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.
I thought they did them all but, yes, they are good. You easily ignore the cheap studio sets they are filmed in.
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.
They did Pericles, Prince of Tyre, but the attribution of Two Noble Kinsmen and Edward III was still "up in the air" at the time, so they didn't do them.
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.
We really could do with some betfair markets on things Telegraph readers expect to happen but simply won't. For starters:
Reparations CGT at identical rates as IT Immigration to go up
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.
Probably right but you know that PB righties will be angrier than ever about being given a scare, and won’t let it drop.
‘I’d convinced myself on very little evidence that Starmer was going to sell our national exceptionalist birthright down the river which indicates what a total bastard Quisling he is rather than what a gullible tit I am. Also, no butter in NT scones!’
I think it might be my favourite inner urban district in the world. I’m trying hard to think of anywhere that combines its incredible mix of charm food sex neon and fun and more neon
If you don't mind me asking which hotel are you in? I stayed here when I was in Tokyo a few years ago, although it wasn't a Hilton at the time. I see the prices have gone up to £350 a night which is a lot more than when I was there.
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.
Agree. Would a sensible way forward be to acknowledge again that slavery, and our part in it, was wrong; note that slavery has been endemic in the human condition and in some places still is; that we are totally committed to its eradication; say clearly that it isn't possible to apologise for things we, the living, have not been doing; and, finally, commit to massively increasing overseas aid, prioritising aid for states most affected by any slavery in the past (not only UK inspired slavery); and also prioritising eradication of slavery in the present.
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.
I thought they did them all but, yes, they are good. You easily ignore the cheap studio sets they are filmed in.
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.
They did Pericles, Prince of Tyre, but the attribution of Two Noble Kinsmen and Edward III was still "up in the air" at the time, so they didn't do them.
Thanks. Didn't realise that but it was the late seventies and early eighties they were made.
When I retire end of Jan I plan to watch one a day going in the order the Beeb made them.
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
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.
Lol, yes, my mistake. It's clear that many just want to have a vent. Does no harm, I suppose.
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.
It won't because of the projected figures for total reparations; trillions.
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.
We had a tour of the derelict Commonwealth Institute in Kensington High Street about 15 years ago. Everyone had just upped and gone and left it to rot. The ceiling leaked and the floors were covered in debris. (Thankfully it has been reborn as the Design Museum and well worth a visit.) Together with the perennial Commonwealth Games farce it had long been due for the knacker's yard but like one of the late Queen's old nags it was kept alive because it made her happy.
I think reform voters would love Ashgabat. Everything is so black or white. The buildings are all white. White marble. Even the sweeping roads are bordered by marble.
The cars are all white (okay, a few choose the allowed silvery white or goldy white - but if you want a British Racing Green Morgan, you will have to leave it at the city limits).
There is no litter.
There is no graffiti.
There are no flyers.
I have seen but a single cyclist.
And only one person who looked a bit like Bhorat.
But plenty of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress. Who giggle with a fetching charm.
And on the way to the Conference, you get your own police car outrider. With blues and twos flashing.
And on the way back.
And when going out to dinner. Although there is no crime.
At dinner you are entertained by the Turkmen Elvis. And a pyramid made by young Turkmen acrobats. And a troupe of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress.
At a bus stop, you get a luxury shelter. With aircon.
Every road crossing looks like the entrance to a subway. With escalators.
Fuel is crazy cheap.
As is electricity.
And heating.
Let's face it Nige, it's a lot better than Jaywick...
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.
We really could do with some betfair markets on things Telegraph readers expect to happen but simply won't. For starters:
Reparations CGT at identical rates as IT Immigration to go up
Would be a nice little earner.
Yes that would be great. I could be looking for some easy pickings to mitigate my WH24 result should the unthinkable transpire.
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.
I think reform voters would love Ashgabat. Everything is so black or white. The buildings are all white. White marble. Even the sweeping roads are bordered by marble.
The cars are all white (okay, a few choose the allowed silvery white or goldy white - but if you want a British Racing Green Morgan, you will have to leave it at the city limits).
There is no litter.
There is no graffiti.
There are no flyers.
I have seen but a single cyclist.
And only one person who looked a bit like Bhorat.
But plenty of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress. Who giggle with a fetching charm.
And on the way to the Conference, you get your own police car outrider. With blues and twos flashing.
And on the way back.
And when going out to dinner. Although there is no crime.
At dinner you are entertained by the Turkmen Elvis. And a pyramid made by young Turkmen acrobats. And a troupe of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress.
At a bus stop, you get a luxury shelter. With aircon.
Every road crossing looks like the entrance to a subway. With escalators.
Fuel is crazy cheap.
As is electricity.
And heating.
Let's face it Nige, it's a lot better than Jaywick...
Are you visiting any of the other "Stans" while you are there ?
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.
Well, actually - we do.
We're not bringing up the subject of reparations and would far rather it went away and we focused on building a positive future but, hey ho, we're not setting the agenda here anymore.
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
Those that have managed to survive, of course. What was it, well over 2 million slaves taken from West Africa, and the black population of the Caribbean islands and SE USA is much lower than that.
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.
You have a very weird blind spot when it comes to this subject, and, unusually for you, become quite rude.
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
Those that have managed to survive, of course. What was it, well over 2 million slaves taken from West Africa, and the black population of the Caribbean islands and SE USA is much lower than that.
The losses of British troops on Caribbean islands to disease were huge. They were just hellish places to try and live, regardless of whether you were being worked to death.
I think reform voters would love Ashgabat. Everything is so black or white. The buildings are all white. White marble. Even the sweeping roads are bordered by marble.
The cars are all white (okay, a few choose the allowed silvery white or goldy white - but if you want a British Racing Green Morgan, you will have to leave it at the city limits).
There is no litter.
There is no graffiti.
There are no flyers.
I have seen but a single cyclist.
And only one person who looked a bit like Bhorat.
But plenty of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress. Who giggle with a fetching charm.
And on the way to the Conference, you get your own police car outrider. With blues and twos flashing.
And on the way back.
And when going out to dinner. Although there is no crime.
At dinner you are entertained by the Turkmen Elvis. And a pyramid made by young Turkmen acrobats. And a troupe of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress.
At a bus stop, you get a luxury shelter. With aircon.
Every road crossing looks like the entrance to a subway. With escalators.
Fuel is crazy cheap.
As is electricity.
And heating.
Let's face it Nige, it's a lot better than Jaywick...
Are you visiting any of the other "Stans" while you are there ?
Not this trip. But Kygyrstan might be being lined up...
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
Those that have managed to survive, of course. What was it, well over 2 million slaves taken from West Africa, and the black population of the Caribbean islands and SE USA is much lower than that.
The losses of British troops on Caribbean islands to disease were huge. They were just hellish places to try and live, regardless of whether you were being worked to death.
Being worked to death a bit of a negative on top of the disease thing, mind.
I think reform voters would love Ashgabat. Everything is so black or white. The buildings are all white. White marble. Even the sweeping roads are bordered by marble.
The cars are all white (okay, a few choose the allowed silvery white or goldy white - but if you want a British Racing Green Morgan, you will have to leave it at the city limits).
There is no litter.
There is no graffiti.
There are no flyers.
I have seen but a single cyclist.
And only one person who looked a bit like Bhorat.
But plenty of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress. Who giggle with a fetching charm.
And on the way to the Conference, you get your own police car outrider. With blues and twos flashing.
And on the way back.
And when going out to dinner. Although there is no crime.
At dinner you are entertained by the Turkmen Elvis. And a pyramid made by young Turkmen acrobats. And a troupe of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress.
At a bus stop, you get a luxury shelter. With aircon.
Every road crossing looks like the entrance to a subway. With escalators.
Fuel is crazy cheap.
As is electricity.
And heating.
Let's face it Nige, it's a lot better than Jaywick...
Don't knock Jaywick. Too much anyway. The local paper reports that "A MAJOR communal development in Jaywick has been shortlisted for a prestigious national award. "
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.
Well, actually - we do.
We're not bringing up the subject of reparations and would far rather it went away and we focused on building a positive future but, hey ho, we're not setting the agenda here anymore.
True, it is some commonwealth nations and more and more voices in the labour movement bringing it up.
It is being discussed, not just in the press but also on TV too.
I think most people would be perfectly happy to hear nothing more of 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.
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.
I smell Chinese influence and money at work here.
In fact, I'm sure of it.
The Chinese have built a shiny new railway in Tanzania in less time than it takes us to fix a pane of glass at Euston:
Biden won the popular vote by 4.5% in 2020 but in the tipping point state it was only 1%.
Most of the gains for Trump since 2020 have come from black and latino voters though, while Harris has made slight gains with whites, especially white women.
Wisconsin the tipping point state has below average numbers of black and latino voters as does Pennsylvania and Michigan has about average numbers of black voters but below average latino voters
I think reform voters would love Ashgabat. Everything is so black or white. The buildings are all white. White marble. Even the sweeping roads are bordered by marble.
The cars are all white (okay, a few choose the allowed silvery white or goldy white - but if you want a British Racing Green Morgan, you will have to leave it at the city limits).
There is no litter.
There is no graffiti.
There are no flyers.
I have seen but a single cyclist.
And only one person who looked a bit like Bhorat.
But plenty of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress. Who giggle with a fetching charm.
And on the way to the Conference, you get your own police car outrider. With blues and twos flashing.
And on the way back.
And when going out to dinner. Although there is no crime.
At dinner you are entertained by the Turkmen Elvis. And a pyramid made by young Turkmen acrobats. And a troupe of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress.
At a bus stop, you get a luxury shelter. With aircon.
Every road crossing looks like the entrance to a subway. With escalators.
Fuel is crazy cheap.
As is electricity.
And heating.
Let's face it Nige, it's a lot better than Jaywick...
Don't knock Jaywick. Too much anyway. The local paper reports that "A MAJOR communal development in Jaywick has been shortlisted for a prestigious national award. "
You may think this is something to mock but....
You know something, a paper for a town local to me had a leading article about a new B&M and McDonalds coming to Stanley.
On the face of it this sounds ridiculous, as does your story.
But some parts of the country have really been left behind and have so little to show for local pride they cling to these things.
Let's remember these are communities and communities that really don't have much.
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.
Harris would ignore any SC attempt to intervene, Democrat lawyers will say she as VP has the final say on which state vote counts to accept.
Just scrap the Commonwealth. South Africa and India have left and the rest don't matter, apart from the old White Dominions and the nations still under the Crown. We are linked with the Dominions via Aukus or NATO, so that's all fine
The rest literally just see it as a grift, and a way of guilt-tripping a weak Britain and a weak Labour government that just gave away the Chagos and will make us pay for the privilege. Fuck it, them, all of it
India and South Africa have left the Commonwealth have they? Fake news from the seasoned traveller who is NOT SCARED to drive on the right.
I think reform voters would love Ashgabat. Everything is so black or white. The buildings are all white. White marble. Even the sweeping roads are bordered by marble.
The cars are all white (okay, a few choose the allowed silvery white or goldy white - but if you want a British Racing Green Morgan, you will have to leave it at the city limits).
There is no litter.
There is no graffiti.
There are no flyers.
I have seen but a single cyclist.
And only one person who looked a bit like Bhorat.
But plenty of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress. Who giggle with a fetching charm.
And on the way to the Conference, you get your own police car outrider. With blues and twos flashing.
And on the way back.
And when going out to dinner. Although there is no crime.
At dinner you are entertained by the Turkmen Elvis. And a pyramid made by young Turkmen acrobats. And a troupe of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress.
At a bus stop, you get a luxury shelter. With aircon.
Every road crossing looks like the entrance to a subway. With escalators.
Fuel is crazy cheap.
As is electricity.
And heating.
Let's face it Nige, it's a lot better than Jaywick...
I imagine the police outrider is to keep you in line, not to keep the natives away.
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
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.
It won't because of the projected figures for total reparations; trillions.
The published figures for total reparations (guessed inflation since 169x or whatever it is) are the type of calculations done by lawyers in defamation cases - pulled straight out of the arse.
That does not undermine the wider case.
However any such conversation needs to be more global, embracing for example those Nigerian tribes which made their wealth by trading in people they had enslaved from others Nigerian tribes.
The present attempt to pretend that this is Commonwealth vs the West incl. UK is false. At present many of these countries are in 2024 selling themselves down the river to China and (some, marginally) the USSR, whilst treating some of their own people with contempt.
Politically, this is one way - when integrated with development aid* - to reassert UK interests in developing countries. But it needs to promote good governance, be long term - meaning multi-generation, and managed from here. **
* Conservatives have a problem with this, because at least one of their two 'leadership 'contenders' has promised to loot part of the (£10bn spent overseas) aid budget to fund the (~£25bn) gap he identifies in the defence budget. But people called Bobby never could count.
** That's a further problem. UK Govts don't - so far in my lifetime - do long-term. So how do we stop the next Govt but three looting it to give tax breaks to their supporters.
I think reform voters would love Ashgabat. Everything is so black or white. The buildings are all white. White marble. Even the sweeping roads are bordered by marble.
The cars are all white (okay, a few choose the allowed silvery white or goldy white - but if you want a British Racing Green Morgan, you will have to leave it at the city limits).
There is no litter.
There is no graffiti.
There are no flyers.
I have seen but a single cyclist.
And only one person who looked a bit like Bhorat.
But plenty of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress. Who giggle with a fetching charm.
And on the way to the Conference, you get your own police car outrider. With blues and twos flashing.
And on the way back.
And when going out to dinner. Although there is no crime.
At dinner you are entertained by the Turkmen Elvis. And a pyramid made by young Turkmen acrobats. And a troupe of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress.
At a bus stop, you get a luxury shelter. With aircon.
Every road crossing looks like the entrance to a subway. With escalators.
Fuel is crazy cheap.
As is electricity.
And heating.
Let's face it Nige, it's a lot better than Jaywick...
Don't knock Jaywick. Too much anyway. The local paper reports that "A MAJOR communal development in Jaywick has been shortlisted for a prestigious national award. "
You may think this is something to mock but....
You know something, a paper for a town local to me had a leading article about a new B&M and McDonalds coming to Stanley.
On the face of it this sounds ridiculous, as does your story.
But some parts of the country have really been left behind and have so little to show for local pride they cling to these things.
Let's remember these are communities and communities that really don't have much.
I wasn't mocking. I've been to Jaywick several times. I've seen people trying to DO SOMETHING there and I'm glad something good is happening, and being rewarded, there.
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.
I believe so.
I never met him as he died three years before I was born but my grandfather when he was umming and ahhing about moving to the UK my great-grandfather told him to go because he said the Brits would treat my grandfather well because they treated my great-grandfather well during his stint in the army.
FWIW he didn't like talking about his army experiences because he took a few lives.
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.
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.
I believe so.
I never met him as he died three years before I was born but my grandfather when he was umming and ahhing about moving to the UK my great-grandfather told him to go because he said the Brits would treat my grandfather well because they treated my great-grandfather well during his stint in the army.
FWIW he didn't like talking about his army experiences because he took a few lives.
Most didn't like to. So much lost history.
My grandfather, who spoke a good half dozen languages, did something in Whitehall during the war, but never talked about it at all.
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.
Load of utter bollocks, they should get off their arses and make their own futures and stop expecting to sponge off other people forever.
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Mr Trump offered hush money to Stormy Daniels if she would keep quiet about him in the run up to the 2024 Election. In the form of a reduction on a legal fees settlement she owes him relating to a former defamation. Rachel Maddow reporting.
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
(Apart from medicine, irrigation, health, roads, cheese and education, baths and the Circus Maximus.)
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
They civilised less advanced societies, just like we did.
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.
Harris would ignore any SC attempt to intervene, Democrat lawyers will say she as VP has the final say on which state vote counts to accept.
Democrat lawyers can say that and the Supreme Court can overrule them.
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 ?
Hello Taz, would not give them a brass farthing, total and utter rubbish. We have been pumping money to them forever and all they do is buy guns , shoot each other or rob it for themselves. Address that matter why don't they. If we are to pay anything it should be to the indigineous people who had to work in mills , were shipped to America or were slaves here.
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Depends who you mean by ‘us’. Got a couple of walls out of it I suppose.
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.
Commonwealth is another load of bollox pretendy crap. Most of them are best buddies with Putin but always have begging bowl out for us. They are only out to line their own pockets without having to do the hard graft.
My learnings for the day: if anyone tells you that chuckleberries are "something something something ... but sweet", they are lying. My 12kg of chuckleberries for winter arrived, and now occupy a whole drawer in the freezer, and my almost non-existent consumption of sugar will be increasing modestly over the winter.
A nice flavour, but sweet - NO.
"A chuckleberry is a hybrid fruit and has a redcurrant, gooseberry and jostaberry (blackcurrant & gooseberry cross) parentage. This fruit has hints of all three parents and produces a lovely sharp, tart, but sweet flavour with very few seeds."
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
A point that's never mentioned.
It's just a hustle.
There's a comedy sketch desperately in need of writing about a Nigerian pretending to be west indian to get reparations.
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.
Harris would ignore any SC attempt to intervene, Democrat lawyers will say she as VP has the final say on which state vote counts to accept.
Democrat lawyers can say that and the Supreme Court can overrule them.
They can't as the US constitution is clear the VP and VP alone reads out the winner of the presidential election.
Harris would play hardball and declare herself winner and ignore the SC if necessary, especially as any SC decision in that way would likely go along party lines with Democrats as minority justices agreeing with her.
Though as I said it is unlikely to occur anyway as state governors now have the final say on certifying election results and as 5/7 of the key swing states have Democrat governors if anything it is more likely to happen the other way. A Democrat governor could overturn a Trump win in a swing state in theory and declare Harris the winner, though morally they may be less likely to do so than a Trump supporting governor
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.
Harris would ignore any SC attempt to intervene, Democrat lawyers will say she as VP has the final say on which state vote counts to accept.
Democrat lawyers can say that and the Supreme Court can overrule them.
They can't as the US constitution is clear the VP and VP alone reads out the winner of the presidential election.
Harris will play hardball and declare herself winner and ignore the SC if necessary, especially as any SC decision in that way would likely go along party lines with Democrats as minority justices agreeing with her.
Though as I said it is unlikely to occur anyway as state governors now have the final say on certifying election results and as 5/7 of the key swing states have Democrat governors if anything it is more likely to happen the other way. A Democrat governor could overturn a Trump win in a swing state in theory and declare Harris the winner, though morally they may be less likely to do so than a Trump supporting governor
If we’re going to see any funny games this cycle it will surely be at state level rather than in Congress.
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.
It won't because of the projected figures for total reparations; trillions.
The fascism thing is apparently fine now, as it's "baked in".
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1849121674584613305 Chris Sununu on CNN on whether Trump praising Hitler causes him to reconsider his support for him: "No ... we've heard a lot of extreme things from Donald Trump. With a guy like that, it's kinda baked into the vote."
BOLDUAN: Are you okay supporting someone who Marine Gen. John Kelly says fits the definition of a fascist?
CHRIS SUNUNU: I think most of American is gonna go this way..
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Depends who you mean by ‘us’. Got a couple of walls out of it I suppose.
Those walls were an interference in Scots god given rights to steal Yorkshire and Northumberland cattle and sheep.
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.
It won't because of the projected figures for total reparations; trillions.
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
A point that's never mentioned.
It's just a hustle.
There's a comedy sketch desperately in need of writing about a Nigerian pretending to be west indian to get reparations.
For extra LOLs, make the Nigerian come from one of a small group of very rich families. Who quite literally, got rich from selling their fellows down the river.
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Depends who you mean by ‘us’. Got a couple of walls out of it I suppose.
Terrible pointing. No planning permission filed, no environmental impact studies. No studies on the effect on equality & racial justice.
Which means those walls are bigoted, reactionary, racist, environment destroying, walls. We need at least £103 trillion to remediate that issue, alone.
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 ?
Postwar world. In which Britain features, but isn't the main player.
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.
Harris would ignore any SC attempt to intervene, Democrat lawyers will say she as VP has the final say on which state vote counts to accept.
Democrat lawyers can say that and the Supreme Court can overrule them.
They can't as the US constitution is clear the VP and VP alone reads out the winner of the presidential election.
Harris would play hardball and declare herself winner and ignore the SC if necessary, especially as any SC decision in that way would likely go along party lines with Democrats as minority justices agreeing with her.
Though as I said it is unlikely to occur anyway as state governors now have the final say on certifying election results and as 5/7 of the key swing states have Democrat governors if anything it is more likely to happen the other way. A Democrat governor could overturn a Trump win in a swing state in theory and declare Harris the winner, though morally they may be less likely to do so than a Trump supporting governor
I love how you totally fail to understand the role of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution but still plough on regardless. There is a heroism to it. Chapeau!
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Unlike Trump they managed to build a wall. (Very near me too, and some of it is still standing).
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
Ah, yes, 'debt relief'.
We'll lend you a trillion then write it off ten years later.
The fascism thing is apparently fine now, as it's "baked in".
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1849121674584613305 Chris Sununu on CNN on whether Trump praising Hitler causes him to reconsider his support for him: "No ... we've heard a lot of extreme things from Donald Trump. With a guy like that, it's kinda baked into the vote."
BOLDUAN: Are you okay supporting someone who Marine Gen. John Kelly says fits the definition of a fascist?
CHRIS SUNUNU: I think most of American is gonna go this way..
Hmm I thought Sununu was more of a Haley type GOP figure, his support is certainly wider than Trump's in NH.
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Unlike Trump they managed to build a wall. (Very near me too, and some of it is still standing).
*Two* walls, of course, in the provinces of Britannia: and rather a lot more elsewhere, though more strictly border line systems rather than full walls.
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.
Harris would ignore any SC attempt to intervene, Democrat lawyers will say she as VP has the final say on which state vote counts to accept.
Democrat lawyers can say that and the Supreme Court can overrule them.
They can't as the US constitution is clear the VP and VP alone reads out the winner of the presidential election.
Harris would play hardball and declare herself winner and ignore the SC if necessary, especially as any SC decision in that way would likely go along party lines with Democrats as minority justices agreeing with her.
Though as I said it is unlikely to occur anyway as state governors now have the final say on certifying election results and as 5/7 of the key swing states have Democrat governors if anything it is more likely to happen the other way. A Democrat governor could overturn a Trump win in a swing state in theory and declare Harris the winner, though morally they may be less likely to do so than a Trump supporting governor
I love how you totally fail to understand the role of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution but still plough on regardless. There is a heroism to it. Chapeau!
The Supreme Court only interprets the constitution and can only enforce its judgements if the President, the Vice President, Congress, state governors and legislators and US armed forces, the FBI and state police accept its judgements.
If they don't the SC can say whatever it wants, it has no means of enforcing its judgements, especially if it tries and reads into the constitution something that is not clearly said
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Unlike Trump they managed to build a wall. (Very near me too, and some of it is still standing).
*Two* walls, of course, in the provinces of Britannia: and rather a lot more elsewhere, though more strictly border line systems rather than full walls.
Does anyone know if the second was built because (a) the first was a great success or (b) the first was a failure?
I think it might be my favourite inner urban district in the world. I’m trying hard to think of anywhere that combines its incredible mix of charm food sex neon and fun and more neon
In the 1980's, after being extraordinarily good at Jazz in the 1979's , the Japanese excelled at a kind of funky and very refined Tokyo pop music known as "City Pop", which always conjures the kind of neon nirvana you mention.
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.
Harris would ignore any SC attempt to intervene, Democrat lawyers will say she as VP has the final say on which state vote counts to accept.
Democrat lawyers can say that and the Supreme Court can overrule them.
They can't as the US constitution is clear the VP and VP alone reads out the winner of the presidential election.
Harris would play hardball and declare herself winner and ignore the SC if necessary, especially as any SC decision in that way would likely go along party lines with Democrats as minority justices agreeing with her.
Though as I said it is unlikely to occur anyway as state governors now have the final say on certifying election results and as 5/7 of the key swing states have Democrat governors if anything it is more likely to happen the other way. A Democrat governor could overturn a Trump win in a swing state in theory and declare Harris the winner, though morally they may be less likely to do so than a Trump supporting governor
I love how you totally fail to understand the role of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution but still plough on regardless. There is a heroism to it. Chapeau!
The Supreme Court only interprets the constitution and can only enforce its judgements if the President, the Vice President, Congress, state governors and legislators and US armed forces, the FBI and state police accept its judgements.
If they don't the SC can say whatever it wants, it has no means of enforcing its judgements, especially if it tries and reads into the constitution something that is not clearly said
Yes, if someone successfully overturns the US Constitution by force there is nothing that the Supreme Court justices as individuals would be able to do about it, even if they wanted to. We can certainly agree on that.
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Unlike Trump they managed to build a wall. (Very near me too, and some of it is still standing).
*Two* walls, of course, in the provinces of Britannia: and rather a lot more elsewhere, though more strictly border line systems rather than full walls.
Does anyone know if the second was built because (a) the first was a great success or (b) the first was a failure?
More column B, I believe. The Antonine Wall came later as a kind of force projection when the raids from Caledonia continued even after Hadrian's was built.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Greens with a vote winner
Green party says UK should commit to paying slavery reparations The Green party says the UK should commit to paying slavery reparations.
"Keir Starmer is refusing to talk about slavery reparations at the Commonwealth summit (during Black History Month no less).
The Green Party calls on the Government to commit to a holistic process of atonement and reparations."
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Greens with a vote winner
Green party says UK should commit to paying slavery reparations The Green party says the UK should commit to paying slavery reparations.
"Keir Starmer is refusing to talk about slavery reparations at the Commonwealth summit (during Black History Month no less).
The Green Party calls on the Government to commit to a holistic process of atonement and reparations."
Green Party focusing on anything but environmentalism. Just for a change.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Unlike Trump they managed to build a wall. (Very near me too, and some of it is still standing).
*Two* walls, of course, in the provinces of Britannia: and rather a lot more elsewhere, though more strictly border line systems rather than full walls.
Does anyone know if the second was built because (a) the first was a great success or (b) the first was a failure?
More column B, I believe. The Antonine Wall came later as a kind of force projection when the raids from Caledonia continued even after Hadrian's was built.
I wouldn't know myself, but this has reminded me that just to add complication there is a third frontier system still further north - the Gask Ridge in Perthshire, a patrol road with a string of watchtowers, a few (just earthworks now) open to the public.
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
A point that's never mentioned.
It's just a hustle.
Also this is what fuels Trumpian politics. Reform UK are in a position to capitalise on this situation.
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.
Harris would ignore any SC attempt to intervene, Democrat lawyers will say she as VP has the final say on which state vote counts to accept.
Democrat lawyers can say that and the Supreme Court can overrule them.
They can't as the US constitution is clear the VP and VP alone reads out the winner of the presidential election.
Harris would play hardball and declare herself winner and ignore the SC if necessary, especially as any SC decision in that way would likely go along party lines with Democrats as minority justices agreeing with her.
Though as I said it is unlikely to occur anyway as state governors now have the final say on certifying election results and as 5/7 of the key swing states have Democrat governors if anything it is more likely to happen the other way. A Democrat governor could overturn a Trump win in a swing state in theory and declare Harris the winner, though morally they may be less likely to do so than a Trump supporting governor
I love how you totally fail to understand the role of the Supreme Court in the US Constitution but still plough on regardless. There is a heroism to it. Chapeau!
The Supreme Court only interprets the constitution and can only enforce its judgements if the President, the Vice President, Congress, state governors and legislators and US armed forces, the FBI and state police accept its judgements.
If they don't the SC can say whatever it wants, it has no means of enforcing its judgements, especially if it tries and reads into the constitution something that is not clearly said
Yes, if someone successfully overturns the US Constitution by force there is nothing that the Supreme Court justices as individuals would be able to do about it, even if they wanted to. We can certainly agree on that.
Although if the Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution in such a way that is not what is clearly written in it someone could also ignore its judgements too, certainly if they have most institutions of government and the military behind them
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.
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.
People living in the Caribbean now benefit hugely from slavery, as Caribbean living standards (average GDP per head $6,820) are on average much higher than those in West Africa (average GDP per head $1,937).
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
A point that's never mentioned.
It's just a hustle.
Also this is what fuels Trumpian politics. Reform UK are in a position to capitalise on this situation.
Also a good test for Kemi if she becomes leader. She can quite ferociously pour contempt on the idea.
The fascism thing is apparently fine now, as it's "baked in".
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1849121674584613305 Chris Sununu on CNN on whether Trump praising Hitler causes him to reconsider his support for him: "No ... we've heard a lot of extreme things from Donald Trump. With a guy like that, it's kinda baked into the vote."
BOLDUAN: Are you okay supporting someone who Marine Gen. John Kelly says fits the definition of a fascist?
CHRIS SUNUNU: I think most of American is gonna go this way..
Sununu is misunderstanding the utility of the phrase 'baked in' there, I think? Normally it's used to mean 'other people already take that into consideration in arriving at their current analysis'. This answer would make sense if he was asked about the electorate as a whole, but not when asked about his own views. All things told, it's an absolute masterclass in swerving the question.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
Trebles all round.
The only reason large interest rates would be charged, would be as a result of a tendency not to pay stuff back.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Greens with a vote winner
Green party says UK should commit to paying slavery reparations The Green party says the UK should commit to paying slavery reparations.
"Keir Starmer is refusing to talk about slavery reparations at the Commonwealth summit (during Black History Month no less).
The Green Party calls on the Government to commit to a holistic process of atonement and reparations."
Green Party focusing on anything but environmentalism. Just for a change.
I hate the idea that we have a specific month in which we have to accede to the whims of a given minority group.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
Trebles all round.
"Restructuring large interest debt" doesn't come for free. Dig deep.
I don't think we should knock reparations until we've tried it. I think we have a huge claim against Italy. After all, what did the Romans ever do for us?
Unlike Trump they managed to build a wall. (Very near me too, and some of it is still standing).
*Two* walls, of course, in the provinces of Britannia: and rather a lot more elsewhere, though more strictly border line systems rather than full walls.
Does anyone know if the second was built because (a) the first was a great success or (b) the first was a failure?
Then second and Caledonian wall was built shortly after Hardrian's wall to enclose and defend an expanded empire and lasted no time before returning the Hadrian wall boundary.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
Trebles all round.
He folded on Chagos. He will fold on this. He is a supine vain cowardly imbecile who will bankrupt us all and destroy his government in months
Look at the photo of Starmer at Samoa they are using in the guardian. Even they despise him
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
Trebles all round.
He folded on Chagos. He will fold on this. He is a supine vain cowardly imbecile who will bankrupt us all and destroy his government in months
Look at the photo of Starmer at Samoa they are using in the guardian. Even they despise him
If it's any consolation, it will be fun watching as local elections give as a rerun of 1967-69 and 1976-78.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
Trebles all round.
He folded on Chagos. He will fold on this. He is a supine vain cowardly imbecile who will bankrupt us all and destroy his government in months
Look at the photo of Starmer at Samoa they are using in the guardian. Even they despise him
I really wonder if he feels that the majority of the British public will follow him on this.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
The Starmer photo at the bottom of that section is very 'This is fine..."
Interesting from the article. @Leon Starmer is buckling, as you said he would.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
Trebles all round.
In the Pacific the practice was known as "blackbirding" and carried on well past the abolition of slavery:
Comments
Reparations
CGT at identical rates as IT
Immigration to go up
Would be a nice little earner.
‘I’d convinced myself on very little evidence that Starmer was going to sell our national exceptionalist birthright down the river which indicates what a total bastard Quisling he is rather than what a gullible tit I am. Also, no butter in NT scones!’
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g14134368-d302399-Reviews-Hilton_Tokyo_Odaiba-Daiba_Minato_Tokyo_Tokyo_Prefecture_Kanto.html
When I retire end of Jan I plan to watch one a day going in the order the Beeb made them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdvl3v2x7jo
So if anybody owes anybody anything for what happened centuries ago, they owe us.
The cars are all white (okay, a few choose the allowed silvery white or goldy white - but if you want a British Racing Green Morgan, you will have to leave it at the city limits).
There is no litter.
There is no graffiti.
There are no flyers.
I have seen but a single cyclist.
And only one person who looked a bit like Bhorat.
But plenty of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress. Who giggle with a fetching charm.
And on the way to the Conference, you get your own police car outrider. With blues and twos flashing.
And on the way back.
And when going out to dinner. Although there is no crime.
At dinner you are entertained by the Turkmen Elvis. And a pyramid made by young Turkmen acrobats. And a troupe of doe-eyed central-Asian ladies. In national dress.
At a bus stop, you get a luxury shelter. With aircon.
Every road crossing looks like the entrance to a subway. With escalators.
Fuel is crazy cheap.
As is electricity.
And heating.
Let's face it Nige, it's a lot better than Jaywick...
https://caricom.org/caricom-ten-point-plan-for-reparatory-justice/
In fact, I'm sure of it.
"The descendants of these stolen people have a legal right to return to their homeland."
Is there actually any demand for that?
And so the kids decide every day thereafter is a day to bring games to school.
Fair?
We're not bringing up the subject of reparations and would far rather it went away and we focused on building a positive future but, hey ho, we're not setting the agenda here anymore.
That's dogma, that is.
Harris 50 (+1)
Trump 47 (=0)
Seems to be a clear pattern recently.
It is being discussed, not just in the press but also on TV too.
I think most people would be perfectly happy to hear nothing more of it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70z109nnk4o
"the service is generating enough passenger income to offset operation costs"
Shame about the loan interest. Maybe a naval base would cover it instead.
Wisconsin the tipping point state has below average numbers of black and latino voters as does Pennsylvania and Michigan has about average numbers of black voters but below average latino voters
You may think this is something to mock but....
You know something, a paper for a town local to me had a leading article about a new B&M and McDonalds coming to Stanley.
On the face of it this sounds ridiculous, as does your story.
But some parts of the country have really been left behind and have so little to show for local pride they cling to these things.
Let's remember these are communities and communities that really don't have much.
It's just a hustle.
That does not undermine the wider case.
However any such conversation needs to be more global, embracing for example those Nigerian tribes which made their wealth by trading in people they had enslaved from others Nigerian tribes.
The present attempt to pretend that this is Commonwealth vs the West incl. UK is false. At present many of these countries are in 2024 selling themselves down the river to China and (some, marginally) the USSR, whilst treating some of their own people with contempt.
Politically, this is one way - when integrated with development aid* - to reassert UK interests in developing countries. But it needs to promote good governance, be long term - meaning multi-generation, and managed from here. **
* Conservatives have a problem with this, because at least one of their two 'leadership 'contenders' has promised to loot part of the (£10bn spent overseas) aid budget to fund the (~£25bn) gap he identifies in the defence budget. But people called Bobby never could count.
** That's a further problem. UK Govts don't - so far in my lifetime - do long-term. So how do we stop the next Govt but three looting it to give tax breaks to their supporters.
I never met him as he died three years before I was born but my grandfather when he was umming and ahhing about moving to the UK my great-grandfather told him to go because he said the Brits would treat my grandfather well because they treated my great-grandfather well during his stint in the army.
FWIW he didn't like talking about his army experiences because he took a few lives.
Fortunately for Harris this year the governors of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are all Democrats
So much lost history.
My grandfather, who spoke a good half dozen languages, did something in Whitehall during the war, but never talked about it at all.
Mr Trump offered hush money to Stormy Daniels if she would keep quiet about him in the run up to the 2024 Election. In the form of a reduction on a legal fees settlement she owes him relating to a former defamation. Rachel Maddow reporting.
I missed this last week:
https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/maddow-s-bombshell-reporting-trump-trying-to-pay-stormy-daniels-to-be-quiet-again-221947973843
My learnings for the day: if anyone tells you that chuckleberries are "something something something ... but sweet", they are lying. My 12kg of chuckleberries for winter arrived, and now occupy a whole drawer in the freezer, and my almost non-existent consumption of sugar will be increasing modestly over the winter.
A nice flavour, but sweet - NO.
"A chuckleberry is a hybrid fruit and has a redcurrant, gooseberry and jostaberry (blackcurrant & gooseberry cross) parentage. This fruit has hints of all three parents and produces a lovely sharp, tart, but sweet flavour with very few seeds."
Harris would play hardball and declare herself winner and ignore the SC if necessary, especially as any SC decision in that way would likely go along party lines with Democrats as minority justices agreeing with her.
Though as I said it is unlikely to occur anyway as state governors now have the final say on certifying election results and as 5/7 of the key swing states have Democrat governors if anything it is more likely to happen the other way. A Democrat governor could overturn a Trump win in a swing state in theory and declare Harris the winner, though morally they may be less likely to do so than a Trump supporting governor
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1849121674584613305
Chris Sununu on CNN on whether Trump praising Hitler causes him to reconsider his support for him: "No ... we've heard a lot of extreme things from Donald Trump. With a guy like that, it's kinda baked into the vote."
BOLDUAN: Are you okay supporting someone who Marine Gen. John Kelly says fits the definition of a fascist?
CHRIS SUNUNU: I think most of American is gonna go this way..
Which means those walls are bigoted, reactionary, racist, environment destroying, walls. We need at least £103 trillion to remediate that issue, alone.
(Will somebody please elect/appoint a PM who understands their duty is to the United Kingdom and not Canzuk, the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, or any other polity?)
"Would it bother you if Trump did suspend some laws and constitutional provisions if elected president?"
Yes: 79%
No: 18%
Monmouth / Oct 21, 2024 / n=802
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1849152719312806270
umichvoter 🏳️🌈
@umichvoter
Washoe mail is only going d+12
It's simply not big enough the math too much
(makes mee-mee-mee noises)
“I don’t like the guy personally, but I like him professionally,” she said of Mr. Trump. “He definitely has a finance brain on him.”
"“When Trump was president,” she says, “those were some of the best times we had.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/opinion/trump-election-inflation-working-class.html
We'll lend you a trillion then write it off ten years later.
If they don't the SC can say whatever it wants, it has no means of enforcing its judgements, especially if it tries and reads into the constitution something that is not clearly said
https://youtu.be/aQGvlemqUpE?si=FrjvJrmll6Bjr-0W
if Harris wins it will likely be due to holding most white voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania
Green party says UK should commit to paying slavery reparations
The Green party says the UK should commit to paying slavery reparations.
"Keir Starmer is refusing to talk about slavery reparations at the Commonwealth summit (during Black History Month no less).
The Green Party calls on the Government to commit to a holistic process of atonement and reparations."
I agree, that’s now the best route for her. The interesting wildcard is if NC/GA might also come through as insurance.
"Keir Starmer is open to discussing non-cash forms of reparatory justice for Britain’s former colonies, the Guardian understands.
The prime minister is under pressure to open the door to reparations at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting (Chogm) in Samoa this week.
Caribbean countries have been pushing for the issue to be discussed at the summit, despite resistance from the UK government.
No 10 has ruled out paying reparations or apologising for the UK’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, and this uncompromising tone has irritated some Commonwealth countries.
But a Downing Street source indicated that the UK could support some forms of reparatory justice, such restructuring financial institutions and providing debt relief. The source said:
There is a general sense that these multilateral institutions give out loans to developing countries then charge large interest rates for repayments.
They added that reforming financial situations was something the UK often took a lead on and was a form of reparatory justice that would not come at a cost to UK taxpayers.
Other proposed forms of restorative justice include making a formal apology, running educational programmes, establishing cultural institutions and providing economic and public health support.
A draft of the CHOGM communique leaked to the BBC said that governments, “noting calls for discussions on reparatory justice with regard to the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and chattel enslavement … agreed that the time has come for a meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation towards forging a common future based on equity.”
According to the broadcaster the communique sought to broaden the issue to include the slave trade not just across the Atlantic but in the Pacific, by saying that a majority of Commonwealth countries “share common historical experiences”."
So a document conveniently leaked to, and recycled by, the Beeb now has them looking to expand the shakedown to Pacific nations too.
Trebles all round.
https://www.google.com/maps/@56.3508963,-3.6791899,3a,75y,266.43h,79.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sedc189p-4ILceiOtPD6FCA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=10.675860489760595&panoid=edc189p-4ILceiOtPD6FCA&yaw=266.4299811013624!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyMS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
All things told, it's an absolute masterclass in swerving the question.
The average polling lead on RCP is now down to 0.2% (on 538, it's 1.7%).
Look at the photo of Starmer at Samoa they are using in the guardian. Even they despise him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbirding
There is a Kanak community in Queens land descended from these people.