A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
I think it depends on how it is handled, and whether you look at the short-term or long-term. A crash-out no-deal Brexit handled sensibly and with a firm plan need not be disastrous. One handled by emotional children throwing strops could be disastrous.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
Well, Brexit isn't akin to the Second World War for goodness' sake, so I think we can take some of the more disastrous scenarios out of the game.
Taking your list for granted (others will doubtless pick the order apart a bit) I'd put it somewhere below the General Strike. What finally transpires might be significantly disruptive or it might all be a bit of a damp squib, but all the panic about mass hospital deaths and civil unrest that's been circulating recently is nonsense.
I agree in some ways - I think a glorious last-minute fudge is still a distinct possibility but if we genuinely do have a No Deal crash I can't see it being a damp squib (sadly).
There is clearly a huge gap between the crisis that faced the country in 1940 and whatever crisis we feel is the next most severe.
I suspect you don't live up to your name, as you don't include the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. I went to bed for a couple of nights wondering if anyone would be alive in the morning. It may have been short-lived but so could the world have been.
By comparison, everything else seems a little parochial, although I can't vouch for the more antique events.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
You missed the immediate post-WWI crash, from '19-'21, which has lapsed from the national consciousness.
I don't know where to place it exactly, but the recognition that the sun had set on the British Empire had a profound effect on my parent's generation.
It's certainly lapsed from my consciousness. Having quickly googled it, I agree it should probably be in the top 10 somewhere maybe at 8 or 9. The 1920s were really shit economically weren't they!
I suspect you don't live up to your name, as you don't include the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. I went to bed for a couple of nights wondering if anyone would be alive in the morning. It may have been short-lived but so could the world have been.
By comparison, everything else seems a little parochial, although I can't vouch for the more antique events.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was in my list of also-rans on the basis that it didn't (thankfully) have a massive impact. If it had we wouldn't be here to be talking about it!
It didn't seem that major to me but I was only 2 at the time.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
I think it depends on how it is handled, and whether you look at the short-term or long-term. A crash-out no-deal Brexit handled sensibly and with a firm plan need not be disastrous. One handled by emotional children throwing strops could be disastrous.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
You missed the immediate post-WWI crash, from '19-'21, which has lapsed from the national consciousness.
I don't know where to place it exactly, but the recognition that the sun had set on the British Empire had a profound effect on my parent's generation.
It's certainly lapsed from my consciousness. Having quickly googled it, I agree it should probably be in the top 10 somewhere maybe at 8 or 9. The 1920s were really shit economically weren't they!
We had serious deflation, which exacerbated the pain - don't just go off the headline GDP shrinkage.
People have mentioned the Cuban missile crisis (I was a toddler so *woosh*), but we should probably mention the Yom Kippur war. There was (briefly) a real chance that US troops would be going into combat against the Sovs. It's another of those lapsed consciousness things, but I remember being a very frightened 13 year old.
Based on the latest IMF report, I expect a no deal Brexit to have a similar impact to the '73 oil shock recession i.e. pretty fecking nasty.
I suspect you don't live up to your name, as you don't include the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. I went to bed for a couple of nights wondering if anyone would be alive in the morning. It may have been short-lived but so could the world have been.
By comparison, everything else seems a little parochial, although I can't vouch for the more antique events.
Correct: 1962 is before my time.
I remember reading, around the time the Steven Hawking biopic came out, that a lot of students in the 60s lived very much for the moment, because they thought there was a good chance of a nuclear war breaking out and everyone dying. Actually, I guess that would probably be around the same time as the missile crisis.
"I expect a no deal Brexit to have a similar impact to the '73 oil shock recession i.e. pretty fecking nasty."
I remember queuing for petrol but there was a lot of economic uncertainty at the time, and it fades into the general background. Hardly an extinction event, but a nuisance for sure.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
You missed the immediate post-WWI crash, from '19-'21, which has lapsed from the national consciousness.
I don't know where to place it exactly, but the recognition that the sun had set on the British Empire had a profound effect on my parent's generation.
It's certainly lapsed from my consciousness. Having quickly googled it, I agree it should probably be in the top 10 somewhere maybe at 8 or 9. The 1920s were really shit economically weren't they!
We had serious deflation, which exacerbated the pain - don't just go off the headline GDP shrinkage.
People have mentioned the Cuban missile crisis (I was a toddler so *woosh*), but we should probably mention the Yom Kippur war. There was (briefly) a real chance that US troops would be going into combat against the Sovs. It's another of those lapsed consciousness things, but I remember being a very frightened 13 year old.
Based on the latest IMF report, I expect a no deal Brexit to have a similar impact to the '73 oil shock recession i.e. pretty fecking nasty.
Depends if they're actually anywhere near accurate this time. The recession we were meant to have had last year never materialised for starters.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
Chanak 1922 Korea 1950
I'll confess I had overlooked these two but on reflection, I can't see either quite making my top 10 list.
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
From a UK-centric view, I suspect China in the 1930s was a non-event, but I'm glad I wasn't there. As for the USSR Famines. And Armenia was best avoided post 1918.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
Chanak 1922 Korea 1950
I'll confess I had overlooked these two but on reflection, I can't see either quite making my top 10 list.
In terms of the utter chaos it wrought - at one stage it looked as though Britain might be left without any sort of government - and the lasting changes it led to in international diplomacy and the British Empire, Chanak probably ranks above Suez, although the short term economic consequences were less severe.
I would certainly put Korea above Black Wednesday.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
Chanak 1922 Korea 1950
I'll confess I had overlooked these two but on reflection, I can't see either quite making my top 10 list.
Diana 97 - Top of the list right!
Edit: Southgate 96 - was a bit of a tough time as well. Special mention for Seaman 02.
I think you are getting confused between living in a country and having some form of claim on the land to form your own country.
Firstly the windrush generation are British, so it is like a person from Wales moving to England. British people moved to a part of Britain.
Secondly the local population were not in control of their immigration policies, the immigration was forced on them, they did not get a say in it.
Thirdly they were from all different dates they did not all suddenly move in in 1891, so the vast majority of them had not been there the length of time the Windrush generation had been here. Using your model the thousands of recent foreign that turned up just before partition somehow deserved the land from those that have lived there for many generations.
TBH I think the EDL would more likely make the slip up about thinking the windrush generation were not British to begin with and I think you will find it would be more than just the EDL that would have a problem if tens of millions (to match equivalent immigration to existing population in Palestine) of Muslim immigrants were coming to Britain to set up a country here. Don't worry though a very small percentage of the eventual Muslim population will have been here as long as Windrush so there is no reason to fight back because that would make us the aggressors and at fault.
I think anyone legally living in a country has some form of claim on the land, because of self-determination. Denying migrants rights is not appropriate.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
From a UK-centric view, I suspect China in the 1930s was a non-event, but I'm glad I wasn't there. As for the USSR Famines. And Armenia was best avoided post 1918.
So I suppose we are being parochial.
Well I did ask: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
I accept that timescale, so you must agree that Brexitism is a recent phenomenon as Euroscepticism morphed into Euro-rejectionism.
Perhaps the Tory with the most culpability for it is Michael Gove. This was 2012.
Giving the people what is wanted shouldn’t be talked about in terms of culpability.
No form of Brexit that is actually deliverable could command majority support. People don't want it.
No form of Remain that is actually deliverable could command majority support. People don't want it. Even when those in power were campaining for Remain no form was offered.
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
Interesting read for you, because you can read it. It's behind a paywall, so rather than provide a link could please you provide the verbatim text
From a UK-centric view, I suspect China in the 1930s was a non-event, but I'm glad I wasn't there. As for the USSR Famines. And Armenia was best avoided post 1918.
So I suppose we are being parochial.
Well I did ask: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
(Without the underline originally.)
In your list of also rans, thinking of the Soviet Union, ARCOS 1927 was a significant event. However, the main significance of it was felt in the Soviet Union, where it was the event that saw Trotsky expelled from the Communist party clearing the way for Stalin to assume total power.
The Irish War of Independence (1919-21) probably ought to be in there somewhere as well.
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
Interesting read for you, because you can read it. It's behind a paywall, so rather than provide a link could please you provide the verbatim text
OGH has asked us not to do that in the past - Times Newspapers sent him threatening letters for breach of copyright.
I accept that timescale, so you must agree that Brexitism is a recent phenomenon as Euroscepticism morphed into Euro-rejectionism.
Perhaps the Tory with the most culpability for it is Michael Gove. This was 2012.
Giving the people what is wanted shouldn’t be talked about in terms of culpability.
No form of Brexit that is actually deliverable could command majority support. People don't want it.
No form of Remain that is actually deliverable could command majority support. People don't want it. Even when those in power were campaining for Remain no form was offered.
Remain almost won a majority when set against a fantasy. It will surely come out on top when set against a specific alternative.
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
Interesting read for you, because you can read it. It's behind a paywall, so rather than provide a link could please you provide the verbatim text
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
Also they put up Owen Smith as a candidate. What a mistake that was.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
Chanak 1922 Korea 1950
I'll confess I had overlooked these two but on reflection, I can't see either quite making my top 10 list.
In terms of the utter chaos it wrought - at one stage it looked as though Britain might be left without any sort of government - and the lasting changes it led to in international diplomacy and the British Empire, Chanak probably ranks above Suez, although the short term economic consequences were less severe.
I would certainly put Korea above Black Wednesday.
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
Interesting read for you, because you can read it. It's behind a paywall, so rather than provide a link could please you provide the verbatim text
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
I think it depends on how it is handled, and whether you look at the short-term or long-term. A crash-out no-deal Brexit handled sensibly and with a firm plan need not be disastrous. One handled by emotional children throwing strops could be disastrous.
I agree. Hence, I think it will be disastrous.
Sadly, I think you are right. The Brexit 'negotiations' so far (within the Conservative Party, yet alone with the EU) do not bode well.
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
Interesting read for you, because you can read it. It's behind a paywall, so rather than provide a link could please you provide the verbatim text
That's an illegal breach of copyright.
Surely a tort, rather than illegal?
Surely it's both? It's illegal because of tort rather than criminal law but either way illegal.
Edit IANAL though so curious if a lawyer could clarify.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
You missed the immediate post-WWI crash, from '19-'21, which has lapsed from the national consciousness.
I don't know where to place it exactly, but the recognition that the sun had set on the British Empire had a profound effect on my parent's generation.
It's certainly lapsed from my consciousness. Having quickly googled it, I agree it should probably be in the top 10 somewhere maybe at 8 or 9. The 1920s were really shit economically weren't they!
The UK did much better during the 1930s but in popular imagination they are thought of as a terrible decade.
1979 was a real crisis year having the Iranian revolution, oil prices tripling, the world plunging into recession and then as a Christmas present the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
I think anyone legally living in a country has some form of claim on the land, because of self-determination. Denying migrants rights is not appropriate.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
We are not talking about self determination in another country, we are talking about taking land from the country you move to to form your own country.
Yeah they sorta migrated to a different part of Britain.
They weren't moving to their homeland, Israel didn't exist before Israel was created. They were foreign people immigrating to Palestine, this doesn't give them the right to steal land off people living there for generations when they turn up.
Anymore than you would accept millions of Saudi's moving here to Britain (against our will) and then suddenly taking great swathes of Britain on the basis that millions of them have moved here, you can keep circling around with the logic but you can't escape the fact you have to steal land of people that have lived there for generations to give it to foreign immigrants who have just arrived.
Which is basically called war. Which would cause any country to fight back, the British, the Americans, the French nobody would have accepted that, anyone would have fought back against foreign people stealing their land.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
You missed the immediate post-WWI crash, from '19-'21, which has lapsed from the national consciousness.
I don't know where to place it exactly, but the recognition that the sun had set on the British Empire had a profound effect on my parent's generation.
It's certainly lapsed from my consciousness. Having quickly googled it, I agree it should probably be in the top 10 somewhere maybe at 8 or 9. The 1920s were really shit economically weren't they!
The UK did much better during the 1930s but in popular imagination they are thought of as a terrible decade.
1979 was a real crisis year having the Iranian revolution, oil prices tripling, the world plunging into recession and then as a Christmas present the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
With the UK having also the winter of discontent.
I would not argue that the UK did better in the 1930s than the 1920s. Very much the reverse.
On the other hand, the UK did much better in the 1930s than most comparable economies, especially in terms of unemployment although the picture was very uneven and regional - in Jarrow two-thirds were out of work, in Oxford there were labour shortages. House building and energy generation were also major successes. Amazingly, more houses were built in the ten years before the war than in the ten years after it.
I accept that timescale, so you must agree that Brexitism is a recent phenomenon as Euroscepticism morphed into Euro-rejectionism.
Perhaps the Tory with the most culpability for it is Michael Gove. This was 2012.
Giving the people what is wanted shouldn’t be talked about in terms of culpability.
No form of Brexit that is actually deliverable could command majority support. People don't want it.
No form of Remain that is actually deliverable could command majority support. People don't want it. Even when those in power were campaining for Remain no form was offered.
Remain almost won a majority when set against a fantasy. It will surely come out on top when set against a specific alternative.
Being deliberately vague about Remain while talking in fantastic terms about what would happen as soon as we voted to Leave didn't work well last time.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
I think it depends on how it is handled, and whether you look at the short-term or long-term. A crash-out no-deal Brexit handled sensibly and with a firm plan need not be disastrous. One handled by emotional children throwing strops could be disastrous.
I agree. Hence, I think it will be disastrous.
Sadly, I think you are right. The Brexit 'negotiations' so far (within the Conservative Party, yet alone with the EU) do not bode well.
An interesting theory here on why our politicians are now so poor at negotiating:
I think you are getting confused between living in a country and having some form of claim on the land to form your own country.
Firstly the windrush generation are British, so it is like a person from Wales moving to England. British people moved to a part of Britain.
Secondly the local population were not in control of their immigration policies, the immigration was forced on them, they did not get a say in it.
Thirdly they were from all different dates they did not all suddenly move in in 1891, so the vast majority of them had not been there the length of time the Windrush generation had been here. Using your model the thousands of recent foreign that turned up just before partition somehow deserved the land from those that have lived there for many generations.
TBH I think the EDL would more likely make the slip up about thinking the windrush generation were not British to begin with and I think you will find it would be more than just the EDL that would have a problem if tens of millions (to match equivalent immigration to existing population in Palestine) of Muslim immigrants were coming to Britain to set up a country here. Don't worry though a very small percentage of the eventual Muslim population will have been here as long as Windrush so there is no reason to fight back because that would make us the aggressors and at fault.
I think anyone legally living in a country has some form of claim on the land, because of self-determination. Denying migrants rights is not appropriate.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
A question for a wet Sunday evening: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Anyhow, I could see No Deal Brexit hitting 3rd or 4th on this list, maybe even 2nd.
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
Chanak 1922 Korea 1950
I'll confess I had overlooked these two but on reflection, I can't see either quite making my top 10 list.
Diana 97 - Top of the list right!
Edit: Southgate 96 - was a bit of a tough time as well. Special mention for Seaman 02.
Haha!
Next time someone (SeanT probably) rolls out the "...Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo, Dunkirk, the Blitz - Britain can handle it!" trope, I need to remind him/her that that Britain was replaced sometime after 1945 by the one that turned to mush and jelly when Diana met her sad end; a Britain that descends into chaos whenever there's an inch of snow.
Here’s my top 10 post-WW1 UK crises list, in order of severity based on a purely personal subjective assessment of the impact of each on the well-being, economy, reputation, and political life of the country:
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
You missed the immediate post-WWI crash, from '19-'21, which has lapsed from the national consciousness.
I don't know where to place it exactly, but the recognition that the sun had set on the British Empire had a profound effect on my parent's generation.
It's certainly lapsed from my consciousness. Having quickly googled it, I agree it should probably be in the top 10 somewhere maybe at 8 or 9. The 1920s were really shit economically weren't they!
The UK did much better during the 1930s but in popular imagination they are thought of as a terrible decade.
1979 was a real crisis year having the Iranian revolution, oil prices tripling, the world plunging into recession and then as a Christmas present the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
With the UK having also the winter of discontent.
I would not argue that the UK did better in the 1930s than the 1920s. Very much the reverse.
On the other hand, the UK did much better in the 1930s than most comparable economies, especially in terms of unemployment although the picture was very uneven and regional - in Jarrow two-thirds were out of work, in Oxford there were labour shortages. House building and energy generation were also major successes. Amazingly, more houses were built in the ten years before the war than in the ten years after it.
One reason why the UK did better than other countries during the 1930s was because the 1920s were so bad - no 'roaring twenties' in the UK.
This suggests that 1919-21 was much worse than 1930-31:
And as you say there was a lot achieved in the 1930s in housing and energy generation. And I would add cars, places, electrical goods etc plus new technologies developed from TV to radar.
Year* Crisis 1940 Norway, Fall of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz 1929 Great Depression 1956 Suez Crisis 1974 Three-day week 1938 Munich 1942 Fall of Singapore 1926 General Strike 2007 Global Financial Crisis 1976 IMF loan 1992 Black Wednesday (* Start year for those which lasted more than a year)
Others which didn’t quite make my top 10 include: Black Monday, the Iraq War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ulster Troubles, the Falklands, the Abdication crisis. What have I missed? Or misplaced?
Devout Leavers will no doubt not expect it to make the list at all - dream on suckers!
You missed the immediate post-WWI crash, from '19-'21, which has lapsed from the national consciousness.
I don't know where to place it exactly, but the recognition that the sun had set on the British Empire had a profound effect on my parent's generation.
It's certainly lapsed from my consciousness. Having quickly googled it, I agree it should probably be in the top 10 somewhere maybe at 8 or 9. The 1920s were really shit economically weren't they!
The UK did much better during the 1930s but in popular imagination they are thought of as a terrible decade.
1979 was a real crisis year having the Iranian revolution, oil prices tripling, the world plunging into recession and then as a Christmas present the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
With the UK having also the winter of discontent.
I would not argue that the UK did better in the 1930s than the 1920s. Very much the reverse.
On the other hand, the UK did much better in the 1930s than most comparable economies, especially in terms of unemployment although the picture was very uneven and regional - in Jarrow two-thirds were out of work, in Oxford there were labour shortages. House building and energy generation were also major successes. Amazingly, more houses were built in the ten years before the war than in the ten years after it.
One reason why the UK did better than other countries during the 1930s was because the 1920s were so bad - no 'roaring twenties' in the UK.
This suggests that 1919-21 was much worse than 1930-31:
And as you say there was a lot achieved in the 1930s in housing and energy generation. And I would add cars, places, electrical goods etc plus new technologies developed from TV to radar.
Also, when did all the roads get asphalted? Can you imagine how hard that would be if we tried to start it now?
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
It is very wrong. But if you believe that, you have to criticise it everywhere it has occurred (and everywhere where forced population movements (or 'encouraged' ones) occur to this day), or ask yourself why one case matters more to you than others.
Besides, talks about the past are somewhat unhelpful. We have to deal with where we are now if we are to progress.
But Jezza and many of his supporters evidently aren't interested in progress or peace.
I think you are getting confused between living in a country and having some form of claim on the land to form your own country.
Firstly the windrush generation are British, so it is like a person from Wales moving to England. British people moved to a part of Britain.
Secondly the local population were not in control of their immigration policies, the immigration was forced on them, they did not get a say in it.
Thirdly they were from all different dates they did not all suddenly move in in 1891, so the vast majority of them had not been there the length of time the Windrush generation had been here. Using your model the thousands of recent foreign that turned up just before partition somehow deserved the land from those that have lived there for many generations.
TBH I think the EDL would more likely make the slip up about thinking the windrush generation were not British to begin with and I think you will find it would be more than just the EDL that would have a problem if tens of millions (to match equivalent immigration to existing population in Palestine) of Muslim immigrants were coming to Britain to set up a country here. Don't worry though a very small percentage of the eventual Muslim population will have been here as long as Windrush so there is no reason to fight back because that would make us the aggressors and at fault.
I think anyone legally living in a country has some form of claim on the land, because of self-determination. Denying migrants rights is not appropriate.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
These are often the same PBers who rail so loudly about the prospect in the UK of nationalisation or the compulsory right to buy for private tenants, squealing about 'theft by the state' or somesuch.
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
Interesting read for you, because you can read it. It's behind a paywall, so rather than provide a link could please you provide the verbatim text
I shall try and provide an incredibly basic summary... (What are the rules on that?)
Basically what do Corbyn sceptics want?
To replace Corbyn as dominant left force.
Stay and fight involves giving fealty to the leader, which some can't do.
So split is the obvious option.
That's it. I guess that makes sense from its only a matter of time point of view, a good few are just unhappy and complaining constantly anyway, that probably can't go on forever (for most of them they wouldn't want it too) now there's a big chance come the next election they probably don't want to help Corbyn become PM.
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
Also they put up Owen Smith as a candidate. What a mistake that was.
Haha, I feel a little sorry for Owen, I guess he is really ambitious and saw his chance but the big guns decided it would be a good leadership contest to sit out and he or Eagle was the sacrificial lamb IMO. Some mistakes aside he did handle the negativity aimed at him quite well, probably not for other people but he gained a little credit with me for his performance under the negativity.
And as you say there was a lot achieved in the 1930s in housing and energy generation. And I would add cars, places, electrical goods etc plus new technologies developed from TV to radar.
There were weaknesses in some key industries, although that was more to do with the after-effects of the war and U-boat blockade than the recession which was quite short and sharp. There was a lack of capital (also due to the after effects of the war) to modernise these key industries as well which is one reason why they were uncompetitive. Notable sufferers were coal, steel, cotton, copper, tinplate and shipbuilding. But there were also new industries growing rapidly, especially cars, radios and electricity. The City also had some of its best years in the 1920s.
Your reference to the 'roaring twenties' is more complex and problematic. I haven't time to go into it here, but suffice to say that no country experienced unmitigated good times in the twenties the way most did for most of the time in the fifties. In America, for example, the wealthy urban elites did well out of shares, but there was a severe recession in agriculture and associated industries which caused very serious poverty and built huge structural imbalances in the overall economy that unwound with devastating effect in 1929-32. Similarly there was a very advanced party scene in London which would have happily described itself as the 'Roaring Twenties.'
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
If he accepts the IHRA definition then moderates will make claims of anti-semitism against many of his supporters.
Now, it could be argued that this doesn't matter as Corbyn supporters control the NEC and disciplinary process.
But here's the point - if the above claims are dismissed could the complainants challenge these decisions in the Courts - and if the Party's rules incorporate the IHRA definition then that will be the test - making Judges likely to rule in favour of the complainants - leading to a whole host of Corbyn supporters having to be suspended / expelled by order of the Courts.
Also, when did all the roads get asphalted? Can you imagine how hard that would be if we tried to start it now?
Going off on a tangent, what is also interesting is why some 'historic' roads were asphalted and others were not. As an example, there is one about a mile away from me that still exists as a right-of-way, and has existed for centuries, that was never asphalted. And it would have made a useful link.
ISTR there are stretches of the Ermine Street Roman road in Lincolnshire (near Byard's Leap) that are unpaved and still a right of way, between two paved public sections. Why wasn't it paved?
I think anyone legally living in a country has some form of claim on the land, because of self-determination. Denying migrants rights is not appropriate.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
We are not talking about self determination in another country, we are talking about taking land from the country you move to to form your own country.
Yeah they sorta migrated to a different part of Britain.
They weren't moving to their homeland, Israel didn't exist before Israel was created. They were foreign people immigrating to Palestine, this doesn't give them the right to steal land off people living there for generations when they turn up.
Anymore than you would accept millions of Saudi's moving here to Britain (against our will) and then suddenly taking great swathes of Britain on the basis that millions of them have moved here, you can keep circling around with the logic but you can't escape the fact you have to steal land of people that have lived there for generations to give it to foreign immigrants who have just arrived.
Which is basically called war. Which would cause any country to fight back, the British, the Americans, the French nobody would have accepted that, anyone would have fought back against foreign people stealing their land.
No we are not talking about taking land from another country as there was no country there! You said that yourself earlier. You keep using the aggressive word steal but nothing was stolen they freely and lawfully migrated there as was permitted. Stealing is unlawful and there was no unlawful act committed. This was another era before today's era of much more controlled migration and countries etc
If people didn't want Jews to return to Israel the time to prevent that was before 1948. It happened legally and the only legitimate way to partition the land in 1948 is based on who lives there in 1948.
If he accepts the IHRA definition then moderates will make claims of anti-semitism against many of his supporters.
Now, it could be argued that this doesn't matter as Corbyn supporters control the NEC and disciplinary process.
But here's the point - if the above claims are dismissed could the complainants challenge these decisions in the Courts - and if the Party's rules incorporate the IHRA definition then that will be the test - making Judges likely to rule in favour of the complainants - leading to a whole host of Corbyn supporters having to be suspended / expelled by order of the Courts.
Or, given the video doing the rounds this morning, Corbyn himself.
If he accepts the IHRA definition then moderates will make claims of anti-semitism against many of his supporters.
Now, it could be argued that this doesn't matter as Corbyn supporters control the NEC and disciplinary process.
But here's the point - if the above claims are dismissed could the complainants challenge these decisions in the Courts - and if the Party's rules incorporate the IHRA definition then that will be the test - making Judges likely to rule in favour of the complainants - leading to a whole host of Corbyn supporters having to be suspended / expelled by order of the Courts.
But they don't have any problems with antisemitism so it is all hypothetical and unlikely to be tested...right?
Also, when did all the roads get asphalted? Can you imagine how hard that would be if we tried to start it now?
That started in the 1930s. In fact the first one to be fully resurfaced was bizarrely the road from Kirkcudbright to Newtown Stewart (of all faintly unlikely places to choose) in 1932. But please remember until the 1960s a very large majority of roads were single track, so there was still an enormous road-building and improvement programme even outside the motorway networks.
It was a colossal undertaking - the great untold (so far as I know) story of civil engineering is the vast expansion of Britain's road network in a mere forty-five years of intensive construction. And not just the roads but the infrastructure to go with them. Imagine living in a country where the longest road bridge was the Clifton Bridge (I think - very slightly longer than the Menai Bridge) and there were no significant road tunnels.
And as you say there was a lot achieved in the 1930s in housing and energy generation. And I would add cars, places, electrical goods etc plus new technologies developed from TV to radar.
There were weaknesses in some key industries, although that was more to do with the after-effects of the war and U-boat blockade than the recession which was quite short and sharp. There was a lack of capital (also due to the after effects of the war) to modernise these key industries as well which is one reason why they were uncompetitive. Notable sufferers were coal, steel, cotton, copper, tinplate and shipbuilding. But there were also new industries growing rapidly, especially cars, radios and electricity. The City also had some of its best years in the 1920s.
Your reference to the 'roaring twenties' is more complex and problematic. I haven't time to go into it here, but suffice to say that no country experienced unmitigated good times in the twenties the way most did for most of the time in the fifties. In America, for example, the wealthy urban elites did well out of shares, but there was a severe recession in agriculture and associated industries which caused very serious poverty and built huge structural imbalances in the overall economy that unwound with devastating effect in 1929-32. Similarly there was a very advanced party scene in London which would have happily described itself as the 'Roaring Twenties.'
We sometimes forget that macroeconomics don't necessarily coincide with our personal experience. We've had 5 recessions in my lifetime (plus the .com bust which affected me very badly, but doesn't count as a national event). '81 was terrible, '91 I didn't even notice, '01 (.com) put me out of work and the GFC had no effect at all - in fact my peak earnings were in the immediate aftermath. Other individual stories might look very different.
And as you say there was a lot achieved in the 1930s in housing and energy generation. And I would add cars, places, electrical goods etc plus new technologies developed from TV to radar.
There were weaknesses in some key industries, although that was more to do with the after-effects of the war and U-boat blockade than the recession which was quite short and sharp. There was a lack of capital (also due to the after effects of the war) to modernise these key industries as well which is one reason why they were uncompetitive. Notable sufferers were coal, steel, cotton, copper, tinplate and shipbuilding. But there were also new industries growing rapidly, especially cars, radios and electricity. The City also had some of its best years in the 1920s.
Your reference to the 'roaring twenties' is more complex and problematic. I haven't time to go into it here, but suffice to say that no country experienced unmitigated good times in the twenties the way most did for most of the time in the fifties. In America, for example, the wealthy urban elites did well out of shares, but there was a severe recession in agriculture and associated industries which caused very serious poverty and built huge structural imbalances in the overall economy that unwound with devastating effect in 1929-32. Similarly there was a very advanced party scene in London which would have happily described itself as the 'Roaring Twenties.'
Yet the Republicans were re-elected with massive majorities in 1924 and 1928 whereas in the UK there were big swings in the electoral results suggesting an angry electorate.
I think its revealing that the only UK government which was re-elected between the wars was the Conservatives in 1935 and by a huge majority as well.
Also, when did all the roads get asphalted? Can you imagine how hard that would be if we tried to start it now?
Going off on a tangent, what is also interesting is why some 'historic' roads were asphalted and others were not. As an example, there is one about a mile away from me that still exists as a right-of-way, and has existed for centuries, that was never asphalted. And it would have made a useful link.
ISTR there are stretches of the Ermine Street Roman road in Lincolnshire (near Byard's Leap) that are unpaved and still a right of way, between two paved public sections. Why wasn't it paved?
My guess would be that the stretches left unpacked hadn't been legally 'adopted' by the local authority (bearing in mind the Higwhays Agency came later) and the landowners chose not to pay for it themselves voluntarily and the LA chose not to compel them to.
From a UK-centric view, I suspect China in the 1930s was a non-event, but I'm glad I wasn't there. As for the USSR Famines. And Armenia was best avoided post 1918.
So I suppose we are being parochial.
Well I did ask: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
(Without the underline originally.)
In your list of also rans, thinking of the Soviet Union, ARCOS 1927 was a significant event. However, the main significance of it was felt in the Soviet Union, where it was the event that saw Trotsky expelled from the Communist party clearing the way for Stalin to assume total power.
The Irish War of Independence (1919-21) probably ought to be in there somewhere as well.
Yes The Irish War of Independence is definitely a miss on my part. Yet another nail in the coffin for the 1920s (just).
The 30 years from 1914 to 1944 was truly awful overall wasn't it. Contrast and compare to, say, 1988 - 2018. We think it's a bit shite now but really, which period would you rather have lived through?
(Still it's probably all going to go tits-up after March next year! )
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
I'm a history teacher, author and examiner Ben. Arguing arcane points about the past to formulate a tenable hypothesis is what I get paid woefully inadequate sums of money to do!
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
I think the 1963 Profumo scandal should be on the list. It trashed confidence in the old establishment, and ushered in the second significant Labour majority government.
I think you are getting confused between living in a country and having some form of claim on the land to form your own country.
Firstly the windrush generation are British, so it is like a person from Wales moving to England. British people moved to a part of Britain.
Secondly the local population were not in control of their immigration policies, the immigration was forced on them, they did not get a say in it.
Thirdly they were from all different dates they did not all suddenly move in in 1891, so the vast majority of them had not been there the length of time the Windrush generation had been here. Using your model the thousands of recent foreign that turned up just before partition somehow deserved the land from those that have lived there for many generations.
TBH I think the EDL would more likely make the slip up about thinking the windrush generation were not British to begin with and I think you will find it would be more than just the EDL that would have a problem if tens of millions (to match equivalent immigration to existing population in Palestine) of Muslim immigrants were coming to Britain to set up a country here. Don't worry though a very small percentage of the eventual Muslim population will have been here as long as Windrush so there is no reason to fight back because that would make us the aggressors and at fault.
I think anyone legally living in a country has some form of claim on the land, because of self-determination. Denying migrants rights is not appropriate.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
Who forcibly took land?
No force was used in that way pre 1948 which is how the initial borders were drawn.
Force was used in 1948 and 1967 because the Arabs were seeking to destroy Israel but lost both times.
On no occasion was Israel the aggressor unless you either view lawful migration as aggressive or you view ending a ceasefire and blockading a nation you are at war with as not aggressive.
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
I think the 1963 Profumo scandal should be on the list. It trashed confidence in the old establishment, and ushered in the second significant Labour majority government.
Yes - good point, definitely worthy of consideration. Still not seeing many that are going to challenge No Deal Brexit for a top 5 place though! 1940 is clearly in a league of its own but NDB could easily look like number 2 in 10 years time.
And as you say there was a lot achieved in the 1930s in housing and energy generation. And I would add cars, places, electrical goods etc plus new technologies developed from TV to radar.
There were weaknesses in some key industries, although that was more to do with the after-effects of the war and U-boat blockade than the recession which was quite short and sharp. There was a lack of capital (also due to the after effects of the war) to modernise these key industries as well which is one reason why they were uncompetitive. Notable sufferers were coal, steel, cotton, copper, tinplate and shipbuilding. But there were also new industries growing rapidly, especially cars, radios and electricity. The City also had some of its best years in the 1920s.
Your reference to the 'roaring twenties' is more complex and problematic. I haven't time to go into it here, but suffice to say that no country experienced unmitigated good times in the twenties the way most did for most of the time in the fifties. In America, for example, the wealthy urban elites did well out of shares, but there was a severe recession in agriculture and associated industries which caused very serious poverty and built huge structural imbalances in the overall economy that unwound with devastating effect in 1929-32. Similarly there was a very advanced party scene in London which would have happily described itself as the 'Roaring Twenties.'
We sometimes forget that macroeconomics don't necessarily coincide with our personal experience. We've had 5 recessions in my lifetime (plus the .com bust which affected me very badly, but doesn't count as a national event). '81 was terrible, '91 I didn't even notice, '01 (.com) put me out of work and the GFC had no effect at all - in fact my peak earnings were in the immediate aftermath. Other individual stories might look very different.
There's the relativity factor as well.
If your income is rising while everyone else is struggling then you might feel richer than if your income is rising more but everyone else is doing better than you.
Apart from the psychological effects the general state of the economy creates the framework in which we live individually.
So it can be easier to have an affluent life in a poor town than in a rich town.
The Swedes and the Swiss have a list of foods that they should stockpile.
What should our list consisit of ?
All of the sweets and snacks we are instructed only to have as treats by well-meaning health campaigners. They:
- are full of energy - make us feel good - don't need cooking, so can still be enjoyed even if the gas and electricity get cut off
Crisps and chocolate are both high on my emergency preparedness list.
Crisps are largely produced domestically, and Chocolate comes from non EU imports, so probably not required in emergency stock. Insulin, however, should be stockpiled as it is not produced domestically.
I don't know of anywhere that makes insulin at the moment, but it surprises me that none is made. Has anyone checked? But it wouldn't take the Manhattan Project to set up manufacturing from scratch. And even if there is no plant dedicated to it at the moment I am sure there must be some contract manufacturers who could make it if need be.
I think the undeniable practical downsides of Brexit are detrimental enough without having to resort to scare stories like this.
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
I'm a history teacher, author and examiner Ben. Arguing arcane points about the past to formulate a tenable hypothesis is what I get paid woefully inadequate sums of money to do!
Well it's an honour for an amateur like me to debate with a pro. I've got a feeling my Crises List will need a few more mods yet!
The Swedes and the Swiss have a list of foods that they should stockpile.
What should our list consisit of ?
All of the sweets and snacks we are instructed only to have as treats by well-meaning health campaigners. They:
- are full of energy - make us feel good - don't need cooking, so can still be enjoyed even if the gas and electricity get cut off
Crisps and chocolate are both high on my emergency preparedness list.
Crisps are largely produced domestically, and Chocolate comes from non EU imports, so probably not required in emergency stock. Insulin, however, should be stockpiled as it is not produced domestically.
I don't know of anywhere that makes insulin at the moment, but it surprises me that none is made. Has anyone checked? But it wouldn't take the Manhattan Project to set up manufacturing from scratch. And even if there is no plant dedicated to it at the moment I am sure there must be some contract manufacturers who could make it if need be.
I think the undeniable practical downsides of Brexit are detrimental enough without having to resort to scare stories like this.
Someone has already checked and it's a lie.
But a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can put its shoes on. People will now be believing this lie.
The Swedes and the Swiss have a list of foods that they should stockpile.
What should our list consisit of ?
All of the sweets and snacks we are instructed only to have as treats by well-meaning health campaigners. They:
- are full of energy - make us feel good - don't need cooking, so can still be enjoyed even if the gas and electricity get cut off
Crisps and chocolate are both high on my emergency preparedness list.
Crisps are largely produced domestically, and Chocolate comes from non EU imports, so probably not required in emergency stock. Insulin, however, should be stockpiled as it is not produced domestically.
I don't know of anywhere that makes insulin at the moment, but it surprises me that none is made. Has anyone checked? But it wouldn't take the Manhattan Project to set up manufacturing from scratch. And even if there is no plant dedicated to it at the moment I am sure there must be some contract manufacturers who could make it if need be.
I think the undeniable practical downsides of Brexit are detrimental enough without having to resort to scare stories like this.
Already covered down thread. There are apparently two plants currently manufacturing Insulin in the UK.
Our sterile injectable products cover a wide range of therapy areas including insulin for diabetes, heparin for anticoagulation and also pain management. Our products are available in the most widely used presentations, including cartridges, vials and ampoules and in either liquid or lyophilised forms (dry powder), in a range of sizes.
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
It is very wrong. But if you believe that, you have to criticise it everywhere it has occurred (and everywhere where forced population movements (or 'encouraged' ones) occur to this day), or ask yourself why one case matters more to you than others.
Besides, talks about the past are somewhat unhelpful. We have to deal with where we are now if we are to progress.
But Jezza and many of his supporters evidently aren't interested in progress or peace.
There can be no progress until Israel changes its course. Israel will not change its course if we insist on sitting here and drawing equivalency as they take Palestinian land and kill Palestinians because the Palestinians say bad words...
We can and try to apply pressure to the Israeli government to change course on the assumption that Hamas will not magically be replaced by the Lib Dems without something else changing first. Maybe it just makes me biased to assume that Hamas won't be replaced by the Lib Dems in the middle of a horrible occupation....
Also people keep going back to blame the Palestinians for the start of the conflict when their land was being taken and they defended it, which is why the start comes up.
Palestine is accused of being the aggressor for trying to stop its land being taken at the beginning, it is painted at the aggressor for having its land taken now.
Eventually I imagine the Palestinians will have waged such an aggressive conquest that Israel will control almost all of it, those damn aggressive Palestinians!
Yet the Republicans were re-elected with massive majorities in 1924 and 1928 whereas in the UK there were big swings in the electoral results suggesting an angry electorate.
I think its revealing that the only UK government which was re-elected between the wars was the Conservatives in 1935 and by a huge majority as well.
Right. Two points to make:
1) The swings were not directly concerned with economics. 1922 was fought on competency (Tory advantage) 1923 on Tariff Reform (Liberal/Labour advantage) 1924 on Socialism (Tory advantage although Labour increased their vote) 1929 on trade disputes and public morality (advantage to anyone but the Tories given the way they had mishandled these matters) 1931 on economics (no explanation needed) 1935 on rearmament (low swing). Do not assume that between the wars it was 'the economy stupid.' Because it wasn't, although the economy was an important consideration. Many of the swings were also less impressive than they appeared on the surface, due to the major political realignments taking place including an extension to the franchise.
2) Remember also that until 1932 (and beyond) the party of the South where most of these problems were occurring was the Democrats. The Republicans were strong in urban areas among the middle classes and in the North generally, and the Socialists/Progressives creamed off many votes of the proletariat especially La Follete in 1924. Therefore, if their clients suffered it didn't shift votes. About the only group that wouldn't have applied to were black sharecroppers most of whom under Jim Crow couldn't vote anyway. When the Republicans trashed their own vote through the crash, they were out of power for two decades.
So don't assume that election results in those countries solely reflect the underlying economic patterns. It is a lot more complicated than that.
Although Kane had a good World Cup, he failed to score against Croatia or Belgium.
Kane did nothing much after the first half against Colombia for the rest of the World Cup .If he was carrying an injury and not fully fit that may continue into the next season.
From a UK-centric view, I suspect China in the 1930s was a non-event, but I'm glad I wasn't there. As for the USSR Famines. And Armenia was best avoided post 1918.
So I suppose we are being parochial.
Well I did ask: How would a crash-out No Deal Brexit rank against the major crises this country has faced in the past 100 years?
(Without the underline originally.)
In your list of also rans, thinking of the Soviet Union, ARCOS 1927 was a significant event. However, the main significance of it was felt in the Soviet Union, where it was the event that saw Trotsky expelled from the Communist party clearing the way for Stalin to assume total power.
The Irish War of Independence (1919-21) probably ought to be in there somewhere as well.
Yes The Irish War of Independence is definitely a miss on my part. Yet another nail in the coffin for the 1920s (just).
The 30 years from 1914 to 1944 was truly awful overall wasn't it. Contrast and compare to, say, 1988 - 2018. We think it's a bit shite now but really, which period would you rather have lived through?
(Still it's probably all going to go tits-up after March next year! )
It wasn't ideal, certainly. But you think we had it bad? Get a history of Germany in that period. I recommend Evans' Third Reich Trilogy. His argument was that by 1950 nobody could actual remember a time when things were normal, they had been so bad for so long.
We all - no matter who - are born in a particular country through accident of birth. We had no choice. Our mother, who happened to live wherever she did, - gave birth to us in a that particular country. Why then, do folks take pride in the country in which they were born ? They have contributed zilch by being born there, though they may give something, maybe a great deal, after they happened to be born here/there. I feel very fortunate to have been born in the UK. I'm pleased I was. There are many countries I'm glad I wasn't born in. But proud ? No. What is there of which to be proud ? Pleased - yes. Fortunate - yes. Have I adopted some/many of its customs, traditions and beliefs? Yes. But had I been born elsewhere - I would almost certainly have adopted that country's customs, traditions and beliefs.
What we share with (most of/all of?) humankind is the wish to have a reasonably good life. Shelter, food, sufficient income to meet our basic needs, and the opportunity to raise a family (or not) without fear of our life being affected - or ended - by folk who have different views and values.
No country belongs to those who happen to have been born there. The indigenous population may be granted citizenship rights by those in power at a particular time. But such rights can and do change. It depends on who decides the rules.
I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make. Perhaps tolerance of our fellow humans. Especially if 'our lot' don't always appear to be the winners.
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
I'm a history teacher, author and examiner Ben. Arguing arcane points about the past to formulate a tenable hypothesis is what I get paid woefully inadequate sums of money to do!
Why does anyone study or teach history if one can just read about history from books in ones recreational time?
I think anyone legally living in a country has some form of claim on the land, because of self-determination. Denying migrants rights is not appropriate.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
Who forcibly took land?
No force was used in that way pre 1948 which is how the initial borders were drawn.
Force was used in 1948 and 1967 because the Arabs were seeking to destroy Israel but lost both times.
On no occasion was Israel the aggressor unless you either view lawful migration as aggressive or you view ending a ceasefire and blockading a nation you are at war with as not aggressive.
Taking land makes you the aggressor, coming for a foreign place and taking land from the locals for yourself is the cornerstone of war. Yes even if some foreign people who don't live in the place had a vote to give the land away, it is still war.
You cannot take people's land against their will without it being war.
To link the last conversation to this one (sorry if that is inappropriate) the Welsh make up 4.5% of the UK population but while they have long not been an independent country nobody would deny their significance nor claims over Wales.
Viewed in that context the over 8% of Palestine (including what is now Jordan) that was Jewish in 1890 or roughly 33% in 1948 is much more significant a percentage than Wales is.
But Wales as shown by this bet is meaningful and significant despite being a small percentage of the UK as a whole.
(Hope that link worked appropriately)
The key thing is it has never with one or perhaps two very brief exceptions been a united independent country.
Although I'm not sure your own analogy works. The Welsh have not tried to take over large sections of England on the basis that until the 6th century they were the dominant people.
It might be pertinent to note that Wales and Israel (on its 1947-67 borders) are almost exactly the same size, roughly 20,000 sq. km.
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
I'm a history teacher, author and examiner Ben. Arguing arcane points about the past to formulate a tenable hypothesis is what I get paid woefully inadequate sums of money to do!
Why does anyone study or teach history if one can just read about history from books in ones recreational time?
This insight would have been helpful to me before I did my history degree.
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
I think the 1963 Profumo scandal should be on the list. It trashed confidence in the old establishment, and ushered in the second significant Labour majority government.
Yes - good point, definitely worthy of consideration. Still not seeing many that are going to challenge No Deal Brexit for a top 5 place though! 1940 is clearly in a league of its own but NDB could easily look like number 2 in 10 years time.
The 1970s are a bit like the 1920's, with multiple similtaneous events knocking our position in the world. In particular I would pick out Bloody Sunday, Internment in NI, the 3 day week (Tory) and Winter of Discontent (Labour), but additionally there were lesser known events such as the bringing down of the Whitlam government in Australia which many Australians consider as Imperial Hubris on our part. Strangely, the 1970s wound up with Britain a richer and more equal society than it began the decade.
I think our impression of roaring Twenties and Thirties Slump is heavily influenced by American history. We did relatively poorly in the Twenties and after 1932 much better in the Thirties, though as @ydoether points out, rather patchy.
The Brexiteers haven't been allowed to negotiate so they bear very little responsibility. Though it was interesting that some were happy to row in behind May when she looked likely to land the leadership.
Yet the Republicans were re-elected with massive majorities in 1924 and 1928 whereas in the UK there were big swings in the electoral results suggesting an angry electorate.
I think its revealing that the only UK government which was re-elected between the wars was the Conservatives in 1935 and by a huge majority as well.
Right. Two points to make:
1) The swings were not directly concerned with economics. 1922 was fought on competency (Tory advantage) 1923 on Tariff Reform (Liberal/Labour advantage) 1924 on Socialism (Tory advantage although Labour increased their vote) 1929 on trade disputes and public morality (advantage to anyone but the Tories given the way they had mishandled these matters) 1931 on economics (no explanation needed) 1935 on rearmament (low swing). Do not assume that between the wars it was 'the economy stupid.' Because it wasn't, although the economy was an important consideration. Many of the swings were also less impressive than they appeared on the surface, due to the major political realignments taking place including an extension to the franchise.
2) Remember also that until 1932 (and beyond) the party of the South where most of these problems were occurring was the Democrats. The Republicans were strong in urban areas among the middle classes and in the North generally, and the Socialists/Progressives creamed off many votes of the proletariat especially La Follete in 1924. Therefore, if their clients suffered it didn't shift votes. About the only group that wouldn't have applied to were black sharecroppers most of whom under Jim Crow couldn't vote anyway. When the Republicans trashed their own vote through the crash, they were out of power for two decades.
So don't assume that election results in those countries solely reflect the underlying economic patterns. It is a lot more complicated than that.
Sure everything is complicated and there are a multitude of factors in elections.
IIRC the Republicans did very well in the South in 1928 although the Catholic issue might have played a part then. Though conversely the Progressives in 1924 would have picked up many 'Bull Moose' Republican votes as well, after all wasn't LaFollette himself first elected as a Republican.
So it might score 9/10 for Political impact, and moderately on Reputational impact but pretty low on Economic and General Well-being impact.
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
I would say Suez had a more severe impact on our economy than you are allowing. Between a run on the pound and an oil shock the short term consequences were quite fierce. In particular, it caused a recession in shipbuilding and within two years Britain's share of shipbuilding had dropped by two-thirds as they failed to compete for fewer orders against the more modern yards in Japan and Germany. I'd put it at 6 or 7.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
I'm a history teacher, author and examiner Ben. Arguing arcane points about the past to formulate a tenable hypothesis is what I get paid woefully inadequate sums of money to do!
Why does anyone study or teach history if one can just read about history from books in ones recreational time?
Because unless you are Mr Gradgrind, it isn't about finding out facts, it's about interpreting be understanding them. And the best way to do that is through discussion and analysis, which is what we're doing here. The best way of all to do it is under guided conditions, in a school or university.
And I might point out that though I am a professional historian there are many others on here who are as good, and some who are better than me at doing that - not by any means all of them with history degrees. Which is helpful to me as well, as it keeps me on my toes and reminds me of the things I still need to learn.
The Swedes and the Swiss have a list of foods that they should stockpile.
What should our list consisit of ?
All of the sweets and snacks we are instructed only to have as treats by well-meaning health campaigners. They:
- are full of energy - make us feel good - don't need cooking, so can still be enjoyed even if the gas and electricity get cut off
Crisps and chocolate are both high on my emergency preparedness list.
Crisps are largely produced domestically, and Chocolate comes from non EU imports, so probably not required in emergency stock. Insulin, however, should be stockpiled as it is not produced domestically.
I don't know of anywhere that makes insulin at the moment, but it surprises me that none is made. Has anyone checked? But it wouldn't take the Manhattan Project to set up manufacturing from scratch. And even if there is no plant dedicated to it at the moment I am sure there must be some contract manufacturers who could make it if need be.
I think the undeniable practical downsides of Brexit are detrimental enough without having to resort to scare stories like this.
Already covered down thread. There are apparently two plants currently manufacturing Insulin in the UK.
Our sterile injectable products cover a wide range of therapy areas including insulin for diabetes, heparin for anticoagulation and also pain management. Our products are available in the most widely used presentations, including cartridges, vials and ampoules and in either liquid or lyophilised forms (dry powder), in a range of sizes.
The Brexiteers haven't been allowed to negotiate so they bear very little responsibility. Though it was interesting that some were happy to row in behind May when she looked likely to land the leadership.
Ah, like Communism? The failures were due to poor implementation, and a failure to deal with enemies quickly and ruthlessly enough.
I think anyone legally living in a country has some form of claim on the land, because of self-determination. Denying migrants rights is not appropriate.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
Who forcibly took land?
No force was used in that way pre 1948 which is how the initial borders were drawn.
Force was used in 1948 and 1967 because the Arabs were seeking to destroy Israel but lost both times.
On no occasion was Israel the aggressor unless you either view lawful migration as aggressive or you view ending a ceasefire and blockading a nation you are at war with as not aggressive.
Taking land makes you the aggressor, coming for a foreign place and taking land from the locals for yourself is the cornerstone of war. Yes even if some foreign people who don't live in the place had a vote to give the land away, it is still war.
You cannot take people's land against their will without it being war.
Mahmoud Abbas as long ago as 2011 stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs NOT to accept the UN Partition Plan.
Can I ask why the Partition of Palestine was such a grievous, hideously pernicious crime, but the Partitions of (for argument's sake) Ireland or India weren't?
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
It is very wrong. But if you believe that, you have to criticise it everywhere it has occurred (and everywhere where forced population movements (or 'encouraged' ones) occur to this day), or ask yourself why one case matters more to you than others.
Besides, talks about the past are somewhat unhelpful. We have to deal with where we are now if we are to progress.
But Jezza and many of his supporters evidently aren't interested in progress or peace.
There can be no progress until Israel changes its course. Israel will not change its course if we insist on sitting here and drawing equivalency as they take Palestinian land and kill Palestinians because the Palestinians say bad words...
We can and try to apply pressure to the Israeli government to change course on the assumption that Hamas will not magically be replaced by the Lib Dems without something else changing first. Maybe it just makes me biased to assume that Hamas won't be replaced by the Lib Dems in the middle of a horrible occupation....
Also people keep going back to blame the Palestinians for the start of the conflict when their land was being taken and they defended it, which is why the start comes up.
Palestine is accused of being the aggressor for trying to stop its land being taken at the beginning, it is painted at the aggressor for having its land taken now.
Eventually I imagine the Palestinians will have waged such an aggressive conquest that Israel will control almost all of it, those damn aggressive Palestinians!
There can be no progress until the Palestinian groups change course as well: e.g. by stopping firing 'fireworks' (your rather 'interesting' term) into Israel and accepting Israel's right to exist.
Both sides want to want peace, and both for that both sides need to trust each other. At the moment, neither do. Both sides need to move.
If Israel wanted territory above everything else, why did they gave Sinai back to Egypt?
There is no point in this debate. As far as you are concerned [ and many in PB ], there is nothing wrong forcibly taking away land and building settlements. Somehow you feel particularly calm that people who had no connection with the land could come in from Europe and take it.
It is very wrong. But if you believe that, you have to criticise it everywhere it has occurred (and everywhere where forced population movements (or 'encouraged' ones) occur to this day), or ask yourself why one case matters more to you than others.
Besides, talks about the past are somewhat unhelpful. We have to deal with where we are now if we are to progress.
But Jezza and many of his supporters evidently aren't interested in progress or peace.
There can be no progress until Israel changes its course. Israel will not change its course if we insist on sitting here and drawing equivalency as they take Palestinian land and kill Palestinians because the Palestinians say bad words...
We can and try to apply pressure to the Israeli government to change course on the assumption that Hamas will not magically be replaced by the Lib Dems without something else changing first. Maybe it just makes me biased to assume that Hamas won't be replaced by the Lib Dems in the middle of a horrible occupation....
Also people keep going back to blame the Palestinians for the start of the conflict when their land was being taken and they defended it, which is why the start comes up.
Palestine is accused of being the aggressor for trying to stop its land being taken at the beginning, it is painted at the aggressor for having its land taken now.
Eventually I imagine the Palestinians will have waged such an aggressive conquest that Israel will control almost all of it, those damn aggressive Palestinians!
Why should Israel be the first to change course?
There can be no peace until Israel feels safe without the need for force. They are the victims, a nation of persecuted people set up in their own homeland for them to finally feel safe after thousands of tears of persecution and the victims of the worst atrocity the world has EVER seen.
But instead of accepting partition based on who lived there with the Arabs getting the vast majority of the land the Arabs instead tried to murder Israel at birth. Including the nation of Palestinians known as Jordan. Yet interestingly the Palestinian nation known as Jordan which was the nation that Israel took this disputed land from in 1967 after they and Egypt again tried to destroy their neighbour now wants nothing to do with Palestinians.
It's all Israel's fault they were attacked. They were asking for it. They deserved it. Seriously!?
Yet the Republicans were re-elected with massive majorities in 1924 and 1928 whereas in the UK there were big swings in the electoral results suggesting an angry electorate.
I think its revealing that the only UK government which was re-elected between the wars was the Conservatives in 1935 and by a huge majority as well.
Right. Two points to make:
1) The swings were not directly concerned with economics. 1922 was fought on competency (Tory advantage) 1923 on Tariff Reform (Liberal/Labour advantage) 1924 on Socialism (Tory advantage although Labour increased their vote) 1929 on trade disputes and public morality (advantage to anyone but the Tories given the way they had mishandled these matters) 1931 on economics (no explanation needed) 1935 on rearmament (low swing). Do not assume that between the wars it was 'the economy stupid.' Because it wasn't, although the economy was an important consideration. Many of the swings were also less impressive than they appeared on the surface, due to the major political realignments taking place including an extension to the franchise.
2) Remember also that until 1932 (and beyond) the party of the South where most of these problems were occurring was the Democrats. The Republicans were strong in urban areas among the middle classes and in the North generally, and the Socialists/Progressives creamed off many votes of the proletariat especially La Follete in 1924. Therefore, if their clients suffered it didn't shift votes. About the only group that wouldn't have applied to were black sharecroppers most of whom under Jim Crow couldn't vote anyway. When the Republicans trashed their own vote through the crash, they were out of power for two decades.
So don't assume that election results in those countries solely reflect the underlying economic patterns. It is a lot more complicated than that.
Sure everything is complicated and there are a multitude of factors in elections.
IIRC the Republicans did very well in the South in 1928 although the Catholic issue might have played a part then. Though conversely the Progressives in 1924 would have picked up many 'Bull Moose' Republican votes as well, after all wasn't LaFollette himself first elected as a Republican.
'Doing well' in this case meant 'winning four of the former ten confederate states, three by quite narrow margins.'
If anyone wants a belly laugh, guess which election the Republicans finally made a clean sweep of the South in!
Edit - with regard to La Folette, yes he was a Republican governor at first but don't get carried away by that. He was a Republican because only a Republican could win that office in that state. On many key issues he was divorced from or hostile to the leadership. Just as Senator Joe McCarthy was a Demorcat for much of his career.
Also, when did all the roads get asphalted? Can you imagine how hard that would be if we tried to start it now?
Going off on a tangent, what is also interesting is why some 'historic' roads were asphalted and others were not. As an example, there is one about a mile away from me that still exists as a right-of-way, and has existed for centuries, that was never asphalted. And it would have made a useful link.
ISTR there are stretches of the Ermine Street Roman road in Lincolnshire (near Byard's Leap) that are unpaved and still a right of way, between two paved public sections. Why wasn't it paved?
My guess would be that the stretches left unpacked hadn't been legally 'adopted' by the local authority (bearing in mind the Higwhays Agency came later) and the landowners chose not to pay for it themselves voluntarily and the LA chose not to compel them to.
Perhaps. But go to your favourite map website and look at Byard's Leap, and you have to wonder why the couple of miles north was not adopted. The only conclusions I can make is that either the airfield to the southeast had something to do with it, or that a landowner objected.
But I walk around the country a lot, and see these ancient green lanes all the time. Some are obvious (i.e. they don't lead anywhere). Others are more egregious.
The Brexiteers haven't been allowed to negotiate so they bear very little responsibility. Though it was interesting that some were happy to row in behind May when she looked likely to land the leadership.
Ah, like Communism? The failures were due to poor implementation, and a failure to deal with enemies quickly and ruthlessly enough.
As we all know, I'm a fully paid up member of the League of Empire Loyalists, but this idea that Brexiteer ministers have been defenestrated is complete bollocks. My 'side' made a strategic mistake in believing that the UK could get some kind of bespoke deal, when the EU only has the bandwidth to offer table d'hote (by this I mean that I can see a bespoke deal being possible over, say, a decade, and a decade when the union wasn't dealing with other almost existential threats).
If you've made that kind of error, it doesn't much matter who's at the helm.
The Swedes and the Swiss have a list of foods that they should stockpile.
What should our list consisit of ?
All of the sweets and snacks we are instructed only to have as treats by well-meaning health campaigners. They:
- are full of energy - make us feel good - don't need cooking, so can still be enjoyed even if the gas and electricity get cut off
Crisps and chocolate are both high on my emergency preparedness list.
Crisps are largely produced domestically, and Chocolate comes from non EU imports, so probably not required in emergency stock. Insulin, however, should be stockpiled as it is not produced domestically.
I don't know of anywhere that makes insulin at the moment, but it surprises me that none is made. Has anyone checked? But it wouldn't take the Manhattan Project to set up manufacturing from scratch. And even if there is no plant dedicated to it at the moment I am sure there must be some contract manufacturers who could make it if need be.
I think the undeniable practical downsides of Brexit are detrimental enough without having to resort to scare stories like this.
Already covered down thread. There are apparently two plants currently manufacturing Insulin in the UK.
Our sterile injectable products cover a wide range of therapy areas including insulin for diabetes, heparin for anticoagulation and also pain management. Our products are available in the most widely used presentations, including cartridges, vials and ampoules and in either liquid or lyophilised forms (dry powder), in a range of sizes.
Big_G will be pleased - they're based in N Wales I see!
I deplore fake news scare stories of this nature but let's not kid ourselves that we won't hear a lot more as No Deal Brexit approaches. We have a huge scare story industry in this country weaned on years of fake EU banana stories, so we shouldn't be surprised.
Comments
There is clearly a huge gap between the crisis that faced the country in 1940 and whatever crisis we feel is the next most severe.
I suspect you don't live up to your name, as you don't include the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. I went to bed for a couple of nights wondering if anyone would be alive in the morning. It may have been short-lived but so could the world have been.
By comparison, everything else seems a little parochial, although I can't vouch for the more antique events.
It didn't seem that major to me but I was only 2 at the time.
Korea 1950
People have mentioned the Cuban missile crisis (I was a toddler so *woosh*), but we should probably mention the Yom Kippur war. There was (briefly) a real chance that US troops would be going into combat against the Sovs. It's another of those lapsed consciousness things, but I remember being a very frightened 13 year old.
Based on the latest IMF report, I expect a no deal Brexit to have a similar impact to the '73 oil shock recession i.e. pretty fecking nasty.
"It didn't seem that major to me but I was only 2 at the time."
Fair enough, but I suspect the more recent occurrences might have more visceral impact. Similar to any list of the best hit records, for instance.
But a hard Brexit is more a nightmare for feverish imaginations. "Oh my God, you couldn't find a decent loganberry for love nor money."
I remember reading, around the time the Steven Hawking biopic came out, that a lot of students in the 60s lived very much for the moment, because they thought there was a good chance of a nuclear war breaking out and everyone dying. Actually, I guess that would probably be around the same time as the missile crisis.
"I expect a no deal Brexit to have a similar impact to the '73 oil shock recession i.e. pretty fecking nasty."
I remember queuing for petrol but there was a lot of economic uncertainty at the time, and it fades into the general background. Hardly an extinction event, but a nuisance for sure.
The moderates have struggled with medium/long term strategy from the moment Corbyn started surging, in fairness some of them didn't but when you had quite a few of them either abandoning strategy or not having a strategy but wanting to enjoy the short term thrill of running your mouth off to the papers it killed off those who did want to work with Corbyn and show the members that he failed.
In a funny way you could say Corbyn may well end up being leader for several years because a small group of people could barely stand the idea of him being leader for 1 year
You may of course be right about hard Brexit (I hope you are). But you might equally be very wrong.
So I suppose we are being parochial.
I would certainly put Korea above Black Wednesday.
Edit: Southgate 96 - was a bit of a tough time as well. Special mention for Seaman 02.
As far as Windrush being British is concerned that is indeed of course true, but we were talking about the land. Hence we've already had segways of talking about Welsh and Scots as being distinct too. The Windrush were still migrants in their own way even if they were already British.
But its an interesting observation you make as Jews would view themselves moving to what would be Israel as being akin to Windrush and not simple migration. That was already their homeland they were moving to and they had every right to do it, even if they weren't born there.
(Without the underline originally.)
"Diana 97 - Top of the list right!"
For Diana, yes.
The Irish War of Independence (1919-21) probably ought to be in there somewhere as well.
Point taken.
I did get upset in 1958 when my pet mouse died. I did toughen up a bit later, but I'm sure there's a few Remainers stuck in that mode..
Here's how I scored Suez (all out of 10 - higher score means more damage to our Economy, Reputation etc.)
Suez = General Well-being impact - 2, Economy - 4, Political -10, Reputation - 10
Whereas 1940 (Blitz etc.) = General Well-being impact - 10, Economy - 9, Political -10, Reputation - 3
Edit IANAL though so curious if a lawyer could clarify.
1979 was a real crisis year having the Iranian revolution, oil prices tripling, the world plunging into recession and then as a Christmas present the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
With the UK having also the winter of discontent.
By contrast, the political fallout was limited. The Prime Minister resigned, but he would have had to resign anyway for unrelated reasons. Only two figures resigned as a direct result, both of them junior. The government did not collapse, and was not discredited - indeed, less than three years later it massively increased its majority. Longer term it probably cost the Conservatives votes among opinion formers and intellectuals, but that was an impact that took ten years to work through. So, I would go for 6. Reputation - no argument from me!
Yeah they sorta migrated to a different part of Britain.
They weren't moving to their homeland, Israel didn't exist before Israel was created. They were foreign people immigrating to Palestine, this doesn't give them the right to steal land off people living there for generations when they turn up.
Anymore than you would accept millions of Saudi's moving here to Britain (against our will) and then suddenly taking great swathes of Britain on the basis that millions of them have moved here, you can keep circling around with the logic but you can't escape the fact you have to steal land of people that have lived there for generations to give it to foreign immigrants who have just arrived.
Which is basically called war. Which would cause any country to fight back, the British, the Americans, the French nobody would have accepted that, anyone would have fought back against foreign people stealing their land.
On the other hand, the UK did much better in the 1930s than most comparable economies, especially in terms of unemployment although the picture was very uneven and regional - in Jarrow two-thirds were out of work, in Oxford there were labour shortages. House building and energy generation were also major successes. Amazingly, more houses were built in the ten years before the war than in the ten years after it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6004353/MP-Luciana-Berger-blasts-anti-Semitic-abuse-Labour-supporter-says-Jewish-people-leave-UK.html
https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/status/1023597099710066688?s=19
Next time someone (SeanT probably) rolls out the "...Agincourt, Trafalgar, Waterloo, Dunkirk, the Blitz - Britain can handle it!" trope, I need to remind him/her that that Britain was replaced sometime after 1945 by the one that turned to mush and jelly when Diana met her sad end; a Britain that descends into chaos whenever there's an inch of snow.
This suggests that 1919-21 was much worse than 1930-31:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom
And as you say there was a lot achieved in the 1930s in housing and energy generation. And I would add cars, places, electrical goods etc plus new technologies developed from TV to radar.
There don't seem to be any British blueberries any more though.
Besides, talks about the past are somewhat unhelpful. We have to deal with where we are now if we are to progress.
But Jezza and many of his supporters evidently aren't interested in progress or peace.
Basically what do Corbyn sceptics want?
To replace Corbyn as dominant left force.
Stay and fight involves giving fealty to the leader, which some can't do.
So split is the obvious option.
That's it. I guess that makes sense from its only a matter of time point of view, a good few are just unhappy and complaining constantly anyway, that probably can't go on forever (for most of them they wouldn't want it too) now there's a big chance come the next election they probably don't want to help Corbyn become PM.
Haha, I feel a little sorry for Owen, I guess he is really ambitious and saw his chance but the big guns decided it would be a good leadership contest to sit out and he or Eagle was the sacrificial lamb IMO. Some mistakes aside he did handle the negativity aimed at him quite well, probably not for other people but he gained a little credit with me for his performance under the negativity.
Your reference to the 'roaring twenties' is more complex and problematic. I haven't time to go into it here, but suffice to say that no country experienced unmitigated good times in the twenties the way most did for most of the time in the fifties. In America, for example, the wealthy urban elites did well out of shares, but there was a severe recession in agriculture and associated industries which caused very serious poverty and built huge structural imbalances in the overall economy that unwound with devastating effect in 1929-32. Similarly there was a very advanced party scene in London which would have happily described itself as the 'Roaring Twenties.'
All fair points. I guess I scored Suez 10 for political impact because it trashed Eden's reputation but you're right - the Tories survived for another 8 years.
Still - it's just a bit of subjective fun!
If he accepts the IHRA definition then moderates will make claims of anti-semitism against many of his supporters.
Now, it could be argued that this doesn't matter as Corbyn supporters control the NEC and disciplinary process.
But here's the point - if the above claims are dismissed could the complainants challenge these decisions in the Courts - and if the Party's rules incorporate the IHRA definition then that will be the test - making Judges likely to rule in favour of the complainants - leading to a whole host of Corbyn supporters having to be suspended / expelled by order of the Courts.
ISTR there are stretches of the Ermine Street Roman road in Lincolnshire (near Byard's Leap) that are unpaved and still a right of way, between two paved public sections. Why wasn't it paved?
If people didn't want Jews to return to Israel the time to prevent that was before 1948. It happened legally and the only legitimate way to partition the land in 1948 is based on who lives there in 1948.
It was a colossal undertaking - the great untold (so far as I know) story of civil engineering is the vast expansion of Britain's road network in a mere forty-five years of intensive construction. And not just the roads but the infrastructure to go with them. Imagine living in a country where the longest road bridge was the Clifton Bridge (I think - very slightly longer than the Menai Bridge) and there were no significant road tunnels.
I think its revealing that the only UK government which was re-elected between the wars was the Conservatives in 1935 and by a huge majority as well.
The 30 years from 1914 to 1944 was truly awful overall wasn't it. Contrast and compare to, say, 1988 - 2018. We think it's a bit shite now but really, which period would you rather have lived through?
(Still it's probably all going to go tits-up after March next year!
No force was used in that way pre 1948 which is how the initial borders were drawn.
Force was used in 1948 and 1967 because the Arabs were seeking to destroy Israel but lost both times.
On no occasion was Israel the aggressor unless you either view lawful migration as aggressive or you view ending a ceasefire and blockading a nation you are at war with as not aggressive.
If your income is rising while everyone else is struggling then you might feel richer than if your income is rising more but everyone else is doing better than you.
Apart from the psychological effects the general state of the economy creates the framework in which we live individually.
So it can be easier to have an affluent life in a poor town than in a rich town.
I think the undeniable practical downsides of Brexit are detrimental enough without having to resort to scare stories like this.
But a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can put its shoes on. People will now be believing this lie.
EDIT: Here's the link for one of them:
http://www.wockhardt.co.uk/our-uk-manufacturing.aspx
Our sterile injectable products cover a wide range of therapy areas including insulin for diabetes, heparin for anticoagulation and also pain management. Our products are available in the most widely used presentations, including cartridges, vials and ampoules and in either liquid or lyophilised forms (dry powder), in a range of sizes.
We can and try to apply pressure to the Israeli government to change course on the assumption that Hamas will not magically be replaced by the Lib Dems without something else changing first. Maybe it just makes me biased to assume that Hamas won't be replaced by the Lib Dems in the middle of a horrible occupation....
Also people keep going back to blame the Palestinians for the start of the conflict when their land was being taken and they defended it, which is why the start comes up.
Palestine is accused of being the aggressor for trying to stop its land being taken at the beginning, it is painted at the aggressor for having its land taken now.
Eventually I imagine the Palestinians will have waged such an aggressive conquest that Israel will control almost all of it, those damn aggressive Palestinians!
1) The swings were not directly concerned with economics. 1922 was fought on competency (Tory advantage) 1923 on Tariff Reform (Liberal/Labour advantage) 1924 on Socialism (Tory advantage although Labour increased their vote) 1929 on trade disputes and public morality (advantage to anyone but the Tories given the way they had mishandled these matters) 1931 on economics (no explanation needed) 1935 on rearmament (low swing). Do not assume that between the wars it was 'the economy stupid.' Because it wasn't, although the economy was an important consideration. Many of the swings were also less impressive than they appeared on the surface, due to the major political realignments taking place including an extension to the franchise.
2) Remember also that until 1932 (and beyond) the party of the South where most of these problems were occurring was the Democrats. The Republicans were strong in urban areas among the middle classes and in the North generally, and the Socialists/Progressives creamed off many votes of the proletariat especially La Follete in 1924. Therefore, if their clients suffered it didn't shift votes. About the only group that wouldn't have applied to were black sharecroppers most of whom under Jim Crow couldn't vote anyway. When the Republicans trashed their own vote through the crash, they were out of power for two decades.
So don't assume that election results in those countries solely reflect the underlying economic patterns. It is a lot more complicated than that.
Why then, do folks take pride in the country in which they were born ? They have contributed zilch by being born there, though they may give something, maybe a great deal, after they happened to be born here/there.
I feel very fortunate to have been born in the UK. I'm pleased I was. There are many countries I'm glad I wasn't born in. But proud ? No. What is there of which to be proud ? Pleased - yes.
Fortunate - yes. Have I adopted some/many of its customs, traditions and beliefs? Yes. But had I been born elsewhere - I would almost certainly have adopted that country's customs, traditions and beliefs.
What we share with (most of/all of?) humankind is the wish to have a reasonably good life. Shelter, food, sufficient income to meet our basic needs, and the opportunity to raise a family (or not) without fear of our life being affected - or ended - by folk who have different views and values.
No country belongs to those who happen to have been born there.
The indigenous population may be granted citizenship rights by those in power at a particular time. But such rights can and do change. It depends on who decides the rules.
I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make.
Perhaps tolerance of our fellow humans. Especially if 'our lot' don't always appear to be the winners.
You cannot take people's land against their will without it being war.
I think our impression of roaring Twenties and Thirties Slump is heavily influenced by American history. We did relatively poorly in the Twenties and after 1932 much better in the Thirties, though as @ydoether points out, rather patchy.
IIRC the Republicans did very well in the South in 1928 although the Catholic issue might have played a part then. Though conversely the Progressives in 1924 would have picked up many 'Bull Moose' Republican votes as well, after all wasn't LaFollette himself first elected as a Republican.
And I might point out that though I am a professional historian there are many others on here who are as good, and some who are better than me at doing that - not by any means all of them with history degrees. Which is helpful to me as well, as it keeps me on my toes and reminds me of the things I still need to learn.
https://www.diabetes-support.org.uk/info/?page_id=109
Can I ask why the Partition of Palestine was such a grievous, hideously pernicious crime, but the Partitions of (for argument's sake) Ireland or India weren't?
Both sides want to want peace, and both for that both sides need to trust each other. At the moment, neither do. Both sides need to move.
If Israel wanted territory above everything else, why did they gave Sinai back to Egypt?
There can be no peace until Israel feels safe without the need for force. They are the victims, a nation of persecuted people set up in their own homeland for them to finally feel safe after thousands of tears of persecution and the victims of the worst atrocity the world has EVER seen.
But instead of accepting partition based on who lived there with the Arabs getting the vast majority of the land the Arabs instead tried to murder Israel at birth. Including the nation of Palestinians known as Jordan. Yet interestingly the Palestinian nation known as Jordan which was the nation that Israel took this disputed land from in 1967 after they and Egypt again tried to destroy their neighbour now wants nothing to do with Palestinians.
It's all Israel's fault they were attacked. They were asking for it. They deserved it. Seriously!?
If anyone wants a belly laugh, guess which election the Republicans finally made a clean sweep of the South in!
Edit - with regard to La Folette, yes he was a Republican governor at first but don't get carried away by that. He was a Republican because only a Republican could win that office in that state. On many key issues he was divorced from or hostile to the leadership. Just as Senator Joe McCarthy was a Demorcat for much of his career.
But I walk around the country a lot, and see these ancient green lanes all the time. Some are obvious (i.e. they don't lead anywhere). Others are more egregious.
If you've made that kind of error, it doesn't much matter who's at the helm.
I deplore fake news scare stories of this nature but let's not kid ourselves that we won't hear a lot more as No Deal Brexit approaches. We have a huge scare story industry in this country weaned on years of fake EU banana stories, so we shouldn't be surprised.