Biden: Europe’s last American – politicalbetting.com

FrancisUrquhart said:

Back on gardening racist history...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153499/Academic-says-GARDENING-roots-racial-injustice.html

This was picked up recently by Andrew Doyle and others. It has also been argued that gardeners who favour UK native plants for environmental reasons over exotic alternatives are racist.

These and a plethora of other similar nut-job ideas are discussed in an excellent recent edition of Paxman`s "The Lock In" podcast with Doyle.

Alphabet_Soup said:

David Herdson makes the interesting point that migration is changing the US cultural memory and therefore its strategic orientation. Isn't the same process likely to occur in Europe?

No, and I'm far from clear that it's even happening in the US. The large section of America that descends from German and Italian immigrants did not lead to any real risk that the US would involve itself on the wrong side in WW2. The attempted importation of fascism into America in the late 1920s and early 1930s by those with links to Italy didn't fail because of a lack of Italians, but because America took a look at the ideology and didn't like it.
As much as people feel a sentimentality towards an ancestor country, it doesn't necessarily translate into strategy.

And, of course, often those who move from one country to another are cut from a different cloth to those they leave behind. And the immigrant experience further shapes you in new ways that diverge from the native experience.

https://twitter.com/PaulMcLafferty1/status/1350122261831962625

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

I don't think the US/EU alliance is personal. The military commitments are a little bit historical, but generally the US doesn't mind having a military presence all over the place, if you want to be able to bomb anywhere then you want bases everywhere.

China is a threat, the EU is an ally, and as China gets stronger and the US relatively weaker it gets less practical to counter China without allies. Any president regardless of party who's serious about countering China will want a strong alliance with the EU. Trump didn't, because he wasn't serious about countering China, or anything else for that matter.

I'm not sure I'd say the EU is an ally.

There was a recent poll showing that in any confrontation between the USA and China the EU would prefer to remain neutral.

Would most people in Britain want to get involved? Doubt it.

A Corbynite speaks.

Of course, most people would prefer to avoid confrontation and mind your own business, but sometimes you don't have a choice if you want to preserve things you value.

I think British opinion would be far more CCP sceptic and supportive of countering the values based threat from China.

What you're saying is what you'd like British opinion to be, but frankly I doubt if most people would know what the CCP was (and those who do wouldn't call it communist, by the way), or want Britain to be involved in a confrontation in the South China Sea, which was the issue we were discussing. The balance of opinion here is, I think, that oppression in Hong Kong should be met by British disapproval and potential sanctions, but otherwise what the Americans and Chinese do in South Asia is best left to them. It'd be interesting to see a poll, though - not sore it's ever been asked.

HYUFD said:

Laschet wins the CDU leadership race, overtaking Merz in the second round runoff.

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1350385633924177922?s=20

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1350389657599668225?s=20

Makes a CDU and Green coalition more likely after September's Federal election in Germany but means the CDU is still likely to leak votes to the AfD on its right.

Not a huge electorate? Presumably a delegate system?

Casino_Royale said:

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Back on gardening racist history...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153499/Academic-says-GARDENING-roots-racial-injustice.html

This was picked up recently by Andrew Doyle and others. It has also been argued that gardeners who favour UK native plants for environmental reasons over exotic alternatives are racist.

These and a plethora of other similar nut-job ideas are discussed in an excellent recent edition of Paxman`s "The Lock In" podcast with Doyle.

Isn't everything racist now? Even your post commenting on this (and my reply) is probably racist, and evidence of our own inherent racism.

I promise to flagellate myself appropriately for my sins later on.

The problem with these bad faith actors who turn everything into something that is steeped in racism is it actually switches most people to oh f##k off mode and gives cover to proper racists to say look at that, see its all nonsense.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulMcLafferty1/status/1350122261831962625

Yes, but it's important to realise that Orwell also wrote some pretty good stuff.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/owen_g/status/1350401529623289856

Now this is proper big news. The likely new leader of the free world. Who in 1950 would have thought Germany would hold that position in 2020? The times they are a changing, no question about it. On which topic I like the Header and especially the title - Europe's Last American. It's fading fast, the sense of kinship between us and the USA. I can vouch for this personally. I used to feel it, even quite recently, but now I don't. I remain fascinated by America but I look upon it as a strange and exotic land. Much of this is because of Trump but not all of it.

Professor John Edmunds told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think it would be a disaster if we removed restrictions in, say, the end of February when we have gone through this first wave of the vaccination.

Be prepared for lockdown to go on for a lot longer yet.

Mary_Batty said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

David Herdson makes the interesting point that migration is changing the US cultural memory and therefore its strategic orientation. Isn't the same process likely to occur in Europe?

No, and I'm far from clear that it's even happening in the US. The large section of America that descends from German and Italian immigrants did not lead to any real risk that the US would involve itself on the wrong side in WW2. The attempted importation of fascism into America in the late 1920s and early 1930s by those with links to Italy didn't fail because of a lack of Italians, but because America took a look at the ideology and didn't like it.
As much as people feel a sentimentality towards an ancestor country, it doesn't necessarily translate into strategy.

And, of course, often those who move from one country to another are cut from a different cloth to those they leave behind. And the immigrant experience further shapes you in new ways that diverge from the native experience.

100%. Of the many and varied misunderstandings of HYUFD with regard to the US is his absolute commitment to the idea of monolithic ethnic voting blocs - to the extent he invented one for “English Americans”. Eisenhower’s family was from Karlsbrunn in the Saarland. Reading HYUFD you would think he should have been relieved of command for having dubious loyalty.

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

I don't think the US/EU alliance is personal. The military commitments are a little bit historical, but generally the US doesn't mind having a military presence all over the place, if you want to be able to bomb anywhere then you want bases everywhere.

China is a threat, the EU is an ally, and as China gets stronger and the US relatively weaker it gets less practical to counter China without allies. Any president regardless of party who's serious about countering China will want a strong alliance with the EU. Trump didn't, because he wasn't serious about countering China, or anything else for that matter.

I'm not sure I'd say the EU is an ally.

There was a recent poll showing that in any confrontation between the USA and China the EU would prefer to remain neutral.

Would most people in Britain want to get involved? Doubt it.

A Corbynite speaks.

Of course, most people would prefer to avoid confrontation and mind your own business, but sometimes you don't have a choice if you want to preserve things you value.

I think British opinion would be far more CCP sceptic and supportive of countering the values based threat from China.

What you're saying is what you'd like British opinion to be, but frankly I doubt if most people would know what the CCP was (and those who do wouldn't call it communist, by the way), or want Britain to be involved in a confrontation in the South China Sea, which was the issue we were discussing. The balance of opinion here is, I think, that oppression in Hong Kong should be met by British disapproval and potential sanctions, but otherwise what the Americans and Chinese do in South Asia is best left to them. It'd be interesting to see a poll, though - not sore it's ever been asked.

There is ample evidence of overwhelming negativity towards the current CCP China - here's just one source from last year:

"BFPG’s research finds 83% of Britons now say they do not trust China to act responsibly in the world – meaning China is rapidly closing the gap on negative attitudes towards Iran, at 85%, and North Korea, at 88%. "

https://bfpg.co.uk/2020/05/intro-uk-china-strategy/

I always qualify with CCP China, rather than just China, for a couple of reasons. Firstly to avoid charges of Sinophobia - which you haven't been shy to throw around in the past - and secondly, and more importantly, I respect China's history, heritage, culture and its contribution to human development over thousands of years. I think a genuinely democratic China, along the lines of Taiwan or South Korea, would add a fantastic amount to our globe, and so my criticism is directly solely at the existing Chinese Communist Party regime.

I'm afraid I disagree on British opinion. I think the vast majority of people know perfectly well that China is governed by a communist dictator. Of course, they know that, economically, it effectively practices a form of state-directed capitalism, but they know that in all other aspects it represents a typical authoritarian state.

On the "staying out of it" point - we don't have a choice. We are 'in it', whether we want to be or not.

The only choice we have is do we do something about it - forming a values-based alliance of democracies to contain CCP ambitions - or do we watch passively as country after country succumbs to its raw economic and trade pressure (and, in some instances, military pressure) to self-censor, repress individual freedoms, circumvent fair justice, and turn a blind eye to the normalising of inhumane behaviour, something which will get harder and harder for us to resist as more and more countries fall within their political orbit?

Eventually, given we represent <1% of the global human population and < 3% of the global economy, it would affect us here too: British life would be supine, guarded, muted and unfree.

The time to act is now.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Back on gardening racist history...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153499/Academic-says-GARDENING-roots-racial-injustice.html

This was picked up recently by Andrew Doyle and others. It has also been argued that gardeners who favour UK native plants for environmental reasons over exotic alternatives are racist.

These and a plethora of other similar nut-job ideas are discussed in an excellent recent edition of Paxman`s "The Lock In" podcast with Doyle.

Isn't everything racist now? Even your post commenting on this (and my reply) is probably racist, and evidence of our own inherent racism.

I promise to flagellate myself appropriately for my sins later on.

The problem with these bad faith actors who turn everything into something that is steeped in racism is it actually switches most people to oh f##k off mode and gives cover to proper racists to say look at that, see its all nonsense.

The cover is ineffective because most of the people who react to every reported instance of woke by going "look at that, see, it's all nonsense" are proper racists.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Professor John Edmunds told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think it would be a disaster if we removed restrictions in, say, the end of February when we have gone through this first wave of the vaccination.

Be prepared for lockdown to go on for a lot longer yet.

Steve Baker and Graham Brady would like a word.

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

Good piece - thank you David.

One thing that I find slightly peculiar is why some still persist in describing Russia as the "third superpower" - which seems a bit farfetched now.

Because, despite its feeble economy, it is geographically too large to be described as a regional power, and still maintains very large nuclear armed forces ?
Its superpower status is certainly questionable and probably fragile, but it remains a threat to many countries, owing to its belligerence.

And agreed, David’s article is thought provoking.

Surely Russia is a threat because of fragile it is. An external battle keeps the internal issues hidden as everyone has something else to focus on.

Also fragile as Russia is (politically, economically), I imagine Putin keeps its armed forces in a state of preparedness, largely because he seems quite keen on using them in various parts of the world. I read that they have c.1300 fighters, I imagine more than 4 of them are combat ready.

Obviously the EU needs a more coherent defence policy, possibly an NEBTO (North East Baltic Treaty Organisation) with its own shoulder flash? That’ll go down well in certain quarters..

Personally I worry about Russia more than China. The willingness to engage in border conflicts and assassinate opponents abroad point to a dangerous recklessness. By contrast, China in its foreign policy seems a fairly standard large power - attempting to gain trade advantages and use money to promote its image is hardly unique behaviour. Their authoritarian internal behaviour and disgusting treatment of the Uighurs reflects the fact that they're an autocracy (as does the instinct of the Wuhan authorities to squash the first reports of Covid), but not an especially threatening one to Britain IMO. I think it's right to be wary in dealing with China and especially Russia, but not to start from a basis that they're looming enemies.

It's quite difficult to separate a reasonable analysis of the actual risks from the look-squirrel attempts by Western leaders in difficulty - Trump in the most obvious example but he's not alone. During the Cold War, both sides issued blood-curdling warnings which proved to be somewhat exaggerated (no credible account of either side ever actually getting close to attacking the other has ever emerged). The alliance with America had obvious benefits in basic security but also implicated us in numerous unsavoury interventions; if we take a more dispassionate view of each other in future it may be no bad thing - good friends rather than an uneasy married couple.

Neither side attacked the other because they were both armed with nuclear weapons. And if you want an example of 'getting close' try looking up the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963.

I find it richly ironic that the professed balance of your post majors on American interventions - together with its loaded language with words like "implicated" and "unsavoury" - whilst failing to mention Soviet interventions that tried to intimidate the West out of Berlin in defiance of its treaty obligations, crushed the Hungarian uprising and Prague spring with tanks, made dozens of interventions in Africa to try and spread its model by force, and tried to suppress Afghanistan under a communist dictatorship.

Of course, the common thread is simply that you sympathise with communism and see American as the crowning symbol of global capitalism.

Well, I never sympathised with Soviet autocracy - that's why (50 years ago) I was a Eurocmmunist. Not sympathising with interventions like Hungary and Czechoslovakia was pretty much the definition of the "Euro" part of Eurocommunism. The position in Afghanistan is more mixed - both sides meddled with disastrous results, and I'm not sure the communist regime there was worse than what followed, either for afghanistan or for the world.

But the reason I focused on the unsavoury things we were implicated in by US actions (from Chile to Italy to Greece to Angola to Afghanistan to Iraq...) is that we were actually closely allied with the perpetrators, and I'm arguing that a less automatically enthusiastic alliance isn't be a bad thing (and I'm writing as someone who actually voted for our intervention in Iraq). I'm not saying we should be hostile to the US, and clearly Biden gives a chance to have a good relationship, but the servility to Trump's admnistration has been nothing short of embarrassing.

I think this is a confused post, Nick, and not very convincing.

The US has got it wrong many times before, and so did we, and no doubt will occasionally continue to do so in future. But, you shouldn't be drawn into playing a game of moral relativism between the West and totalitarian dictatorships, or adopting a position of neutrality between them.

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

Mary_Batty said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

David Herdson makes the interesting point that migration is changing the US cultural memory and therefore its strategic orientation. Isn't the same process likely to occur in Europe?

No, and I'm far from clear that it's even happening in the US. The large section of America that descends from German and Italian immigrants did not lead to any real risk that the US would involve itself on the wrong side in WW2. The attempted importation of fascism into America in the late 1920s and early 1930s by those with links to Italy didn't fail because of a lack of Italians, but because America took a look at the ideology and didn't like it.
As much as people feel a sentimentality towards an ancestor country, it doesn't necessarily translate into strategy.

And, of course, often those who move from one country to another are cut from a different cloth to those they leave behind. And the immigrant experience further shapes you in new ways that diverge from the native experience.

100%. Of the many and varied misunderstandings of HYUFD with regard to the US is his absolute commitment to the idea of monolithic ethnic voting blocs - to the extent he invented one for “English Americans”. Eisenhower’s family was from Karlsbrunn in the Saarland. Reading HYUFD you would think he should have been relieved of command for having dubious loyalty.

Eisenhower was the President who humiliated Eden over Suez, English American Presidents like Bush and Clinton have been more supportive of and closer to the UK

Oh grow up.

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

I don't think the US/EU alliance is personal. The military commitments are a little bit historical, but generally the US doesn't mind having a military presence all over the place, if you want to be able to bomb anywhere then you want bases everywhere.

China is a threat, the EU is an ally, and as China gets stronger and the US relatively weaker it gets less practical to counter China without allies. Any president regardless of party who's serious about countering China will want a strong alliance with the EU. Trump didn't, because he wasn't serious about countering China, or anything else for that matter.

I'm not sure I'd say the EU is an ally.

There was a recent poll showing that in any confrontation between the USA and China the EU would prefer to remain neutral.

Would most people in Britain want to get involved? Doubt it.

A Corbynite speaks.

Of course, most people would prefer to avoid confrontation and mind your own business, but sometimes you don't have a choice if you want to preserve things you value.

I think British opinion would be far more CCP sceptic and supportive of countering the values based threat from China.

What you're saying is what you'd like British opinion to be, but frankly I doubt if most people would know what the CCP was (and those who do wouldn't call it communist, by the way), or want Britain to be involved in a confrontation in the South China Sea, which was the issue we were discussing. The balance of opinion here is, I think, that oppression in Hong Kong should be met by British disapproval and potential sanctions, but otherwise what the Americans and Chinese do in South Asia is best left to them. It'd be interesting to see a poll, though - not sore it's ever been asked.

China is over the other side of the world.

In any US China confrontation democratic states in Asia like South Korea, Japan and India and also Australia would be far more likely to be involved alongside the US than we or any other European nation would be as China's government is more of a threat to them than to us.

We however are more threatened by Russia than China, in which case we need to keep US support unless and until western Europe is prepared to spend enough on its military forces to be able to contain Putin on its own

DougSeal said:

Mary_Batty said:

DougSeal said:

I think you’re overthinking what other countries think of us. How often did Berlusconi cross your mind when he was PM? Did he make you write all Italy off as a laughing stock? Well, that’s about how often people in other EU countries think of Johnson and what they think of Britain. Then think of a junior a member of Mr Bunga Bunga’s cabinet. That’s the amount of consciousness that Rees-Mogg has overseas. Then name me, without Googling it, the leader of Liga Nord in the EU Parliament 5 or 10 years ago. That’s the visibility Farage has.

There’s a parallel inability in this country, on both sides of the Brexit debate, to see that (with the possible exception of Ireland) people in EU counties don’t generally give a shit about our domestic politics. They neither fear nor laugh at us - they generally ignore us to focus on their own dramas. The Dutch Government just resigned because the state racially profiled benefit claimants to accuse them of fraud. Pretty dramatic. As I implied earlier in this thread on another topic, there’s an inability to see any nuance in online discourse. It’s all black or white thinking, taking extremes positions in order to get noticed. that has got the whole world into the various degrees of mess (even without COVID) it’s in today. US Presidents either “love” or “hate” places. We’re either a “laughing stock” or “holding all the cards”. It’s all shite. Centrism is boring as hell but...

There's some truth in what you're saying, although some falsehood too.
I have a hobby that leads to me being in frequent contact with strangers around Europe. When these email exchanges happen, I often subtly try to get a feeling for what they think about UK politics. The frequency with which they speak knowledgably with almost no prompting about UK domestic policy is really eye-opening. Danes and Germans in particular seem to have as good an understanding of what's going on here as people I know in the same hobby circle from the UK.
I see a reversal of that trend with respect to America. Brits know America better than Americans know Britain. But for Europeans, several topics loom large, and the UK is a major one. For good or ill, the eyes of Europe ARE on on, insofar as people are politically engaged outside their own locale. Their gaze is upon us much more than ours is upon theirs.

I’m not going to gainsay your personal experience. Nevertheless I still maintain that lumping the whole EU with a single, one eyed, Manichaean, view of the UK is as insulting to them as it is to us.

The fact that I drew focused on two countries in particular, and that I helpfully italicised the bit that points towards selection bias, ought to reassure you then. That's where I've really noticed the widest gulf.
But even on the levels of the basics, I find it very plausible to say that Brits are very unfocused on Europe. If you stopped 100 people on the streets of Britain and asked them to name the Lithuania PM and the capital city of that country, how many right answers do you think you'd get? And compare that with stopping 100 Lithuanians and quizzing them about the UK.

I don't have figures to back up my hunch here, but I'd bet a stack of cash on the Lithuanians winning that quiz. In fact, I'd probably take on that bet for literally any European country.

Now that doesn't mean they all give a fig about what goes on here. You were focused in part on whether people give a shit, and I'm talking about knowledge. But I think the knowledge feeds and is fed by concern. We might not give two shits about Europe, but Europe gives perhaps one shit about us.

A possible extension to the stamp duty tax break could be debated in Parliament after 100,000 people signed a petition calling for an additional six-month holiday.

Telegraph

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

Mary_Batty said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

David Herdson makes the interesting point that migration is changing the US cultural memory and therefore its strategic orientation. Isn't the same process likely to occur in Europe?

No, and I'm far from clear that it's even happening in the US. The large section of America that descends from German and Italian immigrants did not lead to any real risk that the US would involve itself on the wrong side in WW2. The attempted importation of fascism into America in the late 1920s and early 1930s by those with links to Italy didn't fail because of a lack of Italians, but because America took a look at the ideology and didn't like it.
As much as people feel a sentimentality towards an ancestor country, it doesn't necessarily translate into strategy.

And, of course, often those who move from one country to another are cut from a different cloth to those they leave behind. And the immigrant experience further shapes you in new ways that diverge from the native experience.

100%. Of the many and varied misunderstandings of HYUFD with regard to the US is his absolute commitment to the idea of monolithic ethnic voting blocs - to the extent he invented one for “English Americans”. Eisenhower’s family was from Karlsbrunn in the Saarland. Reading HYUFD you would think he should have been relieved of command for having dubious loyalty.

Eisenhower was the President who humiliated Eden over Suez, English American Presidents like Bush and Clinton have been more supportive of and closer to the UK

English American Presidents Washington and Madison led the US to war against Britain.

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

Mary_Batty said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

David Herdson makes the interesting point that migration is changing the US cultural memory and therefore its strategic orientation. Isn't the same process likely to occur in Europe?

No, and I'm far from clear that it's even happening in the US. The large section of America that descends from German and Italian immigrants did not lead to any real risk that the US would involve itself on the wrong side in WW2. The attempted importation of fascism into America in the late 1920s and early 1930s by those with links to Italy didn't fail because of a lack of Italians, but because America took a look at the ideology and didn't like it.
As much as people feel a sentimentality towards an ancestor country, it doesn't necessarily translate into strategy.

And, of course, often those who move from one country to another are cut from a different cloth to those they leave behind. And the immigrant experience further shapes you in new ways that diverge from the native experience.

100%. Of the many and varied misunderstandings of HYUFD with regard to the US is his absolute commitment to the idea of monolithic ethnic voting blocs - to the extent he invented one for “English Americans”. Eisenhower’s family was from Karlsbrunn in the Saarland. Reading HYUFD you would think he should have been relieved of command for having dubious loyalty.

Eisenhower was the President who humiliated Eden over Suez, English American Presidents like Bush and Clinton have been more supportive of and closer to the UK

Eisenhower was a notably cooperative US senior commander in WW2 - even when he had the likes of Churchill and Montgomery to cope with (and Patton and Clark too, of course). And his Prsesident, Roosevelt, was also very cooperative. Just compare Admiral King.

On your logic President Kennedy and President to be Biden were not/will not cooperate with what is left of the UK just cos they are of Irish extraction..

And any future African-Ameridcan president would only cooperate with sub-Saharan Africa.

Really??

IshmaelZ said:

Mary_Batty said:

Andy_JS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Back on gardening racist history...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153499/Academic-says-GARDENING-roots-racial-injustice.html

This was picked up recently by Andrew Doyle and others. It has also been argued that gardeners who favour UK native plants for environmental reasons over exotic alternatives are racist.

These and a plethora of other similar nut-job ideas are discussed in an excellent recent edition of Paxman`s "The Lock In" podcast with Doyle.

Isn't everything racist now? Even your post commenting on this (and my reply) is probably racist, and evidence of our own inherent racism.

I promise to flagellate myself appropriately for my sins later on.

Being white is automatically racist according to some people.

I hear that all the time.

All a bit two edged though innit? If you think it is an important fact about Us that we Defeated Hitler (I am not saying it is important to you personally) it is surely also worth a mention that we developed and ran the North American slave trade pretty much single handedly. I would have thought that That was then, this is now was the right answer to both pro- and anti-national historicism, but you can't just have Churchill fighting on beaches and ignore all the other stuff.

Two edged, yes. The "white is racist" trope is a hefty sword wielded by people on the right gripping its blade and waving it madly around for all to see. It looms much larger in the minds of those people than it does in reality. They brandish it then show us their bloodied hands and say look! see how they wound us!
So when I say I hear it all the time, I mean that I hear it all the time from people who enjoy being the victim. That is, they are exactly the same as those people who such things in earnest.

I guess there are some dogs that can't walk past a puddle without rolling in it.

Theuniondivvie said:

Mary_Batty said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulMcLafferty1/status/1350122261831962625

Yes, but it's important to realise that Orwell also wrote some pretty good stuff.

Bet A4U man with a fleg in his profile is absolutely certain he's a patriot rather than a nationalist.

Indeed. It's quite noticeable how twitchy some PBers are at the very idea that the Scots might be peaceful autonomous self-governing independistas if it offendfs the British constitution (sic). Orwell, of course, fought in the defence of Catalonia against the, erm, local constitutional patriots.

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

Mary_Batty said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

David Herdson makes the interesting point that migration is changing the US cultural memory and therefore its strategic orientation. Isn't the same process likely to occur in Europe?

No, and I'm far from clear that it's even happening in the US. The large section of America that descends from German and Italian immigrants did not lead to any real risk that the US would involve itself on the wrong side in WW2. The attempted importation of fascism into America in the late 1920s and early 1930s by those with links to Italy didn't fail because of a lack of Italians, but because America took a look at the ideology and didn't like it.
As much as people feel a sentimentality towards an ancestor country, it doesn't necessarily translate into strategy.

And, of course, often those who move from one country to another are cut from a different cloth to those they leave behind. And the immigrant experience further shapes you in new ways that diverge from the native experience.

100%. Of the many and varied misunderstandings of HYUFD with regard to the US is his absolute commitment to the idea of monolithic ethnic voting blocs - to the extent he invented one for “English Americans”. Eisenhower’s family was from Karlsbrunn in the Saarland. Reading HYUFD you would think he should have been relieved of command for having dubious loyalty.

Eisenhower was the President who humiliated Eden over Suez, English American Presidents like Bush and Clinton have been more supportive of and closer to the UK

English American Presidents Washington and Madison led the US to war against Britain.

Not least because they saw their rights as freeborn Britons being trampled over by Britain. Not exactly going to inspire loyalty.

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Back on gardening racist history...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153499/Academic-says-GARDENING-roots-racial-injustice.html

This was picked up recently by Andrew Doyle and others. It has also been argued that gardeners who favour UK native plants for environmental reasons over exotic alternatives are racist.

These and a plethora of other similar nut-job ideas are discussed in an excellent recent edition of Paxman`s "The Lock In" podcast with Doyle.

Isn't everything racist now? Even your post commenting on this (and my reply) is probably racist, and evidence of our own inherent racism.

I promise to flagellate myself appropriately for my sins later on.

The problem with these bad faith actors who turn everything into something that is steeped in racism is it actually switches most people to oh f##k off mode and gives cover to proper racists to say look at that, see its all nonsense.

The cover is ineffective because most of the people who react to every reported instance of woke by going "look at that, see, it's all nonsense" are proper racists.

I disagree, instead they are the right wing version of the people who say being white is racist. Snowflakes, blowing up what one academic says into something that bothers them so much they say it stops people looking at racism objectively.

Some people are idiots, whether on the right or left, those who get overly worked up by the idiots and assume people on the other side are all like that have a lot in common with each other.

In addition, racism is such a poorly defined word with a plethora of different meanings, this language difficulty is one of the key problems that stops sensible debate from developing beyond two sides talking but not listening.

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

Good piece - thank you David.

One thing that I find slightly peculiar is why some still persist in describing Russia as the "third superpower" - which seems a bit farfetched now.

Because, despite its feeble economy, it is geographically too large to be described as a regional power, and still maintains very large nuclear armed forces ?
Its superpower status is certainly questionable and probably fragile, but it remains a threat to many countries, owing to its belligerence.

And agreed, David’s article is thought provoking.

Surely Russia is a threat because of fragile it is. An external battle keeps the internal issues hidden as everyone has something else to focus on.

Also fragile as Russia is (politically, economically), I imagine Putin keeps its armed forces in a state of preparedness, largely because he seems quite keen on using them in various parts of the world. I read that they have c.1300 fighters, I imagine more than 4 of them are combat ready.

Obviously the EU needs a more coherent defence policy, possibly an NEBTO (North East Baltic Treaty Organisation) with its own shoulder flash? That’ll go down well in certain quarters..

Personally I worry about Russia more than China. The willingness to engage in border conflicts and assassinate opponents abroad point to a dangerous recklessness. By contrast, China in its foreign policy seems a fairly standard large power - attempting to gain trade advantages and use money to promote its image is hardly unique behaviour. Their authoritarian internal behaviour and disgusting treatment of the Uighurs reflects the fact that they're an autocracy (as does the instinct of the Wuhan authorities to squash the first reports of Covid), but not an especially threatening one to Britain IMO. I think it's right to be wary in dealing with China and especially Russia, but not to start from a basis that they're looming enemies.

It's quite difficult to separate a reasonable analysis of the actual risks from the look-squirrel attempts by Western leaders in difficulty - Trump in the most obvious example but he's not alone. During the Cold War, both sides issued blood-curdling warnings which proved to be somewhat exaggerated (no credible account of either side ever actually getting close to attacking the other has ever emerged). The alliance with America had obvious benefits in basic security but also implicated us in numerous unsavoury interventions; if we take a more dispassionate view of each other in future it may be no bad thing - good friends rather than an uneasy married couple.

With the most obvious exception of the Cuban missile crisis.

There is an equally obvious potential flashpoint in Chinese claims on Taiwan, and the resolution of that seems rather less simple than the mutual backdown over Cuba.
The US would find even the peaceful absorption of Taiwan by the mainland (unlikely anyway) extremely difficult to accept, given the island’s domination of high end semiconductor manufacturing. That would be for them (and the rest of the West) a strategic debacle.

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Mary_Batty said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulMcLafferty1/status/1350122261831962625

Yes, but it's important to realise that Orwell also wrote some pretty good stuff.

Bet A4U man with a fleg in his profile is absolutely certain he's a patriot rather than a nationalist.

Indeed. It's quite noticeable how twitchy some PBers are at the very idea that the Scots might be peaceful autonomous self-governing independistas if it offendfs the British constitution (sic). Orwell, of course, fought in the defence of Catalonia against the, erm, local constitutional patriots.

No he didn’t. He fought in defence of the constitutional and legitimate Spanish Republic against the Spanish Fascist Insurgents. Catalonia just happened to be where he did it.

ManchesterKurt said:

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Professor John Edmunds told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think it would be a disaster if we removed restrictions in, say, the end of February when we have gone through this first wave of the vaccination.

Be prepared for lockdown to go on for a lot longer yet.

Steve Baker and Graham Brady would like a word.

Surely the restrictions are not going to be markedly relaxed until the NHS can cope with any uptick in infections that result.

That's surely not going to be the case as early as late Feb or even mid March ?

No- under 70s can definitely overwhelm the NHS without any help. (Suppose they are only a quarter of the hospitalised; fantastic- you can have two more doublings before you're back in the doodoo. So about a week if the restrictions come off.)

It's the next obvious pressure point; the temptation to unlock before Wave Four is definitely off the agenda, leading to Wave 4 and Lockdown 4. I'd hope the government would be wise to this, but I'm not sure I'm confident.

Theuniondivvie said:

Mary_Batty said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulMcLafferty1/status/1350122261831962625

Yes, but it's important to realise that Orwell also wrote some pretty good stuff.

Bet A4U man with a fleg in his profile is absolutely certain he's a patriot rather than a nationalist.

"The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organisation, fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort."

It's like he's met you.

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

Good piece - thank you David.

One thing that I find slightly peculiar is why some still persist in describing Russia as the "third superpower" - which seems a bit farfetched now.

Because, despite its feeble economy, it is geographically too large to be described as a regional power, and still maintains very large nuclear armed forces ?
Its superpower status is certainly questionable and probably fragile, but it remains a threat to many countries, owing to its belligerence.

And agreed, David’s article is thought provoking.

Surely Russia is a threat because of fragile it is. An external battle keeps the internal issues hidden as everyone has something else to focus on.

Also fragile as Russia is (politically, economically), I imagine Putin keeps its armed forces in a state of preparedness, largely because he seems quite keen on using them in various parts of the world. I read that they have c.1300 fighters, I imagine more than 4 of them are combat ready.

Obviously the EU needs a more coherent defence policy, possibly an NEBTO (North East Baltic Treaty Organisation) with its own shoulder flash? That’ll go down well in certain quarters..

Personally I worry about Russia more than China. The willingness to engage in border conflicts and assassinate opponents abroad point to a dangerous recklessness. By contrast, China in its foreign policy seems a fairly standard large power - attempting to gain trade advantages and use money to promote its image is hardly unique behaviour. Their authoritarian internal behaviour and disgusting treatment of the Uighurs reflects the fact that they're an autocracy (as does the instinct of the Wuhan authorities to squash the first reports of Covid), but not an especially threatening one to Britain IMO. I think it's right to be wary in dealing with China and especially Russia, but not to start from a basis that they're looming enemies.

It's quite difficult to separate a reasonable analysis of the actual risks from the look-squirrel attempts by Western leaders in difficulty - Trump in the most obvious example but he's not alone. During the Cold War, both sides issued blood-curdling warnings which proved to be somewhat exaggerated (no credible account of either side ever actually getting close to attacking the other has ever emerged). The alliance with America had obvious benefits in basic security but also implicated us in numerous unsavoury interventions; if we take a more dispassionate view of each other in future it may be no bad thing - good friends rather than an uneasy married couple.

Neither side attacked the other because they were both armed with nuclear weapons. And if you want an example of 'getting close' try looking up the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963.

I find it richly ironic that the professed balance of your post majors on American interventions - together with its loaded language with words like "implicated" and "unsavoury" - whilst failing to mention Soviet interventions that tried to intimidate the West out of Berlin in defiance of its treaty obligations, crushed the Hungarian uprising and Prague spring with tanks, made dozens of interventions in Africa to try and spread its model by force, and tried to suppress Afghanistan under a communist dictatorship.

Of course, the common thread is simply that you sympathise with communism and see American as the crowning symbol of global capitalism.

Well, I never sympathised with Soviet autocracy - that's why (50 years ago) I was a Eurocmmunist. Not sympathising with interventions like Hungary and Czechoslovakia was pretty much the definition of the "Euro" part of Eurocommunism. The position in Afghanistan is more mixed - both sides meddled with disastrous results, and I'm not sure the communist regime there was worse than what followed, either for afghanistan or for the world.

But the reason I focused on the unsavoury things we were implicated in by US actions (from Chile to Italy to Greece to Angola to Afghanistan to Iraq...) is that we were actually closely allied with the perpetrators, and I'm arguing that a less automatically enthusiastic alliance isn't be a bad thing (and I'm writing as someone who actually voted for our intervention in Iraq). I'm not saying we should be hostile to the US, and clearly Biden gives a chance to have a good relationship, but the servility to Trump's admnistration has been nothing short of embarrassing.

I think this is a confused post, Nick, and not very convincing.

The US has got it wrong many times before, and so did we, and no doubt will occasionally continue to do so in future. But, you shouldn't be drawn into playing a game of moral relativism between the West and totalitarian dictatorships, or adopting a position of neutrality between them.

Yes, but you cannot either ignore the long history of Western powers including both us and the USA supporting totalitarian dictatorships across the world, whenever it suited the political or financial interests of our rulers. Just look at our support for the appalling Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for a current example.

I don't think anyone's saying we should.

We can be critical of our own government's foreign policy whilst also standing up to totalitarian dictatorships at the same time.

They are not mutually exclusive.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Professor John Edmunds told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think it would be a disaster if we removed restrictions in, say, the end of February when we have gone through this first wave of the vaccination.

Be prepared for lockdown to go on for a lot longer yet.

If they get the half million vaccinations per day then R will drop fast a fortnight later, followed by hospitalisations, followed by deaths.

At which point restrictions will steadily be removed.

Nigelb said:

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

Good piece - thank you David.

One thing that I find slightly peculiar is why some still persist in describing Russia as the "third superpower" - which seems a bit farfetched now.

Because, despite its feeble economy, it is geographically too large to be described as a regional power, and still maintains very large nuclear armed forces ?
Its superpower status is certainly questionable and probably fragile, but it remains a threat to many countries, owing to its belligerence.

And agreed, David’s article is thought provoking.

Surely Russia is a threat because of fragile it is. An external battle keeps the internal issues hidden as everyone has something else to focus on.

Also fragile as Russia is (politically, economically), I imagine Putin keeps its armed forces in a state of preparedness, largely because he seems quite keen on using them in various parts of the world. I read that they have c.1300 fighters, I imagine more than 4 of them are combat ready.

Obviously the EU needs a more coherent defence policy, possibly an NEBTO (North East Baltic Treaty Organisation) with its own shoulder flash? That’ll go down well in certain quarters..

Personally I worry about Russia more than China. The willingness to engage in border conflicts and assassinate opponents abroad point to a dangerous recklessness. By contrast, China in its foreign policy seems a fairly standard large power - attempting to gain trade advantages and use money to promote its image is hardly unique behaviour. Their authoritarian internal behaviour and disgusting treatment of the Uighurs reflects the fact that they're an autocracy (as does the instinct of the Wuhan authorities to squash the first reports of Covid), but not an especially threatening one to Britain IMO. I think it's right to be wary in dealing with China and especially Russia, but not to start from a basis that they're looming enemies.

It's quite difficult to separate a reasonable analysis of the actual risks from the look-squirrel attempts by Western leaders in difficulty - Trump in the most obvious example but he's not alone. During the Cold War, both sides issued blood-curdling warnings which proved to be somewhat exaggerated (no credible account of either side ever actually getting close to attacking the other has ever emerged). The alliance with America had obvious benefits in basic security but also implicated us in numerous unsavoury interventions; if we take a more dispassionate view of each other in future it may be no bad thing - good friends rather than an uneasy married couple.

With the most obvious exception of the Cuban missile crisis.

There is an equally obvious potential flashpoint in Chinese claims on Taiwan, and the resolution of that seems rather less simple than the mutual backdown over Cuba.
The US would find even the peaceful absorption of Taiwan by the mainland (unlikely anyway) extremely difficult to accept, given the island’s domination of high end semiconductor manufacturing. That would be for them (and the rest of the West) a strategic debacle.

Point of order. The "peaceful absorption " is the stated end goal of both sides. They merely differ on who would be the absorber and who absorbed.

another_richard said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Professor John Edmunds told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think it would be a disaster if we removed restrictions in, say, the end of February when we have gone through this first wave of the vaccination.

Be prepared for lockdown to go on for a lot longer yet.

If they get the half million vaccinations per day then R will drop fast a fortnight later, followed by hospitalisations, followed by deaths.

At which point restrictions will steadily be removed.

Edmunds is unbearable. The hysterical language he uses is worse than even many on PB, which is quite a feat.

Just catching up on the last thread. I see people are slowing coming around to the fact than @kinabalu and I were right all along: the sad loser Trump is a rapidly deflating ballon. He’s done.

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

Good piece - thank you David.

One thing that I find slightly peculiar is why some still persist in describing Russia as the "third superpower" - which seems a bit farfetched now.

Because, despite its feeble economy, it is geographically too large to be described as a regional power, and still maintains very large nuclear armed forces ?
Its superpower status is certainly questionable and probably fragile, but it remains a threat to many countries, owing to its belligerence.

And agreed, David’s article is thought provoking.

Surely Russia is a threat because of fragile it is. An external battle keeps the internal issues hidden as everyone has something else to focus on.

Also fragile as Russia is (politically, economically), I imagine Putin keeps its armed forces in a state of preparedness, largely because he seems quite keen on using them in various parts of the world. I read that they have c.1300 fighters, I imagine more than 4 of them are combat ready.

Obviously the EU needs a more coherent defence policy, possibly an NEBTO (North East Baltic Treaty Organisation) with its own shoulder flash? That’ll go down well in certain quarters..

Personally I worry about Russia more than China. The willingness to engage in border conflicts and assassinate opponents abroad point to a dangerous recklessness. By contrast, China in its foreign policy seems a fairly standard large power - attempting to gain trade advantages and use money to promote its image is hardly unique behaviour. Their authoritarian internal behaviour and disgusting treatment of the Uighurs reflects the fact that they're an autocracy (as does the instinct of the Wuhan authorities to squash the first reports of Covid), but not an especially threatening one to Britain IMO. I think it's right to be wary in dealing with China and especially Russia, but not to start from a basis that they're looming enemies.

It's quite difficult to separate a reasonable analysis of the actual risks from the look-squirrel attempts by Western leaders in difficulty - Trump in the most obvious example but he's not alone. During the Cold War, both sides issued blood-curdling warnings which proved to be somewhat exaggerated (no credible account of either side ever actually getting close to attacking the other has ever emerged). The alliance with America had obvious benefits in basic security but also implicated us in numerous unsavoury interventions; if we take a more dispassionate view of each other in future it may be no bad thing - good friends rather than an uneasy married couple.

Neither side attacked the other because they were both armed with nuclear weapons. And if you want an example of 'getting close' try looking up the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963.

I find it richly ironic that the professed balance of your post majors on American interventions - together with its loaded language with words like "implicated" and "unsavoury" - whilst failing to mention Soviet interventions that tried to intimidate the West out of Berlin in defiance of its treaty obligations, crushed the Hungarian uprising and Prague spring with tanks, made dozens of interventions in Africa to try and spread its model by force, and tried to suppress Afghanistan under a communist dictatorship.

Of course, the common thread is simply that you sympathise with communism and see American as the crowning symbol of global capitalism.

Well, I never sympathised with Soviet autocracy - that's why (50 years ago) I was a Eurocmmunist. Not sympathising with interventions like Hungary and Czechoslovakia was pretty much the definition of the "Euro" part of Eurocommunism. The position in Afghanistan is more mixed - both sides meddled with disastrous results, and I'm not sure the communist regime there was worse than what followed, either for afghanistan or for the world.

But the reason I focused on the unsavoury things we were implicated in by US actions (from Chile to Italy to Greece to Angola to Afghanistan to Iraq...) is that we were actually closely allied with the perpetrators, and I'm arguing that a less automatically enthusiastic alliance isn't be a bad thing (and I'm writing as someone who actually voted for our intervention in Iraq). I'm not saying we should be hostile to the US, and clearly Biden gives a chance to have a good relationship, but the servility to Trump's admnistration has been nothing short of embarrassing.

I think this is a confused post, Nick, and not very convincing.

The US has got it wrong many times before, and so did we, and no doubt will occasionally continue to do so in future. But, you shouldn't be drawn into playing a game of moral relativism between the West and totalitarian dictatorships, or adopting a position of neutrality between them.

Yes, but you cannot either ignore the long history of Western powers including both us and the USA supporting totalitarian dictatorships across the world, whenever it suited the political or financial interests of our rulers. Just look at our support for the appalling Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for a current example.

I don't think anyone's saying we should.

We can be critical of our own government's foreign policy whilst also standing up to totalitarian dictatorships at the same time.

They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think we are significantly militarily threatened by any country, dictatorship or not.

We do however support a number of totalitarian regimes threatening their own peoples, and neighbouring ones.

I do not share the passion for imaginary enemies and wars so beloved of PB armchair militaristic. I confine my interest in military history to the past. We should study wars so as to prevent future wars, rather than to "win" them.

Sobering thread:

https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1350416428025962498

https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1350416430907453440

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

Good piece - thank you David.

One thing that I find slightly peculiar is why some still persist in describing Russia as the "third superpower" - which seems a bit farfetched now.

Because, despite its feeble economy, it is geographically too large to be described as a regional power, and still maintains very large nuclear armed forces ?
Its superpower status is certainly questionable and probably fragile, but it remains a threat to many countries, owing to its belligerence.

And agreed, David’s article is thought provoking.

Surely Russia is a threat because of fragile it is. An external battle keeps the internal issues hidden as everyone has something else to focus on.

Also fragile as Russia is (politically, economically), I imagine Putin keeps its armed forces in a state of preparedness, largely because he seems quite keen on using them in various parts of the world. I read that they have c.1300 fighters, I imagine more than 4 of them are combat ready.

Obviously the EU needs a more coherent defence policy, possibly an NEBTO (North East Baltic Treaty Organisation) with its own shoulder flash? That’ll go down well in certain quarters..

Personally I worry about Russia more than China. The willingness to engage in border conflicts and assassinate opponents abroad point to a dangerous recklessness. By contrast, China in its foreign policy seems a fairly standard large power - attempting to gain trade advantages and use money to promote its image is hardly unique behaviour. Their authoritarian internal behaviour and disgusting treatment of the Uighurs reflects the fact that they're an autocracy (as does the instinct of the Wuhan authorities to squash the first reports of Covid), but not an especially threatening one to Britain IMO. I think it's right to be wary in dealing with China and especially Russia, but not to start from a basis that they're looming enemies.

It's quite difficult to separate a reasonable analysis of the actual risks from the look-squirrel attempts by Western leaders in difficulty - Trump in the most obvious example but he's not alone. During the Cold War, both sides issued blood-curdling warnings which proved to be somewhat exaggerated (no credible account of either side ever actually getting close to attacking the other has ever emerged). The alliance with America had obvious benefits in basic security but also implicated us in numerous unsavoury interventions; if we take a more dispassionate view of each other in future it may be no bad thing - good friends rather than an uneasy married couple.

Neither side attacked the other because they were both armed with nuclear weapons. And if you want an example of 'getting close' try looking up the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963.

I find it richly ironic that the professed balance of your post majors on American interventions - together with its loaded language with words like "implicated" and "unsavoury" - whilst failing to mention Soviet interventions that tried to intimidate the West out of Berlin in defiance of its treaty obligations, crushed the Hungarian uprising and Prague spring with tanks, made dozens of interventions in Africa to try and spread its model by force, and tried to suppress Afghanistan under a communist dictatorship.

Of course, the common thread is simply that you sympathise with communism and see American as the crowning symbol of global capitalism.

Well, I never sympathised with Soviet autocracy - that's why (50 years ago) I was a Eurocmmunist. Not sympathising with interventions like Hungary and Czechoslovakia was pretty much the definition of the "Euro" part of Eurocommunism. The position in Afghanistan is more mixed - both sides meddled with disastrous results, and I'm not sure the communist regime there was worse than what followed, either for afghanistan or for the world.

But the reason I focused on the unsavoury things we were implicated in by US actions (from Chile to Italy to Greece to Angola to Afghanistan to Iraq...) is that we were actually closely allied with the perpetrators, and I'm arguing that a less automatically enthusiastic alliance isn't be a bad thing (and I'm writing as someone who actually voted for our intervention in Iraq). I'm not saying we should be hostile to the US, and clearly Biden gives a chance to have a good relationship, but the servility to Trump's admnistration has been nothing short of embarrassing.

I think this is a confused post, Nick, and not very convincing.

The US has got it wrong many times before, and so did we, and no doubt will occasionally continue to do so in future. But, you shouldn't be drawn into playing a game of moral relativism between the West and totalitarian dictatorships, or adopting a position of neutrality between them.

Yes, but you cannot either ignore the long history of Western powers including both us and the USA supporting totalitarian dictatorships across the world, whenever it suited the political or financial interests of our rulers. Just look at our support for the appalling Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for a current example.

I don't think anyone's saying we should.

We can be critical of our own government's foreign policy whilst also standing up to totalitarian dictatorships at the same time.

They are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think we are significantly militarily threatened by any country, dictatorship or not.

We do however support a number of totalitarian regimes threatening their own peoples, and neighbouring ones.

I do not share the passion for imaginary enemies and wars so beloved of PB armchair militaristic. I confine my interest in military history to the past. We should study wars so as to prevent future wars, rather than to "win" them.

Well said.

Stocky said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Back on gardening racist history...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153499/Academic-says-GARDENING-roots-racial-injustice.html

This was picked up recently by Andrew Doyle and others. It has also been argued that gardeners who favour UK native plants for environmental reasons over exotic alternatives are racist.

These and a plethora of other similar nut-job ideas are discussed in an excellent recent edition of Paxman`s "The Lock In" podcast with Doyle.

Isn't everything racist now? Even your post commenting on this (and my reply) is probably racist, and evidence of our own inherent racism.

I promise to flagellate myself appropriately for my sins later on.

I`ve already done mine this morning.

Really gets the body going first thing.

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

edmundintokyo said:

I don't think the US/EU alliance is personal. The military commitments are a little bit historical, but generally the US doesn't mind having a military presence all over the place, if you want to be able to bomb anywhere then you want bases everywhere.

China is a threat, the EU is an ally, and as China gets stronger and the US relatively weaker it gets less practical to counter China without allies. Any president regardless of party who's serious about countering China will want a strong alliance with the EU. Trump didn't, because he wasn't serious about countering China, or anything else for that matter.

It’s not entirely clear how committed Europe might be to such an alliance, though. (I would agree about its desirability.)

We need to grow up and face some clear realities, one of which is the US is not a reliable ally over the next couple of decades.

Another of which is that the EU is not so much "soft" on China as "enabling". We'll be much closer to the US/Five Four Eyes on China than we will be to the EU. To what extent depends on how much (if at all) the EU Parliament unpicks Merkel's "old lady in a hurry" China deal.

Which has always been the case. The EU nations have literally never been our closest allies.

There is a reason in the Iraq War that Tony Blair sided with the US President over the French and German Presidents. The EU did not trump Atlanticism and never has done in realpolitk security.

Not sure what the lesson is there. That Europe in this case was right?

No, just that the UK is and always will be more aligned with the USA and our Five Eyes partners than with France and Germany and the EU. Even when we were led by "Europhiles" it remained true.

Always is a silly word here, you think this will apply in the year 4020 too? If Trump's coup had worked should we have continued to be the closest ally of what would have become a fascist undemocratic state?

No and no, clearly.

For the realistically foreseeable future then.

I can realistically see Trump or his allies returning in 2024 or 2028.

Even if they did the USA would remain our primary geopolitical strategic partner just as they were for the past four years.

There's a difference between a Trumpist winning for four years and a Trumpist losing but overturning that in a fascist coup.

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/owen_g/status/1350401529623289856

Now this is proper big news. The likely new leader of the free world. Who in 1950 would have thought Germany would hold that position in 2020? The times they are a changing, no question about it. On which topic I like the Header and especially the title - Europe's Last American. It's fading fast, the sense of kinship between us and the USA. I can vouch for this personally. I used to feel it, even quite recently, but now I don't. I remain fascinated by America but I look upon it as a strange and exotic land. Much of this is because of Trump but not all of it.

Germany's leader is not the leader of the free world. Biden will be from Wednesday.

Germany is not big enough, the EU might be but does not have the will

Well I look to Berlin not Washington these days for a steer on how I as a citizen of the free world should go about my business.

And while I have you, let's just knock our bet on the head. £25 to a Good Cause. I give you 3 options. Mermaids. Jeremy Corbyn's new Peace & Fellowship project. Or the National Trust.

No receipt required. I trust you 100%.

Mary_Batty said:

IshmaelZ said:

Mary_Batty said:

Andy_JS said:

Casino_Royale said:

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Back on gardening racist history...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9153499/Academic-says-GARDENING-roots-racial-injustice.html

This was picked up recently by Andrew Doyle and others. It has also been argued that gardeners who favour UK native plants for environmental reasons over exotic alternatives are racist.

These and a plethora of other similar nut-job ideas are discussed in an excellent recent edition of Paxman`s "The Lock In" podcast with Doyle.

Isn't everything racist now? Even your post commenting on this (and my reply) is probably racist, and evidence of our own inherent racism.

I promise to flagellate myself appropriately for my sins later on.

Being white is automatically racist according to some people.

I hear that all the time.

All a bit two edged though innit? If you think it is an important fact about Us that we Defeated Hitler (I am not saying it is important to you personally) it is surely also worth a mention that we developed and ran the North American slave trade pretty much single handedly. I would have thought that That was then, this is now was the right answer to both pro- and anti-national historicism, but you can't just have Churchill fighting on beaches and ignore all the other stuff.

Two edged, yes. The "white is racist" trope is a hefty sword wielded by people on the right gripping its blade and waving it madly around for all to see. It looms much larger in the minds of those people than it does in reality. They brandish it then show us their bloodied hands and say look! see how they wound us!
So when I say I hear it all the time, I mean that I hear it all the time from people who enjoy being the victim. That is, they are exactly the same as those people who such things in earnest.

I guess there are some dogs that can't walk past a puddle without rolling in it.

My goodness, that's some epic mental contortion you've got going on there. In your world, if you object to the hateful utterances of the more extreme wokeists, then that means you must be the one with the problem.

Perhaps you could direct even the smallest part of your ire towards the many 'progressive' figures pushing this divisive rubbish? But no, that would never do.

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Casino_Royale said:

NickPalmer said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

Good piece - thank you David.

One thing that I find slightly peculiar is why some still persist in describing Russia as the "third superpower" - which seems a bit farfetched now.

Because, despite its feeble economy, it is geographically too large to be described as a regional power, and still maintains very large nuclear armed forces ?
Its superpower status is certainly questionable and probably fragile, but it remains a threat to many countries, owing to its belligerence.

And agreed, David’s article is thought provoking.

Surely Russia is a threat because of fragile it is. An external battle keeps the internal issues hidden as everyone has something else to focus on.

Also fragile as Russia is (politically, economically), I imagine Putin keeps its armed forces in a state of preparedness, largely because he seems quite keen on using them in various parts of the world. I read that they have c.1300 fighters, I imagine more than 4 of them are combat ready.

Obviously the EU needs a more coherent defence policy, possibly an NEBTO (North East Baltic Treaty Organisation) with its own shoulder flash? That’ll go down well in certain quarters..

Personally I worry about Russia more than China. The willingness to engage in border conflicts and assassinate opponents abroad point to a dangerous recklessness. By contrast, China in its foreign policy seems a fairly standard large power - attempting to gain trade advantages and use money to promote its image is hardly unique behaviour. Their authoritarian internal behaviour and disgusting treatment of the Uighurs reflects the fact that they're an autocracy (as does the instinct of the Wuhan authorities to squash the first reports of Covid), but not an especially threatening one to Britain IMO. I think it's right to be wary in dealing with China and especially Russia, but not to start from a basis that they're looming enemies.

It's quite difficult to separate a reasonable analysis of the actual risks from the look-squirrel attempts by Western leaders in difficulty - Trump in the most obvious example but he's not alone. During the Cold War, both sides issued blood-curdling warnings which proved to be somewhat exaggerated (no credible account of either side ever actually getting close to attacking the other has ever emerged). The alliance with America had obvious benefits in basic security but also implicated us in numerous unsavoury interventions; if we take a more dispassionate view of each other in future it may be no bad thing - good friends rather than an uneasy married couple.

Neither side attacked the other because they were both armed with nuclear weapons. And if you want an example of 'getting close' try looking up the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963.

I find it richly ironic that the professed balance of your post majors on American interventions - together with its loaded language with words like "implicated" and "unsavoury" - whilst failing to mention Soviet interventions that tried to intimidate the West out of Berlin in defiance of its treaty obligations, crushed the Hungarian uprising and Prague spring with tanks, made dozens of interventions in Africa to try and spread its model by force, and tried to suppress Afghanistan under a communist dictatorship.

Of course, the common thread is simply that you sympathise with communism and see American as the crowning symbol of global capitalism.

Well, I never sympathised with Soviet autocracy - that's why (50 years ago) I was a Eurocmmunist. Not sympathising with interventions like Hungary and Czechoslovakia was pretty much the definition of the "Euro" part of Eurocommunism. The position in Afghanistan is more mixed - both sides meddled with disastrous results, and I'm not sure the communist regime there was worse than what followed, either for afghanistan or for the world.

But the reason I focused on the unsavoury things we were implicated in by US actions (from Chile to Italy to Greece to Angola to Afghanistan to Iraq...) is that we were actually closely allied with the perpetrators, and I'm arguing that a less automatically enthusiastic alliance isn't be a bad thing (and I'm writing as someone who actually voted for our intervention in Iraq). I'm not saying we should be hostile to the US, and clearly Biden gives a chance to have a good relationship, but the servility to Trump's admnistration has been nothing short of embarrassing.

I think this is a confused post, Nick, and not very convincing.

The US has got it wrong many times before, and so did we, and no doubt will occasionally continue to do so in future. But, you shouldn't be drawn into playing a game of moral relativism between the West and totalitarian dictatorships, or adopting a position of neutrality between them.

Yes, but you cannot either ignore the long history of Western powers including both us and the USA supporting totalitarian dictatorships across the world, whenever it suited the political or financial interests of our rulers. Just look at our support for the appalling Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for a current example.

I don't think anyone's saying we should.

We can be critical of our own government's foreign policy whilst also standing up to totalitarian dictatorships at the same time.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Sure - in fact if freedom means anything, it must surely include the right to disagree with our foreign policy at times.

I'm not sure how far apart we actually are. I'm not arguing for withdrawal from NATO or hostility to the US, and still less for an alliance with China (or the CCP, if you prefer) or Russia. But I think we should take a position of frank friends who reserve the right to disagree with, and stay away from involvement in, actions that we disagree with, as Wilson did over Vietnam. I don't think anyone accused Wilson of being pro-communist - he merely didn't think it was a good cause to get involoved in.

Incidentally, you say I frequently throw around accusations of sinophobia. I think you're confusing me with somebody else? I may be wrong but I don't remember ever using the term. Prejudice against Chinese people per se - the Yellow Peril and all that - pretty much died out many decades ago, and I don't suggest that you or anyone else are sinophobes.

‘Hell, Yes,’ Republicans Are Headed for a Bitter Internal Showdown

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/us/politics/republicans-trump-leadership.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/owen_g/status/1350401529623289856

Now this is proper big news. The likely new leader of the free world. Who in 1950 would have thought Germany would hold that position in 2020? The times they are a changing, no question about it. On which topic I like the Header and especially the title - Europe's Last American. It's fading fast, the sense of kinship between us and the USA. I can vouch for this personally. I used to feel it, even quite recently, but now I don't. I remain fascinated by America but I look upon it as a strange and exotic land. Much of this is because of Trump but not all of it.

Germany's leader is not the leader of the free world. Biden will be from Wednesday.

Germany is not big enough, the EU might be but does not have the will

Well I look to Berlin not Washington these days for a steer on how I as a citizen of the free world should go about my business.

And while I have you, let's just knock our bet on the head. £25 to a Good Cause. I give you 3 options. Mermaids. Jeremy Corbyn's new Peace & Fellowship project. Or the National Trust.

No receipt required. I trust you 100%.

Aw. You should have given him the Scottish Fishermen's Trust as the third option.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/owen_g/status/1350401529623289856

Now this is proper big news. The likely new leader of the free world. Who in 1950 would have thought Germany would hold that position in 2020? The times they are a changing, no question about it. On which topic I like the Header and especially the title - Europe's Last American. It's fading fast, the sense of kinship between us and the USA. I can vouch for this personally. I used to feel it, even quite recently, but now I don't. I remain fascinated by America but I look upon it as a strange and exotic land. Much of this is because of Trump but not all of it.

Germany's leader is not the leader of the free world. Biden will be from Wednesday.

Germany is not big enough, the EU might be but does not have the will

Well I look to Berlin not Washington these days for a steer on how I as a citizen of the free world should go about my business.

You can seriously say that after the vehicle emissions scandal ???

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I presume we are going to see a bit of a slow down in vaccinations reported over the next few days with the bad weather and it being a weekend.

The heavy snow up north didn’t seem to affect yesterday’s numbers, which I must admit surprised me.

Fingers crossed...but remember those daily numbers are not just yesterday, they are numbers being added to the system yesterday, so reporting delay, with some come from many days ago (think death reporting early on).

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Mary_Batty said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulMcLafferty1/status/1350122261831962625

Yes, but it's important to realise that Orwell also wrote some pretty good stuff.

Bet A4U man with a fleg in his profile is absolutely certain he's a patriot rather than a nationalist.

Only one though. Johnson is operating on a 4 fleg minimum these days.

Keir upped his own flag game, Boris had little choice but to retaliate. This time next year I guarantee at least half of the posts in Cabinet will be filled with British flags, and we won't even notice the difference in ministerial outcomes.

DougSeal said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulMcLafferty1/status/1350122261831962625

Hmmm... “...smallest slur upon his own unit...implied praise of a rival...sharp retort...”. I see Malc’s back posting.

Orwell obviously had no idea what he was talking about with regard to Scottish Nationalist's. No feeling of superiority over any nation whatsoever never mind within Scotland by Nationalist's.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/InstituteGC/status/1350408293613772800?s=20

I don't agree with Blair's style of politics, nor several of his policies, but at least he's put Brexit behind him and is trying to make practical suggestions to make a success of the UK going forwards.

This is something you don't see very often from his fellow ultra-Remain co-travellers, who prefer to wash themselves of the whole thing and egg on every setback for the country they can in pursuit of vindication.

One could say just the same - and Blair did - about Brexiteers in pursuit of their own vindication.

kinabalu said:

Dura_Ace said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/owen_g/status/1350401529623289856

Now this is proper big news. The likely new leader of the free world. Who in 1950 would have thought Germany would hold that position in 2020? The times they are a changing, no question about it. On which topic I like the Header and especially the title - Europe's Last American. It's fading fast, the sense of kinship between us and the USA. I can vouch for this personally. I used to feel it, even quite recently, but now I don't. I remain fascinated by America but I look upon it as a strange and exotic land. Much of this is because of Trump but not all of it.

I went to school in the US for 2 years and spent the best 4 years of my career on exchange with the USN so I yield to nobody in my admiration and respect for the American people and the ideals of their nation.

However, you'd have to be wilfully blind not see that it's heading for rapid and violently messy decline. The notion that everything's just going to go back to normal once they wheel Joey Sidegrin's bath chair into the Oval Office is nonsense.

Europe and the UK in particular need to think about their strategic posture in a post America world because that's where we are heading at pace.

I do think the "healing" notion is farfetched when one side is flirting with the fash and won't accept a clear election result.

But I'm a bit more optimistic than you are. They need a new and inclusive American Dream not based on white supremacy or imperialism or rapacious dog eat dog capitalism. Joe won't be driving this - no way - but he might just unlock the garage.

Got to stop with the steal shit before we can start with the heal bit.

Casino_Royale said:

Dura_Ace said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/owen_g/status/1350401529623289856

Now this is proper big news. The likely new leader of the free world. Who in 1950 would have thought Germany would hold that position in 2020? The times they are a changing, no question about it. On which topic I like the Header and especially the title - Europe's Last American. It's fading fast, the sense of kinship between us and the USA. I can vouch for this personally. I used to feel it, even quite recently, but now I don't. I remain fascinated by America but I look upon it as a strange and exotic land. Much of this is because of Trump but not all of it.

I went to school in the US for 2 years and spent the best 4 years of my career on exchange with the USN so I yield to nobody in my admiration and respect for the American people and the ideals of their nation.

However, you'd have to be wilfully blind not see that it's heading for rapid and violently messy decline. The notion that everything's just going to go back to normal once they wheel Joey Sidegrin's bath chair into the Oval Office is nonsense.

Europe and the UK in particular need to think about their strategic posture in a post America world because that's where we are heading at pace.

America will still form a big part of the picture. We're just moving to a multipolar world where America won't be able to call all the shots, by itself, alone anymore.

They are where we were in the 1920s.

So still a lot of ruin left in that country/quasi empire?