When assumptions go wrong – politicalbetting.com

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Mildly terrifying. The UK only produces 60% of our food consumption...

What is he planning?

Nigelb said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Mildly terrifying. The UK only produces 60% of our food consumption...

What is he planning?

An end to obesity ?

Win/win...

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Finally some good policy from Rishi. A 'Buy British' policy will shore up the rural vote, the farming vote and even some of the Middle England vote for the Tories.

Post Brexit and Putin's invasion of Ukraine we cannot rely on most of our food coming from imports, we need to grow and produce more of our own. I would also hope he increases farm subsidies for food production too

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Mildly terrifying. The UK only produces 60% of our food consumption...

What is he planning?

An end to obesity ?

Win/win...

I'm going to do some heroic back-of-envelope calculations and work out what our excess calorie consumption is...

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

algarkirk said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Tweedledee said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tweedledee said:

Casino_Royale said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

Unconscious bias training

So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.

Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.

It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.

Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.

It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.

Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.

All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.

*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.

Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.

It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.

They only focus on the last part, and the unfree bit at that. Which ended before the largest increases in Britain's prosperity anyway.

What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.

It's mainly metropolitan liberals broadcasting out their vapid bilge without a clue or care as to its impact, provided it makes them look good in their social circle.

IR emerges from the slave trade because you have material to process and transport, and profits to invest.

Without the Industrial Revolution, conquest of lands, plunder, and enslavement, would be very much norms today, as they were back in the day.

Hang on, I thought we invented all that and the Roman Empire was a paradise of diversity?

The "woke Roman empire" is a hilarious piece of pseudo-history. Catherine Nixey for example described Third Century Rome as "liberal and tolerant", which would come as a surprise to any classical historian.

In reality, anti-semitism was rife, the social order was maintained by theatrical displays of cruelty, rape (of women and boys) was an entirely legitimate means of punishment, and the kind of racist drivel that Juvenal spouted (about the Orontes pouring its filth into the Tiber) was commonplace.

Nixey and company are instances of something we are going to see more of, with a sort of revival of Gibbon's literate (and funny) but ludicrous view of the effects of the rise of Christianity on the Roman empire, its decline and fall. This has to idealise the stuff of the pagan empire, and demonise everything about the rise of the church. Like its opposite it is the very stuff of bad history.

LostPassword said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

I would struggle to tell you when Britain was last able to grow enough food to feed itself, but at the moment (latest DEFRA figures I can find are from 2020 in a report updated Oct 2023) production is equal to 60% of consumption (by value, I can't easily find a by calorie figure).

This proportion has been essentially unchanged since about 2005, which means that British agricultural production has managed to increase since then to keep pace with population growth of about 10%.

Is this part of an anti-obesity policy?

Stark_Dawning said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Wow. The worry here is that the consumers of Australia and New Zealand retaliate with their own boycotts and then completely destroy the Truss's acclaimed trade deal. Rishi is showing a reckless disregard towards the legacy of Brexit.

biggles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

How’s the British olive crop doing this year?

williamglenn said:

Andy_JS said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Has someone hacked his account?

It’s a highly nuanced strategy of tweeting whatever he thinks a group of Reform voters would say.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Starmer and Theo Paphitis visit a bar in Basingstoke.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Finally some good policy from Rishi. A 'Buy British' policy will shore up the rural vote, the farming vote and even some of the Middle England vote for the Tories.

Post Brexit and Putin's invasion of Ukraine we cannot rely on most of our food coming from imports, we need to grow and produce more of our own. I would also hope he increases farm subsidies for food production too

It’s not a policy, is it?

Is he going to cancel the trade deals that secured cheaper imports of food?

El_Capitano said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

He has literally™ turned into Liz Truss at her most risible.

Truss: "We import two-thirds of our cheese. That is a disgrace."

Sunak: "We shouldn’t be reliant on foreign food. Buy British."

wooliedyed said:

Benpointer said:

wooliedyed said:

Eabhal said:

Apparently the crossover age Labour > Conservative is now over 70. Perhaps a positive side effect of all this is Boomers and Millennials finally agreeing on something.

I think that's on the Deltapoll data from last night, generally speaking it's around or either side of 65 for most of the polling from memory

I thought we'd seen quite a lot of polling recently where every age group was positive for Labour, e.g. yesterday's R&W:

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/5-16-2048x1152.png

Sub sample KLAXON rules apply but
Redfield and Techne consistently show all age groups with a lead for Lab but a rather flat age profile to VI curve and have for 2 to 3 months or more
The others generally have over 65s with a Con lead of varying degrees with occasional exceptions and steeper age/VI curves

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. grss, there's still a high correlation between descent from the Normans accompanying the Conqueror and being of high status in society (MPs, wealthy, etc). Should I, as a Yorkshireman, be entitled to reparations for the Harrowing of the North?

I don't want reparations, of course. Only a fool would advocate that people who have done nothing wrong should be compelled give money to people who have suffered no wrong at their hands.

I'm just curious if you think an ongoing impact is the clinching argument. Yorkshire's population was dramatically hit, I think Marc Morris asserted 75% total dead (mostly starved).

I think Norman reparations would bankrupt France so we really should be in favour of reparations.

I'm not touching the whole reparations argument.

But I would note that the people most triggered by the idea are (entirely coincidentally) the same ones minimising the economic contribution of slavery to the development of the UK economy over the century and a half from around 1700.

The converse seems of course to be true of those who think reparations a good idea.

Like you I steer clear of this debate. There is a moral case for reparations IMHO but the practicalities are difficult and the political reality is that they will never happen so I don't see it as a fruitful discussion. Having lived in the Caribbean and the Southern US and studied 19C economic history I find efforts to minimise the centrality of the Atlantic slave economy to our prosperity and power bizzare, equally efforts to play down the holocaust of suffering that it involved for Africans who made the middle passage, and their descendents.

HYUFD said:

The vast majority of Leave voters (except a handful of libertarians like Hannan, Richard Tyndall and Bart Roberts) did not vote for new trade deals, they voted to cut immigration and regain control of our laws and sovereignty. Farmers certainly didn't vote for any trade deals that see cheap foreign food imports filling our supermarkets, they voted for tighter controls on EU food imports and more support for British farms and food producers

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Mildly terrifying. The UK only produces 60% of our food consumption...

What is he planning?

An end to obesity ?

Win/win...

I'm going to do some heroic back-of-envelope calculations and work out what our excess calorie consumption is...

EDIT: It's already been done! Apparently we eat on average 300 excess calories a day - cutting that out gets us down about 13%. So 27% to find elsewhere. Mushrooms? Insects?

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

Taz said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tweedledee said:

Casino_Royale said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

Unconscious bias training

So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.

Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.

It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.

Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.

It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.

Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.

All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.

*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.

Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.

It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.


What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.

Not only that but we have to pay reparations to their descendants. A few in labour active
support this.

My family in the dim and distant past would have worked in these factories and although not slaves would have been exploited and led miserable,lives.

These absolute moronic halfwits that bring up these mentally deranged ideas on reparations for things that happened in the distant past should be put in public stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables for a very long time and then tarred and teathered and run out of town.

Would you say the same about Jewish people having art or other valuables returned to them from the German or Austrian states, or private individuals, that were lost due to the Holocaust? It's the same principle, just on a longer scale. There are clearly individuals and entire countries that have the wealth they have now due to a foundation that was built (even if only partly) on the unpaid labour of slaves. The descendants of those slaves do not have the benefit of that wealth; the descendants of those individuals and the citizens of those countries do. You can say that it is too long ago to matter now - and people like to hand wave the Roman Empire or the Vikings doing the same in history - but the thing is that slavery (and colonialization) is clearly still materially impacting those descended from those it affected even now. Hell, the island of Ireland only recently got over the population loss (via death and migration) of the Great Hunger!

Should descendents of people who migrated to Britain because of the famine be exempt from paying reparations?

Yes. I mean, most workers would be, when looking at private individuals. When it comes to the wealth owned in common, that of the state, that's a bit more difficult. I think it is fair to accept that even our working class have benefitted from the state foundations built by slavery, at the expense of other countries and individuals. In that instance I think long term international aid, with no strings attached, and potentially individual reparation repayments (where individual descendants can be identified) would fit the bill. Personally if I was overlord of the UK that would be done via progressive means (taking wealth from the already wealthy and distributing it internationally as well as nationally), but, thankfully, I am not.

Why distribute any of it nationally? You would perpetuate the injustice by giving people even more who, by your own argument, are benefitting from slavery even today.

Attitudes like yours cannot be part of the global revolution I'm afraid.

I understand you're sea lioning and trying to do an argument ad absurdum, but you are just wrong. There is enough wealth and material resource to improve the quality of life for the vast majority of people globally, even in the UK. Yes, someone like myself who is in the bottom half of earners in the UK but the top half of earners globally, may not see wealth raining down on them like mana from heaven, nor should we be the priority targets of such distribution, but we would still live in a better world.

You are certainly not in the bottom half in the UK if you use GDP-style accounting which treats imputed rent as income.

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

@estwebber

NEW

Analysis of the seats the Tories could keep at the election suggests the party will be evenly split between rightward-leaning and moderate MPs, setting up the mother of all leadership contests

https://x.com/estwebber/status/1802968305134698510

Yeah, but it's the members who count I'm that situation.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Finally some good policy from Rishi. A 'Buy British' policy will shore up the rural vote, the farming vote and even some of the Middle England vote for the Tories.

Post Brexit and Putin's invasion of Ukraine we cannot rely on most of our food coming from imports, we need to grow and produce more of our own. I would also hope he increases farm subsidies for food production too

It’s not a policy, is it?

Is he going to cancel the trade deals that secured cheaper imports of food?

The vast majority of Leave voters (except a handful of libertarians like Hannan, Richard Tyndall and Bart Roberts) did not vote for new trade deals, they voted to cut immigration and regain control of our laws and sovereignty. Farmers certainly didn't vote for any trade deals that see cheap foreign food imports filling our supermarkets, they voted for tighter controls on EU food imports and more support for British farms and food producers

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

Taz said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tweedledee said:

Casino_Royale said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

Unconscious bias training

So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.

Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.

It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.

Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.

It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.

Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.

All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.

*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.

Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.

It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.


What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.

Not only that but we have to pay reparations to their descendants. A few in labour active
support this.

My family in the dim and distant past would have worked in these factories and although not slaves would have been exploited and led miserable,lives.

These absolute moronic halfwits that bring up these mentally deranged ideas on reparations for things that happened in the distant past should be put in public stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables for a very long time and then tarred and teathered and run out of town.

Would you say the same about Jewish people having art or other valuables returned to them from the German or Austrian states, or private individuals, that were lost due to the Holocaust? It's the same principle, just on a longer scale. There are clearly individuals and entire countries that have the wealth they have now due to a foundation that was built (even if only partly) on the unpaid labour of slaves. The descendants of those slaves do not have the benefit of that wealth; the descendants of those individuals and the citizens of those countries do. You can say that it is too long ago to matter now - and people like to hand wave the Roman Empire or the Vikings doing the same in history - but the thing is that slavery (and colonialization) is clearly still materially impacting those descended from those it affected even now. Hell, the island of Ireland only recently got over the population loss (via death and migration) of the Great Hunger!

Scott_xP said:

HYUFD said:

The vast majority of Leave voters (except a handful of libertarians like Hannan, Richard Tyndall and Bart Roberts) did not vote for new trade deals, they voted to cut immigration and regain control of our laws and sovereignty. Farmers certainly didn't vote for any trade deals that see cheap foreign food imports filling our supermarkets, they voted for tighter controls on EU food imports and more support for British farms and food producers

Bollocks.

What they voted for is what they got.

They were told before the vote this would happen.

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Finally some good policy from Rishi. A 'Buy British' policy will shore up the rural vote, the farming vote and even some of the Middle England vote for the Tories.

Post Brexit and Putin's invasion of Ukraine we cannot rely on most of our food coming from imports, we need to grow and produce more of our own. I would also hope he increases farm subsidies for food production too

Scott_xP said:

HYUFD said:

The vast majority of Leave voters (except a handful of libertarians like Hannan, Richard Tyndall and Bart Roberts) did not vote for new trade deals, they voted to cut immigration and regain control of our laws and sovereignty. Farmers certainly didn't vote for any trade deals that see cheap foreign food imports filling our supermarkets, they voted for tighter controls on EU food imports and more support for British farms and food producers

Bollocks.

What they voted for is what they got.

They were told before the vote this would happen.

biggles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

biggles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

My antecedents in Pakistan and India were the victims of real evil from the British Empire and I will happily accept £10 million compensation on their behalf as I want to expand my property portfolio to have some holiday homes.

Edit - I also want Chevening as well.

You obviously haven’t been to Chevening…

I have, on more than one occasion.

And you’d still want it! Think of the bills. Scratch the surface and it’s like most houses of that vintage. You want Chevening and a minimum of £100m on top I reckon.

Scott_xP said:

HYUFD said:

The vast majority of Leave voters (except a handful of libertarians like Hannan, Richard Tyndall and Bart Roberts) did not vote for new trade deals, they voted to cut immigration and regain control of our laws and sovereignty. Farmers certainly didn't vote for any trade deals that see cheap foreign food imports filling our supermarkets, they voted for tighter controls on EU food imports and more support for British farms and food producers

Bollocks.

What they voted for is what they got.

They were told before the vote this would happen.

eek said:

Scott_xP said:

HYUFD said:

The vast majority of Leave voters (except a handful of libertarians like Hannan, Richard Tyndall and Bart Roberts) did not vote for new trade deals, they voted to cut immigration and regain control of our laws and sovereignty. Farmers certainly didn't vote for any trade deals that see cheap foreign food imports filling our supermarkets, they voted for tighter controls on EU food imports and more support for British farms and food producers

Bollocks.

What they voted for is what they got.

They were told before the vote this would happen.

Scott_xP said:

HYUFD said:

The vast majority of Leave voters (except a handful of libertarians like Hannan, Richard Tyndall and Bart Roberts) did not vote for new trade deals, they voted to cut immigration and regain control of our laws and sovereignty. Farmers certainly didn't vote for any trade deals that see cheap foreign food imports filling our supermarkets, they voted for tighter controls on EU food imports and more support for British farms and food producers

Bollocks.

What they voted for is what they got.

They were told before the vote this would happen.

And the damage has been done you simply can’t compete against the mega New Zealand and Australian farms

eek said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Finally some good policy from Rishi. A 'Buy British' policy will shore up the rural vote, the farming vote and even some of the Middle England vote for the Tories.

Post Brexit and Putin's invasion of Ukraine we cannot rely on most of our food coming from imports, we need to grow and produce more of our own. I would also hope he increases farm subsidies for food production too

Rishi needs to go into a pub on the Dales within 30 seconds he would be asked to justify the Australia / New Zealand trade deals where lamb is a sold at a price that just about covers the cost of slaughter

Affordable, good quality food.

What's not to like?

Precisely what we should have more of. 👍

But not British food from British farms - which is what Rishi is campaigning for today

So that your cheap Australian food going

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

wooliedyed said:

Buy British is good imo but too late.
From a personal perspective, shelter, food and energy and the production and distribution of such should be the responsibility of the national government. I'm a protectionist. This one pleases me even if it's a pishy millionth of the impetus required

There's an idea of a vaguely competent Sunak campaign in there somewhere.

But for some reason he chose loser Isaac Levido to run it, why?

malcolmg said:

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

Taz said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tweedledee said:

Casino_Royale said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

Unconscious bias training

So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.

Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.

It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.

Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.

It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.

Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.

All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.

*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.

Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.

It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.


What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.

Not only that but we have to pay reparations to their descendants. A few in labour active
support this.

My family in the dim and distant past would have worked in these factories and although not slaves would have been exploited and led miserable,lives.

These absolute moronic halfwits that bring up these mentally deranged ideas on reparations for things that happened in the distant past should be put in public stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables for a very long time and then tarred and teathered and run out of town.

Would you say the same about Jewish people having art or other valuables returned to them from the German or Austrian states, or private individuals, that were lost due to the Holocaust? It's the same principle, just on a longer scale. There are clearly individuals and entire countries that have the wealth they have now due to a foundation that was built (even if only partly) on the unpaid labour of slaves. The descendants of those slaves do not have the benefit of that wealth; the descendants of those individuals and the citizens of those countries do. You can say that it is too long ago to matter now - and people like to hand wave the Roman Empire or the Vikings doing the same in history - but the thing is that slavery (and colonialization) is clearly still materially impacting those descended from those it affected even now. Hell, the island of Ireland only recently got over the population loss (via death and migration) of the Great Hunger!

It is mainly bollox unless very recent, ie any living person. Where do you stop at the stone age, there are no slaves still alive. Why the F**k should anyone have to pay because some knobhead did something 200 years ago. There is no correlation that those countries woudl ever have done anything to have any wealth, ie money has been poured into Africa by the billions for the whole of my life and has all been squandered and they live mainly in poverty still. Bleeding hearts like you would give all our money away so that we are all inpoverty , mental. You cannot change teh past and the whingers and snowflakes need to waken up smell teh coffee and get on with making their own way in life rather than trying to blame something from 200 years ago for their fecklessness and woes.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Another traitorous Reform candidate that shills for Putin.

Reform is the party of UK hating traitors.

No fucking way the Tory party merges with these roasters.

A candidate for Nigel Farage’s Reform party called the King “weak” and claimed he was under the control of global elites.

Angela Carter-Begbie questioned the King’s loyalty to Britain, saying it was “about time King Charles show where he truly lye” [sic], and said she was “not a fan”.

The candidate, who is standing for Reform in the new seat of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale in northwest London at the general election, wrote on her Twitter/X account on April 23 to say that he was “under the WEF”, referring to the World Economic Forum, which organises the annual meeting in Davos of world political and business leaders.

The conspiracy theory, which aligns itself with claims that a shadowy global elite control the world’s population, is one of several she had promoted online.

These include the conspiracy theories that the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers was an “inside job” and the Covid-19 vaccine rollout was “like the Holocaust”.

Carter-Begbie blamed the fathers of grooming-gang victims for the crimes of their predators and repeatedly posted in support of the far-right leader Tommy Robinson.

She also claimed the war in Ukraine was started by Nato.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/reform-uk-angela-carter-begbie-king-charles-220fnsgb9

TheScreamingEagles said:

In AI is talking all our jobs news.

McDonald's is removing artificial intelligence (AI) powered ordering technology from its drive-through restaurants in the US, after customers shared its comical mishaps online.

A trial of the system - which uses voice recognition software to process orders - was announced in 2019.

It has not proved entirely reliable however - resulting in viral videos of bizarre misinterpreted orders. ranging from bacon-topped ice cream to hundreds of dollars worth of chicken nuggets.

McDonald's told franchisees it would remove the tech from the more than 100 restaurants it’s been testing it in by the end of July, according to a trade publication, external.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722gne7qngo

Andy_JS said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

https://x.com/S_Hammond/status/1803016438082416646

I am out supporting Danielle @DunfieldPrayero.

We are working hard across this three-way marginal to keep #Wimbledon blue.

Yeah but no mate, it's going Lib Dem.

I'm 99% sure the Tories will lose Wimbledon but it's difficult to say whether it'll go LD or Lab.

Pulpstar said:

Andy_JS said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

https://x.com/S_Hammond/status/1803016438082416646

I am out supporting Danielle @DunfieldPrayero.

We are working hard across this three-way marginal to keep #Wimbledon blue.

Yeah but no mate, it's going Lib Dem.

I'm 99% sure the Tories will lose Wimbledon but it's difficult to say whether it'll go LD or Lab.

The generic drop in the Tory vote will be sufficient to ensure it doesn't stay Conservative this time round. So both the Lib Dems and Labour can and will try to take it without explicit tactical pact there. My guess is soft Tories will be more likely to switch to the Lib Dems so it will go Lib Dem than Labour, but either is well possible.

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

Taz said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tweedledee said:

Casino_Royale said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

Unconscious bias training

So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.

Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.

It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.

Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.

It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.

Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.

All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.

*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.

Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.

It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.


What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.

Not only that but we have to pay reparations to their descendants. A few in labour active
support this.

My family in the dim and distant past would have worked in these factories and although not slaves would have been exploited and led miserable,lives.

These absolute moronic halfwits that bring up these mentally deranged ideas on reparations for things that happened in the distant past should be put in public stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables for a very long time and then tarred and teathered and run out of town.

Would you say the same about Jewish people having art or other valuables returned to them from the German or Austrian states, or private individuals, that were lost due to the Holocaust? It's the same principle, just on a longer scale. There are clearly individuals and entire countries that have the wealth they have now due to a foundation that was built (even if only partly) on the unpaid labour of slaves. The descendants of those slaves do not have the benefit of that wealth; the descendants of those individuals and the citizens of those countries do. You can say that it is too long ago to matter now - and people like to hand wave the Roman Empire or the Vikings doing the same in history - but the thing is that slavery (and colonialization) is clearly still materially impacting those descended from those it affected even now. Hell, the island of Ireland only recently got over the population loss (via death and migration) of the Great Hunger!

It is mainly bollox unless very recent, ie any living person. Where do you stop at the stone age, there are no slaves still alive. Why the F**k should anyone have to pay because some knobhead did something 200 years ago. There is no correlation that those countries woudl ever have done anything to have any wealth, ie money has been poured into Africa by the billions for the whole of my life and has all been squandered and they live mainly in poverty still. Bleeding hearts like you would give all our money away so that we are all inpoverty , mental. You cannot change teh past and the whingers and snowflakes need to waken up smell teh coffee and get on with making their own way in life rather than trying to blame something from 200 years ago for their fecklessness and woes.

I mean we can take a single family - the Cumberbatches.

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

Taz said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tweedledee said:

Casino_Royale said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

Unconscious bias training

So, this was billed as an hour-long. Anonymous and to help etc. It had a running % on the taskbar beneath so you could track how far through the course you'd got. Run by Hemisphere.

Much of it initially was just good management stuff. Don't judge people by whether they have a firm handshake or not, or whether they make good eye contact. Don't organise social events that exclusively centre on alcohol etc. Listen carefully to context. Determine what questions are important in an interview or not. So far, so fair.

It then put up a 13 minute video on the history of Britain and black people in Britain. This is where it got really interesting as it was presented as an entirely factual "did you know?" education piece presented by a softly-spoken Scottish lady.

Started off with a big play on Cheddar Man's predicted dark skin colour as the earliest black Briton, where skin colour then became lighter over time due to subsquent migration and the lattitude. Then, it jumped to the Celts and how the Romans displaced the Celts, and how black people formed some of the guards on Hadrians Wall. Suggested the Roman Empire was very inclusive. After that it jumped to the Tudors and how a few black people were in the Royal Navy at the time. Not an issue at all.

It then went on to say "this all changed" with the start of the transatlantic slave trade. And how attitudes to black people then changed to being seen as commodities. It practically suggested racism was invented here. It only very briefly touched on abolition, and didn't mention at all the Royal Navy's role in suppressing the slave trade. It then moved on to how in WWI minorities were never promoted and then into Windrush. After that, it moved onto Stephen Lawrence and the Windrush Scandal. Much to my amazement it finished with a 2-minute clip (verbatim) of David Lammy's speech in the Commons to Amber Rudd on the Windrush Scandal. Pretty much the whole thing. Ends by saying he won the Parliamentarian of the Year award.

Since I couldn't complete the mandatory training without watching this video in full, I was required to do so. The % complete then inexplicably jumped from 28% to 90% (and I couldn't navigate back) the bit being missed supposedly about interview scenarios and dos and donts, which might actually have been half-useful. But I couldn't get back to it. So I finished the course. And then I gave my feedback, which was not at all positive on the "history" video as I felt it was highly partial in both its selection and presentation of facts and how it framed them as truth. The end bit was nakedly party political.

All done now. 2/10. Something about it suggested to me that even my employer thinks it's somehow about going through the motions. But I hope in years to come such training, if it really is needed, becomes depoliticised entirely because taking amateur crowbars to history like this won't stand up to much scrutiny, even in the medium-term, and risks a backlash.

*I should also add it strongly suggested that all of Britain's wealth was founded on the slave trade, framing the reparations argument.

Well, it was (your last paragraph) because it was the foundation of foreign trade. You go from exporting a bit of wool to slaves themselves and sugar and rum and coffee and cotton and made cotton goods and stuff all in one go. The National Trust gets a lot of stick but I bet 9 houses out of 10 they control has a splendid new West Wing dating from spookily close to the date of abolition and reparations.

It was the industrial revolution which was a function of energy, technology, trade and labour.


What really backfires is all the millions of Britons who worked very long and unsafe hours in the dark satanic mills - who made that happen by actually manufacturing all the products - being told today they had white privilege.

Not only that but we have to pay reparations to their descendants. A few in labour active
support this.

My family in the dim and distant past would have worked in these factories and although not slaves would have been exploited and led miserable,lives.

These absolute moronic halfwits that bring up these mentally deranged ideas on reparations for things that happened in the distant past should be put in public stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables for a very long time and then tarred and teathered and run out of town.

Would you say the same about Jewish people having art or other valuables returned to them from the German or Austrian states, or private individuals, that were lost due to the Holocaust? It's the same principle, just on a longer scale. There are clearly individuals and entire countries that have the wealth they have now due to a foundation that was built (even if only partly) on the unpaid labour of slaves. The descendants of those slaves do not have the benefit of that wealth; the descendants of those individuals and the citizens of those countries do. You can say that it is too long ago to matter now - and people like to hand wave the Roman Empire or the Vikings doing the same in history - but the thing is that slavery (and colonialization) is clearly still materially impacting those descended from those it affected even now. Hell, the island of Ireland only recently got over the population loss (via death and migration) of the Great Hunger!

It is mainly bollox unless very recent, ie any living person. Where do you stop at the stone age, there are no slaves still alive. Why the F**k should anyone have to pay because some knobhead did something 200 years ago. There is no correlation that those countries woudl ever have done anything to have any wealth, ie money has been poured into Africa by the billions for the whole of my life and has all been squandered and they live mainly in poverty still. Bleeding hearts like you would give all our money away so that we are all inpoverty , mental. You cannot change teh past and the whingers and snowflakes need to waken up smell teh coffee and get on with making their own way in life rather than trying to blame something from 200 years ago for their fecklessness and woes.

I mean we can take a single family - the Cumberbatches. The Cumberbatches are independently wealthy, and live very nice lives as actors, having benefited from private schooling and good education and wealthy living in the UK. The Cumberbatch family also made a lot of its wealth due to a family member owning slaves who did labour for him and he made profit. You can see the direct line of wealth and comfort and privilege through the lineage of one family. Indeed, Benedict's mother even told him not to do slave films because the issue of the family money and reparations will come up (instead Benedict felt the need to be in multiple films that dealt with slavery).

The thing is, there is another Cumberbatch family who can trace their lineage back to the same ancestor - because they were given that surname when that man bought them. They can look back to the point where the labour their ancestors did labour, for the profit of the Cumberbatch family, against their will. And they can trace how emancipation was followed by further oppression and how they could not escape a generational cycle of poverty due to racism and the fact that emancipation didn't come with an acre and a mule, or any reparations to speak of.

So yeah, actually, we can show direct impact on literal individuals and families when it comes to slavery. And if you scale that up to the macro you get the impact on countries. It's not hard.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Finally some good policy from Rishi. A 'Buy British' policy will shore up the rural vote, the farming vote and even some of the Middle England vote for the Tories.

Post Brexit and Putin's invasion of Ukraine we cannot rely on most of our food coming from imports, we need to grow and produce more of our own. I would also hope he increases farm subsidies for food production too

It’s not a policy, is it?

Is he going to cancel the trade deals that secured cheaper imports of food?

The vast majority of Leave voters (except a handful of libertarians like Hannan, Richard Tyndall and Bart Roberts) did not vote for new trade deals, they voted to cut immigration and regain control of our laws and sovereignty. Farmers certainly didn't vote for any trade deals that see cheap foreign food imports filling our supermarkets, they voted for tighter controls on EU food imports and more support for British farms and food producers

Andy_JS said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

https://x.com/S_Hammond/status/1803016438082416646

I am out supporting Danielle @DunfieldPrayero.

We are working hard across this three-way marginal to keep #Wimbledon blue.

Yeah but no mate, it's going Lib Dem.

I'm 99% sure the Tories will lose Wimbledon but it's difficult to say whether it'll go LD or Lab.

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In AI is talking all our jobs news.

McDonald's is removing artificial intelligence (AI) powered ordering technology from its drive-through restaurants in the US, after customers shared its comical mishaps online.

A trial of the system - which uses voice recognition software to process orders - was announced in 2019.

It has not proved entirely reliable however - resulting in viral videos of bizarre misinterpreted orders. ranging from bacon-topped ice cream to hundreds of dollars worth of chicken nuggets.

McDonald's told franchisees it would remove the tech from the more than 100 restaurants it’s been testing it in by the end of July, according to a trade publication, external.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722gne7qngo

This is why I find Leon’s paranoia about AI so pointless, the current version of AI is in many sectors a complete dead-end because until it knows when it is hallucinating it can’t be trusted

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Casino_Royale said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Starmer and Theo Paphitis visit a bar in Basingstoke.

What's the punchline?

Are you doing okay today Casino? You seemed a bit agitated in the last few days if you don't mind me saying so.

It was a joke on the whole Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman routine.

Andy_JS said:

"France is ‘going to the dogs,’ Macron’s inner circle despairs"

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-president-emmanuel-macron-finance-minister-bruno-le-maire-elysee-french-election/

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In AI is talking all our jobs news.

McDonald's is removing artificial intelligence (AI) powered ordering technology from its drive-through restaurants in the US, after customers shared its comical mishaps online.

A trial of the system - which uses voice recognition software to process orders - was announced in 2019.

It has not proved entirely reliable however - resulting in viral videos of bizarre misinterpreted orders. ranging from bacon-topped ice cream to hundreds of dollars worth of chicken nuggets.

McDonald's told franchisees it would remove the tech from the more than 100 restaurants it’s been testing it in by the end of July, according to a trade publication, external.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c722gne7qngo

This is why I find Leon’s paranoia about AI so pointless, the current version of AI is in many sectors a complete dead-end because until it knows when it is hallucinating it can’t be trusted

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. grss, there's still a high correlation between descent from the Normans accompanying the Conqueror and being of high status in society (MPs, wealthy, etc). Should I, as a Yorkshireman, be entitled to reparations for the Harrowing of the North?

I don't want reparations, of course. Only a fool would advocate that people who have done nothing wrong should be compelled give money to people who have suffered no wrong at their hands.

I'm just curious if you think an ongoing impact is the clinching argument. Yorkshire's population was dramatically hit, I think Marc Morris asserted 75% total dead (mostly starved).

I think Norman reparations would bankrupt France so we really should be in favour of reparations.

I'm not touching the whole reparations argument.

But I would note that the people most triggered by the idea are (entirely coincidentally) the same ones minimising the economic contribution of slavery to the development of the UK economy over the century and a half from around 1700.

The converse seems of course to be true of those who think reparations a good idea.

Slavery did have minimal economic contribution to the development of the UK, which is part of the reason why we abolished it.

Slavery has existed since time immemorial and yet Britain was the first and only dominant Empire to abolish it. Why?

Because the rise of Britain was not based upon, funded by or relying upon slavery. Instead we discovered the key to economic growth - investing in technology. Improving productivity. Something slave-based economies being over-reliant on cheap manual labour were typically* singularly lacking in.

It is investment, productivity and most of all education and technology that was behind the UK's economic rise. Its also what we need a return to and we're struggling now due to a lack of investment in productivity and an overreliance on cheap manual labour instead.

* The Romans being a notable exception who heavily invested as well as having slavery, which is why they came to dominate their era and were so successful for so long.

I think there is truth to the argument that the profits from slavery provided some of the capital that drove industrialisation. But, it's not, by any means, the whole of the story. And, in the long run, industrialisation benefitted the whole world, not just the UK.

turbotubbs said:

Nigelb said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

He's just firing out any old shit that comes into his head now.

https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1803018993118101771

Mildly terrifying. The UK only produces 60% of our food consumption...

What is he planning?

An end to obesity ?

Win/win...

IN the second world war we went from about 30% home produced food to nearly 90% (I think) by utilising more marginal farmland better and judicious use of other bits of land (parks etc).