Here in deepest Leaverstan and one of the whitest corners of the country I've just spent 3 + hours in the town centre. Armistice Day and the day before Remembrance Sunday and perhaps 1 in 25 wearing a poppy to be generous. And of those 1 in 25 a huge number were at least 70 +. It does put the public Poppy fascism where every public figure has to wear a poppy at all times for the best part of a month into context. I popped to the short 10 minute Armistice Day service at our local Normandy Veterans Memorial. ( I'm not wearing a Poppy myself during the Brexit process as the country voted to betray post war reconciliation though I have bought one. ) It had been padded out this year with lots of Cadet Corps I suspect because it fell on a Saturday. There was a jarring but fascinating moment at the end. As usual attendees moved towards the plaque as soon as the formal service ended yo lay their own poppies. But this year the hyper and giggling Cadets pounced in order to pose for copious numbers of photos. All entirely well meaning but oblivious yo the fact they had blocked private laying and the usual attendees didn't know what to do. I couldn't make my mind up whether this was a welcome adaption to our new conflict free demographics or a sign it's time to wind most of these things down.
You now have to be 99 to have been even born in 1918 and 72 to have been born in 1945. All the First World War veterans are now dead and the number of Second World War veterans is getting fewer and fewer every year. Increasingly Remembrance Sunday and poppies commemorate the victims of all wars including the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and it was a nice tough to see both German and British military personnel carry a wreath at the England v Germany match yesterday.
The First World War and the Second World War were national wars, where almost everybody was on the same side.
The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were very much partisan wars, which a lot of the population was opposed to. It may be that a lot of people nowadays do not want to be associated with remembrance of those.
How many Falklanders were opposed to being liberated in their little "partisan war"?
I would certainly agree with regard to the 2003 Iraq war. Many British people do share my view that our Armed Forces were used as instruments of aggression - indeed instruments of evil.
It would be a disgrace to associate the valour and bravery of our fighting men with the questionable decisions of their political masters. By all means put Blair on trial, not the squaddie being commemorated for dying in a dugout because he was doing his job, honouring his oath and got unlucky.
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.
I don't disagree with you and wished no harm on our soldiers etc. At the same time, I strongly believe that the Iraqis had every right to defend themselves from an unprovoked attack. Blair remains a war criminal who has escaped justice.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
I'm not at all surprised that they signed up. People do, in an emergency.
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
I don't know anyone who would say the former.
In my experience (informed by living in Glasgow), there's a whole nexus of Help For Heroes, Armed Forces Day, poppifed Britishness, exemplified by this kind of thing.
Personally what I find most objectionable is the crass, virtue signalling, attention seeking vulgarity of it. The original concept of a modest, dignified commemoration for & by people who had been blasted (sometimes literally) by the experience of WWI seems to have been lost. I wouldn't be surprised if the white poppy is a reaction to that.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
I'm not at all surprised that they signed up. People do, in an emergency.
But there was - and remains to this day - a debate as to whether we were obliged to become involved. The politicians of the day made the decision, and it is reasonable to argue that those denied the franchise owed them no alleigance or deference.
I would certainly agree with regard to the 2003 Iraq war. Many British people do share my view that our Armed Forces were used as instruments of aggression - indeed instruments of evil.
It would be a disgrace to associate the valour and bravery of our fighting men with the questionable decisions of their political masters. By all means put Blair on trial, not the squaddie being commemorated for dying in a dugout because he was doing his job, honouring his oath and got unlucky.
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.
I don't disagree with you and wished no harm on our soldiers etc. At the same time, I strongly believe that the Iraqis had every right to defend themselves from an unprovoked attack. Blair remains a war criminal who has escaped justice.
We can simultaneously call for Blair’s trial for war crimes and stand together with those who lost family and friends in that war. As well as other wars.
Tomorrow is not a day to talk about the political impacts of war, it’s the day to doff our caps to those who left to join the fight but never came back.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
I would certainly agree with regard to the 2003 Iraq war. Many British people do share my view that our Armed Forces were used as instruments of aggression - indeed instruments of evil.
It would be a disgrace to associate the valour and bravery of our fighting men with the questionable decisions of their political masters. By all means put Blair on trial, not the squaddie being commemorated for dying in a dugout because he was doing his job, honouring his oath and got unlucky.
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.
I don't disagree with you and wished no harm on our soldiers etc. At the same time, I strongly believe that the Iraqis had every right to defend themselves from an unprovoked attack. Blair remains a war criminal who has escaped justice.
We can simultaneously call for Blair’s trial for war crimes and stand together with those who lost family and friends in that war. As well as other wars.
Tomorrow is not a day to talk about the political impacts of war, it’s the day to doff our caps to those who left to join the fight but never came back.
I see it as a day to remember all the victims of war - including the millions of civilians who perished in all corners of the world.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
"naieve and uneducated" is excellent. Well done!
The facts pretty well speak for themselves . Standards of lieracy were very basic indeed for the masses , and very few had the insight required to challenge authority.
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
I don't know anyone who would say the former.
In my experience (informed by living in Glasgow), there's a whole nexus of Help For Heroes, Armed Forces Day, poppifed Britishness, exemplified by this kind of thing.
Personally what I find most objectionable is the crass, virtue signalling, attention seeking vulgarity of it. The original concept of a modest, dignified commemoration for & by people who had been blasted (sometimes literally) by the experience of WWI seems to have been lost. I wouldn't be surprised if the white poppy is a reaction to that.
It's worth remembering how the Royal British Legion was founded - as a merger of the left-wing 'National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers and Sailors' and the right-wing 'Comrades of the Great War' that had been set up to counter it, after the government had squashed the NFDDSS for being too political - working with the trade union movement, protesting at the intervention in Russia etc. It's quite a sordid early history (depending on your viewpoint) - intended to bring the demobilised soldiers back into line, replace the democratic structure of the NFDDSS with one where ex-officers dominated, replace one that was making anti-imperialist noises with a loyal imperialist body etc.
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
I don't know anyone who would say the former.
In my experience (informed by living in Glasgow), there's a whole nexus of Help For Heroes, Armed Forces Day, poppifed Britishness, exemplified by this kind of thing.
Personally what I find most objectionable is the crass, virtue signalling, attention seeking vulgarity of it. The original concept of a modest, dignified commemoration for & by people who had been blasted (sometimes literally) by the experience of WWI seems to have been lost. I wouldn't be surprised if the white poppy is a reaction to that.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
I'm not at all surprised that they signed up. People do, in an emergency.
But there was - and remains to this day - a debate as to whether we were obliged to become involved. The politicians of the day made the decision, and it is reasonable to argue that those denied the franchise owed them no alleigance or deference.
The politicians made the decision, but there's no reason to believe the public did not support them. There have been plenty of wars in which people without the vote joined up in large numbers. Our view, that the vote is integral to citizenship, was not held in past centuries. That was why for so long, there was no secret ballot. It was considered fair for the non-voting majority to lobby people who had the franchise, in the same way that we'd lobby politicians.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
I'm not at all surprised that they signed up. People do, in an emergency.
In September 1914, so many signed up because they were told it would all be over by Christmas. The militaries of all the "Great Nations" were telling the politicians that, and the politicians were telling the people....
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
I don't know anyone who would say the former.
In my experience (informed by living in Glasgow), there's a whole nexus of Help For Heroes, Armed Forces Day, poppifed Britishness, exemplified by this kind of thing.
Personally what I find most objectionable is the crass, virtue signalling, attention seeking vulgarity of it. The original concept of a modest, dignified commemoration for & by people who had been blasted (sometimes literally) by the experience of WWI seems to have been lost. I wouldn't be surprised if the white poppy is a reaction to that.
There seems growing social pressure to wear a poppy of some colour. It's deplorable.
Reading Wiki, it says that originally the poppy was only worn on Remembrance Day itself. Oh for such stiff-upper-lipped reticence today.
In a century it will be Poppy Day, with Poppy Day presents and the Poppy Day Sales (at all good retailers - spending is patriotic!). We'll tell our children about the Youth Fairy, who steals away our sons in the night and leaves a poppy under his pillow.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
I'm not at all surprised that they signed up. People do, in an emergency.
But there was - and remains to this day - a debate as to whether we were obliged to become involved. The politicians of the day made the decision, and it is reasonable to argue that those denied the franchise owed them no alleigance or deference.
The politicians made the decision, but there's no reason to believe the public did not support them. There have been plenty of wars in which people without the vote joined up in large numbers. Our view, that the vote is integral to citizenship, was not held in past centuries. That was why for so long, there was no secret ballot. It was considered fair for the non-voting majority to lobby people who had the franchise, in the same way that we'd lobby politicians.
Earlier conflicts involved much smaller forces.It seems rather peverse that men denied the freedom to vote should be expected to fight for the freedom of others.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
"naieve and uneducated" is excellent. Well done!
Bertrand Russell wrote very well on this topic - there was some controversy a couple of years back from some historian who said people enjoyed the war, well Russell was saying that immediately. It was meeting people's best and worst emotional needs - to participate in a felt collective life, a great collective endeavour, and to let your natural aggression find an outlet. The psychoanalyst Ernest Jones wrote very well on this kind of thing during the war.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
I'm not at all surprised that they signed up. People do, in an emergency.
In September 1914, so many signed up because they were told it would all be over by Christmas. The militaries of all the "Great Nations" were telling the politicians that, and the politicians were telling the people....
'If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied.'
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
"naieve and uneducated" is excellent. Well done!
The facts pretty well speak for themselves . Standards of lieracy were very basic indeed for the masses , and very few had the insight required to challenge authority.
Sorry, I was making the frivolous point that naive is spelt thus, and "naieve and uneducated" is a bit self-subverting in much the same way as "Standards of lieracy".
Your point about the franchise is borne out by wikipedia: "The Cabinet were given a strong warning in September 1915 in a paper presented by their only Labour member, Minister of Education Arthur Henderson .[12] Many working men would strongly resist serving a nation in which they did not have a legitimate share in governing."
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
"naieve and uneducated" is excellent. Well done!
Bertrand Russell wrote very well on this topic - there was some controversy a couple of years back from some historian who said people enjoyed the war, well Russell was saying that immediately. It was meeting people's best and worst emotional needs - to participate in a felt collective life, a great collective endeavour, and to let your natural aggression find an outlet. The psychoanalyst Ernest Jones wrote very well on this kind of thing during the war.
Plenty of people enjoy warfare. And not all of them on the winning side. Many German soldiers found their time on the front far more enjoyable than subsequent civilian life.
I know this is hindsight , but the more I think about the matter the more surprised I am that the masses signed up so willingly at the outset of World War 1. We were in no meaningful sense a democracy at the time with half the adult male population denied the franchise. There was surely plenty of scope to mount an Anti-War campaign on the lines of 'If you haven't got a vote don't sign up!'. Unfortunately people were so naieve and uneducated at the time - most people left school at 13 - and so deferential to authority even though very much undeserved!
I'm not at all surprised that they signed up. People do, in an emergency.
In September 1914, so many signed up because they were told it would all be over by Christmas. The militaries of all the "Great Nations" were telling the politicians that, and the politicians were telling the people....
'If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied.'
The final stanza of the Flanders Fields poem (not ostensibly anti-war) has always struck me as creepy:
"Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields."
Roughly speaking: if you don't keep killing Germans we will come back and haunt you.
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
I don't know anyone who would say the former.
In my experience (informed by living in Glasgow), there's a whole nexus of Help For Heroes, Armed Forces Day, poppifed Britishness, exemplified by this kind of thing.
Personally what I find most objectionable is the crass, virtue signalling, attention seeking vulgarity of it. The original concept of a modest, dignified commemoration for & by people who had been blasted (sometimes literally) by the experience of WWI seems to have been lost. I wouldn't be surprised if the white poppy is a reaction to that.
There seems growing social pressure to wear a poppy of some colour. It's deplorable.
Reading Wiki, it says that originally the poppy was only worn on Remembrance Day itself. Oh for such stiff-upper-lipped reticence today.
In a century it will be Poppy Day, with Poppy Day presents and the Poppy Day Sales (at all good retailers - spending is patriotic!). We'll tell our children about the Youth Fairy, who steals away our sons in the night and leaves a poppy under his pillow.
I'd not seen that - however, some people being jingoistic does not alter what may be the public's general position. Ask any person on the street what the red poppy stands for, and I'd bet good money they would say that it commemorates people who died in war, and WW1 in particular. I don't think they would qualify it by saying 'oh, but not civilians'. Now, some might say 'commemorate British soldiers' but I'd put that down to linguistic carelessness than an active desire not to commemorate civilians or foreign dead, and if someone said it and was corrected 'Oh, and civilians and foreign soldier skilled too' would the response be 'Oh god no' or 'oh year, them too of course'?
I don't know anyone who would say the former.
In my experience (informed by living in Glasgow), there's a whole nexus of Help For Heroes, Armed Forces Day, poppifed Britishness, exemplified by this kind of thing.
Personally what I find most objectionable is the crass, virtue signalling, attention seeking vulgarity of it. The original concept of a modest, dignified commemoration for & by people who had been blasted (sometimes literally) by the experience of WWI seems to have been lost. I wouldn't be surprised if the white poppy is a reaction to that.
There seems growing social pressure to wear a poppy of some colour. It's deplorable.
Reading Wiki, it says that originally the poppy was only worn on Remembrance Day itself. Oh for such stiff-upper-lipped reticence today.
In a century it will be Poppy Day, with Poppy Day presents and the Poppy Day Sales (at all good retailers - spending is patriotic!). We'll tell our children about the Youth Fairy, who steals away our sons in the night and leaves a poppy under his pillow.
The PB Brexiteer mood seems to be swinging against Free Trade and towards protectionism and import substitution.
Free Trade is very much a two edged sword, and tends to be best used by those with the muscle to use it. In the 19th century we had that muscle, but now?
import substitution isnt protectionism
it's simply building things at home instead of importing them
You're assuming we can do a one-for-one substitution at the same cost. I'm assuming we can't do that (because if we could do that, we would already be doing it). There is also the fact that the UK is lacking in many resources for which we do not have any internal replacements.
Replacing existing goods and services with ones that are more expensive, more difficult to source, and/or less useful is better known as "wealth destruction". The UK future you outline will be poorer and with less choice. Your comments (and @another_richard 's) indicate that the UK is forgetting all the hard-won lessons from the seventies and eighties.
Yet over the last decade the government has borrowed over a trillion quid and in 2016 the UK had its highest current account deficit on record.
And we have have a decade of stagnant productivity and wages and 15 years of falling home ownership.
Borrowing ourselves into future poverty in order to pay for excess consumption in the present indicates that the UK has forgotten all the hard won lessons of reality.
I agree with you, and would date the problem back to when Labour abandoned shadowing Conservative spending plans in ~2001, and spent out of a incipient recession in ~2004 (and when CDO's started to be used as collateral for mortgages in the early Noughties, but that's another conversation). But Brexit will not cure these problems, and the fact we at focussing our efforts on it, rather than that, gives me pause.
How do you know Brexit wont help cure those problems ?
The process has already given a boost to UK industrial production and tourism.
As we've had two decades of not focussing on the problems and on contrary steadily making them worse I don't see any likelihood that the establishment would have done anything in the future either.
Comments
You aren't half a right-on twat some times...
There seems growing social pressure to wear a poppy of some colour. It's deplorable.
Tomorrow is not a day to talk about the political impacts of war, it’s the day to doff our caps to those who left to join the fight but never came back.
Tell them, because our fathers lied.'
Your point about the franchise is borne out by wikipedia: "The Cabinet were given a strong warning in September 1915 in a paper presented by their only Labour member, Minister of Education Arthur Henderson .[12] Many working men would strongly resist serving a nation in which they did not have a legitimate share in governing."
"Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields."
Roughly speaking: if you don't keep killing Germans we will come back and haunt you.
New Thread
The process has already given a boost to UK industrial production and tourism.
As we've had two decades of not focussing on the problems and on contrary steadily making them worse I don't see any likelihood that the establishment would have done anything in the future either.