The alarming thing about that report for tax payers isn;t how much Sunak is going to wind down but how little
The government is so desperate to prevent the repercussions of lockdown being felt by the population that they are prepared to keep the country's credit card running well into the future.
A horror story. But not if all the central banks print a load of cash at the same time. And so that's what they'll do. A crazy inflation spike that'll cause no inflation whatsoever.
They decided to take 4 months in order to maximising their chances of replacing Corbyn with their preferred candidate, and they failed. Maybe they're experimenting and seeing if they can fare any better by going to the other extreme and replacing the General Secretary in 2 weeks.
I am not sure that such obviously underhand tactics help their cause. Remember that they tried to get rid of Tom Watson in an unannounced coup in a single meeting and failed because some NEC members reacted accordingly.
Scientists say they have identified a mutation in coronavirus which they believe means a more contagious strain has been sweeping Europe and the US - and could even reinfect those who already have antibodies.
That moment is gone....we had a window at the beginning of March.....
Now we are fubared...every which way orifice looks particularly shitty....
No, you can keep R down at any point. Just because we fucked up before doesn't mean we need to keep fucking up now.
Most deaths in Europe headlines should keep people indoors for a while longer also.
You know when the idiots were twittering on about the behavioural science saying it was too early to lockdown- like early March......
Now...it is just too late...that ship has sailed...we had a moment in time to get on top of it and create a fortress UK....
We have this virus...we have to just carry on now....at great cost to human lives and the economy....people are just not going to stand to trying to push down R
Plenty can be re-opened that won't push up R, fishing lakes spring to mind.. even horse racing without spectators. Manufacturing has always been allowed. Or are you talking about being thirsty for the pub ?
It's schools (and public transport)...once they open up we have to accept the virus living with us and killing us....
And although I was for locking down earlier and tighter....now I'm of the view that we have to open up and manage it.....and just face the crapness of it all really...
If you have 20% of people determined to go out and about to support the economy and 80% who want to stay in and stay safe you're going to end up with both a smashed economy and a sick population........
I think that is a fair summary of our lockout planning.....
whichever way you view it doesn't look good to say it lightly....
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
Bengal will be pleased to know their 2million+ dead due to British rule in '43 was not technically a Holocaust.
There are two schools of thought about the famine...
Yes, there's the one in that thinks it was caused by fucking awful decisions by the British and then there's the wrong one.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
Bengal will be pleased to know their 2million+ dead due to British rule in '43 was not technically a Holocaust.
You git, you've made the point I was planning on making.
Although some it was over 3 million dead due to Bengal Famine.
60 million Indian dead from various famines during British Rule.
Johnson's Churchill delusions are preposterous. I probably wouldn't care about them too much, but I think they get in the way of dealing with the virus. You don't defeat the virus except by a vaccine, which is an international cooperation exercise anyway. Far less, wrestle it to the floor or engage in national battle. You live with the thing. You manage it. That requires a lot of discipline and good organisation.
Mr. Johnson’s calculation then was that the quality of his cabinet was pretty much immaterial. His priority was to deliver Brexit and economic policies that the Conservatives’ new Brexit-supporting voters were demanding. That would be driven by Mr. Johnson’s small team of political advisers in No. 10 Downing Street, led by his ruthless, controlling, Machiavellian chief adviser, Dominic Cummings.
In this centralization of power, a core group of insiders and allies would decide the government’s agenda and come up with the ideas and the strategies for carrying it out. The job of cabinet ministers would be to do, meekly, as they were told. No opposition was permitted. Senior, able Tory politicians of independent spirit were passed over and exiled to the backbenches.
The onslaught of the coronavirus has revealed how dangerous it is to deliberately weaken the cabinet in this way.
I remember the immediate post war years and the effects it had on my family and of course do celebrate the end of WW11.
However, the hype of the Daily Mail and others is not to my liking , but respectful remembrance is an important part of our history and the way we overcame the nightmare of war, furthermore everyone should be free to choose how they want to mark the occasion
Unfortunately Alastair cannot help himself again showing his brexit pain and denigrating Dads Army volunteers in the war.
They played a role, as did Vera Lynn, and of course Churchill with many others.
I doubt Alastair's piece is a majority view by some distance in our country
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
First, as in out the door like Neil Ferguson this evening...
Good to see adulterers get their comeuppance.At least no bastards involved this time!
As you are well known as an expert on bastards, are there bastard purists out there who count bastards from the moment of bastard conception, or is the general view bastardry can be avoided so long as marriage is acquired prior to the birth?
I believe it is determined by birth.Apparently there is a difference between English and Scottish Law regarding how illegitimate births are treated when the parents later do marry. Under English Law the child would become legitimate - but not under Scottish Law. I recall a conversation from about 15 years ago with a guy born circa 1950. He explained that the local vicar pondered long and har before agreeing to baptise him - not because he had been born out of wedlock - he hadn't been - but because he had been conceived out of wedlock. In the end , he did reluctantly agree. Now I strongly disapprove of that vicar's attitude - no justification to penalise the child - even if he had been born out of wedlock.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
Bengal will be pleased to know their 2million+ dead due to British rule in '43 was not technically a Holocaust.
There are two schools of thought about the famine...
There are flat earthers and people who believe, others believe it is (roughly) spherical. There being two schools of thought adds little to nothing to the debate, history and science are fairly pointless if we can just pick our preferred schools of thought.
History is misused by politicians and journalists shock.
Should the Second World War be seen in Britain as a Pyrrhic victory, which ushered in austerity, greater state activity and a significant shift in the world's political and economic compass?
I upset someone a few years ago on another forum when I said that for me at times WWII was pointless if we were prepared to go to war when a lot of Europe was occupied by fascism but prepared to do nothing when Eastern Europe was occupied after WWII by a similarly evil ideology.
TSE....maybe a little remedial primary school course on Nazism might help you with your dilemma...
You do know how many died under Stalin's watch?
There have been evil regimes...and there have been EVIL regimes.....and then there has been the Nazis, a regime that invented the gas chambers to mass murder children because it was thought too inhumane for Germans to shoot them (not for the children, but for the poor souls who had to shoot them)....
Equivocating Nazism to totalitarian communism is quite frankly the kind of kind of masturbatory bullshit that only people of a right wing kind of persuasion like to articulate.....
Stalin was the lesser of two evils, in the moment. But he, and the regime that came before and after him in its various guises, gets far far too much of a pass from far far too many people.
It's funny really....I never admired anything to do with Soviet stuff...
But now...at this moment..I would embrace totalitarianism over liberal democracy if it sorted out the climate crisis, made our planet greener and stamped out the disgusting, industrialised meat industry...a no brainer for me....
Blimey, I switched off the phone for a couple of hours, and the news that Prof Ferguson has quit is mentioned more on my what’s app groups than on this thread!
They decided to take 4 months in order to maximising their chances of replacing Corbyn with their preferred candidate, and they failed. Maybe they're experimenting and seeing if they can fare any better by going to the other extreme and replacing the General Secretary in 2 weeks.
I am not sure that such obviously underhand tactics help their cause. Remember that they tried to get rid of Tom Watson in an unannounced coup in a single meeting and failed because some NEC members reacted accordingly.
Labour's civil war is only just beginning.
It will likely only end when every single SWP, Socialist Party, ex-Militant etc entryist has been ejected.
Blimey, I switched off the phone for a couple of hours, and the news that Prof Ferguson has quit is mentioned more on my what’s app groups than on this thread!
First, as in out the door like Neil Ferguson this evening...
Good to see adulterers get their comeuppance.At least no bastards involved this time!
As you are well known as an expert on bastards, are there bastard purists out there who count bastards from the moment of bastard conception, or is the general view bastardry can be avoided so long as marriage is acquired prior to the birth?
I believe it is determined by birth.Apparently there is a difference between English and Scottish Law regarding how illegitimate births are treated when the parents later do marry. Under English Law the child would become legitimate - but not under Scottish Law. I recall a conversation from about 15 years ago with a guy born circa 1950. He explained that the local vicar pondered long and har before agreeing to baptise him - not because he had been born out of wedlock - he hadn't been - but because he had been conceived out of wedlock. In the end , he did reluctantly agree. Now I strongly disapprove of that vicar's attitude - no justification to penalise the child - even if he had been born out of wedlock.
You're actually serious about all this bastard stuff, aren't you?
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
First, as in out the door like Neil Ferguson this evening...
Good to see adulterers get their comeuppance.At least no bastards involved this time!
As you are well known as an expert on bastards, are there bastard purists out there who count bastards from the moment of bastard conception, or is the general view bastardry can be avoided so long as marriage is acquired prior to the birth?
I believe it is determined by birth.Apparently there is a difference between English and Scottish Law regarding how illegitimate births are treated when the parents later do marry. Under English Law the child would become legitimate - but not under Scottish Law. I recall a conversation from about 15 years ago with a guy born circa 1950. He explained that the local vicar pondered long and har before agreeing to baptise him - not because he had been born out of wedlock - he hadn't been - but because he had been conceived out of wedlock. In the end , he did reluctantly agree. Now I strongly disapprove of that vicar's attitude - no justification to penalise the child - even if he had been born out of wedlock.
You're actually serious about all this bastard stuff, aren't you?
He reminds me of one of those gay bashing televangelists who turns out be gay.
Blimey, I switched off the phone for a couple of hours, and the news that Prof Ferguson has quit is mentioned more on my what’s app groups than on this thread!
Brits don't like hypocrites.
Im sure everyone is a bit of hypocrite at times.
When Im driving I dont like runners or walkers. When Im running I dont like cars or walkers. When Im walking I dont like cars or runners. At least I am consistent on never liking cyclists.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
In summary. 1. The Government is right that its officially published death statistics are not directly comparable with other European countries. 2. If adjustments are made to make the figures comparable, the UK comes out in an even worse light than is suggested by the comparative international figures used by our Government in its daily briefings.
Even that article is still being generous to the UK by comparison to Italy. Both the UK and Italy base daily stats on deaths from all sources where the person had tested positive. But surely then that understates the UK figure relative to Italy, given that cumulatively Italy has still tested roughly twice as many people as the UK, so more CV deaths are likely to have slipped through the testing net unrecorded in the UK.
One other point. Belgium currently has the highest per capita recorded death rate in the world, but its inclusion for deaths outside of hospital is very permissive, including deaths merely suspected of being down to CV. Yet for the comparable figures, in hospitals alone, Belgium has recorded fewer per capita hospital deaths than the UK.
My mother lived through the Second World War. She says there was no Blitz spirit. People were depressed because of the death and because nothing worked and at times, when the bombs came, they were frightened,
Things like "Blitz spirit" are more narratives that we weave than anything else. This is not to denigrate - everyone does it - but it becomes a problem if there's so much mist in your eye that you can barely see what is right in front of you.
Johnson's Churchill delusions are preposterous. I probably wouldn't care about them too much, but I think they get in the way of dealing with the virus. You don't defeat the virus except by a vaccine, which is an international cooperation exercise anyway. Far less, wrestle it to the floor or engage in national battle. You live with the thing. You manage it. That requires a lot of discipline and good organisation.
Mr. Johnson’s calculation then was that the quality of his cabinet was pretty much immaterial. His priority was to deliver Brexit and economic policies that the Conservatives’ new Brexit-supporting voters were demanding. That would be driven by Mr. Johnson’s small team of political advisers in No. 10 Downing Street, led by his ruthless, controlling, Machiavellian chief adviser, Dominic Cummings.
In this centralization of power, a core group of insiders and allies would decide the government’s agenda and come up with the ideas and the strategies for carrying it out. The job of cabinet ministers would be to do, meekly, as they were told. No opposition was permitted. Senior, able Tory politicians of independent spirit were passed over and exiled to the backbenches.
The onslaught of the coronavirus has revealed how dangerous it is to deliberately weaken the cabinet in this way.
Most of the time talk of wartime nostalgia or reflection is overblown and a stereotype, but it cannot be denied it does happen, and as much as I love history I do agree certain views on certain periods of history can be unhelpful.
I don't quite see following that through to commentary on VE day. This year is, I think, the first time I really recall much of a meal being made of it. That's no doubt not the case, but I honestly don't recall it being mentioned as much in past years.
So while I take a lot of the main thrust of this piece I think it's not the strongest from Mr Meeks, who has some truly hard hitting ones in the catalogue. It feels like it is pushing its theme a bit too hard for the point. It's outrage seems a little bit theatrical and manufactured. Not that it is not there, but not as convincingly so.
The last big one that I can remember was 1995.
There is, in fact, an interesting story about how the UK celebrated it. The [planned low-key approach was somewhat hijacked. Of course, not for political gain …
In summary. 1. The Government is right that its officially published death statistics are not directly comparable with other European countries. 2. If adjustments are made to make the figures comparable, the UK comes out in an even worse light than is suggested by the comparative international figures used by our Government in its daily briefings.
Even that article is still being generous to the UK by comparison to Italy. Both the UK and Italy base daily stats on deaths from all sources where the person had tested positive. But surely then that understates the UK figure relative to Italy, given that cumulatively Italy has still tested roughly twice as many people as the UK, so more CV deaths are likely to have slipped through the testing net unrecorded in the UK.
One other point. Belgium currently has the highest per capita recorded death rate in the world, but its inclusion for deaths outside of hospital is very permissive, including deaths merely suspected of being down to CV. Yet for the comparable figures, in hospitals alone, Belgium has recorded fewer per capita hospital deaths than the UK.
It's a reverse £350 million a week. The number is at least 30,000. Whether it's up or down, more or slightly less than Italy doesn't matter so much - it's going to hang round the Gov'ts neck and rightfully so.
First, as in out the door like Neil Ferguson this evening...
Good to see adulterers get their comeuppance.At least no bastards involved this time!
As you are well known as an expert on bastards, are there bastard purists out there who count bastards from the moment of bastard conception, or is the general view bastardry can be avoided so long as marriage is acquired prior to the birth?
I believe it is determined by birth.Apparently there is a difference between English and Scottish Law regarding how illegitimate births are treated when the parents later do marry. Under English Law the child would become legitimate - but not under Scottish Law. I recall a conversation from about 15 years ago with a guy born circa 1950. He explained that the local vicar pondered long and har before agreeing to baptise him - not because he had been born out of wedlock - he hadn't been - but because he had been conceived out of wedlock. In the end , he did reluctantly agree. Now I strongly disapprove of that vicar's attitude - no justification to penalise the child - even if he had been born out of wedlock.
You're actually serious about all this bastard stuff, aren't you?
He reminds me of one of those gay bashing televangelists who turns out be gay.
I have long thought that we could sort out all his problems by crowdfunding a grindr subscription for him.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
How many would have died without the British? Can you be sure it would have been a lesser number.? Famine doesnt give a toss about who.is in.power ...
What we can say is that there has been no comparable famine in India since independence while there were thirty or so major famines under British rule. There were organisational reasons why those famines were so bad,
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
How many would have died without the British? Can you be sure it would have been a lesser number.? Famine doesnt give a toss about who.is in.power ...
Famines, in modern times, are man made. Name a famous famine in the last 100 years and you'll see how people's action caused it.
Ethiopia's famine was not caused by a lack of food in the country, it was caused by a, deliberate, lack of logistics to transport and distribute food. During the Bengal famine the rice stores were bursting at the seams so full were they.
Did you all know the Blitz spirit involved people in the East End throwing rubbish at Queen Elizabeth, who most of us knew as the Queen Mother?
I was never terribly impressed by her claim that she could look the East End in the eye because a small bomb had fallen on the servants quarters in one of her seven palaces.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
How many would have died without the British? Can you be sure it would have been a lesser number.? Famine doesnt give a toss about who.is in.power ...
What we can say is that there has been no comparable famine in India since independence while there were thirty or so major famines under British rule. There were organisational reasons why those famines were so bad,
Genuine question: Were any of them deliberately induced?
If not, its inappropriate to compare to the Holocaust.
Most of the time talk of wartime nostalgia or reflection is overblown and a stereotype, but it cannot be denied it does happen, and as much as I love history I do agree certain views on certain periods of history can be unhelpful.
I don't quite see following that through to commentary on VE day. This year is, I think, the first time I really recall much of a meal being made of it. That's no doubt not the case, but I honestly don't recall it being mentioned as much in past years.
So while I take a lot of the main thrust of this piece I think it's not the strongest from Mr Meeks, who has some truly hard hitting ones in the catalogue. It feels like it is pushing its theme a bit too hard for the point. It's outrage seems a little bit theatrical and manufactured. Not that it is not there, but not as convincingly so.
The last big one that I can remember was 1995.
There is, in fact, an interesting story about how the UK celebrated it. The [planned low-key approach was somewhat hijacked. Of course, not for political gain …
First, as in out the door like Neil Ferguson this evening...
Good to see adulterers get their comeuppance.At least no bastards involved this time!
As you are well known as an expert on bastards, are there bastard purists out there who count bastards from the moment of bastard conception, or is the general view bastardry can be avoided so long as marriage is acquired prior to the birth?
I believe it is determined by birth.Apparently there is a difference between English and Scottish Law regarding how illegitimate births are treated when the parents later do marry. Under English Law the child would become legitimate - but not under Scottish Law. I recall a conversation from about 15 years ago with a guy born circa 1950. He explained that the local vicar pondered long and har before agreeing to baptise him - not because he had been born out of wedlock - he hadn't been - but because he had been conceived out of wedlock. In the end , he did reluctantly agree. Now I strongly disapprove of that vicar's attitude - no justification to penalise the child - even if he had been born out of wedlock.
You're actually serious about all this bastard stuff, aren't you?
He reminds me of one of those gay bashing televangelists who turns out be gay.
I have long thought that we could sort out all his problems by crowdfunding a grindr subscription for him.
Most nation's have myths about their histories which, even where rooted in some level of fact, are to some degree a nonsense. And they can be unhelpful. I have often talked with disdain for those politically living on myths of the 70s and 80s. Though I think many don't have a problem with mythmaking and its imapct, but on which myths to follow.
Did you all know the Blitz spirit involved people in the East End throwing rubbish at Queen Elizabeth, who most of us knew as the Queen Mother?
I was never terribly impressed by her claim that she could look the East End in the eye because a small bomb had fallen on the servants quarters in one of her seven palaces.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
How many would have died without the British? Can you be sure it would have been a lesser number.? Famine doesnt give a toss about who.is in.power ...
What we can say is that there has been no comparable famine in India since independence while there were thirty or so major famines under British rule. There were organisational reasons why those famines were so bad,
Genuine question: Were any of them deliberately induced?
If not, its inappropriate to compare to the Holocaust.
I wouldn't call it holocaust. Callous indifference to the lives they were responsible for probably.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
How many would have died without the British? Can you be sure it would have been a lesser number.? Famine doesnt give a toss about who.is in.power ...
What we can say is that there has been no comparable famine in India since independence while there were thirty or so major famines under British rule. There were organisational reasons why those famines were so bad,
Genuine question: Were any of them deliberately induced?
If not, its inappropriate to compare to the Holocaust.
I wouldn't call it holocaust. Callous indifference to the lives they were responsible for probably.
In summary. 1. The Government is right that its officially published death statistics are not directly comparable with other European countries. 2. If adjustments are made to make the figures comparable, the UK comes out in an even worse light than is suggested by the comparative international figures used by our Government in its daily briefings.
Even that article is still being generous to the UK by comparison to Italy. Both the UK and Italy base daily stats on deaths from all sources where the person had tested positive. But surely then that understates the UK figure relative to Italy, given that cumulatively Italy has still tested roughly twice as many people as the UK, so more CV deaths are likely to have slipped through the testing net unrecorded in the UK.
One other point. Belgium currently has the highest per capita recorded death rate in the world, but its inclusion for deaths outside of hospital is very permissive, including deaths merely suspected of being down to CV. Yet for the comparable figures, in hospitals alone, Belgium has recorded fewer per capita hospital deaths than the UK.
It's a reverse £350 million a week. The number is at least 30,000. Whether it's up or down, more or slightly less than Italy doesn't matter so much - it's going to hang round the Gov'ts neck and rightfully so.
Im sure you are right politically and eventually public opinion will turn on the govts handling, probably mostly after we are back to normal.
However for balance UK flu deaths in 1989 and 1968 caused similar levels of death without anything like the same publicity. The difference with this disease is the impact on the economy and the level of death that it would create had it been left unrestricted.
Most of the time talk of wartime nostalgia or reflection is overblown and a stereotype, but it cannot be denied it does happen, and as much as I love history I do agree certain views on certain periods of history can be unhelpful.
I don't quite see following that through to commentary on VE day. This year is, I think, the first time I really recall much of a meal being made of it. That's no doubt not the case, but I honestly don't recall it being mentioned as much in past years.
So while I take a lot of the main thrust of this piece I think it's not the strongest from Mr Meeks, who has some truly hard hitting ones in the catalogue. It feels like it is pushing its theme a bit too hard for the point. It's outrage seems a little bit theatrical and manufactured. Not that it is not there, but not as convincingly so.
The last big one that I can remember was 1995.
There is, in fact, an interesting story about how the UK celebrated it. The [planned low-key approach was somewhat hijacked. Of course, not for political gain …
The spam fritter PR disaster.
that was D-day.
There's an Alastair Campbell interview where he explains how they formally agreed that it would be a low key solemn affair and then went around spreading allsorts of mischief about not making it solemn enough, not a big enough deal etc etc. Attacked it from all sides.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
How many would have died without the British? Can you be sure it would have been a lesser number.? Famine doesnt give a toss about who.is in.power ...
Famines, in modern times, are man made. Name a famous famine in the last 100 years and you'll see how people's action caused it.
Ethiopia's famine was not caused by a lack of food in the country, it was caused by a, deliberate, lack of logistics to transport and distribute food. During the Bengal famine the rice stores were bursting at the seams so full were they.
A very sound, oft forgotten point, about Ethiopia's famine.
Soviets must have been laughing their socks off at Live Aid.
In summary. 1. The Government is right that its officially published death statistics are not directly comparable with other European countries. 2. If adjustments are made to make the figures comparable, the UK comes out in an even worse light than is suggested by the comparative international figures used by our Government in its daily briefings.
Even that article is still being generous to the UK by comparison to Italy. Both the UK and Italy base daily stats on deaths from all sources where the person had tested positive. But surely then that understates the UK figure relative to Italy, given that cumulatively Italy has still tested roughly twice as many people as the UK, so more CV deaths are likely to have slipped through the testing net unrecorded in the UK.
One other point. Belgium currently has the highest per capita recorded death rate in the world, but its inclusion for deaths outside of hospital is very permissive, including deaths merely suspected of being down to CV. Yet for the comparable figures, in hospitals alone, Belgium has recorded fewer per capita hospital deaths than the UK.
It's a reverse £350 million a week. The number is at least 30,000. Whether it's up or down, more or slightly less than Italy doesn't matter so much - it's going to hang round the Gov'ts neck and rightfully so.
Im sure you are right politically and eventually public opinion will turn on the govts handling, probably mostly after we are back to normal.
However for balance UK flu deaths in 1989 and 1968 caused similar levels of death without anything like the same publicity. The difference with this disease is the impact on the economy and the level of death that it would create had it been left unrestricted.
Indeed.
While any deaths are a tragedy, people are acting as if the government should never permit anyone to die. If it was up to some people the government would overreact at a drop of the hat.
The government has stopped the NHS from being overwhelmed, stopped the pandemic from being as base as 89 and 68 (for now at least) and come up with ingenious solutions for the economy (for now at least). That's not a bad outcome at short notice.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
They decided to take 4 months in order to maximising their chances of replacing Corbyn with their preferred candidate, and they failed. Maybe they're experimenting and seeing if they can fare any better by going to the other extreme and replacing the General Secretary in 2 weeks.
I am not sure that such obviously underhand tactics help their cause. Remember that they tried to get rid of Tom Watson in an unannounced coup in a single meeting and failed because some NEC members reacted accordingly.
You can hardly blame the left wing loonies for employing underhanded tactics now that the Blairite loonies have been shown to have been a total festering snake pit. The whole party is totally unfit for purpose.
First, as in out the door like Neil Ferguson this evening...
Good to see adulterers get their comeuppance.At least no bastards involved this time!
As you are well known as an expert on bastards, are there bastard purists out there who count bastards from the moment of bastard conception, or is the general view bastardry can be avoided so long as marriage is acquired prior to the birth?
I believe it is determined by birth.Apparently there is a difference between English and Scottish Law regarding how illegitimate births are treated when the parents later do marry. Under English Law the child would become legitimate - but not under Scottish Law. I recall a conversation from about 15 years ago with a guy born circa 1950. He explained that the local vicar pondered long and har before agreeing to baptise him - not because he had been born out of wedlock - he hadn't been - but because he had been conceived out of wedlock. In the end , he did reluctantly agree. Now I strongly disapprove of that vicar's attitude - no justification to penalise the child - even if he had been born out of wedlock.
You're actually serious about all this bastard stuff, aren't you?
He reminds me of one of those gay bashing televangelists who turns out be gay.
He’s technically correct, but obviously trolling in faux ignorance of any offence it might cause - not the first or last time we’ll see it on here...
Today!
I’m qualified to be offended by it, but is it worth getting angry over? People are entitled to their views
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now after all. What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
Well I'm also of the opinion that independence is better than artificial political unions, I'm glad you've been won around to the Brexiteer cause too - even if it was post Brexit.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
Did you all know the Blitz spirit involved people in the East End throwing rubbish at Queen Elizabeth, who most of us knew as the Queen Mother?
I was never terribly impressed by her claim that she could look the East End in the eye because a small bomb had fallen on the servants quarters in one of her seven palaces.
It was a very Marie Antoinette thing to say.
Marie Antoinette is a much maligned person in history. She didn't say the thing about cakes, she seems to have been quite a nice person in a domesticated middle class kind of way and ultimately she was brave and honourable in staying with her useless husband in prison to face the guillotine, when she could have left. Her misfortune was to be married off to the French prince during a brief lull in French/Austrian hostilities and then suffer from anti-Austrian prejudice for the rest of her time in France.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now? What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
Germany is definitely an artificial Union. You don't hear about a big Bavarian separatist movement complaining about the colonial Prussian overlords (although in many ways they would have a right to). Or maybe there is, and we're just not aware.
Appropos of nothing, I was watching the second episode ever of Last Week Tonight earlier, 7 years old now, and it was amusing how one of the best gags seemed based on the idea that Joe Biden was a doddering old man (the context was Obama in a very awkward moment hoping that Biden would emerge on the lawn at the press conference in an open robe). Hopefully he is not that doddering.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
What counts as a non-artificial political union?
The EU?
The EU is a worthy successor to the Seventh Coalition.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now? What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
Germany is definitely an artificial Union. You don't hear about a big Bavarian separatist movement complaining about the colonial Prussian overlords (although in many ways they would have a right to). Or maybe there is, and we're just not aware.
What gets my goat is when people imply attachment to an existing political union is someone absurd, or misguided, because it is for an 'artificial' one, that it is not, in a way, 'real', when while some boundaries in this world may well be particularly arbitrary, or recent, that doesn't mean they cannot be real, and doesn't mean others are less artificial human constructs.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
Using those numbers from Sunil's link that is 34,000 a year for 177 years. Terrible numbers and a shame on the British Empire for sure.
And yet in 2009, according to the Times of India, in one province alone, 45,000 children died of malnutrition. The country has the highest number of underweight children in the world with 1 in 5 children suffering from wasting due to malnutrition.
With numbers like that I am not sure you would even notice a famine in modern India.
BBC News covers the new app. Wastes most of the report with vox pops of people saying they will use it because it might save lives.
Tiny mention of privacy issues. No analysis of those issues or the letter from dozens of computer scientists warning of the centralised system. No analysis either of the way UK is going down a different road to say Germany. No discussion of The Registers complete take down of the issue of the app not being on most of the time.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now after all. What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
The UK is more artificial than most. If Corsica left France, it would still be France. If Northern Ireland left the UK, the UK would no longer exist.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now after all. What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
The UK is more artificial than most. If Corsica left France, it would still be France. If Northern Ireland left the UK, the UK would no longer exist.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now after all. What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
The UK is more artificial than most. If Corsica left France, it would still be France. If Northern Ireland left the UK, the UK would no longer exist.
Yes it would, it would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It first became united when King James VI of Scotland inherited the Kingdom of England and the Welsh Principality in 1603.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now after all. What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
The UK is more artificial than most. If Corsica left France, it would still be France. If Northern Ireland left the UK, the UK would no longer exist.
So now we've gone from an artificial political union should be abolished to a particularly artificial political union should be abolished. I suppose that is progress.
If Corsica did leave France would Corsica be an artificial political union?
Whether or not the UK should be abolished or not its artificiality is irrelevant to the question.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now after all. What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
The UK is more artificial than most. If Corsica left France, it would still be France. If Northern Ireland left the UK, the UK would no longer exist.
Wouldn't the equivalent be the Isle of Wight?
Replace Corsica with Alsace if you don't like that example.
BBC News covers the new app. Wastes most of the report with vox pops of people saying they will use it because it might save lives.
Tiny mention of privacy issues. No analysis of those issues or the letter from dozens of computer scientists warning of the centralised system. No analysis either of the way UK is going down a different road to say Germany. No discussion of The Registers complete take down of the issue of the app not being on most of the time.
Etc etc etc.
Was hoping this crisis might see the back of "But what do the customers at Walsall market reckon?". Obviously not.
Appropos of nothing, I was watching the second episode ever of Last Week Tonight earlier, 7 years old now, and it was amusing how one of the best gags seemed based on the idea that Joe Biden was a doddering old man (the context was Obama in a very awkward moment hoping that Biden would emerge on the lawn at the press conference in an open robe). Hopefully he is not that doddering.
We can safely say the ensuing 7 years has not cured his dodderiness.
To prevent 4 more years of Trump, America has to elect a guy who can't recall if he had a cookie with his afternoon tea.
The UK is more artificial than most. If Corsica left France, it would still be France. If Northern Ireland left the UK, the UK would no longer exist.
Who describes themselves in terms of the UK? Precisely nobody.
You are Scottish, Welsh, Irish, English (or British).
NI leaving the UK would be a wonderful moment for the Irish because democracy will have taken its course...just as the EU referendum was a wonderful moment for democracy.
Of course, the nation haters sit seething on the sidelines decrying anything that shows pride in ones country but that is nothing new...they have been around forever.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now after all. What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
The UK is more artificial than most. If Corsica left France, it would still be France. If Northern Ireland left the UK, the UK would no longer exist.
Yes it would, it would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It first became united when King James VI of Scotland inherited the Kingdom of England and the Welsh Principality in 1603.
The political union wasn't until 1707, and it created the Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was the product of the union with Ireland.
Appropos of nothing, I was watching the second episode ever of Last Week Tonight earlier, 7 years old now, and it was amusing how one of the best gags seemed based on the idea that Joe Biden was a doddering old man (the context was Obama in a very awkward moment hoping that Biden would emerge on the lawn at the press conference in an open robe). Hopefully he is not that doddering.
We can safely say the ensuing 7 years has not cured his dodderiness.
To prevent 4 more years of Trump, America has to elect a guy who can't recall if he had a cookie with his afternoon tea.
Pretty sure I recall a long bit on the Daily Show about his handsiness from 8-9 years ago to boot. Though IIRC he has apologised for that.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
How many would have died without the British? Can you be sure it would have been a lesser number.? Famine doesnt give a toss about who.is in.power ...
Famines, in modern times, are man made. Name a famous famine in the last 100 years and you'll see how people's action caused it.
Ethiopia's famine was not caused by a lack of food in the country, it was caused by a, deliberate, lack of logistics to transport and distribute food. During the Bengal famine the rice stores were bursting at the seams so full were they.
A very sound, oft forgotten point, about Ethiopia's famine.
Soviets must have been laughing their socks off at Live Aid.
Just finished reading Martin Meredith's The State of Africa. It is heartbreaking. Ethiopia's famous famine was the result of politics, corruption, tribalism, cold war chicanery and the outright cold-blooded murderous intent of the Ethiopian leadership. Nothing natural about it.
But so was South Sudan, the CAR, Equatorial Guinea, Biafra, Angola, the Zaire/DRC millions, rwanda's genocide. all savagely awful. The one quote that sticks in the mind is Charles Taylor's election campaign slogan in Liberia "He killed my pa, he killed my ma, but I will vote for him". Truly staggering.
Could it be there just isn’t much provision for the elderly in the form of care homes in Easter Europe, and that’s a reason why they aren’t suffering as the West suffers?
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
BBC News covers the new app. Wastes most of the report with vox pops of people saying they will use it because it might save lives.
Tiny mention of privacy issues. No analysis of those issues or the letter from dozens of computer scientists warning of the centralised system. No analysis either of the way UK is going down a different road to say Germany. No discussion of The Registers complete take down of the issue of the app not being on most of the time.
Etc etc etc.
This is a rare occassion where the vox pops are relevant though.
The app will work [if it works technically which seems highly probably] if people are willing to download it.
The concerns the computer scientists have about a centralised system, the different road etc are all moot in that case. What matters is (a) does it work - which the Isle of Wight test will reveal and (b) will people install it?
Short of an opinion poll the vox pops addresses point (b). Its actually relevant for once.
Could it be there just isn’t much provision for the elderly in the form of care homes in Easter Europe, and that’s a reason why they aren’t suffering as the West suffers?
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
You are patriotic in the sense you want England, Scotland and Wales to join Ireland and become mere states in a Federal EU superstate of no more influence than California or Wyoming or Vermont
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now? What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
Germany is definitely an artificial Union. You don't hear about a big Bavarian separatist movement complaining about the colonial Prussian overlords (although in many ways they would have a right to). Or maybe there is, and we're just not aware.
I always thought the EU should be more like the Holy Roman Empire in the way it is run
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
When we stood alone in WWII, it was our finest hour as a nation.
It is part of our national character, etched on our psyche, one of defiance, resiliance - it is a history to be proud of.
It's a myth. We were an empire.
The speech recognises that
And kyf_100's comment doesn't.
Yawn. Pathetic.
If I'd said "the finest hour in our empire's history" you would have accused me of being a fascist, racist, imperialist for mere mention of the word "empire".
I used the words part of our national character because that is what it is.
I think your problem is that you think it's disgusting to be proud of your country so you want to use semantics to justify your hatred. Fair enough, but that's hardly my problem.
I'm very patriotic, but the UK is an artificial political union that should be abolished.
All countries are artifical political unions. One world government is not realistic or even necessarily desirable, at the present time at the very least, but I am curious what you would consider to not be an artificial union. One based on geography? Language? Why would that be the case that that prevents polities within those two, and what if they conflict? Is France an artificial union? It didn't always have the level of shared character it does now after all. What about Germany? China? Eswatini?
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
The UK is more artificial than most. If Corsica left France, it would still be France. If Northern Ireland left the UK, the UK would no longer exist.
Yes it would, it would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It first became united when King James VI of Scotland inherited the Kingdom of England and the Welsh Principality in 1603.
No, just the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Which would change our British nationality to . . . errr . . .
BBC News covers the new app. Wastes most of the report with vox pops of people saying they will use it because it might save lives.
Tiny mention of privacy issues. No analysis of those issues or the letter from dozens of computer scientists warning of the centralised system. No analysis either of the way UK is going down a different road to say Germany. No discussion of The Registers complete take down of the issue of the app not being on most of the time.
Etc etc etc.
This is a rare occassion where the vox pops are relevant though.
The app will work [if it works technically which seems highly probably] if people are willing to download it.
The concerns the computer scientists have about a centralised system, the different road etc are all moot in that case. What matters is (a) does it work - which the Isle of Wight test will reveal and (b) will people install it?
Short of an opinion poll the vox pops addresses point (b). Its actually relevant for once.
You lost me at the highly probably bit - nothing I have seen today tells me that it's going to work. And speaking to a mate at NHSX I suspect it doesn't.
However it will provide a nice comfort blanket for people..
I mean people in India talk about the Holocaust they suffered during WWII thanks to the British when was the last time anyone in the media mentioned that?
There was no Holocaust in India. There may have been terrible things, but not on that scale. British rule wasn't very far worse or very far better than India was used to.
Horror and gratitude is roughly the legacy. No Holocaust though.
60 million dead through famine during British Rule:
Surely "Blitz Spirit" "Our Finest Hour" and even the 1943 Bengal Famine are all beside the point. The 75th Anniversary of all of those are fading into history. This weekend marks a different event, the 75th anniversary of Victory in Europe.
It was not us standing alone (not that we were in 1940 either with our worldwide empire), VE day came about because of our alliance particularly with the USA and USSR, and of these it was the Red Army under Marshal Zhukov who "got WW2 done".
I shall raise a silent toast to our veterans, but also to our allies veterans on Friday. We are at our best when we coordinate our efforts with international friends and allies. This is a day to remember the end of the evils of Nazism, and the beginning of the post war world. Between VE and VJ day we changed government, with a landslide victory for Attlee. It was the end of Churchillism*, not its apogee.
*Yes, I know, he stayed on as LOTO, and returned briefly for an undistinguished second government in 1951.
Headline article: Not a chance. Victory in WW2 deserves to be celebrated with great aplomb. It represented the defeat of Nazism as an existential threat.
The defeat of such threats as Nazism deserves frequent notice to remind us that that kind of shit hole philosophy needs and can be defeated because at some point its going to have to be done again. Not least what came after, where Western Europe was picked up from the ruins and democratic nation states thrived whilst across the way another shit hole philosophy needed to be contained and eventually hollowed out.
How this headline article somehow brings Boris Johnson's view of Sars Cov 2 into a discussion about the defeat of Nazism has to be one of the most weedy form of comparison I've seen in some time. It needed a crowbar to wedge that in there.
We are lucky that few in this country have actually had to fight, properly, for survival or a real fundamental cause. We think we do sometimes, like we are engaged in a conflict that is somehow really epoch level important, Brexit being a perfect case in point. Important mater yes but really some people acted as if life as we knew it was going to end and it hasn't and it won't. Some even like to act like its some kind of war but it isn't 99% of the time its a political difference of opinion and no one really gets hurt.
That's how it should be and the defeat of Nazism is one of the reasons we can have that existence that allows the debate and occasionally self indulgent nonsense we have in this country and many a Western European democracy.
Most of the time talk of wartime nostalgia or reflection is overblown and a stereotype, but it cannot be denied it does happen, and as much as I love history I do agree certain views on certain periods of history can be unhelpful.
I don't quite see following that through to commentary on VE day. This year is, I think, the first time I really recall much of a meal being made of it. That's no doubt not the case, but I honestly don't recall it being mentioned as much in past years.
So while I take a lot of the main thrust of this piece I think it's not the strongest from Mr Meeks, who has some truly hard hitting ones in the catalogue. It feels like it is pushing its theme a bit too hard for the point. It's outrage seems a little bit theatrical and manufactured. Not that it is not there, but not as convincingly so.
The last big one that I can remember was 1995.
There is, in fact, an interesting story about how the UK celebrated it. The [planned low-key approach was somewhat hijacked. Of course, not for political gain …
Most of the time talk of wartime nostalgia or reflection is overblown and a stereotype, but it cannot be denied it does happen, and as much as I love history I do agree certain views on certain periods of history can be unhelpful.
I don't quite see following that through to commentary on VE day. This year is, I think, the first time I really recall much of a meal being made of it. That's no doubt not the case, but I honestly don't recall it being mentioned as much in past years.
So while I take a lot of the main thrust of this piece I think it's not the strongest from Mr Meeks, who has some truly hard hitting ones in the catalogue. It feels like it is pushing its theme a bit too hard for the point. It's outrage seems a little bit theatrical and manufactured. Not that it is not there, but not as convincingly so.
The last big one that I can remember was 1995.
There is, in fact, an interesting story about how the UK celebrated it. The [planned low-key approach was somewhat hijacked. Of course, not for political gain …
The 65th anniversary was commemorated in 2010 - just two days after the 2010 election when Brown, Cameron and Clegg attended a service at the Cenotaph. Five years later it happened again for the 70 th Anniversary just a couple of days after the 2015 election. I recall it was Ed Milliband's last public duty as Labour leader.
Surely "Blitz Spirit" "Our Finest Hour" and even the 1943 Bengal Famine are all beside the point. The 75th Anniversary of all of those are fading into history. This weekend marks a different event, the 75th anniversary of Victory in Europe.
It was not us standing alone (not that we were in 1940 either with our worldwide empire), VE day came about because of our alliance particularly with the USA and USSR, and of these it was the Red Army under Marshal Zhukov who "got WW2 done".
I shall raise a silent toast to our veterans, but also to our allies veterans on Friday. We are at our best when we coordinate our efforts with international friends and allies. This is a day to remember the end of the evils of Nazism, and the beginning of the post war world. Between VE and VJ day we changed government, with a landslide victory for Attlee. It was the end of Churchillism*, not its apogee.
*Yes, I know, he stayed on as LOTO, and returned briefly for an undistinguished second government in 1951.
I for one will be remembering Churchill, our greatest ever PM and his rallying the nation to defeat the threat of Nazi invasion from Epping, the constituency he represented as our wartime PM
Comments
2. If she is married they are technically both adulterers, whether he is or not.
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/05/sorry-melanie-this-is-goodbye-i-finally-part-company-with-melanie-phillips-.html
I am not sure that such obviously underhand tactics help their cause. Remember that they tried to get rid of Tom Watson in an unannounced coup in a single meeting and failed because some NEC members reacted accordingly.
whichever way you view it doesn't look good to say it lightly....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
In this centralization of power, a core group of insiders and allies would decide the government’s agenda and come up with the ideas and the strategies for carrying it out. The job of cabinet ministers would be to do, meekly, as they were told. No opposition was permitted. Senior, able Tory politicians of independent spirit were passed over and exiled to the backbenches.
The onslaught of the coronavirus has revealed how dangerous it is to deliberately weaken the cabinet in this way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/opinion/boris-johnson-coronavirus-uk.html
However, the hype of the Daily Mail and others is not to my liking , but respectful remembrance is an important part of our history and the way we overcame the nightmare of war, furthermore everyone should be free to choose how they want to mark the occasion
Unfortunately Alastair cannot help himself again showing his brexit pain and denigrating Dads Army volunteers in the war.
They played a role, as did Vera Lynn, and of course Churchill with many others.
I doubt Alastair's piece is a majority view by some distance in our country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
I recall a conversation from about 15 years ago with a guy born circa 1950. He explained that the local vicar pondered long and har before agreeing to baptise him - not because he had been born out of wedlock - he hadn't been - but because he had been conceived out of wedlock. In the end , he did reluctantly agree. Now I strongly disapprove of that vicar's attitude - no justification to penalise the child - even if he had been born out of wedlock.
But now...at this moment..I would embrace totalitarianism over liberal democracy if it sorted out the climate crisis, made our planet greener and stamped out the disgusting, industrialised meat industry...a no brainer for me....
It will likely only end when every single SWP, Socialist Party, ex-Militant etc entryist has been ejected.
Should Americans stop commemorating July 4th?
Should the French stop commemorating Bastille Day?
When Im driving I dont like runners or walkers.
When Im running I dont like cars or walkers.
When Im walking I dont like cars or runners.
At least I am consistent on never liking cyclists.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/05/why-no-10s-covid-19-death-toll-slides-dont-tell-the-whole-story
In summary.
1. The Government is right that its officially published death statistics are not directly comparable with other European countries.
2. If adjustments are made to make the figures comparable, the UK comes out in an even worse light than is suggested by the comparative international figures used by our Government in its daily briefings.
Even that article is still being generous to the UK by comparison to Italy. Both the UK and Italy base daily stats on deaths from all sources where the person had tested positive. But surely then that understates the UK figure relative to Italy, given that cumulatively Italy has still tested roughly twice as many people as the UK, so more CV deaths are likely to have slipped through the testing net unrecorded in the UK.
One other point. Belgium currently has the highest per capita recorded death rate in the world, but its inclusion for deaths outside of hospital is very permissive, including deaths merely suspected of being down to CV. Yet for the comparable figures, in hospitals alone, Belgium has recorded fewer per capita hospital deaths than the UK.
There is, in fact, an interesting story about how the UK celebrated it. The [planned low-key approach was somewhat hijacked. Of course, not for political gain …
Ethiopia's famine was not caused by a lack of food in the country, it was caused by a, deliberate, lack of logistics to transport and distribute food. During the Bengal famine the rice stores were bursting at the seams so full were they.
If not, its inappropriate to compare to the Holocaust.
However for balance UK flu deaths in 1989 and 1968 caused similar levels of death without anything like the same publicity. The difference with this disease is the impact on the economy and the level of death that it would create had it been left unrestricted.
There's an Alastair Campbell interview where he explains how they formally agreed that it would be a low key solemn affair and then went around spreading allsorts of mischief about not making it solemn enough, not a big enough deal etc etc. Attacked it from all sides.
Soviets must have been laughing their socks off at Live Aid.
While any deaths are a tragedy, people are acting as if the government should never permit anyone to die. If it was up to some people the government would overreact at a drop of the hat.
The government has stopped the NHS from being overwhelmed, stopped the pandemic from being as base as 89 and 68 (for now at least) and come up with ingenious solutions for the economy (for now at least). That's not a bad outcome at short notice.
Today!
I’m qualified to be offended by it, but is it worth getting angry over? People are entitled to their views
If enough people believe a union should exist it will exist and be real. When they don't believe in it enough, it will fall.
And yet in 2009, according to the Times of India, in one province alone, 45,000 children died of malnutrition. The country has the highest number of underweight children in the world with 1 in 5 children suffering from wasting due to malnutrition.
With numbers like that I am not sure you would even notice a famine in modern India.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1257784047725678592
Tiny mention of privacy issues. No analysis of those issues or the letter from dozens of computer scientists warning of the centralised system. No analysis either of the way UK is going down a different road to say Germany. No discussion of The Registers complete take down of the issue of the app not being on most of the time.
Etc etc etc.
If Corsica did leave France would Corsica be an artificial political union?
Whether or not the UK should be abolished or not its artificiality is irrelevant to the question.
Obviously not.
To prevent 4 more years of Trump, America has to elect a guy who can't recall if he had a cookie with his afternoon tea.
You are Scottish, Welsh, Irish, English (or British).
NI leaving the UK would be a wonderful moment for the Irish because democracy will have taken its course...just as the EU referendum was a wonderful moment for democracy.
Of course, the nation haters sit seething on the sidelines decrying anything that shows pride in ones country but that is nothing new...they have been around forever.
But so was South Sudan, the CAR, Equatorial Guinea, Biafra, Angola, the Zaire/DRC millions, rwanda's genocide. all savagely awful. The one quote that sticks in the mind is Charles Taylor's election campaign slogan in Liberia "He killed my pa, he killed my ma, but I will vote for him". Truly staggering.
https://anec.eu/images/Publications/technical-studies/ANEC-RT-2013-DFA-SERV-002.pdf
The app will work [if it works technically which seems highly probably] if people are willing to download it.
The concerns the computer scientists have about a centralised system, the different road etc are all moot in that case. What matters is (a) does it work - which the Isle of Wight test will reveal and (b) will people install it?
Short of an opinion poll the vox pops addresses point (b). Its actually relevant for once.
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
Which would change our British nationality to . . . errr . . .
However it will provide a nice comfort blanket for people..
The Trump army will be gunning for him.
Probably literally
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/coronavirus-whistleblower-complaint-dr-rick-bright-trump-vaccine-summary-a9500656.html
It was not us standing alone (not that we were in 1940 either with our worldwide empire), VE day came about because of our alliance particularly with the USA and USSR, and of these it was the Red Army under Marshal Zhukov who "got WW2 done".
I shall raise a silent toast to our veterans, but also to our allies veterans on Friday. We are at our best when we coordinate our efforts with international friends and allies. This is a day to remember the end of the evils of Nazism, and the beginning of the post war world. Between VE and VJ day we changed government, with a landslide victory for Attlee. It was the end of Churchillism*, not its apogee.
*Yes, I know, he stayed on as LOTO, and returned briefly for an undistinguished second government in 1951.
https://twitter.com/ldnyounglabour/status/1257728205022277632?s=21
The defeat of such threats as Nazism deserves frequent notice to remind us that that kind of shit hole philosophy needs and can be defeated because at some point its going to have to be done again. Not least what came after, where Western Europe was picked up from the ruins and democratic nation states thrived whilst across the way another shit hole philosophy needed to be contained and eventually hollowed out.
How this headline article somehow brings Boris Johnson's view of Sars Cov 2 into a discussion about the defeat of Nazism has to be one of the most weedy form of comparison I've seen in some time. It needed a crowbar to wedge that in there.
We are lucky that few in this country have actually had to fight, properly, for survival or a real fundamental cause. We think we do sometimes, like we are engaged in a conflict that is somehow really epoch level important, Brexit being a perfect case in point. Important mater yes but really some people acted as if life as we knew it was going to end and it hasn't and it won't. Some even like to act like its some kind of war but it isn't 99% of the time its a political difference of opinion and no one really gets hurt.
That's how it should be and the defeat of Nazism is one of the reasons we can have that existence that allows the debate and occasionally self indulgent nonsense we have in this country and many a Western European democracy.