“Hard to overstate what a sinister figure Elon Musk is. Never seen one oligarch in a western democracy intervene on anything like this scale with unending Goebbels-grade lies.”
Does that include the goons calling Harris a communist? Two of said goons being Musk and Trump.
Well, Harris is quite proud about saying she believes in equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Which arguably makes her more of a communist than it does Trump a fascist.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
What about the treatment of the English by the Normans, eh?
To be fair there, in England the language used by the royals downwards (!) has had considerable Saxon influence. Ever since Chaucer.
Thank goodness King John was so crap, really forced the Anglo-Norman nobility to focus more on the local lingo.
I watched the BBC adaptation of the Shakespeare play of King John, or whatever it is called, on Tuesday.
Leonard Rossiter was in it.
Those BBC Shakespeares are really good. I hadn't realized that they ploughed through (almost) all of them over many years.
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
The Telegraph will be full of blank pages once this budget is finally delivered as they seem to have nothing else to write about.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
Yes; for Younger Grandson history went on until the 1960's. And I once wrote a short 'history' document for Elder Grandsons class of 8 year olds on what it was like to live on Canvey Island during WWII.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
I well recall my first history lesson in grammar school 62 years ago. We spent 45 minutes copying a drawing of a naked Neanderthal man sitting on a rock, using a second rock to pulverise a third. I think the hidden agenda was to make us proud to be British.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are. Everyone can see how they caved on Chagos
From the guardian
“Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said”
I bet he’s confident. Labour will buckle but they will try and disguise it as something else. Spineless fucking cretins
Conceding some wording will look like the easiest move for a PM, but he will need to be careful.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
I well recall my first history lesson in grammar school 62 years ago. We spent 45 minutes copying a drawing of a naked Neanderthal man sitting on a rock, using a second rock to pulverise a third. I think the hidden agenda was to make us proud to be British.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
I well recall my first history lesson in grammar school 62 years ago. We spent 45 minutes copying a drawing of a naked Neanderthal man sitting on a rock, using a second rock to pulverise a third. I think the hidden agenda was to make us proud to be British.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
What about the treatment of the English by the Normans, eh?
To be fair there, in England the language used by the royals downwards (!) has had considerable Saxon influence. Ever since Chaucer.
Thank goodness King John was so crap, really forced the Anglo-Norman nobility to focus more on the local lingo.
I watched the BBC adaptation of the Shakespeare play of King John, or whatever it is called, on Tuesday.
Leonard Rossiter was in it.
I've just read David Starkey's "Magna Carta". It's interesting, especially the interplay between all the dramatis personae. I didn't realise there were more than one version and that the final version wasn't certified until after John's death.
You get some saying it was not important at all because of it being annulled or whatever, but the perception of it overtime and enduring legend about what it was, even beyond what those forcing its signing may have intended, I would think argues for its vital importance regardless.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are. Everyone can see how they caved on Chagos
From the guardian
“Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said”
I bet he’s confident. Labour will buckle but they will try and disguise it as something else. Spineless fucking cretins
Conceding some wording will look like the easiest move for a PM, but he will need to be careful.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
We should do it by reigns since 1603. There's only been 21-ish, depending on how you count the Cromwells and William and Mary. Plus we should separate it into two areas: British History and World History. We can put the self-abnegation stuff into the latter and all the fun bits in the former.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are. Everyone can see how they caved on Chagos
From the guardian
“Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said”
I bet he’s confident. Labour will buckle but they will try and disguise it as something else. Spineless fucking cretins
Conceding some wording will look like the easiest move for a PM, but he will need to be careful.
He's a lawyer; he'll know about wording.
The wording might stand up in the courts of law but they're very different to the courts of public opinion.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are. Everyone can see how they caved on Chagos
From the guardian
“Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said”
I bet he’s confident. Labour will buckle but they will try and disguise it as something else. Spineless fucking cretins
Conceding some wording will look like the easiest move for a PM, but he will need to be careful.
He's a lawyer; he'll know about wording.
The wording might stand up in the courts of law but they're very different to the courts of public opinion.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
Was he at Cassino? I was there a few days ago, and saw hundreds of graves to Indian soldiers.
As far as I am aware he only fought in the Asian theatre.
In Burma? I find hearing about the real people who fought in WW2 fascinating.
The father of one of my best friends flew Tempests in the Far East. He escorted Vera Lynn's plane and also took part in the Berlin Airlift after the war. He crashed several times on take off/landing in the war, but with only minor injuries and said he felt sick with fear every time he took off. Lots of stories. He also met Douglas Bader who he hated as being very arrogant.
I find it hard to believe that a Labour government that is content to ignore the large majority of its vote and membership on the UK's relationship with the EU is going to buckle to a much smaller demographic on reparations.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
There are lots of things we can't afford but spaff money on anyway.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
That very quickly turns into politicised history, both by the selection of the material and the emphasis placed on that material. And, if you teach shame about the history of Britain then you will create a generation who have shame in Britain.
That doesn't mean you ignore it, or gloss over it, but it does mean that you put any crimes in the context of the time, what others were doing, what the world was like, and also what positives resulted as well. Because these exist throughout history and have shaped Britain and the world accordingly.
History should be about history, not a vehicle to advance contemporary political agendas.
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
The Telegraph will be full of blank pages once this budget is finally delivered as they seem to have nothing else to write about.
What are you talking about? They can just go back to one of their many predictions and re-print it.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
Of course they would suffer electorally for it, the Tories would have the billboards prepared to remind voters Labour put funding reparations ahead of funding the NHS. It would hand the redwall seats mostly back to the Tories and some to Reform on a plate
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
The Telegraph will be full of blank pages once this budget is finally delivered as they seem to have nothing else to write about.
Well, if they do that they are indeed MAD and the government will collapse within a year. Widows committing suicide because of Capital Transfer Tax after 1974 was a real thing and hence the volte face within two years.
I cannot believe they could be so stupid. But having said that when it comes to stupid Keir Starmer hasn't failed yet.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
I think there are lots of different ways this could go. An election board in a state might refuse to verify the results to prevent Harris from getting the votes, and that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
Regardless Harris would still be able to call that state for her under the constitution for the VP declares the results of the presidential election not the SC, nothing the SC can do about that.
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
The Telegraph will be full of blank pages once this budget is finally delivered as they seem to have nothing else to write about.
You reckon ?
They seem to have endless articles about reparations at the moment as well.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
That very quickly turns into politicised history, both by the selection of the material and the emphasis placed on that material. And, if you teach shame about the history of Britain then you will create a generation who have shame in Britain.
That doesn't mean you ignore it, or gloss over it, but it does mean that you put any crimes in the context of the time, what others were doing, what the world was like, and also what positives resulted as well. Because these exist throughout history and have shaped Britain and the world accordingly.
History should be about history, not a vehicle to advance contemporary political agendas.
How do you build any coherent set of political beliefs and the agendas that spring from them without reference to history?
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
I well recall my first history lesson in grammar school 62 years ago. We spent 45 minutes copying a drawing of a naked Neanderthal man sitting on a rock, using a second rock to pulverise a third. I think the hidden agenda was to make us proud to be British.
Not very different to my experience around 1950!
I wonder if they were still talking about Piltdown Man then? Very British, complete with cricket bat of, ISTR, mammoth ivory. Been said to be targeted at a certain expert who held sway at the time. Britain, or rather England given the bat, cradle of the human race, and all that.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
So am I looking in from across the Atlantic, nonetheless the result will have a bearing on how we roll over here
Harris has been confident, witty, sure footed and positive. An absolute mirror image of her opponent. See his Al Smith speech.
It might not be enough.
Has the revelation that Trump likes Hitler moved the market at all?
It got some media attention but it wasn’t wall to wall coverage . Very few people are undecided about Trumps character , this just reinforces the view amongst those who hate him .
It’s really about motivating your base . The story really only got attention in the last two days , so we’ll see if there’s any effect on the next few polls .
Yes. This snippet from The Atlantic hits the spot for me.
"For millions of the faithful, Trump’s daily attempts to breach new frontiers of hideousness are not offensive but reassuring. They want Trump to be awful—precisely because the people they view as their political foes will be so appalled if he wins. If Trump’s campaign was focused on handing out tax breaks and lowering gas prices, he’d be losing, because for his base, none of that yawn-inducing policy stuff is transgressive enough to be exciting. (Just ask Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, who each in their own way tried to run as a Trump alternative.) Some Trump voters may believe his lies. But plenty more want Trump to be terrifying and stomach-turning so that reelecting him will be a fully realized act of social revenge. Harris cannot propose any policy, offer any benefit, or adopt any position that competes with that feeling. Exactly why so many Americans feel this way is a complicated story but a toxic combination of social resentment, entitlement, and racial insecurity drives many Trump voters to believe not only that other Americans are looking down on them but that they are doing so while living an undeservedly good life. These others must be punished or at least brought down to a common level of misery to balance the scales, and Trump is the guy to do it."
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
The Telegraph will be full of blank pages once this budget is finally delivered as they seem to have nothing else to write about.
What are you talking about? They can just go back to one of their many predictions and re-print it.
It's moderately amusing to watch Labour supporters find out about what being in government means.
Speculation on budget measures in the run up to a budget? - Ooooh! Missies!
Wait till we get to the deconstruction of the budget that starts 0.00001 seconds after the Chancellor stops speaking.....
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
That very quickly turns into politicised history, both by the selection of the material and the emphasis placed on that material. And, if you teach shame about the history of Britain then you will create a generation who have shame in Britain.
That doesn't mean you ignore it, or gloss over it, but it does mean that you put any crimes in the context of the time, what others were doing, what the world was like, and also what positives resulted as well. Because these exist throughout history and have shaped Britain and the world accordingly.
History should be about history, not a vehicle to advance contemporary political agendas.
How do you build any coherent set of political beliefs and the agendas that spring from them without reference to history?
Also: the Conservatives love history as a vehicle for their agendas. Statue-saving and all that.
Vide the demand to make Our Island Story a key school book once again, as per Mr Gove.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Do we know that ?
It could be a hugely popular policy for all we know.
Certainly some Labour MP's and labour activists support it as do a fair few charities and NGO's (the ones who will benefit from "helping" distribute it).
The thing we need to consider is how do we raise it if we do and also bear in mind the aggrieved nations have very kindly said we can pay in stages over time.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I know.
History is complex.
Largest volunteer army in history?
The British Indian Army in WWII.
Brits must have been doing something right.
I still have my great-grandfather’s medals.
Was he at Cassino? I was there a few days ago, and saw hundreds of graves to Indian soldiers.
A much better way of teaching our history is to incorporate positive stories like that.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
And "it" is an arbitrary moveable amount. If we paid "it" a new demand for more would follow swiftly.
Foreign aid seems the right mechanism and is broadly at the right kind of level. Continue with that.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
I think there are lots of different ways this could go. An election board in a state might refuse to verify the results to prevent Harris from getting the votes, and that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
Regardless Harris would still be able to call that state for her under the constitution for the VP declares the results of the presidential election not the SC, nothing the SC can do about that.
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and decides what cases it wants to hear. Only legislation can override a decision taken by the Supreme Court.
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
The Telegraph will be full of blank pages once this budget is finally delivered as they seem to have nothing else to write about.
You reckon ?
They seem to have endless articles about reparations at the moment as well.
They will find something.
They've certainly flown plenty of kites this budget, we'll have to see how many were on target.
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
The Telegraph will be full of blank pages once this budget is finally delivered as they seem to have nothing else to write about.
Well, if they do that they are indeed MAD and the government will collapse within a year. Widows committing suicide because of Capital Transfer Tax after 1974 was a real thing and hence the volte face within two years.
I cannot believe they could be so stupid. But having said that when it comes to stupid Keir Starmer hasn't failed yet.
One option is of course to abolish inheritance tax, and tax the recipients.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I think there are drawbacks to raising a generation of kids to think that their country is uniquely wicked - which is why most culture tend not to.
Hardly anyone is arguing that. But our country does have a unique role over a particular couple of centuries or so of history, and we should be teaching the bad along with the good.
One period of history (which might or might not be taught now ?) which didn't even really figure as history when I was a kid, is the postwar decade, worldwide. That essentially set what became our modern world.
If Reeves is stupid enough to reverse the Osborne IHT cut she hands large numbers of marginal seats in London and the South back to the Tories, especially if the LDs don't also promise to restore the spousal exemption as the Tories would.
Though that source is just 'experts' saying what she could look at, not that she has. One thing they also considered is capping the exemption that can be used at £10 m which would be politically much less damaging for Labour and only effect the super rich
The Telegraph will be full of blank pages once this budget is finally delivered as they seem to have nothing else to write about.
Well, if they do that they are indeed MAD and the government will collapse within a year. Widows committing suicide because of Capital Transfer Tax after 1974 was a real thing and hence the volte face within two years.
I cannot believe they could be so stupid. But having said that when it comes to stupid Keir Starmer hasn't failed yet.
One option is of course to abolish inheritance tax, and tax the recipients.
Makes sense - it's a capital gain after all...
The only advantage of inheritance tax is that by being a different tax you can tax profits and inheritance differently - hard to do that if both are subject to the same tax regime..
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
We should do it by reigns since 1603. There's only been 21-ish, depending on how you count the Cromwells and William and Mary. Plus we should separate it into two areas: British History and World History. We can put the self-abnegation stuff into the latter and all the fun bits in the former.
No history before 1603?
No Reformation? No Romans, Vikings or Normans? None of the early European voyages of discovery? No Black Death, Magna Carta or Crusades? No Spanish Armada, Hundred Years War or War of the Roses?
Imagine teaching English history and not teaching Elizabeth I's speech at Tilbury. You might as well teach American history and omit the Gettysburg Address.
But, yeah. I suppose it does get a bit easier if you leave most of it out.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
I think there are lots of different ways this could go. An election board in a state might refuse to verify the results to prevent Harris from getting the votes, and that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
Regardless Harris would still be able to call that state for her under the constitution for the VP declares the results of the presidential election not the SC, nothing the SC can do about that.
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and decides what cases it wants to hear. Only legislation can override a decision taken by the Supreme Court.
Ironically, Harris declaring the results the way she feels is "better" would be what Trump demanded Pence do.
The day that Dan Quayle came a Second Founding Father.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
They will care, because the amount will become public and it will be priced and billed per household by opposition parties. Just look at how much the Foreign Aid budget is criticised, and that is far from the same thing.
It would destroy Labour. Still think they might do it because Starmer is naturally sympathetic and has a tin-ear for public opinion, but it'd be catastrophic.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
And "it" is an arbitrary moveable amount. If we paid "it" a new demand for more would follow swiftly.
Foreign aid seems the right mechanism and is broadly at the right kind of level. Continue with that.
On foreign aid. Certain countries demand that British logos etc be taken off aid, on the basis that it is "offensive".
I think we should ignore those requests. Perhaps double the size of the Union Jacks on it. Just to observe the results, in the spirit of scientific enquiry.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
I well recall my first history lesson in grammar school 62 years ago. We spent 45 minutes copying a drawing of a naked Neanderthal man sitting on a rock, using a second rock to pulverise a third. I think the hidden agenda was to make us proud to be British.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
I think there are lots of different ways this could go. An election board in a state might refuse to verify the results to prevent Harris from getting the votes, and that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
Regardless Harris would still be able to call that state for her under the constitution for the VP declares the results of the presidential election not the SC, nothing the SC can do about that.
At least this time Trump will not be in situ at the WH as he tries to overturn the election result. He'll be trying to break in rather than refusing to leave. That will make it a little harder for him.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I think there are drawbacks to raising a generation of kids to think that their country is uniquely wicked - which is why most culture tend not to.
Hardly anyone is arguing that. But our country does have a unique role over a particular couple of centuries or so of history, and we should be teaching the bad along with the good.
One period of history (which might or might not be taught now ?) which didn't even really figure as history when I was a kid, is the postwar decade, worldwide. That essentially set what became our modern world.
For the 1750-1950 period, it doesn't seem apparent to me from looking at what my daughters are taught that we teach any of the good along with the bad.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
They will care, because the amount will become public and it will be priced and billed per household by opposition parties. Just look at how much the Foreign Aid budget is criticised, and that is far from the same thing.
It would destroy Labour. Still think they might do it because Starmer is naturally sympathetic and has a tin-ear for public opinion, but it'd be catastrophic.
Yeah, it will literally be billed as tax rises to pay for this bullshit by opposition parties, Reform and the Tories would rinse them. I'm not sure if he'll do it but the consequences of doing so would finish Labour for a generation.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
Britain still spends a fair wodge on the International Aid budget. It's not hard to envisage a rebrand of that from Aid to Reparations, with no extra money being spent.
The difference might be that it would be ringfenced for former British colonies, and the governments of those countries would have more say in how it was spent. Whether that would make the spending more effective I'm not sure. The best argument against Western aid spending is that it's been very ineffective, so it might be worth a try.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
Like many the history I was taught at school was very limited. Ancient Egypt, the early Romans, Tudors, WW2, 19th century Russia for some reason, and then at A-level (so not most people) British foreign policy during 17-19th centuries (so we did personally do a lot on invasions and slavery) and/or the American civil rights movement. And WW2 again.
I think we should teach a lot more history than we do, but how much and what to mandate? People tend to get a bit annoyed if the government mandates specific topics be included, or insists on some kind of British narrative which is perceived as just the learning of dates and focus on kings/elites.
So more teaching about the Empire and what it did sounds fine to me, but what falls by the wayside instead?
I'd go for WW2 stuff, kids have played enough Call of Duty games to pick up the details, now they have set some in WW2 again.
The problem with teaching history is that there's always more history to teach. For one thing there's always more history being created - when my grandad was taught history, "history" ended with the Boer Wars - but for another, history is fractal, and there's always more of it the closer you look.
Just the other day Casino asked about the history of France during the interwar period, which feels like a fairly important part of the WWI/WWII story, but one that I've never made it to (besides some vague knowledge about the Popular Front, occupation of the Ruhr, and other bits and bobs) given all the other history.
More than any other subject the mismatch between a desire to define a syllabus of the subject, and the feasibility of doing so, is immense. There's simply too much history, and so much of it that is important.
Yes; for Younger Grandson history went on until the 1960's. And I once wrote a short 'history' document for Elder Grandsons class of 8 year olds on what it was like to live on Canvey Island during WWII.
My son is fascinated by history, and much of that is down to two BBC programs: Go Jetters (yes, really...) and Horrible Histories.
Now, HH annoys me as much as it does the next red-blooded Englishman. Some of the sketches go more for humour than accuracy, are sometimes politically biased, and skim the surface of subjects at best. But many history books by well-established authors are biased and skim the surface of important topics.
But HH introduces a vast amount of periods, events and characters that kids would otherwise not know about, and that, IMO, is brilliant.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
It's not just economic, it's political.
Outside of bien pensant metropolitan circles support for this is astonishingly low, and for good reason, and it'd be like throwing petrol on the flames of culture wars.
I can scarcely think of anything worse the government could do.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
And "it" is an arbitrary moveable amount. If we paid "it" a new demand for more would follow swiftly.
Foreign aid seems the right mechanism and is broadly at the right kind of level. Continue with that.
To me, foreign aid also appears to fall into the category of something we can't afford but pay for anyway.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Although just to make clear I think what Musk is doing is so close to buying votes that it is illegal or should be if it isn't.
How can you buy votes in a secret ballot? The voters might just take your money, and vote the wrong way, the double-crossing swine.
Given than governments of all stripes pretty much everywhere dole out money to their voters (e.g. right now, we have a budget black hole caused by Labour signing up for big pay rises for the public sector), although it's pretty morally dubious, I can't see how that sort of bribery can be stopped.
Musk doling out cash for signing some meaningless petition merely ensures everyone knows the petition is particularly meaningless - I can't see how it changes a single vote in the actual Presidential election.
OK if you think so try offering £5 to voters in the UK in exchange for their vote in a UK election where we have a secret ballot and try arguing that being secret you really didn't impact their vote.
Your feet won't touch the ground before finding yourself in prison. The political parties are scrupulous in avoiding that.
For those old enough do you remember the days where in an election day committee room you had a plate for donations for tea and biscuits to ensure plod didn't come around and do you for bribery (as if).
And it was also always a good excuse for the candidate to avoid their round.
Oh. Don't they do that (bikkie money) any more? If not, why not?
You don't need committee rooms anymore. Knock up done via mobile phone and internet so not relevant. However at the last GE we had boxes positioned at various houses with water, sweets, energy bars, paracetamol, sun cream, etc which I was surprised at so I assume there has been some change in the rules or a sensible relaxation.
Ah! Thank you.
Just realised my answer wasn't clear - When I said knock up done by mobile phone and internet, you do still physically knock up, but you download and upload the data via your mobile phone.
For someone who remembers carbon copy shuttleworths I am feeling very old.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
Britain still spends a fair wodge on the International Aid budget. It's not hard to envisage a rebrand of that from Aid to Reparations, with no extra money being spent.
The difference might be that it would be ringfenced for former British colonies, and the governments of those countries would have more say in how it was spent. Whether that would make the spending more effective I'm not sure. The best argument against Western aid spending is that it's been very ineffective, so it might be worth a try.
That doesn't sounds too bad, actually. If foreign aid were to be spent anywhere surely we should prioritise those with historical links to the UK?
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are. Everyone can see how they caved on Chagos
From the guardian
“Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said”
I bet he’s confident. Labour will buckle but they will try and disguise it as something else. Spineless fucking cretins
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
I think there are lots of different ways this could go. An election board in a state might refuse to verify the results to prevent Harris from getting the votes, and that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
Regardless Harris would still be able to call that state for her under the constitution for the VP declares the results of the presidential election not the SC, nothing the SC can do about that.
That's not right. The VP reads out the results as passed to Congress by the States. If the State refuses to send a result then there's nothing for the VP to act on. They can't simply make up a result.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
They will care, because the amount will become public and it will be priced and billed per household by opposition parties. Just look at how much the Foreign Aid budget is criticised, and that is far from the same thing.
It would destroy Labour. Still think they might do it because Starmer is naturally sympathetic and has a tin-ear for public opinion, but it'd be catastrophic.
The Government is saying it has zero money - if it can find money to give to some Caribbean countries then the general public is going to think (at best) that they are a bunch of liars ala Bozo and co.
And that's at best - many people would regard them as being utterly incompetent and not caring about their own citizens.
I suspect the next week will determine the next election result - decent budget and no stupid decisions and Labour will do well.
Crap budget and a money sent on "slave reparations" and Labour will be destroyed at the next election.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
Britain still spends a fair wodge on the International Aid budget. It's not hard to envisage a rebrand of that from Aid to Reparations, with no extra money being spent.
The difference might be that it would be ringfenced for former British colonies, and the governments of those countries would have more say in how it was spent. Whether that would make the spending more effective I'm not sure. The best argument against Western aid spending is that it's been very ineffective, so it might be worth a try.
That doesn't sounds too bad, actually. If foreign aid were to be spent anywhere surely we should prioritise those with historical links to the UK?
That's an issue with the idea. It would also involve sending more money to India, an advanced country with nuclear weapons, terrible internal human rights, and which is now assassinating people abroad...
But generally I'm in favour of the international aid budget.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
That very quickly turns into politicised history, both by the selection of the material and the emphasis placed on that material. And, if you teach shame about the history of Britain then you will create a generation who have shame in Britain.
That doesn't mean you ignore it, or gloss over it, but it does mean that you put any crimes in the context of the time, what others were doing, what the world was like, and also what positives resulted as well. Because these exist throughout history and have shaped Britain and the world accordingly.
History should be about history, not a vehicle to advance contemporary political agendas.
LOL, called it.
And as if all history isn't advancing some agenda. If you think I'm advocating the teaching of shame, then you're more of a fool than I took you for.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
Britain still spends a fair wodge on the International Aid budget. It's not hard to envisage a rebrand of that from Aid to Reparations, with no extra money being spent.
The difference might be that it would be ringfenced for former British colonies, and the governments of those countries would have more say in how it was spent. Whether that would make the spending more effective I'm not sure. The best argument against Western aid spending is that it's been very ineffective, so it might be worth a try.
That doesn't sounds too bad, actually. If foreign aid were to be spent anywhere surely we should prioritise those with historical links to the UK?
The problem is that it signals guilt and culpability and therefore there wouldn't be gratitude or anything positive built from the relationship, because it'd be about compensation and what's owed.
If it were about developing allies of Britain and building a strong partnership into the future, perhaps to check China and defend mutual values, that'd be entirely different.
The framing goals, objectives, reasoning and positioning are entirely different.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
It's not just economic, it's political.
Outside of bien pensant metropolitan circles support for this is astonishingly low, and for good reason, and it'd be like throwing petrol on the flames of culture wars.
I can scarcely think of anything worse the government could do.
I don't think it'd just be Con/Ref pushing it - it'd make a nice wedge for the SNP/Indie movement as well.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
That very quickly turns into politicised history, both by the selection of the material and the emphasis placed on that material. And, if you teach shame about the history of Britain then you will create a generation who have shame in Britain.
That doesn't mean you ignore it, or gloss over it, but it does mean that you put any crimes in the context of the time, what others were doing, what the world was like, and also what positives resulted as well. Because these exist throughout history and have shaped Britain and the world accordingly.
History should be about history, not a vehicle to advance contemporary political agendas.
How do you build any coherent set of political beliefs and the agendas that spring from them without reference to history?
Also: the Conservatives love history as a vehicle for their agendas. Statue-saving and all that.
Vide the demand to make Our Island Story a key school book once again, as per Mr Gove.
I loved the Scotland's Story equivalent with its wonderful illustrations. A very Pre-Raphaelite "Brave Catherine" sticking her arm where the bolt should have been as the murderers of James 1 were pushing on the other side of the door. A rather bossy Black Agnes getting her maids to dust the walls of Dunbar Castle as it was being pounded by cannon fire.
A minor thing in the face of Trump II and an England collapse, but has TwitterX deactivated its translation option for non English tweets? Pitfa if so.
I am banned from Twitter for saying the Russians should get thrashed, Musk obviously loves Putin , given you can say almost anything on there and not get banned. Life has improved since the ban.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
That very quickly turns into politicised history, both by the selection of the material and the emphasis placed on that material. And, if you teach shame about the history of Britain then you will create a generation who have shame in Britain.
That doesn't mean you ignore it, or gloss over it, but it does mean that you put any crimes in the context of the time, what others were doing, what the world was like, and also what positives resulted as well. Because these exist throughout history and have shaped Britain and the world accordingly.
History should be about history, not a vehicle to advance contemporary political agendas.
How do you build any coherent set of political beliefs and the agendas that spring from them without reference to history?
That is the job of political parties and movements, who wish to explain why their principles have a reference point in history.
It is not the job of historians to do the job for them the other way round.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
I think there are lots of different ways this could go. An election board in a state might refuse to verify the results to prevent Harris from getting the votes, and that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
Regardless Harris would still be able to call that state for her under the constitution for the VP declares the results of the presidential election not the SC, nothing the SC can do about that.
That's not right. The VP reads out the results as passed to Congress by the States. If the State refuses to send a result then there's nothing for the VP to act on. They can't simply make up a result.
No it is right. Pence as VP had he called the swing states for Trump would have made Trump President.
Harris would just use a Democrat governor or some Democrat state legislators or officials to send her state results if Republicans refused and nothing in the constitution to stop that. Just as Trump sent alternative results for swing states from GOP state legislators and officials for Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan etc but Pence bravely rejected them and called Biden and Harris the winners
Don't support reparations, but find it amusing the people getting particularly angry about this and suggesting we should leave the Commonwealth are *exactly the same people* who argued for Brexit on the basis it would enable us to forge closer links with the Commonwealth. Combine that with Trump's planned tariffs and abandonment of Ukraine and it becomes clear how utterly atrocious the Brexiteers' predictions were on foreign policy. Dan Hannan is an absolute moron.
Mr. Eagles, slavery was only illegal when the British Empire made it so.
Do you praise an arsonist for putting out a fire they fanned ?
We spent the bulk of our colonial takings on fighting Hitler.
That said, I'm not totally against a modicum of restorative justice. An extra levy of (say) 2p in the pound on the highest rate taxpayers, to go towards a reparations fund - would you be happy to pay that ?
As the grandson of immigrants that tax would be persecuting me for crimes I haven’t profited from.
I would accept a proposal that schools taught more about the crimes of the British empire and the invasions therein.
In a microcosm, that's the case against reparations.
Don't disagree with you about the history - even if it does wind up Casino all over again.
I think there are drawbacks to raising a generation of kids to think that their country is uniquely wicked - which is why most culture tend not to.
Hardly anyone is arguing that. But our country does have a unique role over a particular couple of centuries or so of history, and we should be teaching the bad along with the good.
One period of history (which might or might not be taught now ?) which didn't even really figure as history when I was a kid, is the postwar decade, worldwide. That essentially set what became our modern world.
For the 1750-1950 period, it doesn't seem apparent to me from looking at what my daughters are taught that we teach any of the good along with the bad.
Postwar is taught nowadays, yes.
Is that postwar world history, or postwar Britain ?
“Hard to overstate what a sinister figure Elon Musk is. Never seen one oligarch in a western democracy intervene on anything like this scale with unending Goebbels-grade lies.”
Does that include the goons calling Harris a communist? Two of said goons being Musk and Trump.
Well, Harris is quite proud about saying she believes in equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Which arguably makes her more of a communist than it does Trump a fascist.
Nice weaselly little ‘arguably’ in there! Is Harris on record saying ‘she believes in equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity’? In fact Marx saw equality of outcome as a bourgeois moral concept, something in which he was uninterested.
Otoh Fascists were very keen on coups, subverting democracy and racism. Sounds familiar..
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Utter bollox, if you look at the crap over the centuries you would disappear up your own fundamental, would just be a money merrygoround and end up back at hee haw. They want to stick to looking at their opwn imperfections, murderous deeds , etc.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
Britain still spends a fair wodge on the International Aid budget. It's not hard to envisage a rebrand of that from Aid to Reparations, with no extra money being spent.
The difference might be that it would be ringfenced for former British colonies, and the governments of those countries would have more say in how it was spent. Whether that would make the spending more effective I'm not sure. The best argument against Western aid spending is that it's been very ineffective, so it might be worth a try.
That doesn't sounds too bad, actually. If foreign aid were to be spent anywhere surely we should prioritise those with historical links to the UK?
The problem is that it signals guilt and culpability and therefore there wouldn't be gratitude or anything positive built from the relationship, because it'd be about compensation and what's owed.
If it were about developing allies of Britain and building a strong partnership into the future, perhaps to check China and defend mutual values, that'd be entirely different.
The framing goals, objectives, reasoning and positioning are entirely different.
The interesting thing is that this is flipping the Commonwealth as a forum on its head.
If it simply becomes a meeting where the UK is repeatedly castigated and told to pay up, does it become less attractive for the UK to really involve itself anymore? The ties are loosening. The Commonwealth Games are in a perma-crisis. Other nations are building new relationships rather than with the old colonial power.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
If Harris wins the EC then as VP she declares herself as President when reading out state results to Congress.
Nothing the SC can do about that as that is the role of the VP in declaring the winner of the presidential election as written in the US constitution.
The SC could try stopping the count in a few swing states but how do they know Harris wouldn't be ahead in the count at the point they did?
I think there are lots of different ways this could go. An election board in a state might refuse to verify the results to prevent Harris from getting the votes, and that could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
Regardless Harris would still be able to call that state for her under the constitution for the VP declares the results of the presidential election not the SC, nothing the SC can do about that.
That's not right. The VP reads out the results as passed to Congress by the States. If the State refuses to send a result then there's nothing for the VP to act on. They can't simply make up a result.
No it is right. Pence as VP had he called the swing states for Trump would have made Trump President.
Harris would just use a Democrat governor or some Democrat state legislators to send her state results if Republicans refused and nothing in the constitution to stop that. Just as Trump sent alternative results for swing states from GOP state legislators and officials for Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan etc but Pence bravely rejected them and called Harris the winner
"Harris would just use a Democrat governor or some Democrat state legislators to send her state results if Republicans refused and nothing in the constitution to stop that."
And there is nothing in the constitution preventing a Supreme Court challenge to such a move - or preventing the Supreme Court from accepting such a case.
Something that is rarely discussed, in the over-nervous climate in the U.S. at the moment, is that at times, as well as being quick on her feet and charismatic, Harris is able to conjure up something, at times, that Hilary Clinton never could; a certain relaxed sex appeal. There are shades of someone that you might have seen in a trendy, funky nightclub in 1980's or 1990"s metropolitan America.
This matters, because it means that she's.able to counter Trump's, equivalent and folksy, down-home appeal, in a way that Clinton couldn't match.
No it is right. Pence as VP had he called the swing states for Trump would have made Trump President.
Harris would just use a Democrat governor or some Democrat state legislators or officials to send her state results if Republicans refused and nothing in the constitution to stop that. Just as Trump sent alternative results for swing states from GOP state legislators and officials for Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan etc but Pence bravely rejected them and called Harris the winner
You’ve missed this from 2022.
Congress on Friday gave final passage to legislation changing the arcane law that governs the certification of a presidential contest, the strongest effort yet to avoid a repeat of Donald Trump’s violence-inflaming push to reverse his loss in the 2020 election.
The House passed an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act as part of its massive, end-of-the-year spending bill, after the Senate approved identical wording Thursday. The legislation now goes to President Joe Biden for his signature.
Biden hailed the provisions’ inclusion in the spending bill in a statement Friday, calling it “critical bipartisan action that will help ensure that the will of the people is preserved.”
It’s the most significant legislative response Congress has made yet to Trump’s aggressive efforts to upend the popular vote, and a step that been urged by the House select committee that conducted the most thorough investigation into the violent siege of the Capitol.
The provisions amending the 1887 law — which has long been criticized as poorly and confusingly written — won bipartisan support and would make it harder for future presidential losers to prevent the ascension of their foes, as Trump tried to do on Jan. 6, 2021.
A minor thing in the face of Trump II and an England collapse, but has TwitterX deactivated its translation option for non English tweets? Pitfa if so.
I am banned from Twitter for saying the Russians should get thrashed, Musk obviously loves Putin , given you can say almost anything on there and not get banned. Life has improved since the ban.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are. Everyone can see how they caved on Chagos
From the guardian
“Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”. He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said”
I bet he’s confident. Labour will buckle but they will try and disguise it as something else. Spineless fucking cretins
You voted for them too Leon !!!
A shakedown is a shakedown but I suspect you are right. Labour will buckle. Just as the Tories did on Climate reparations at a COP meeting. It starts small but ends up growing and becoming vast.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
Britain still spends a fair wodge on the International Aid budget. It's not hard to envisage a rebrand of that from Aid to Reparations, with no extra money being spent.
The difference might be that it would be ringfenced for former British colonies, and the governments of those countries would have more say in how it was spent. Whether that would make the spending more effective I'm not sure. The best argument against Western aid spending is that it's been very ineffective, so it might be worth a try.
That doesn't sounds too bad, actually. If foreign aid were to be spent anywhere surely we should prioritise those with historical links to the UK?
The problem is that it signals guilt and culpability and therefore there wouldn't be gratitude or anything positive built from the relationship, because it'd be about compensation and what's owed.
If it were about developing allies of Britain and building a strong partnership into the future, perhaps to check China and defend mutual values, that'd be entirely different.
The framing goals, objectives, reasoning and positioning are entirely different.
The interesting thing is that this is flipping the Commonwealth as a forum on its head.
If it simply becomes a meeting where the UK is repeatedly castigated and told to pay up, does it become less attractive for the UK to really involve itself anymore? The ties are loosening. The Commonwealth Games are in a perma-crisis. Other nations are building new relationships rather than with the old colonial power.
Yes, perhaps we ought to be looking at some form of ... European grouping ? Who knows where that might lead.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
We won’t pay reparations.
The reality is we cannot afford it.
Britain still spends a fair wodge on the International Aid budget. It's not hard to envisage a rebrand of that from Aid to Reparations, with no extra money being spent.
The difference might be that it would be ringfenced for former British colonies, and the governments of those countries would have more say in how it was spent. Whether that would make the spending more effective I'm not sure. The best argument against Western aid spending is that it's been very ineffective, so it might be worth a try.
That doesn't sounds too bad, actually. If foreign aid were to be spent anywhere surely we should prioritise those with historical links to the UK?
The problem is that it signals guilt and culpability and therefore there wouldn't be gratitude or anything positive built from the relationship, because it'd be about compensation and what's owed.
If it were about developing allies of Britain and building a strong partnership into the future, perhaps to check China and defend mutual values, that'd be entirely different.
The framing goals, objectives, reasoning and positioning are entirely different.
I think that's a fair critique. The framing of a relationship is important.
I think part of the drive for reparations is that the framing of international aid as charity is not working for the recipient countries. It infantilises them and encourages dependence rather than development.
Hopefully there is a compromise that could be built around the idea of a better shared future, as you suggest.
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
They will care, because the amount will become public and it will be priced and billed per household by opposition parties. Just look at how much the Foreign Aid budget is criticised, and that is far from the same thing.
It would destroy Labour. Still think they might do it because Starmer is naturally sympathetic and has a tin-ear for public opinion, but it'd be catastrophic.
There is no way this government will be getting into the paying of reparations for slavery. It would be anathema to the sort of voters that Labour prioritised to win their majority and who they continue to prioritise. The main threat to Starmer comes from his right not his left and he knows this. Eg there are a ton of Labour seats now where RUK is the challenger. No, not happening. You can relax.
A minor thing in the face of Trump II and an England collapse, but has TwitterX deactivated its translation option for non English tweets? Pitfa if so.
I am banned from Twitter for saying the Russians should get thrashed, Musk obviously loves Putin , given you can say almost anything on there and not get banned. Life has improved since the ban.
Don't support reparations, but find it amusing the people getting particularly angry about this and suggesting we should leave the Commonwealth are *exactly the same people* who argued for Brexit on the basis it would enable us to forge closer links with the Commonwealth. Combine that with Trump's planned tariffs and abandonment of Ukraine and it becomes clear how utterly atrocious the Brexiteers' predictions were on foreign policy. Dan Hannan is an absolute moron.
The “we should forge closer ties with the Commonwealth” thing was a misreading of the geopolitical situation (though you could perhaps form a -slightly- more coherent argument about closer ties with say NZ, AUS, CA, though that comes with its own challenges).
The historical fact of the matter is that the time for the Commonwealth to remake itself in some grand, more egalitarian, integrated community has long passed, if it was ever a goer. Perhaps it is not inconceivable that something could have been built from the organisation in say the 1950s and 1960s, but that would have also have run contrary to the general decolonisation and desire for independence that was permeating at the time, and its far from clear that many Commonwealth nations would have signed up to greater economic/political union at a time when they were actively seeking more control over their affairs. The Commonwealth worked for them as it was because it was an informal club. And in any event, the UK entering Europe in the first place put paid to that. Now, history has marched on, the ties that bind are loosening, and there are far too many interests at play that mean it would never be a serious proposition.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.
Again, I ask: Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago?
I daresay if I go back in your family tree far enough I'll find a rapist or a murderer. Ditto my own. Would you expect to personally pay reparations to the relatives of the victims?
Do you expect India to pay reparations to the people they jailed in 1948 in Hyderabad - after independence?
The trouble is people and countries are getting confused between the question of reparations from those - usually wealthy families - that benefited financially from theft of labour or assets in the past (and continue to, through their inherited endowments), and the much more sketchy question of paying reparations for past wrongs more generally.
If you are rich, and one of the reasons you are rich is because your forebears nicked stuff that wasn't theirs, then I think there is a case to answer. If you just happen to live in a country whose people did bad stuff to other people in the past, well then you are probably about 99% of the world population.
I think if someone feels that they personally want to contribute something of their inherited wealth to assuage their conscience, that is absolutely fine and and quite a worthy view (though who you give it to is a bigger question). I don’t think you’re obliged to, though - it’s not your actions after all. But yes, morally, I understand the argument.
But, like you, I do not agree that there is some generic obligation on nations and peoples to compensate for stuff that that nation did that no-one in charge today had any responsibility for. The framing of the debate is frustrating though. Morally, many would argue that through the principles of charity etc it is incumbent on more wealthy/powerful countries to support poorer ones. It’s why we have an overseas aid budget, of course. Dressing support up in the language of reparations etc just generates and sustains grievances.
I think that's right, and I'm in favour of a larger overseas aid budget - it's ridiculous that we worry about minor inconveniences and grudges when people are literally starving. It should be based on a mixture of where it's most needed and where it will be spent most effectively. It shouldn't be based on what our forebears did 500 years ago. Arguably that would lead us to send money to prosperous countries in Europe which we treated badly in a previous century.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Utter bollox, if you look at the crap over the centuries you would disappear up your own fundamental, would just be a money merrygoround and end up back at hee haw. They want to stick to looking at their opwn imperfections, murderous deeds , etc.
Afternoon Malc.
Hope you are good.
Do you fancy digging deep to pay reparations to line the pockets of the political classes of the Caribbean ?
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
They will care, because the amount will become public and it will be priced and billed per household by opposition parties. Just look at how much the Foreign Aid budget is criticised, and that is far from the same thing.
It would destroy Labour. Still think they might do it because Starmer is naturally sympathetic and has a tin-ear for public opinion, but it'd be catastrophic.
There is no way this government will be getting into the paying of reparations for slavery. It would be anathema to the sort of voters that Labour prioritised to win their majority and who they continue to prioritise. The main threat to Starmer comes from his right not his left and he knows this. Eg there are a ton of Labour seats now where RUK is the challenger. No, not happening. You can relax.
Yeah, I agree. I can't see McSweeney giving the go ahead on this.
US Naval Academy disinvites historian @ruthbenghiat from a history department lecture under pressure from the Heritage Foundation--founders of Project 2025. Intended lecture was what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule through history https://x.com/jemillerbalt/status/1848690507876024456
The Labour government is going to fold. They really are
From the guardian
Starmer under pressure to accept case for slavery reparations, as Commonwealth minister claims UK will eventually agree Keir Starmer has been told by Commonwealth leaders he must come to the table to discuss reparations for the “ill effects” of slavery, PA Media reports.
Commonwealth nations are looking at an agreement that could begin conversations on the issue through a communique, according to the BBC.
Frederick Mitchell, foreign minister for the Bahamas, told the Today programme that Starmer should take part in a discussion which “needs to be had about the history” around reparations. Mitchell said:
There appears to be even a reluctance to have the conversation start. Many of the institutions in the UK have already conceded the point of apology, the British government isn’t quite there. But at this time, the discussion needs to be had about the history of this and the ill effects of what happened after slavery was abolished, which continue to affect our societies today. Mitchell said that he expected discussions on the wording of the communique to continue overnight and that leaders might have to get involved in settling the details. He indicated there was some opposition to having a declaration on reparatory justice in the communique – even though countries like his, he said, thought this wording was “innocuous” and that there really should be “an apology and a commitment to reparations”.
He also predicted that eventually Starmer would shift on this. “It’s only a matter of time before his position changes, I am confident of it,” Mitchell said.
If Starmer agreed taxpayer funded reparations to the Caribbean when the slave trade was abolished by Britain 200 years ago and something not even today's taxpayers great grandparents were responsible for the white working class Labour vote will collapse to Reform. Much of the centrist swing vote will go Tory or LD too at such a far left move.
Starmer is not stupid, if he did he would commit political suicide
I believe he is, potentially that stupid and that morally vain, and that weak, and of course he is surrounded by people that actively agree with this. Black activists. David Lammy. Half his MPs
Yes it would be the instant end of the Labour Party as a serious force forever
Agreed. Because he won such a massive majority with such a narrow voting coalition, he has become quite complacent about what it will take to stay in power. The rumoured 8p petrol tax increase for example. The sort of thing that tips countless Labour seats into the Reform column (or potentially to Tory, who can say).
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
Electionmaps.uk Nowcast already predicts a chunk of Sunderland as Ref/Lab marginals. Do Labour really want to be fighting a rearguard action in Sunderland of all places?
Sadly, while I think giving away reparations to be indefensible, I think they'll do it anyway, and I don't thinnk they'll suffer electorally for it. They've got a huge majority and four years until the election, by which time people will have forgotten about it. And half their voters I would expect support it or wouldn't particularly care anyway.
They will care, because the amount will become public and it will be priced and billed per household by opposition parties. Just look at how much the Foreign Aid budget is criticised, and that is far from the same thing.
It would destroy Labour. Still think they might do it because Starmer is naturally sympathetic and has a tin-ear for public opinion, but it'd be catastrophic.
There is no way this government will be getting into the paying of reparations for slavery. It would be anathema to the sort of voters that Labour prioritised to win their majority and who they continue to prioritise. The main threat to Starmer comes from his right not his left and he knows this. Eg there are a ton of Labour seats now where RUK is the challenger. No, not happening. You can relax.
You are assuming that people on the right want to relax about this.
Comments
The quality of the acting is largely excellent and some people crop up you wouldn't expect. Gorden Kaye was in this one I watched.
Reparations for slavery at any time is political suicide, yet alone when budgets are so stretched.
See this graph.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/10/20/the-scale-of-the-tory-challenge-and-why-being-a-lawyer-helps-jenrick/
The reality is we cannot afford it.
That doesn't mean you ignore it, or gloss over it, but it does mean that you put any crimes in the context of the time, what others were doing, what the world was like, and also what positives resulted as well. Because these exist throughout history and have shaped Britain and the world accordingly.
History should be about history, not a vehicle to advance contemporary political agendas.
I cannot believe they could be so stupid. But having said that when it comes to stupid Keir Starmer hasn't failed yet.
They seem to have endless articles about reparations at the moment as well.
They will find something.
"For millions of the faithful, Trump’s daily attempts to breach new frontiers of hideousness are not offensive but reassuring. They want Trump to be awful—precisely because the people they view as their political foes will be so appalled if he wins. If Trump’s campaign was focused on handing out tax breaks and lowering gas prices, he’d be losing, because for his base, none of that yawn-inducing policy stuff is transgressive enough to be exciting. (Just ask Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, who each in their own way tried to run as a Trump alternative.) Some Trump voters may believe his lies. But plenty more want Trump to be terrifying and stomach-turning so that reelecting him will be a fully realized act of social revenge. Harris cannot propose any policy, offer any benefit, or adopt any position that competes with that feeling. Exactly why so many Americans feel this way is a complicated story but a toxic combination of social resentment, entitlement, and racial insecurity drives many Trump voters to believe not only that other Americans are looking down on them but that they are doing so while living an undeservedly good life. These others must be punished or at least brought down to a common level of misery to balance the scales, and Trump is the guy to do it."
Speculation on budget measures in the run up to a budget? - Ooooh! Missies!
Wait till we get to the deconstruction of the budget that starts 0.00001 seconds after the Chancellor stops speaking.....
Vide the demand to make Our Island Story a key school book once again, as per Mr Gove.
Mind,
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/feb/07/our-island-story-conservative-david-cameron
It could be a hugely popular policy for all we know.
Certainly some Labour MP's and labour activists support it as do a fair few charities and NGO's (the ones who will benefit from "helping" distribute it).
The thing we need to consider is how do we raise it if we do and also bear in mind the aggrieved nations have very kindly said we can pay in stages over time.
Foreign aid seems the right mechanism and is broadly at the right kind of level. Continue with that.
It was one of the things that persuaded the GWB administration to support independence for South Sudan.
But our country does have a unique role over a particular couple of centuries or so of history, and we should be teaching the bad along with the good.
One period of history (which might or might not be taught now ?) which didn't even really figure as history when I was a kid, is the postwar decade, worldwide.
That essentially set what became our modern world.
The only advantage of inheritance tax is that by being a different tax you can tax profits and inheritance differently - hard to do that if both are subject to the same tax regime..
No Reformation? No Romans, Vikings or Normans? None of the early European voyages of discovery? No Black Death, Magna Carta or Crusades? No Spanish Armada, Hundred Years War or War of the Roses?
Imagine teaching English history and not teaching Elizabeth I's speech at Tilbury. You might as well teach American history and omit the Gettysburg Address.
But, yeah. I suppose it does get a bit easier if you leave most of it out.
The day that Dan Quayle came a Second Founding Father.
Trump: "You have no idea what I did in the White House. I stopped wars with France”
This dude's brain is cooked
https://x.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1849246971157987767?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
THE ORANGE TWAT STOPPED A WAR AGAINST FRANCE!!!
It would destroy Labour. Still think they might do it because Starmer is naturally sympathetic and has a tin-ear for public opinion, but it'd be catastrophic.
I think we should ignore those requests. Perhaps double the size of the Union Jacks on it. Just to observe the results, in the spirit of scientific enquiry.
Postwar is taught nowadays, yes.
The difference might be that it would be ringfenced for former British colonies, and the governments of those countries would have more say in how it was spent. Whether that would make the spending more effective I'm not sure. The best argument against Western aid spending is that it's been very ineffective, so it might be worth a try.
Now, HH annoys me as much as it does the next red-blooded Englishman. Some of the sketches go more for humour than accuracy, are sometimes politically biased, and skim the surface of subjects at best. But many history books by well-established authors are biased and skim the surface of important topics.
But HH introduces a vast amount of periods, events and characters that kids would otherwise not know about, and that, IMO, is brilliant.
Outside of bien pensant metropolitan circles support for this is astonishingly low, and for good reason, and it'd be like throwing petrol on the flames of culture wars.
I can scarcely think of anything worse the government could do.
https://x.com/theidiottax/status/1848876029731082690?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
https://x.com/ralstonreports/status/1849303048633639064
New numbers just dropped:
Republicans won early in-person voting again by 2-to-1, picking up 8,000 ballots.
About 400,000 people have voted, and with mail, GOP statewide lead almost 20,000 ballots.
Unheard of at this point in any other presidential cycle.
For someone who remembers carbon copy shuttleworths I am feeling very old.
They know a soft touch when they see one.
And that's at best - many people would regard them as being utterly incompetent and not caring about their own citizens.
I suspect the next week will determine the next election result - decent budget and no stupid decisions and Labour will do well.
Crap budget and a money sent on "slave reparations" and Labour will be destroyed at the next election.
But generally I'm in favour of the international aid budget.
And as if all history isn't advancing some agenda.
If you think I'm advocating the teaching of shame, then you're more of a fool than I took you for.
Life comes at you fast some time...
And they are doing it by poisoning it with entirely unjustified guilt
If it were about developing allies of Britain and building a strong partnership into the future, perhaps to check China and defend mutual values, that'd be entirely different.
The framing goals, objectives, reasoning and positioning are entirely different.
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19154/local-council-elections-24th-october?page=1&scrollTo=1552254
It is not the job of historians to do the job for them the other way round.
She'd eat Labour for lunch over this.
Remember what Beresford said about the Russian Fleet after the Dogger Bank Incident?
Harris would just use a Democrat governor or some Democrat state legislators or officials to send her state results if Republicans refused and nothing in the constitution to stop that. Just as Trump sent alternative results for swing states from GOP state legislators and officials for Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan etc but Pence bravely rejected them and called Biden and Harris the winners
Combine that with Trump's planned tariffs and abandonment of Ukraine and it becomes clear how utterly atrocious the Brexiteers' predictions were on foreign policy. Dan Hannan is an absolute moron.
Otoh Fascists were very keen on coups, subverting democracy and racism. Sounds familiar..
If it simply becomes a meeting where the UK is repeatedly castigated and told to pay up, does it become less attractive for the UK to really involve itself anymore? The ties are loosening. The Commonwealth Games are in a perma-crisis. Other nations are building new relationships rather than with the old colonial power.
What watch was he wearing? What shoes? Was he a modest lawyer?
And there is nothing in the constitution preventing a Supreme Court challenge to such a move - or preventing the Supreme Court from accepting such a case.
This matters, because it means that she's.able to counter Trump's, equivalent and folksy, down-home appeal, in a way that Clinton couldn't match.
Congress on Friday gave final passage to legislation changing the arcane law that governs the certification of a presidential contest, the strongest effort yet to avoid a repeat of Donald Trump’s violence-inflaming push to reverse his loss in the 2020 election.
The House passed an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act as part of its massive, end-of-the-year spending bill, after the Senate approved identical wording Thursday. The legislation now goes to President Joe Biden for his signature.
Biden hailed the provisions’ inclusion in the spending bill in a statement Friday, calling it “critical bipartisan action that will help ensure that the will of the people is preserved.”
It’s the most significant legislative response Congress has made yet to Trump’s aggressive efforts to upend the popular vote, and a step that been urged by the House select committee that conducted the most thorough investigation into the violent siege of the Capitol.
The provisions amending the 1887 law — which has long been criticized as poorly and confusingly written — won bipartisan support and would make it harder for future presidential losers to prevent the ascension of their foes, as Trump tried to do on Jan. 6, 2021.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/congress-approves-new-election-certification-rules-in-response-to-jan-6
A shakedown is a shakedown but I suspect you are right. Labour will buckle. Just as the Tories did on Climate reparations at a COP meeting. It starts small but ends up growing and becoming vast.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67581277
I also noted that Ayesha Hazarika was, on TV today, pretty much saying we should pay them and she is not from the lunatic labour fringe.
Labour will yield on this. It won't be the trillions, but they will yield.
https://www.africanews.com/2024/10/17/zimbabwe-to-compensate-white-farmers-20-years-after-land-seizures/
Who knows where that might lead.
I think part of the drive for reparations is that the framing of international aid as charity is not working for the recipient countries. It infantilises them and encourages dependence rather than development.
Hopefully there is a compromise that could be built around the idea of a better shared future, as you suggest.
The historical fact of the matter is that the time for the Commonwealth to remake itself in some grand, more egalitarian, integrated community has long passed, if it was ever a goer. Perhaps it is not inconceivable that something could have been built from the organisation in say the 1950s and 1960s, but that would have also have run contrary to the general decolonisation and desire for independence that was permeating at the time, and its far from clear that many Commonwealth nations would have signed up to greater economic/political union at a time when they were actively seeking more control over their affairs. The Commonwealth worked for them as it was because it was an informal club. And in any event, the UK entering Europe in the first place put paid to that. Now, history has marched on, the ties that bind are loosening, and there are far too many interests at play that mean it would never be a serious proposition.
Hope you are good.
Do you fancy digging deep to pay reparations to line the pockets of the political classes of the Caribbean ?
US Naval Academy disinvites historian @ruthbenghiat from a history department lecture under pressure from the Heritage Foundation--founders of Project 2025.
Intended lecture was what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule through history
https://x.com/jemillerbalt/status/1848690507876024456