of politics by other means.
Most nations most of the time follow international law. We have global trade on that very basis. By and large, the international rules-based order has worked for most countries and brought great prosperity and progress since 1945. We’ve had a period of stability when it comes to international borders. I think it’s a grave error to overlook how well international law does work.
Of course, it’s not perfect and countries do, sometimes, not follow it to varying degrees. But what sort of world do you want? A world where most countries respect each others’ borders and foster trade, or more Putins?
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
Of course you’re completely right but it begs the question where does this mass of voters go, once Reform inevitably fail ?
Everyone fails in gov't, so there's a way to go for Reform yet before the inevitable disappointment. They'll get a further boost in the early 2030s if they're not in power by then over the end of gas boilers and stuff. Maybe the Lib Dems will get a crack at gov't at some point - who knows
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
Trump wants the opposite of a "world policeman" role, and the US voters know this and they gave him more of their votes. So that is the American will. @TOPPING's take is ludicrous, he must have jet lag
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
Of course you’re completely right but it begs the question where does this mass of,voters go,once Reform inevitably fail ?
Depends on how successfully they’re able to spin their failure and if they’re able to paint what comes after as worse (see Trump).
If they’re successful with that, they come back. If they’re not, voters either go back to the mainstream option or someone else offering solutions (populist left, anyone?)
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
That also makes you a fucking wanker.
Hardly breaking news.
Flaubert once said: Voyager rend modeste.
How wrong he was.
Well, we don't actually know what Leon was like before travel broadened his mind.
Indeed, he only joined three or four years ago. We knew nothing of his opinions before that date.
@Dura_Ace should note, in addition, that Flaubert also said:
"I am dreaming of hairless c**ts under cloudless skies"
Flaubert was also a professional sex tourist
A brilliant man, forsooth
Another one of his favourite lines (for me) is when he said he almost gave up sex because he kept thinking "how absurd I must look when I orgasm"
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
Trump wants the opposite of a "world policeman" role, and the US voters know this and they gave him more of their votes. So that is the American will. @TOPPING's take is ludicrous, he must have jet lag
Trump is certainly not a liberal interventionist a la JFK and FDR abroad or even Reagan and the Bushes, he is basically Pat Buchanan on foreign and domestic policy just more pro Israel
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
That's a dangerously absolutist position.
Yes, all else being equal, it's better to uphold the international law and the rules-based system than not. It makes Britain a more reliable partner. It helps reinforce international standards and, at the fringes, helps persuade those who might be thinking about breaking the rules not to - or to not do so as badly. The system overall helps keep standards higher and more known and consistent than they'd otherwise be. Both the framework overall and the specifics of it make resort to violence less likely.
But. All else is not equal. If we bind ourselves to a set of rules which others are ignoring, and gaining an advantage from ignoring, and if we commit to never break any of those rules then we risk handing important initiatives to hostile powers, particularly when international bodies that are supposed to uphold these values and adjudicate on them are themselves flawed.
And the rules-based order does not protect itself by its own shining example, or only to a degree. It would be folly (and a very blinkered view of history), to think the post-WW2 era - within the West anyway - was not underpinned by globally-decisive hard power. It was the ability to *impose* rules that was crucial, an ability which is fast waning - a fact that those who don't like the rules are now exploiting.
Personally, I'm not massively fussed about the Chagos deal, the substance of which keeps most of the status quo in place - or does so for a century, which is long enough. I don't, however, see any reason why Mauritius should get them, unless that's what the Chagossians themselves want.
Upholding international law is, literally, to the country's credit. However, if the cost of doing so in a specific example is greater, then it should not be done.
BTW, Trump is not a strong man. He would like to be seen as such but he is himself weak. He is a bully and, as such, it's regrettable that he's been placed in such a powerful position. But when it comes to using force internationally, he recoils because it scares him and those he'd be using it against scare him.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
Oh FFS. How many times do you need to be told that is utter bollocks?
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
Trump wants the opposite of a "world policeman" role, and the US voters know this and they gave him more of their votes. So that is the American will. @TOPPING's take is ludicrous, he must have jet lag
Trump will find himself at the head of a state which is structurally organised to be the world's policeman. Of course he will huff and puff about everyone paying their fair share but he will be unable to resist the machine should a world policeman requirement arise. Suppose, oh I don't know, that Iran sends troops to the Syria border (with Israel, that is). When you say isolationist you really mean not pursue inherited vendettas against random dictators. That still leaves a lot of events which need handling.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Indeed you have but you are making the point to people who would not even know these places on a map and just have disdain for these people. I also have said similar. But then both of us either have lived, or do live, in these areas. Nigelb has mentioned his wife works as a teacher in an area like this too.
Life chances are poor, the economy does not work, the Brexit offer was improved lives and prospects which has failed.
The current plight of the Gateshead Flyover is a perfect metaphor for these areas.
I am even tempted to vote Reform at the local elections to send a message to Labour as I think they have a chance in my ward. I would vote my independent councillor first but we are a multi member ward.
The absurd thing about local politics is that everyone who isn't running the council can point in pretty precise detail at where our money is being pissed up against the wall, but once elected to power become blind to it.
Reform generally offer crayon politics - child's drawings in crayon showing a problem and an overly-simplistic solution. But behind the red crayon is enough truth to cut through once hope is lost.
And don't get me started on the Gateshead flyover. A pointless relic of a cancelled motorway. Bulldoze it already.
You’re involved enough to understand that isn’t it; politics is harder than it might look, at a glance. Getting things done as an elected politician, at any level, requires more focus, determination to overcome every obstacle placed in your path, patience, indefatigability, and a wider range of skills than the person in the street would imagine. As our new government is finding.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
That also makes you a fucking wanker.
Hardly breaking news.
Flaubert once said: Voyager rend modeste.
How wrong he was.
Well, we don't actually know what Leon was like before travel broadened his mind.
Indeed, he only joined three or four years ago. We knew nothing of his opinions before that date.
@Dura_Ace should note, in addition, that Flaubert also said:
"I am dreaming of hairless c**ts under cloudless skies"
Flaubert was also a professional sex tourist
A brilliant man, forsooth
Another one of his favourite lines (for me) is when he said he almost gave up sex because he kept thinking "how absurd I must look when I orgasm"
To which the only possible response is oui, oui, oui.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
Election is in 2029. My prediction is that Reform are going to eat your lunch between now and then. You will disagree and still think your party is more relevant than Reform.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
Trump wants the opposite of a "world policeman" role, and the US voters know this and they gave him more of their votes. So that is the American will. @TOPPING's take is ludicrous, he must have jet lag
Trump will find himself at the head of a state which is structurally organised to be the world's policeman. Of course he will huff and puff about everyone paying their fair share but he will be unable to resist the machine should a world policeman requirement arise. Suppose, oh I don't know, that Iran sends troops to the Syria border (with Israel, that is). When you say isolationist you really mean not pursue inherited vendettas against random dictators. That still leaves a lot of events which need handling.
The American state may be structured that way, but I’m not sure the American people are - or have been since Iraq.
The Trump-Musk falling out is going to be absolutely spectacular. Alien vs Predator level stuff. I have no doubt who will come out on top.
Musk does seem to be pushing it a bit too quickly, especially as Trump has not even gotten his feet back under the Resolute desk yet. What's his hurry?
Musk is always in a hurry.
Hopefully the epitaph he seeks is to become the first man on Mars.
After all, almost everyone knows the name of Armstrong, and likely will do so way into the future, while all the politicians and funders and managers and engineers and the rest of the crew’s names are forgotten.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
Trump wants the opposite of a "world policeman" role, and the US voters know this and they gave him more of their votes. So that is the American will. @TOPPING's take is ludicrous, he must have jet lag
Trump will find himself at the head of a state which is structurally organised to be the world's policeman. Of course he will huff and puff about everyone paying their fair share but he will be unable to resist the machine should a world policeman requirement arise. Suppose, oh I don't know, that Iran sends troops to the Syria border (with Israel, that is). When you say isolationist you really mean not pursue inherited vendettas against random dictators. That still leaves a lot of events which need handling.
The American state may be structured that way, but I’m not sure the American people are - or have been since Iraq.
I haven't seen any polls about the subject, but it's a tanker that will take some turning around.
There are 2,000 US troops in Syria rn (an increase from previously). That doesn't sound hugely isolationist to me.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
But the 19th century saw a huge rise in global population...
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
Peculiarly retardataire take. But, you are clearly determined to hold it, and argument seems futile
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
Trump wants the opposite of a "world policeman" role, and the US voters know this and they gave him more of their votes. So that is the American will. @TOPPING's take is ludicrous, he must have jet lag
Trump will find himself at the head of a state which is structurally organised to be the world's policeman. Of course he will huff and puff about everyone paying their fair share but he will be unable to resist the machine should a world policeman requirement arise. Suppose, oh I don't know, that Iran sends troops to the Syria border (with Israel, that is). When you say isolationist you really mean not pursue inherited vendettas against random dictators. That still leaves a lot of events which need handling.
The American state may be structured that way, but I’m not sure the American people are - or have been since Iraq.
I haven't seen any polls about the subject, but it's a tanker that will take some turning around.
There are 2,000 US troops in Syria rn (an increase from previously). That doesn't sound hugely isolationist to me.
And until yesterday the US were only willing to admit to the first 900 of those. If the US public were even partially behind a return to ‘Team America’ then they wouldn’t have needed to hide the other 1,100 until they were already in country.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
Election is in 2029. My prediction is that Reform are going to eat your lunch between now and then. You will disagree and still think your party is more relevant than Reform.
We will see won't we...
Nope. One of the many reasons Conservatives became this unpopular with vast majority of voters, was they had too many Reform minded prominently in it. One was even Home Secretary. Braverman is all Reform getting for lunch, and I hope it goes down well!
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
Trump wants the opposite of a "world policeman" role, and the US voters know this and they gave him more of their votes. So that is the American will. @TOPPING's take is ludicrous, he must have jet lag
Trump will find himself at the head of a state which is structurally organised to be the world's policeman. Of course he will huff and puff about everyone paying their fair share but he will be unable to resist the machine should a world policeman requirement arise. Suppose, oh I don't know, that Iran sends troops to the Syria border (with Israel, that is). When you say isolationist you really mean not pursue inherited vendettas against random dictators. That still leaves a lot of events which need handling.
The American state may be structured that way, but I’m not sure the American people are - or have been since Iraq.
I haven't seen any polls about the subject, but it's a tanker that will take some turning around.
There are 2,000 US troops in Syria rn (an increase from previously). That doesn't sound hugely isolationist to me.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
In interventions in European wars and most Middle Eastern wars certainly with Trump but he will still prop up Israel v Iran. He also wants a trade war with China and the EU and Mexico
Trump wants the opposite of a "world policeman" role, and the US voters know this and they gave him more of their votes. So that is the American will. @TOPPING's take is ludicrous, he must have jet lag
Trump will find himself at the head of a state which is structurally organised to be the world's policeman. Of course he will huff and puff about everyone paying their fair share but he will be unable to resist the machine should a world policeman requirement arise. Suppose, oh I don't know, that Iran sends troops to the Syria border (with Israel, that is). When you say isolationist you really mean not pursue inherited vendettas against random dictators. That still leaves a lot of events which need handling.
The American state may be structured that way, but I’m not sure the American people are - or have been since Iraq.
I haven't seen any polls about the subject, but it's a tanker that will take some turning around.
There are 2,000 US troops in Syria rn (an increase from previously). That doesn't sound hugely isolationist to me.
And until yesterday the US were only willing to admit to the first 900 of those. If the US public were even partially behind a return to ‘Team America’ then they wouldn’t have needed to hide the other 1100 until they were already in country.
I think the sensitivities of the new regime are such that every nation needs to consider very carefully their public position on Syria. The US is no different and here we are with 2,000 troops there.
If Scotland want to be independent then they shuld be. But we should not change the consitutional settlement in England just to keep them. Indeed it would be good to see a successful independent Scotland north of the bordfer, wherther they are a monarchy or a republic.
We would lose far more by moving to a republic than we would be accepting the right of Scotland to be self determining.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
Election is in 2029. My prediction is that Reform are going to eat your lunch between now and then. You will disagree and still think your party is more relevant than Reform.
We will see won't we...
At the moment Reform have gained far more 2024 Labour voters than they have gained 2024 Tories, hence the Tories and Labour are now near level in polls with Reform a strong 3rd.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
Its a philosophical debate about direction of travel. My rationale is clear: 1) Labour will not be able to fix the systemic structural problems which have slowly broken our economy and for many our society 2) The time of income erosion is already measured in decades for so many voters 3) The Tories have trashed their reputation for a generation and continue along the wrong path with Her Wokewarness as leader 4) Farage is the only politician that many voters know. And when I say voters I mean the kind of voters who can deliver "that can't happen" results such as Brexit and the Johnson red wall landslide 5) Reform now have an ocean of cash and serious people organising them. They aren't the joke that Brexit and UKIP used to be 6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later 7) "Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters." Yes - and the WWC will never vote Tory. Oh that's right, until they did. Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.
The only way to fight populism is to Do Stuff. The Tories failed, Labour are failing. LibDems to indistinct and indirect to hone into One Message. Reform are led by the best agiprop politician of our age, funded by an ocean of cash and broadcast on social media...
I don't want to be right on this one. But will need serious persuasion that it isn't going to happen because it is happening right in front of us.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
That's a dangerously absolutist position.
Yes, all else being equal, it's better to uphold the international law and the rules-based system than not. It makes Britain a more reliable partner. It helps reinforce international standards and, at the fringes, helps persuade those who might be thinking about breaking the rules not to - or to not do so as badly. The system overall helps keep standards higher and more known and consistent than they'd otherwise be. Both the framework overall and the specifics of it make resort to violence less likely.
But. All else is not equal. If we bind ourselves to a set of rules which others are ignoring, and gaining an advantage from ignoring, and if we commit to never break any of those rules then we risk handing important initiatives to hostile powers...
That's an equally absolutist scenario, though. Are we really in a situation of such disorder, or is the reality somewhere in the fuzzy middle (as is usually the case) ?
Even the former nutter who has just taken power in Syria appears to recognise the need to recognise some sort of international norms. if his government is to be recognised internationally, and if Syria is to attract the capital it needs to rebuild.
(I'd agree that there are potentially several smarter ways to handle the Chagos matter. Where it's not even particularly clear what the 'rules' are.)
He would be better off making the case against tariffs on UK exports given Trump will impose them on EU and Chinese exports anyway
UK goods exports to the US are basically McLaren and Macallan. There’s no need to put tarrifs on high-end or explicitly British-branded items, no-one is buying American Scotch or supercars.
The EU situation is very different, which is why the UK ambassador being in receipt of an EU pension is potentially a conflict of interest which needs to be resolved.
Going after people's contractual pension entitlements is very high up the lists of things that boil my blood, even when those affected are NU10K. Because weakening the immutability of pensions is a classic face eating leopard type path. Why not say my accrued pension is undeserved and go for me. Taxing it is one thing, saying the entitlement shouldn't be there is wholly another. And to a fairly sizeable extent I'd go in to bat for the pension entitlements of some deeply unpopular people in the past, the Sharon Shoesmiths and Fred the Shreds of this world. They did the work and, short of proven financial criminality, they accrued those pensions.
That is not to say that the sort of multiples accrued by senior execs in their pensions aren't silly money, and I'd be tempted to regulate not the pay of a top exec, but the sort of contribution they'd be able to get relative to the lowest employee in their company (e.g., if your ordinary employee gets 4% company contribution, the highest UK exec can only get 8%). Obviously on a forward going basis - those past contractual accruals are locked in.
In this case, as Cyclefree says, note the potential conflict, say why it isn't, move on.
The problem with an EU pension specifically, is that it comes with a clause saying that someone in receipt of it must ‘promote’ the EU. The EU has the right to withdraw someone’s pension, they never have AFAIK, but they have the right to. It’s a totally unfunded payment by the way, paid out of current income with no scheme, and was one of the sticking points in the UK/EU exit negotiations.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
The flaw in that approach is expecting other nations to play by your rules - when they play by their own.
It’s worth noting that international law, to a man like Philippe Sands, is merely a means to strike at a State that he detests. Like war, it’s a continuation of politics by other means.
Most nations most of the time follow international law. We have global trade on that very basis. By and large, the international rules-based order has worked for most countries and brought great prosperity and progress since 1945. We’ve had a period of stability when it comes to international borders. I think it’s a grave error to overlook how well international law does work.
Of course, it’s not perfect and countries do, sometimes, not follow it to varying degrees. But what sort of world do you want? A world where most countries respect each others’ borders and foster trade, or more Putins?
If the number of internationally-recognised states has more than doubled over that period, you can't really characterise it as an era of stability when it comes to international borders.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
For a party that is "distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters, [and] can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system", UKIP-BxP-RefUK have achieved quite a lot already, from Brexit to completely transforming the Tory Party.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
Oh FFS. How many times do you need to be told that is utter bollocks?
It isn't bollocks, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden all have centre right governments working in government with or supported by hard right parties with PR.
Spain now has a centre right and hard right party campaigning together, under PR we would likely be the same. In Germany the CDU and AfD would have a majority on current polls, even if the CDU still won't touch them. Austria would also have a centre right and nationalist right majority if the centre right agreed.
In Canada Reform effectively took over the Tories under FPTP making harder right governments when the Conservatives took power again but that happened there when their Tories lost power which hasn't happened here yet. Either way Reform will drive the next right of centre government harder to the right, it is very unlikely the Tories can win a majority on their own again unless Reform disappear
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
That's a dangerously absolutist position.
Yes, all else being equal, it's better to uphold the international law and the rules-based system than not. It makes Britain a more reliable partner. It helps reinforce international standards and, at the fringes, helps persuade those who might be thinking about breaking the rules not to - or to not do so as badly. The system overall helps keep standards higher and more known and consistent than they'd otherwise be. Both the framework overall and the specifics of it make resort to violence less likely.
But. All else is not equal. If we bind ourselves to a set of rules which others are ignoring, and gaining an advantage from ignoring, and if we commit to never break any of those rules then we risk handing important initiatives to hostile powers, particularly when international bodies that are supposed to uphold these values and adjudicate on them are themselves flawed.
But that's exactly what we love doing the best. See: EEC/EU membership, 1973-2020.
I’ve seen this idea floated elsewhere. That she should run again in 2028
I mean, if the Democrats really want to die out forever…. That’s the way to go
Mind you the GOP ran Trump again after his defeat in 2020 and he won, a lot depends on the state of the economy again in 2028 as to who wins.
Though yes Shapiro or Buttigieg more likely
Trump has some weird electoral genius, that is now clear. He got the Rizz
Kamala................................................................................................................. not so much
I suspect Trump benefits much more than many people realise from not being a career politician. Who was the last president with a significant other career before going into politics? Reagan?
If Scotland want to be independent then they shuld be. But we should not change the consitutional settlement in England just to keep them. Indeed it would be good to see a successful independent Scotland north of the bordfer, wherther they are a monarchy or a republic.
We would lose far more by moving to a republic than we would be accepting the right of Scotland to be self determining.
Correct, would be there choice, albeit I still oppose Scottish independence but the monarchy is non negotiable (even if half Scottish via the Stuarts and Bowes Lyons). Though as posted earlier this poll was so subjective as to be laughable 'do you want Scotland to be a democracy and become a republic or keep the monarchy?' etc.
As also posted Yougov has backing for a republic about half what this poll had
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
Its a philosophical debate about direction of travel. My rationale is clear: 1) Labour will not be able to fix the systemic structural problems which have slowly broken our economy and for many our society 2) The time of income erosion is already measured in decades for so many voters 3) The Tories have trashed their reputation for a generation and continue along the wrong path with Her Wokewarness as leader 4) Farage is the only politician that many voters know. And when I say voters I mean the kind of voters who can deliver "that can't happen" results such as Brexit and the Johnson red wall landslide 5) Reform now have an ocean of cash and serious people organising them. They aren't the joke that Brexit and UKIP used to be 6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later 7) "Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters." Yes - and the WWC will never vote Tory. Oh that's right, until they did. Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.
The only way to fight populism is to Do Stuff. The Tories failed, Labour are failing. LibDems to indistinct and indirect to hone into One Message. Reform are led by the best agiprop politician of our age, funded by an ocean of cash and broadcast on social media...
I don't want to be right on this one. But will need serious persuasion that it isn't going to happen because it is happening right in front of us.
Don’t worry
As the Dodo said to the wife - “If these humans continue to be a problem we will peck them to death in the morning”.
Going back on topic for a moment, even when the SNP were actively campaigning for independence, it was to keep "our" monarchy. I don't see how republicanism and independence are automatically linked.
Scotland is as broke as the rest of the UK. If independence or ditching the King or making Donald Trump the Laird would sort the economy, then people would support it. Instead - with the exception of the true believers - independence offers the opportunity for broke people to throw themselves off the cliff in the dark with the promise of a nice new net below them...
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
Trump isn't an isolationist though. Has he not made great play of how there will be hell to pay if the hostages are not released by Hamas by the time he is inaugurated and his incoming team has spent the time since the election trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. That's not isolationism.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
But the 19th century saw a huge rise in global population...
Around 60%.
But even in percentage terms, the 19th was considerably bloodier than the 18th. And of course, the 20th far bloodier still. I suppose you might argue that the end of Pax Britannica had something to do with that, but it's a bit of a stretch.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
Its a philosophical debate about direction of travel. My rationale is clear: 1) Labour will not be able to fix the systemic structural problems which have slowly broken our economy and for many our society 2) The time of income erosion is already measured in decades for so many voters 3) The Tories have trashed their reputation for a generation and continue along the wrong path with Her Wokewarness as leader 4) Farage is the only politician that many voters know. And when I say voters I mean the kind of voters who can deliver "that can't happen" results such as Brexit and the Johnson red wall landslide 5) Reform now have an ocean of cash and serious people organising them. They aren't the joke that Brexit and UKIP used to be 6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later 7) "Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters." Yes - and the WWC will never vote Tory. Oh that's right, until they did. Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.
The only way to fight populism is to Do Stuff. The Tories failed, Labour are failing. LibDems to indistinct and indirect to hone into One Message. Reform are led by the best agiprop politician of our age, funded by an ocean of cash and broadcast on social media...
I don't want to be right on this one. But will need serious persuasion that it isn't going to happen because it is happening right in front of us.
“ 6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later‘
No. As economic and other credibility returns to Labour and Conservatives, support for policy non existent the “none of the above” option will shrink shrink shrink. They are in a voting block of one, created by the unusual situation of the most unprecedented credit crunch in history. When the GE comes, with just five seats and polling in single figures, Reform are not part of the equation which of the two parties do you want to win the election, and that will squeeze them still more next time, probably to zero seats.
“Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.”
I know you love politics, and I don’t want to be hurtful to anyone on earth, but imo you could do better at seeing the bigger picture and each moment set in historical context.
“It’s no big deal, no reason to big it up” is not what you tend to post - but in most political instances it’s probably right. As most voter decisions in elections are driven by the economics.
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
It's the same mentality that drove Labour's original vendetta against grammar schools.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
Election is in 2029. My prediction is that Reform are going to eat your lunch between now and then. You will disagree and still think your party is more relevant than Reform.
We will see won't we...
That only works if lots of voters who are so much core Tory voters they voted Tory even in 2024 for some reason switch now.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
But the 19th century saw a huge rise in global population...
Around 60%.
But even in percentage terms, the 19th was considerably bloodier than the 18th. And of course, the 20th far bloodier still. I suppose you might argue that the end of Pax Britannica had something to do with that, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Wars tend to lead to technological advancement which supports population growth. The war itself and aftermath is a temporary setback to the overall population but every major war will be followed by a sustained period of population growth that far exceeds what was considered normal before the war started because the technology advancements supports denser populations.
Going back on topic for a moment, even when the SNP were actively campaigning for independence, it was to keep "our" monarchy. I don't see how republicanism and independence are automatically linked.
Scotland is as broke as the rest of the UK. If independence or ditching the King or making Donald Trump the Laird would sort the economy, then people would support it. Instead - with the exception of the true believers - independence offers the opportunity for broke people to throw themselves off the cliff in the dark with the promise of a nice new net below them...
And if Scotland did ditch the monarchy and UK, Farage as English PM would be odds on, most English voters would vote for as hard a line with Scots as the EU took with us post Brexit. A hard border, an end to all funds going north of the border and taking all North Sea oil south of the seas off Berwick
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
It's the same mentality that drove Labour's original vendetta against grammar schools.
The Tories closed far more grammar schools than Labour ever did.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
Trump isn't an isolationist though. Has he not made great play of how there will be hell to pay if the hostages are not released by Hamas by the time he is inaugurated and his incoming team has spent the time since the election trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. That's not isolationism.
I might suggest that his currently-stated ideas for 'peace' in Ukraine is music to Putin's ears. As are his threats towards NATO.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
But the 19th century saw a huge rise in global population...
Around 60%.
But even in percentage terms, the 19th was considerably bloodier than the 18th. And of course, the 20th far bloodier still. I suppose you might argue that the end of Pax Britannica had something to do with that, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Dynastic conflicts are going to be less brutal usually, than conflicts between ethnic groups and ideologies. Dynasts, usually, are competing for the right to exploit the smallfolk, not to wipe them out.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
For a party that is "distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters, [and] can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system", UKIP-BxP-RefUK have achieved quite a lot already, from Brexit to completely transforming the Tory Party.
For sure.
But simply as a bucket for everyone disenchanted at the established political parties’ failure to step up to the challenges of the age.
Which was precisely how the Italians landed up with Berlusconi. Which should be a lesson to us all - but probably won’t be. Until afterwards, of course.
Going back on topic for a moment, even when the SNP were actively campaigning for independence, it was to keep "our" monarchy. I don't see how republicanism and independence are automatically linked.
Scotland is as broke as the rest of the UK. If independence or ditching the King or making Donald Trump the Laird would sort the economy, then people would support it. Instead - with the exception of the true believers - independence offers the opportunity for broke people to throw themselves off the cliff in the dark with the promise of a nice new net below them...
I think Scotland is significantly more broke than the rest of the country.
The biggest failure of the SNP at Holyrood is that they've made no progress on changing that. If they'd had a greater focus on attracting inward investment to Scotland for the past 17 years then they might have convinced a slice of the electorate that independence was a sensible option for escaping Britain's economic decline.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
Trump isn't an isolationist though. Has he not made great play of how there will be hell to pay if the hostages are not released by Hamas by the time he is inaugurated and his incoming team has spent the time since the election trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. That's not isolationism.
Trump isn't anything particularly coherent in political terms. but there is a very strong isolationist strain within his MAGA followers, which he panders to from time to time.
It will be interesting to see how the all the contradictions are resolved (or not) once he is in government.
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
It's the same mentality that drove Labour's original vendetta against grammar schools.
The Tories closed far more grammar schools than Labour ever did.
There were more pupils in grammars at the end of the Thatcher and Major years than in 1979. Almost all the remaining grammar schools are in Tory controlled local authorities.
It was just Heath decided as PM not to stop mostly Labour councils ending selection in their areas despite benefiting from a grammar school education himself and not to reverse the shift to comprehensive education started under Wilson
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
It's the same mentality that drove Labour's original vendetta against grammar schools.
The Tories closed far more grammar schools than Labour ever did.
Indeed. They also let in far more immigrants, but in both cases, the policy started under Labour.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
Its a philosophical debate about direction of travel. My rationale is clear: 1) Labour will not be able to fix the systemic structural problems which have slowly broken our economy and for many our society 2) The time of income erosion is already measured in decades for so many voters 3) The Tories have trashed their reputation for a generation and continue along the wrong path with Her Wokewarness as leader 4) Farage is the only politician that many voters know. And when I say voters I mean the kind of voters who can deliver "that can't happen" results such as Brexit and the Johnson red wall landslide 5) Reform now have an ocean of cash and serious people organising them. They aren't the joke that Brexit and UKIP used to be 6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later 7) "Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters." Yes - and the WWC will never vote Tory. Oh that's right, until they did. Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.
The only way to fight populism is to Do Stuff. The Tories failed, Labour are failing. LibDems to indistinct and indirect to hone into One Message. Reform are led by the best agiprop politician of our age, funded by an ocean of cash and broadcast on social media...
I don't want to be right on this one. But will need serious persuasion that it isn't going to happen because it is happening right in front of us.
“ 6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later‘
No. As economic and other credibility returns to Labour and Conservatives, support for policy non existent the “none of the above” option will shrink shrink shrink. They are in a voting block of one, created by the unusual situation of the most unprecedented credit crunch in history. When the GE comes, with just five seats and polling in single figures, Reform are not part of the equation which of the two parties do you want to win the election, and that will squeeze them still more next time, probably to zero seats.
“Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.”
I know you love politics, and I don’t want to be hurtful to anyone on earth, but imo you could do better at seeing the bigger picture and each moment set in historical context.
“It’s no big deal, no reason to big it up” is not what you tend to post - but in most political instances it’s probably right. As most voter decisions in elections are driven by the economics.
The big picture is that post 2008, traditional parties are increasingly despised, across Western countries. Even where the old duopoly still notionally exists, in the USA, the Republicans have been taken over by a completely different group to those who ran them twenty years ago.
Reform are disliked by people who do well out of the current set up. Millions who do not to well think very differently about them,
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
It's the same mentality that drove Labour's original vendetta against grammar schools.
The Tories closed far more grammar schools than Labour ever did.
Indeed. They also let in far more immigrants, but in both cases, the policy started under Labour.
Though Boris ended EU FOM and Rishi raised the salary threshold for non EU immigrants and stopped dependents coming in
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
Oh FFS. How many times do you need to be told that is utter bollocks?
It isn't bollocks, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden all have centre right governments working in government with or supported by hard right parties with PR.
Spain now has a centre right and hard right party campaigning together, under PR we would likely be the same. In Germany the CDU and AfD would have a majority on current polls, even if the CDU still won't touch them. Austria would also have a centre right and nationalist right majority if the centre right agreed.
In Canada Reform effectively took over the Tories under FPTP making harder right governments when the Conservatives took power again but that happened there when their Tories lost power which hasn't happened here yet. Either way Reform will drive the next right of centre government harder to the right, it is very unlikely the Tories can win a majority on their own again unless Reform disappear
Conservatives and Reform are 100% not in the same voting block, under FPTP if voters from other parties chose you when their 1st preference can’t win, you go up just 0.6% from last election yet go from 11 to 72 seats, up just 1.6% and add 211 seats - alternatively get 14.3% of votes for just 5 seats because you are second preference of no one. Mike Smithson has been saying this to us for years and years: second and third preferences do matter loads in FPTP.
Both Conservative Party and Reform are in their own separate blocks. They are in cannibal deathmatch with each other, not on course to coalition a government. The first and second preferences of last election result is 100% proof of this. Block 1 Lab 33.7% - 412 seats; LibDem 12.2% - 72 seats; Green 6.7% - 4 seats. Block 2 Conservatives 23.7% - 121 seats. Block 3 Reform 14.3% - 5 seats.
Does this argument about the electoral system and need for 2nd prefs in FPTP not make any sense at all, not even with all the evidence of the 2024 General Election arithmetic laid out?
This is going to become “drink tank Friday” on PB, I can feel it.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
There is no such thing as international law. It is just the set of rules most recently agreed upon by whoever were Top Nations at the time. As there is currently only one Top Nation it is that nation which makes the rules. Or breaks them.
There is, however, pragmatism, which every nation engages in.
I know you've just come back wowed by America but the idea that America rules the roost as it did, is nuts
Go to East Asia (or indeed the Indian Ocean, or Africa, or Latin America) and you can feel the overwhelming power of China. Certainly equal to the USA
There was a NYT piece t'other day which made the point that China will soon have such a huge chunk of global manufacturing it will be akin to Britain at the early peak of the Industrial Revolution, or America at the end of WW2. Hegemonic
China doesn't now, and never did see itself as the upholder of universal values. It doesn't project force or want to. It is (fiercely) protective about territories it believes are part of Greater China but aside from voicing the odd (usually conciliatory) view on global events, isn't about to send a task force to the Balkans. It is not hugely removed from cultivering its jardin (disputes about just what is in the jardin aside).
The US, however, does see itself as the world's policeman and as the upholder of universal values.
Is the difference.
A bizarre take. America DID see itself as that, but not any more. The election of Trump is a symptom of that withdrawal, not a cause
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
Much less so with Trump for sure. But to turn the ship around takes more than one isolationist-adjacent POTUS. There is a whole structure around eg putting warships here, there and everywhere, about projecting force, and, when all is said and done, about supporting its allies, whether those are in Western Europe or the Middle East.
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
You claimed it is and wants to be "world policeman". Absurd. That era ended some time ago, and Trump has sealed the deal. America ain't gonna be intervening in any regional wars for many years, if ever, unless they are right on the door step and Quebec attacks Ontario with nukes. Then America MIGHT step in
You are simply wrong. America is set up to be the world's policeman and the world expects it to be the world's policeman. Trump as POTUS isn't going to change that.
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
I agree with you: America is heavily involved throughout the world, militarily.
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
Trump isn't an isolationist though. Has he not made great play of how there will be hell to pay if the hostages are not released by Hamas by the time he is inaugurated and his incoming team has spent the time since the election trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. That's not isolationism.
I might suggest that his currently-stated ideas for 'peace' in Ukraine is music to Putin's ears. As are his threats towards NATO.
You might suggest that, but someone who is aware that Putin has rejected his terms, you know better.
As for Trump's "threats towards NATO", he is asking NATO countries to increase their defence spending to 3% of GDP. How on earth do you twist that into being "music to Putin's ears"?
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
It's the same mentality that drove Labour's original vendetta against grammar schools.
The Tories closed far more grammar schools than Labour ever did.
There were more pupils in grammars at the end of the Thatcher and Major years than in 1979. Almost all the remaining grammar schools are in Tory controlled local authorities.
It was just Heath decided as PM not to stop mostly Labour councils ending selection in their areas despite benefiting from a grammar school education himself and not to reverse the shift to comprehensive education started under Wilson
Margaret Thatcher holds the prize as the secretary of state who closed or merged the most grammar schools for a comprehensive alternative.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
No, currently the Tories and Reform and Labour are all between 20-30%. With PR a Tory and Reform government would be possible, even likely, only FPTP makes a Labour minority government propped up by the LDs the most likely current GE outcome
Oh FFS. How many times do you need to be told that is utter bollocks?
It isn't bollocks, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden all have centre right governments working in government with or supported by hard right parties with PR.
Spain now has a centre right and hard right party campaigning together, under PR we would likely be the same. In Germany the CDU and AfD would have a majority on current polls, even if the CDU still won't touch them. Austria would also have a centre right and nationalist right majority if the centre right agreed.
In Canada Reform effectively took over the Tories under FPTP making harder right governments when the Conservatives took power again but that happened there when their Tories lost power which hasn't happened here yet. Either way Reform will drive the next right of centre government harder to the right, it is very unlikely the Tories can win a majority on their own again unless Reform disappear
Conservatives and Reform are 100% not in the same voting block, under FPTP if voters from other parties chose you when their 1st preference can’t win, you go up just 0.6% from last election yet go from 11 to 72 seats, up just 1.6% and add 211 seats - alternatively get 14.3% of votes for just 5 seats because you are second preference of no one. Mike Smithson has been saying this to us for years and years: second and third preferences do matter loads in FPTP.
Both Conservative Party and Reform are in their own separate blocks. They are in cannibal deathmatch with each other, not on course to coalition a government. The first and second preferences of last election result is 100% proof of this. Block 1 Lab 33.7% - 412 seats; LibDem 12.2% - 72 seats; Green 6.7% - 4 seats. Block 2 Conservatives 23.7% - 121 seats. Block 3 Reform 14.3% - 5 seats.
Does this argument about the electoral system and need for 2nd prefs in FPTP not make any sense at all, not even with all the evidence of the 2024 General Election arithmetic laid out?
This is going to become “drink tank Friday” on PB, I can feel it.
And since July it has been Labour 2024 voters Reform have gained most with, not Tories
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
It's the same mentality that drove Labour's original vendetta against grammar schools.
The Tories closed far more grammar schools than Labour ever did.
There were more pupils in grammars at the end of the Thatcher and Major years than in 1979. Almost all the remaining grammar schools are in Tory controlled local authorities.
It was just Heath decided as PM not to stop mostly Labour councils ending selection in their areas despite benefiting from a grammar school education himself and not to reverse the shift to comprehensive education started under Wilson
That was when both main political parties actually believed in local democracy and didn't tend to intervene.
Notable that you mention Heath as PM but not the then Education Secretary.
If Scotland want to be independent then they shuld be. But we should not change the consitutional settlement in England just to keep them. Indeed it would be good to see a successful independent Scotland north of the bordfer, wherther they are a monarchy or a republic.
We would lose far more by moving to a republic than we would be accepting the right of Scotland to be self determining.
I don't feel particularly strongly about Republicanism or otherwise. But I agree that "because otherwise the Scots might secede" isn't a sound basis for decision making. Otherwise we might as well just let the Scots decide everything.
Substantive policy decisions will, in any event, be made by the government, not by the ambassador. Mandleson's job is to smooth the relationship with the US, not sabotage it; if he fails in that, he won't last long in post.
Nicko Henderson was the ambassador when my father worked at the DC embassy. According to him, Henderson ran his own completely autonomous foreign policy and often wouldn't even pick up the phone when King Charles Street was calling. He was a distressed purchase by Thatcher who had to appoint him in a tearing hurry when Heath told her to shove the job up her narrow arse.
NH was also a workaholic which was ill-matched to my father's overwhelming preference to spend his working day doing crosswords and perusing catalogues of model train bits.
Sad for all concerned Heath not wanting to go to the US. There was very little point in the loathsome liver-spotted sack of bile remaining in the Commons.
You didn’t like him? What did he do wrong?
You feel he did something right?
Putting country out of the misery of the 1960s Labour in government.
Decimalisation.
Getting the French to allow us to join EEC.
Getting Labour out was fine, but it didn't mean an awful lot in the days of the postwar consensus (as indeed it seems to mean little in these days of centrist consensus).
I regard getting us into the EEC as an unalloyed ill. We should never have joined. It was a distraction at best from the real issues of the British economy, held up as a panacea by dishonest politicians like Heath who had an ideological agenda - again much the same as today's politicians.
Decimalisation I'm fairly neutral on. Pre-decimal currency enforced numeracy.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
But the 19th century saw a huge rise in global population...
Around 60%.
But even in percentage terms, the 19th was considerably bloodier than the 18th. And of course, the 20th far bloodier still. I suppose you might argue that the end of Pax Britannica had something to do with that, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Wars tend to lead to technological advancement which supports population growth. The war itself and aftermath is a temporary setback to the overall population but every major war will be followed by a sustained period of population growth that far exceeds what was considered normal before the war started because the technology advancements supports denser populations.
Do they ? Correlation is not causation.
I suppose if you count the conquest of the New World as a war, then that's sort of true for 1492 - the new S American foods allowing far higher calorific crop yields on other continents.
But the other huge advances which fed greater populations were the Haber/Bosch process - invented and perfected 1909/1910 - and Norman Borlaug's green revolution, which had nothing to do with war either.
The counterfactual is that wars are immensely destructive. What might Europe have achieved had it avoided the devastation of two world wars ?
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
Its a philosophical debate about direction of travel. My rationale is clear: 1) Labour will not be able to fix the systemic structural problems which have slowly broken our economy and for many our society 2) The time of income erosion is already measured in decades for so many voters 3) The Tories have trashed their reputation for a generation and continue along the wrong path with Her Wokewarness as leader 4) Farage is the only politician that many voters know. And when I say voters I mean the kind of voters who can deliver "that can't happen" results such as Brexit and the Johnson red wall landslide 5) Reform now have an ocean of cash and serious people organising them. They aren't the joke that Brexit and UKIP used to be 6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later 7) "Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters." Yes - and the WWC will never vote Tory. Oh that's right, until they did. Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.
The only way to fight populism is to Do Stuff. The Tories failed, Labour are failing. LibDems to indistinct and indirect to hone into One Message. Reform are led by the best agiprop politician of our age, funded by an ocean of cash and broadcast on social media...
I don't want to be right on this one. But will need serious persuasion that it isn't going to happen because it is happening right in front of us.
In a sense 'Doing Stuff' is not an option at the moment. We are well into a perfect storm of difficulty in maintaining what the state does now without expanding it into visibly doing even more stuff. The social democracy basics are expensive (and Reform resiles from none of them).
It is possible (I suppose) that a Reform government would work fine. I don't suppose we shall find out. What it could not do is deliver on its promises and costings without disaster - a slightly enlarged version of Labour's problem.
The key to better government than now that can fight populism is in: Competence, Explanation, Honesty and Transparency, Leadership and Clarity of Purpose, Humility, Quality of Communication.
These things are more or less free. It is years since a government operated this way. They should give it a try.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
That also makes you a fucking wanker.
Hardly breaking news.
Flaubert once said: Voyager rend modeste.
How wrong he was.
Well, we don't actually know what Leon was like before travel broadened his mind.
Indeed, he only joined three or four years ago. We knew nothing of his opinions before that date.
@Dura_Ace should note, in addition, that Flaubert also said:
"I am dreaming of hairless c**ts under cloudless skies"
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
It's the same mentality that drove Labour's original vendetta against grammar schools.
The Tories closed far more grammar schools than Labour ever did.
Indeed. They also let in far more immigrants, but in both cases, the policy started under Labour.
Though Boris ended EU FOM and Rishi raised the salary threshold for non EU immigrants and stopped dependents coming in
And sold this to British ethnic communities on the basis that it would enable much more immigration from the Asian sub continent, and so it has transpired.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
That's a dangerously absolutist position.
Yes, all else being equal, it's better to uphold the international law and the rules-based system than not. It makes Britain a more reliable partner. It helps reinforce international standards and, at the fringes, helps persuade those who might be thinking about breaking the rules not to - or to not do so as badly. The system overall helps keep standards higher and more known and consistent than they'd otherwise be. Both the framework overall and the specifics of it make resort to violence less likely.
But. All else is not equal. If we bind ourselves to a set of rules which others are ignoring, and gaining an advantage from ignoring, and if we commit to never break any of those rules then we risk handing important initiatives to hostile powers...
That's an equally absolutist scenario, though. Are we really in a situation of such disorder, or is the reality somewhere in the fuzzy middle (as is usually the case) ?
Even the former nutter who has just taken power in Syria appears to recognise the need to recognise some sort of international norms. if his government is to be recognised internationally, and if Syria is to attract the capital it needs to rebuild.
(I'd agree that there are potentially several smarter ways to handle the Chagos matter. Where it's not even particularly clear what the 'rules' are.)
No, it's not. My argument is that Britain - and other states of a similar nature - should abide by international law as a starting point, and encourage others to do so but that there will be occasions when the national interest is so overriding that it has to be put first, even against some international ruling.
Obviously, that's not to be done lightly because there will be consequences, both directly and in how other countries react. It certainly will be harder to encourage other states to keep to the rules if Britain breaks them in some place. That's a factor to be weighed in the decision to do so. But not all breaches are of equal gravity and not all are equally justified.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomhoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
But the 19th century saw a huge rise in global population...
Around 60%.
But even in percentage terms, the 19th was considerably bloodier than the 18th. And of course, the 20th far bloodier still. I suppose you might argue that the end of Pax Britannica had something to do with that, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Ah, I see what you're doing, you're inciuding deaths from colonial and imperial conquest in the 19th century list. Tht's a bit devious. Those weren't deaths by war, they were an unfortunate by-product of the "mission civilisatrice" - as we exported freedom, capitalism, Christianity, democracy, human rights, the Westminster parliamentary system, clothing, cooked food, comprehensible speech, the flushing toilet, wheels, biscuits, chicken tikka masala, bakelite, Agatha Christie novels, feminism, lawn tennis, electricity, "running fast", advanced ergonomics, the condom, "having a bit of a sniffle", kettles, The Emancipation of Slaves, Victoria sponges, cloud identification, theatre, Ovaltine, a really good sit down, and, most of all, the mighty English language to largely grateful natives overseas, esp the Scots and Irish
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
That's a dangerously absolutist position.
Yes, all else being equal, it's better to uphold the international law and the rules-based system than not. It makes Britain a more reliable partner. It helps reinforce international standards and, at the fringes, helps persuade those who might be thinking about breaking the rules not to - or to not do so as badly. The system overall helps keep standards higher and more known and consistent than they'd otherwise be. Both the framework overall and the specifics of it make resort to violence less likely.
But. All else is not equal. If we bind ourselves to a set of rules which others are ignoring, and gaining an advantage from ignoring, and if we commit to never break any of those rules then we risk handing important initiatives to hostile powers...
That's an equally absolutist scenario, though. Are we really in a situation of such disorder, or is the reality somewhere in the fuzzy middle (as is usually the case) ?
Even the former nutter who has just taken power in Syria appears to recognise the need to recognise some sort of international norms. if his government is to be recognised internationally, and if Syria is to attract the capital it needs to rebuild.
(I'd agree that there are potentially several smarter ways to handle the Chagos matter. Where it's not even particularly clear what the 'rules' are.)
No, it's not. My argument is that Britain - and other states of a similar nature - should abide by international law as a starting point, and encourage others to do so but that there will be occasions when the national interest is so overriding that it has to be put first, even against some international ruling.
Obviously, that's not to be done lightly because there will be consequences, both directly and in how other countries react. It certainly will be harder to encourage other states to keep to the rules if Britain breaks them in some place. That's a factor to be weighed in the decision to do so. But not all breaches are of equal gravity and not all are equally justified.
Five years is a Long time. The right don’t seem to get that. Appear to be still in election mode and not thinking strategically.
Nobody knows what the next election will bring. Can see almost any outcome.
Er, this is political betting. Our whole raison d’etre is making predictions, sometimes from absurdly long distances - geographical and temporal
Perhaps you’d be happier on nopoliticalbettingherethanks.com
Predicting what happens in an election four or five years away requires a tad more than looking at current polling or news cycles.
One only needs to see what’s happened in the last five years (since the week Johnson won a landslide), to think how crazy it must be to try and predict the next five!
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
But the 19th century saw a huge rise in global population...
Around 60%.
But even in percentage terms, the 19th was considerably bloodier than the 18th. And of course, the 20th far bloodier still. I suppose you might argue that the end of Pax Britannica had something to do with that, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Wars tend to lead to technological advancement which supports population growth. The war itself and aftermath is a temporary setback to the overall population but every major war will be followed by a sustained period of population growth that far exceeds what was considered normal before the war started because the technology advancements supports denser populations.
Do they ? Correlation is not causation.
I suppose if you count the conquest of the New World as a war, then that's sort of true for 1492 - the new S American foods allowing far higher calorific crop yields on other continents.
But the other huge advances which fed greater populations were the Haber/Bosch process - invented and perfected 1909/1910 - and Norman Borlaug's green revolution, which had nothing to do with war either.
The counterfactual is that wars are immensely destructive. What might Europe have achieved had it avoided the devastation of two world wars ?
Just catching up on the funding cut for Latin in state schools. What a narrow minded policy. I learned Latin at a school and despite thinking it would never be useful it has helped me a lot with being able to firstly learn Italian and secondly with my understanding of European culture and history (including ours).
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
Substantive policy decisions will, in any event, be made by the government, not by the ambassador. Mandleson's job is to smooth the relationship with the US, not sabotage it; if he fails in that, he won't last long in post.
Nicko Henderson was the ambassador when my father worked at the DC embassy. According to him, Henderson ran his own completely autonomous foreign policy and often wouldn't even pick up the phone when King Charles Street was calling. He was a distressed purchase by Thatcher who had to appoint him in a tearing hurry when Heath told her to shove the job up her narrow arse.
NH was also a workaholic which was ill-matched to my father's overwhelming preference to spend his working day doing crosswords and perusing catalogues of model train bits.
Sad for all concerned Heath not wanting to go to the US. There was very little point in the loathsome liver-spotted sack of bile remaining in the Commons.
You didn’t like him? What did he do wrong?
You feel he did something right?
Putting country out of the misery of the 1960s Labour in government.
Decimalisation.
Getting the French to allow us to join EEC.
Getting Labour out was fine, but it didn't mean an awful lot in the days of the postwar consensus (as indeed it seems to mean little in these days of centrist consensus).
I regard getting us into the EEC as an unalloyed ill. We should never have joined. It was a distraction at best from the real issues of the British economy, held up as a panacea by dishonest politicians like Heath who had an ideological agenda - again much the same as today's politicians.
Decimalisation I'm fairly neutral on. Pre-decimal currency enforced numeracy.
My dad could do stuff like 'how much is five and three eights square yards of floor covering at seventeen shillings and seven pence halfpenny a square yard' in his head.
Five years is a Long time. The right don’t seem to get that. Appear to be still in election mode and not thinking strategically.
Nobody knows what the next election will bring. Can see almost any outcome.
Er, this is political betting. Our whole raison d’etre is making predictions, sometimes from absurdly long distances - geographical and temporal
Perhaps you’d be happier on nopoliticalbettingherethanks.com
Predicting what happens in an election four or five years away requires a tad more than looking at current polling or news cycles.
One only needs to see what’s happened in the last five years (since the week Johnson won a landslide), to think how crazy it must be to try and predict the next five!
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
It was more damaging for the EU than the UK. The loss of UK pragmatism and liberalism has led directly to the EU’s self defeating regulatory bonanza, destroying innovation and crushing flexibility
I don't know about more damaging but certainly damaging, I thought as much at the time of the Referendum. My Remain vote was informed by this. Sort of person I am. Holistic. Big picture.
One reason I voted Leave WAS to damage the EU. Fucking wankers with their “rerun that referendum til you get the right result” ethos. They even tried it on us. I am deeply proud that in the end the British said “Nah, fuck off, we’re democratic, we will respect the result of our referendum, we’re not doing an EU re-run like everyone else, we’re better than them”
I know. I have some of that in me too but it's outweighed by the better bits. I think I've said before it wasn't Leavers v Remainers as distinct boundaried individuals because all Leavers have some Remain in them and all Remainers have some Leave. The vote was in essence a weighing up of these two sides of our national brain chemistry, our character if you like, and it was the less enlightened side which narrowly but clearly prevailed. This is how I see it anyway, the EU Referendum of 2016. It's a good way of looking at it because (i) it's true and (ii) it gets away from personal bitterness and division.
Agree (except obviously I'd say the more enlightened side won). Almost nobody wanted to tow the UK into the mid-Atlantic and shut up the barriers (metaphorically). Almost nobody wanted to bend over and hand the EU the vaseline. It was all a question of degree. Most of politics can be seen this way. Everything is a balance of weighing up the options, everything is on a continuum. If you think something being done by government has no benefits whatsoever then you almost certainly haven't understood the issue properly. [Surely that is the case with Chagos?] Politics gets a lot less heated when you realise you are basically arguing over whether the amount of money the state spends should be 44% of GDP or 40% of GDP.
No. Chagos was a genuinely terrible decision made by seriously stupid people enabled by duplicitous anti-British wankers
I try not to allow nascent nationalistic fervour colour my view here, but I've been a bit stumped what the perceived advantages fo that whole deal were supposed to be, particularly given how things have developed.
At a pragmatic, practical level (which is how every other country seems to be playing it) did we get gain anything useful?
Not that I disagree with the basic premise about weighing up options and taking heat out of politics generally.
The advantage of the deal is that we stop being in breach of international law.
But how much does that actually get us? That's a moral argument, and no one else in this matter seems to care about the moral position or the Chagossians, certainly not Mauritius or the UK. It doesn't appear to have gained us any goodwill with any party, so sure, no longer a breach, but given for all sides this seems to just be a transactional matter, I'm not particularly fussed on the moral position.
I think it’s a good thing to uphold international law. The international rules-based order since World War II has done a relatively good job at maintaining peace and security compared to the first half of the 20th century or to the 19th century. I don’t think we win under the Strong Man approach to global politics of Putin, Trump and Netanyahu.
It is also the case that upholding international law conspicuously helps in international relations. It is difficult to criticise other countries, e.g. Russia, Israel, for breaking international law if we’re also breaking it. Other countries do cite such matters.
What a load of bollocks, from beginning to end
For a start, the 19th century, certainly after 1815, was a benign period for humanity, compared to what came before and after
"When viewed in terms of large-scale, Europe-wide or globally transformative wars between major powers, the 19th century (particularly from the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914) was generally more stable than the 18th century’s frequent dynastic conflicts and far less globally devastating than the industrialized and ideological cataclysms of the 20th century."
Pax Brittanica was a thing
The rest of your comment is on a similarly sophomoric level
Sophomhoric, perhaps.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one. https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
But the 19th century saw a huge rise in global population...
Around 60%.
But even in percentage terms, the 19th was considerably bloodier than the 18th. And of course, the 20th far bloodier still. I suppose you might argue that the end of Pax Britannica had something to do with that, but it's a bit of a stretch.
Ah, I see what you're doing, you're inciuding deaths from colonial and imperial conquest in the 19th century list. That's a bit devious. Those weren't deaths by war, they were an unfortunate by-product of the "mission civilisatrice" - as we exported freedom, capitalism, Christianity, democracy, human rights, the Westminster parliamentary system, clothing, cooked food, comprehensible speech, the flushing toilet, wheels, biscuits, chicken tikka masala, bakelite, Agatha Christie novels, feminism, lawn tennis, electricity, "running fast", advanced ergonomics, the condom, "having a bit of a sniffle", kettles, The Emancipation of Slaves, Victoria sponges, cloud identification, theatre, Ovaltine, a really good sit down, and, most of all, the mighty English language to largely grateful natives overseas, esp the Scots and Irish
Nice try. But yes, it was already quite clear from your first post that only some deaths were worth counting.
I've banged on about Reform and the red wall on and off for a while. The economy simply does not work for millions upon millions of voters. They find themselves stuck in dead towns surrounded by decay doing whatever work they can and never quite managing.
Labour have clearly failed them - hence the desperate vote for Brexit and then Boris. Hoping that something will change. The Tories made Big Promises and delivered nothing so have been eviscerated. The best weapon for said flaying was Labour, but as we've all touched on that vote is an ocean wide and a paddling pool deep.
Labour have joined the Tories on the naughty step, and it will be Reform who will benefit and benefit big.
Yup, exactly this and marries with my perception too.
Labour fail the Red Wall The Tories fail the Red Wall
Voters turn to Reform
The political classes - The voters are at fault.
To address this the main parties need to accept their failings and reach out to these areas and try to genuinely level up or just accept it is managed decline.
Labour *don't know how* to level up. The Tories have no interest in levelling up.
Reform will come in and offer simplistic bullshit which we may as well try say the voters as nothing else has worked.
This is why Reform’s message is so hard to counter. When you distrust Labour/Tories so much, as a regular voter on the street who feels ignored, why wouldn’t you give them a go?
Because the vast majority of voters aren’t as ignorant and stupid as you are making out. They know the difference between a slogan and an actual policy.
Reform vote will eventually be eaten up by the Conservatives, who are struggling to at moment as they shredded the parties long term vote winner for economic competence - but the process won’t be quick, and we’ll have to put up with several Labour governments before we get there.
Point of order - most people don't know how things work and don't care. They are by definition ignorant of it - just as I am ignorant about a vast number of things such as brain surgery.
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Point of order to point of order.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
Its a philosophical debate about direction of travel. My rationale is clear: 1) Labour will not be able to fix the systemic structural problems which have slowly broken our economy and for many our society 2) The time of income erosion is already measured in decades for so many voters 3) The Tories have trashed their reputation for a generation and continue along the wrong path with Her Wokewarness as leader 4) Farage is the only politician that many voters know. And when I say voters I mean the kind of voters who can deliver "that can't happen" results such as Brexit and the Johnson red wall landslide 5) Reform now have an ocean of cash and serious people organising them. They aren't the joke that Brexit and UKIP used to be 6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later 7) "Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters." Yes - and the WWC will never vote Tory. Oh that's right, until they did. Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.
The only way to fight populism is to Do Stuff. The Tories failed, Labour are failing. LibDems to indistinct and indirect to hone into One Message. Reform are led by the best agiprop politician of our age, funded by an ocean of cash and broadcast on social media...
I don't want to be right on this one. But will need serious persuasion that it isn't going to happen because it is happening right in front of us.
In a sense 'Doing Stuff' is not an option at the moment. We are well into a perfect storm of difficulty in maintaining what the state does now without expanding it into visibly doing even more stuff. The social democracy basics are expensive (and Reform resiles from none of them).
It is possible (I suppose) that a Reform government would work fine. I don't suppose we shall find out. What it could not do is deliver on its promises and costings without disaster - a slightly enlarged version of Labour's problem.
The key to better government than now that can fight populism is in: Competence, Explanation, Honesty and Transparency, Leadership and Clarity of Purpose, Humility, Quality of Communication.
These things are more or less free. It is years since a government operated this way. They should give it a try.
I can't see honesty and transparency going down well with the electorate in a situation where Doing Stuff is not an option. The last politician I remember being honest about something sub-optimal was a certain T. May in the 2017 election campaign, and see how that went for her...
Substantive policy decisions will, in any event, be made by the government, not by the ambassador. Mandleson's job is to smooth the relationship with the US, not sabotage it; if he fails in that, he won't last long in post.
Nicko Henderson was the ambassador when my father worked at the DC embassy. According to him, Henderson ran his own completely autonomous foreign policy and often wouldn't even pick up the phone when King Charles Street was calling. He was a distressed purchase by Thatcher who had to appoint him in a tearing hurry when Heath told her to shove the job up her narrow arse.
NH was also a workaholic which was ill-matched to my father's overwhelming preference to spend his working day doing crosswords and perusing catalogues of model train bits.
Sad for all concerned Heath not wanting to go to the US. There was very little point in the loathsome liver-spotted sack of bile remaining in the Commons.
You didn’t like him? What did he do wrong?
You feel he did something right?
Putting country out of the misery of the 1960s Labour in government.
Decimalisation.
Getting the French to allow us to join EEC.
Getting Labour out was fine, but it didn't mean an awful lot in the days of the postwar consensus (as indeed it seems to mean little in these days of centrist consensus).
I regard getting us into the EEC as an unalloyed ill. We should never have joined. It was a distraction at best from the real issues of the British economy, held up as a panacea by dishonest politicians like Heath who had an ideological agenda - again much the same as today's politicians.
Decimalisation I'm fairly neutral on. Pre-decimal currency enforced numeracy.
My dad could do stuff like 'how much is five and three eights square yards of floor covering at seventeen shillings and seven pence halfpenny a square yard' in his head.
Substantive policy decisions will, in any event, be made by the government, not by the ambassador. Mandleson's job is to smooth the relationship with the US, not sabotage it; if he fails in that, he won't last long in post.
Nicko Henderson was the ambassador when my father worked at the DC embassy. According to him, Henderson ran his own completely autonomous foreign policy and often wouldn't even pick up the phone when King Charles Street was calling. He was a distressed purchase by Thatcher who had to appoint him in a tearing hurry when Heath told her to shove the job up her narrow arse.
NH was also a workaholic which was ill-matched to my father's overwhelming preference to spend his working day doing crosswords and perusing catalogues of model train bits.
Sad for all concerned Heath not wanting to go to the US. There was very little point in the loathsome liver-spotted sack of bile remaining in the Commons.
You didn’t like him? What did he do wrong?
You feel he did something right?
Putting country out of the misery of the 1960s Labour in government.
Decimalisation.
Getting the French to allow us to join EEC.
Getting Labour out was fine, but it didn't mean an awful lot in the days of the postwar consensus (as indeed it seems to mean little in these days of centrist consensus).
I regard getting us into the EEC as an unalloyed ill. We should never have joined. It was a distraction at best from the real issues of the British economy, held up as a panacea by dishonest politicians like Heath who had an ideological agenda - again much the same as today's politicians.
Decimalisation I'm fairly neutral on. Pre-decimal currency enforced numeracy.
My dad could do stuff like 'how much is five and three eights square yards of floor covering at seventeen shillings and seven pence halfpenny a square yard' in his head.
Pff. Who can't do that? You just gotta break it down. Let me have a go
First, we should solve this step by step using our old British currency (where 12 pence = 1 shilling, and 20 shillings = 1 pound).
Now, let's convert 5⅜ to a decimal: 5 + 3/8 = 5.375 square yards The price is 17 shillings and 7½ pence per square yard
Converting to pence: (17 × 12) + 7.5 = 211.5 pence per square yard
Total price in pence: 5.375 × 211.5 = 1,136.8125 pence Converting back to pounds, shillings, and pence:
There are 240 pence in a pound (20 shillings × 12 pence) 1,136.8125 pence = 4 pounds, 14 shillings, 8.8125 pence Rounding to the nearest halfpenny: 4 pounds, 14 shillings, 9 pence
Therefore, five and three eighths square yards of floor covering at seventeen shillings and seven pence halfpenny per square yard costs £4/14/9 (4 pounds, 14 shillings, and 9 pence).
Going back on topic for a moment, even when the SNP were actively campaigning for independence, it was to keep "our" monarchy. I don't see how republicanism and independence are automatically linked.
Scotland is as broke as the rest of the UK. If independence or ditching the King or making Donald Trump the Laird would sort the economy, then people would support it. Instead - with the exception of the true believers - independence offers the opportunity for broke people to throw themselves off the cliff in the dark with the promise of a nice new net below them...
I think Scotland is significantly more broke than the rest of the country.
The biggest failure of the SNP at Holyrood is that they've made no progress on changing that. If they'd had a greater focus on attracting inward investment to Scotland for the past 17 years then they might have convinced a slice of the electorate that independence was a sensible option for escaping Britain's economic decline.
If it's Scotland's oil, it's also Scotland's abandonment obligations - to clear up the seabed and take away the platforms and detritus of oil extraction.
Five years is a Long time. The right don’t seem to get that. Appear to be still in election mode and not thinking strategically.
Nobody knows what the next election will bring. Can see almost any outcome.
Er, this is political betting. Our whole raison d’etre is making predictions, sometimes from absurdly long distances - geographical and temporal
Perhaps you’d be happier on nopoliticalbettingherethanks.com
Predicting what happens in an election four or five years away requires a tad more than looking at current polling or news cycles.
One only needs to see what’s happened in the last five years (since the week Johnson won a landslide), to think how crazy it must be to try and predict the next five!
tbf, five years ago this week the ultimate black swan event was just starting to come into sight across the horizon, with bno sign that it was going to send most of the world utterly barmy.
Comments
"They know the difference between an actual slogan and a policy". We have demonstrable proof that they don't. Get Brexit Done as a prime example.
This explains how Reform have been able to build so rapidly. People don't know how the economy works but they do understand they are broke. Reform come along with a simple explanation - your cash spent on asylum seekers - and seem to make sense.
As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.
Trump wants the world to look after itself, and Europeans can get fucked if they won't pay for their own defence
America is returning to isolationism, its policeman role is over and it doesn't care about "international rules" and it CERTAINLY ain't gonna pay to uphold them
It’s worth noting that international law, to a man like Philippe Sands, is merely a means to strike at a State that he detests. Like war, it’s a continuation of politics by other means.
Mentioning things like North Sea Oil, nearest refinery, other successfully industry in Scotland was a facile weakness for yes during the campaign, as it didn’t get near the suspected truth how Scottish economy is actually owned and organised.
If there is zilch in your pocket, you don’t have freedom, arguably.
The first was Britain, the second was America. Both were sufficiently strong to maintain world order, as that benefitted them (and the world) so they could freely trade. Yes France and other powers challenged Britain, as the USSR challenged the USA but these rival powers were still clearly inferior, allowing the hegemon to impose that peace
C'est tout
Of course, it’s not perfect and countries do, sometimes, not follow it to varying degrees. But what sort of world do you want? A world where most countries respect each others’ borders and foster trade, or more Putins?
There is as we speak a huge amount of US activity in any and every theatre you care to name, whether directly involved or not, and that won't change come 1/1/25. Which supports your final point, that I made earlier, that the US, as Top Nation, doesn't care about "international rules", whatever they are.
If they’re successful with that, they come back. If they’re not, voters either go back to the mainstream option or someone else offering solutions (populist left, anyone?)
Another one of his favourite lines (for me) is when he said he almost gave up sex because he kept thinking "how absurd I must look when I orgasm"
Though yes Shapiro or Buttigieg more likely
Yes, all else being equal, it's better to uphold the international law and the rules-based system than not. It makes Britain a more reliable partner. It helps reinforce international standards and, at the fringes, helps persuade those who might be thinking about breaking the rules not to - or to not do so as badly. The system overall helps keep standards higher and more known and consistent than they'd otherwise be. Both the framework overall and the specifics of it make resort to violence less likely.
But. All else is not equal. If we bind ourselves to a set of rules which others are ignoring, and gaining an advantage from ignoring, and if we commit to never break any of those rules then we risk handing important initiatives to hostile powers, particularly when international bodies that are supposed to uphold these values and adjudicate on them are themselves flawed.
And the rules-based order does not protect itself by its own shining example, or only to a degree. It would be folly (and a very blinkered view of history), to think the post-WW2 era - within the West anyway - was not underpinned by globally-decisive hard power. It was the ability to *impose* rules that was crucial, an ability which is fast waning - a fact that those who don't like the rules are now exploiting.
Personally, I'm not massively fussed about the Chagos deal, the substance of which keeps most of the status quo in place - or does so for a century, which is long enough. I don't, however, see any reason why Mauritius should get them, unless that's what the Chagossians themselves want.
Upholding international law is, literally, to the country's credit. However, if the cost of doing so in a specific example is greater, then it should not be done.
BTW, Trump is not a strong man. He would like to be seen as such but he is himself weak. He is a bully and, as such, it's regrettable that he's been placed in such a powerful position. But when it comes to using force internationally, he recoils because it scares him and those he'd be using it against scare him.
Reform vote is a “none of the above” vote during time of income erosion. As Bobby J said, no income erosion last few years, no shredding of economic competence that’s returned Tory government for most the last hundred years, no Reform vote at all, no 6.2 million Starmer majority in commons either. Simples.
The psephological evidence is opposite of what you claim. No other party lends votes to help Reform, not even Conservatives. Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters. Without that help, they can get nowhere in UK politics with current electoral system.
“As for being eaten by the Tories, its the opposite. The Tories are done.” That’s a keeper. Though probably for more than 10 years. 😕
Kamala................................................................................................................. not so much
We will see won't we...
You are stuck in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush era where you think that this means responding to a particular vendetta.
It doesn't, it means the world looks to you when events happen. As it will when they do. And the US will respond.
I'm sure @Dura can tell us current US warship and battle group deployments and they aren't all in Kentucky.
After all, almost everyone knows the name of Armstrong, and likely will do so way into the future, while all the politicians and funders and managers and engineers and the rest of the crew’s names are forgotten.
But your "benign period for humanity" requires a Euro-centric tunnel visioned proviso - "viewed in terms of...Europe-wide of globally transformative...", whatever that latter phrase means.
Viewed in terms of actual wars or deaths by violence, the 19th C globe was considerably bloodier than the preceding one.
https://necrometrics.com/wars19c.htm
Note this rough accounting doesn't even include the Dungan Revolt, which accounted for millions.
There are 2,000 US troops in Syria rn (an increase from previously). That doesn't sound hugely isolationist to me.
Braverman is all Reform getting for lunch, and I hope it goes down well!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/mark-esper-syria-kurds-turkey.html
We would lose far more by moving to a republic than we would be accepting the right of Scotland to be self determining.
1) Labour will not be able to fix the systemic structural problems which have slowly broken our economy and for many our society
2) The time of income erosion is already measured in decades for so many voters
3) The Tories have trashed their reputation for a generation and continue along the wrong path with Her Wokewarness as leader
4) Farage is the only politician that many voters know. And when I say voters I mean the kind of voters who can deliver "that can't happen" results such as Brexit and the Johnson red wall landslide
5) Reform now have an ocean of cash and serious people organising them. They aren't the joke that Brexit and UKIP used to be
6) "No other party lends its vote to Reform". Well, apart from all the former Tory and former Labour voters who vote for them. That number will only grow and grow btw, with further millions being disconnected from their former Tory and Labour votes to be picked up by Reform later
7) "Reform are distrusted, disliked, laughed at by the vast majority of UK voters." Yes - and the WWC will never vote Tory. Oh that's right, until they did. Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.
The only way to fight populism is to Do Stuff. The Tories failed, Labour are failing. LibDems to indistinct and indirect to hone into One Message. Reform are led by the best agiprop politician of our age, funded by an ocean of cash and broadcast on social media...
I don't want to be right on this one. But will need serious persuasion that it isn't going to happen because it is happening right in front of us.
Are we really in a situation of such disorder, or is the reality somewhere in the fuzzy middle (as is usually the case) ?
Even the former nutter who has just taken power in Syria appears to recognise the need to recognise some sort of international norms. if his government is to be recognised internationally, and if Syria is to attract the capital it needs to rebuild.
(I'd agree that there are potentially several smarter ways to handle the Chagos matter. Where it's not even particularly clear what the 'rules' are.)
Spain now has a centre right and hard right party campaigning together, under PR we would likely be the same. In Germany the CDU and AfD would have a majority on current polls, even if the CDU still won't touch them. Austria would also have a centre right and nationalist right majority if the centre right agreed.
In Canada Reform effectively took over the Tories under FPTP making harder right governments when the Conservatives took power again but that happened there when their Tories lost power which hasn't happened here yet. Either way Reform will drive the next right of centre government harder to the right, it is very unlikely the Tories can win a majority on their own again unless Reform disappear
But: Putin and Xi desperately desire an isolationist USA, so they can do their non-isolationist rubbish. Trump's rhetoric is music to their ears.
Sadly, isolationism doesn't work, especially when you are a world power.
https://www.rte.ie/news/middle-east/2024/1220/1487555-west-bank-gaza-report/
As also posted Yougov has backing for a republic about half what this poll had
This kind of anti-achievement measure is just what I've come to expect from Labour and I denying state school children the opportunity to learn Latin will make the nation a poorer place. There's just no room for excellence within state education under Labour, just mediocrity. It's not as though it even costs a lot of money, this is an ideological purge of learning that Labour stands against, allowing people to think for themselves might make them realise the government is full of shit.
As the Dodo said to the wife - “If these humans continue to be a problem we will peck them to death in the morning”.
Scotland is as broke as the rest of the UK. If independence or ditching the King or making Donald Trump the Laird would sort the economy, then people would support it. Instead - with the exception of the true believers - independence offers the opportunity for broke people to throw themselves off the cliff in the dark with the promise of a nice new net below them...
But even in percentage terms, the 19th was considerably bloodier than the 18th.
And of course, the 20th far bloodier still. I suppose you might argue that the end of Pax Britannica had something to do with that, but it's a bit of a stretch.
No. As economic and other credibility returns to Labour and Conservatives, support for policy non existent the “none of the above” option will shrink shrink shrink. They are in a voting block of one, created by the unusual situation of the most unprecedented credit crunch in history. When the GE comes, with just five seats and polling in single figures, Reform are not part of the equation which of the two parties do you want to win the election, and that will squeeze them still more next time, probably to zero seats.
“Don't presume to impose your prejudices onto the opinions of voters.”
I know you love politics, and I don’t want to be hurtful to anyone on earth, but imo you could do better at seeing the bigger picture and each moment set in historical context.
“It’s no big deal, no reason to big it up” is not what you tend to post - but in most political instances it’s probably right. As most voter decisions in elections are driven by the economics.
But simply as a bucket for everyone disenchanted at the established political parties’ failure to step up to the challenges of the age.
Which was precisely how the Italians landed up with Berlusconi. Which should be a lesson to us all - but probably won’t be. Until afterwards, of course.
The biggest failure of the SNP at Holyrood is that they've made no progress on changing that. If they'd had a greater focus on attracting inward investment to Scotland for the past 17 years then they might have convinced a slice of the electorate that independence was a sensible option for escaping Britain's economic decline.
but there is a very strong isolationist strain within his MAGA followers, which he panders to from time to time.
It will be interesting to see how the all the contradictions are resolved (or not) once he is in government.
It was just Heath decided as PM not to stop mostly Labour councils ending selection in their areas despite benefiting from a grammar school education himself and not to reverse the shift to comprehensive education started under Wilson
Reform are disliked by people who do well out of the current set up. Millions who do not to well think very differently about them,
Both Conservative Party and Reform are in their own separate blocks. They are in cannibal deathmatch with each other, not on course to coalition a government. The first and second preferences of last election result is 100% proof of this.
Block 1 Lab 33.7% - 412 seats; LibDem 12.2% - 72 seats; Green 6.7% - 4 seats.
Block 2 Conservatives 23.7% - 121 seats.
Block 3 Reform 14.3% - 5 seats.
Does this argument about the electoral system and need for 2nd prefs in FPTP not make any sense at all, not even with all the evidence of the 2024 General Election arithmetic laid out?
This is going to become “drink tank Friday” on PB, I can feel it.
As for Trump's "threats towards NATO", he is asking NATO countries to increase their defence spending to 3% of GDP. How on earth do you twist that into being "music to Putin's ears"?
Notable that you mention Heath as PM but not the then Education Secretary.
I regard getting us into the EEC as an unalloyed ill. We should never have joined. It was a distraction at best from the real issues of the British economy, held up as a panacea by dishonest politicians like Heath who had an ideological agenda - again much the same as today's politicians.
Decimalisation I'm fairly neutral on. Pre-decimal currency enforced numeracy.
I suppose if you count the conquest of the New World as a war, then that's sort of true for 1492 - the new S American foods allowing far higher calorific crop yields on other continents.
But the other huge advances which fed greater populations were the Haber/Bosch process - invented and perfected 1909/1910 - and Norman Borlaug's green revolution, which had nothing to do with war either.
The counterfactual is that wars are immensely destructive.
What might Europe have achieved had it avoided the devastation of two world wars ?
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html
It is possible (I suppose) that a Reform government would work fine. I don't suppose we shall find out. What it could not do is deliver on its promises and costings without disaster - a slightly enlarged version of Labour's problem.
The key to better government than now that can fight populism is in: Competence, Explanation, Honesty and Transparency, Leadership and Clarity of Purpose, Humility, Quality of Communication.
These things are more or less free. It is years since a government operated this way. They should give it a try.
Obviously, that's not to be done lightly because there will be consequences, both directly and in how other countries react. It certainly will be harder to encourage other states to keep to the rules if Britain breaks them in some place. That's a factor to be weighed in the decision to do so. But not all breaches are of equal gravity and not all are equally justified.
I wonder what else has gone:
In a statement to Schools Week, government added it has ceased funding for “a small number of subject-specific support programmes”, but it would not be drawn on which other schemes this covers.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/schools-face-significant-disruption-as-government-culls-latin-scheme/#:~:text=In a letter seen by,clause to end it earlier.
*cue: ominous technological music*
But yes, it was already quite clear from your first post that only some deaths were worth counting.
The 18th C guesstimate was calculated on the same basis, of course.
https://necrometrics.com/wars18c.htm
First, we should solve this step by step using our old British currency (where 12 pence = 1 shilling, and 20 shillings = 1 pound).
Now, let's convert 5⅜ to a decimal:
5 + 3/8 = 5.375 square yards
The price is 17 shillings and 7½ pence per square yard
Converting to pence: (17 × 12) + 7.5 = 211.5 pence per square yard
Total price in pence:
5.375 × 211.5 = 1,136.8125 pence
Converting back to pounds, shillings, and pence:
There are 240 pence in a pound (20 shillings × 12 pence)
1,136.8125 pence = 4 pounds, 14 shillings, 8.8125 pence
Rounding to the nearest halfpenny: 4 pounds, 14 shillings, 9 pence
Therefore, five and three eighths square yards of floor covering at seventeen shillings and seven pence halfpenny per square yard costs £4/14/9 (4 pounds, 14 shillings, and 9 pence).
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1870092008565489723?t=R2W2Mli4lSIcBspOlEp0aA&s=19