politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mawkish nursery games. It’s time to leave the Second World War

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1257766345451634689

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.

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

FF43 said:

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/opinion/boris-johnson-coronavirus-uk.html

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

squareroot2 said:

Alistair said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

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!

True dat.

https://twitter.com/ldnyounglabour/status/1257728205022277632?s=21

https://twitter.com/ldnyounglabour/status/1257279075019874304?s=21

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

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 ...

rottenborough said:

isam said:

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.

An interesting comparison of official published death statistics in the Guardian here.

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.

Scott_xP said:

FF43 said:

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/opinion/boris-johnson-coronavirus-uk.html

So which of the 'senior, able Tory politicians of independent spirit' would have put restrictions on air travel ?

Wulfrun_Phil said:

An interesting comparison of official published death statistics in the Guardian here.

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.

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.

squareroot2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

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.

FF43 said:

squareroot2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

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.

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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'll ask Mike to put up the donate button.

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

squareroot2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

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.

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

squareroot2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

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.

Probably.

another_richard said:

BannedinnParis said:

kle4 said:

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.

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

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.

noneoftheabove said:

Pulpstar said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

An interesting comparison of official published death statistics in the Guardian here.

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.

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.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1257766345451634689

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

IshmaelZ said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

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.

RobD said:

Omnium said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

IshmaelZ said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

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.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/Georgia_Gould/status/1257779168445632512

Those numbers actually sound on the low side to me, perhaps it doesnt include the business rates relief (council might get instant relief from HMRC)

Yay, as a key worker I'll be getting free masks.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1257784047725678592

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

IshmaelZ said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

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.

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

IshmaelZ said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

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?

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

IshmaelZ said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

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.

rottenborough said:

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.

williamglenn said:

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.

MarqueeMark said:

kle4 said:

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.

BannedinnParis said:

Alistair said:

squareroot2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

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.

Omnium said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

What would the number have been otherwise?

Much less?

isam said:

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?




https://anec.eu/images/Publications/technical-studies/ANEC-RT-2013-DFA-SERV-002.pdf

Part of the reason for both that and the lower death rates though is only Slovenia in Eastern Europe has an average life expectancy of over 80

https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

IshmaelZ said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

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

DeClare said:

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

IshmaelZ said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

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 . . .

Very brave.

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

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.

Foxy said:

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

isam said:

https://twitter.com/ldnyounglabour/status/1257279075019874304?s=21

I imagine the questions will be along the lines of "to the nearest 10,000, how many people did the Tories austerity policy kill"...