The Tory party is the party for traitors – politicalbetting.com

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.

Yeah, I don't buy that.

If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.

History is written by the victors.

The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.

Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

Except it wasn't really.

It was about the rights of parliament that ended up getting hijacked by religious extremists.

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

And they will respond that it was all about States' rights.

Malmesbury said:

glw said:

Get a load of this, even for Trump this is bonkers.

“For far too long, we have relied on taxing our Great People using the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

“Through soft and pathetically weak Trade agreements, the American Economy has delivered growth and prosperity to the World, while taxing ourselves,” Trump wrote.

“It is time for that to change. I am today announcing that I will create the EXTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to collect our Tariffs, Duties, and all Revenue that come from Foreign sources,” he wrote.

“We will begin charging those that make money off of us with Trade, and they will start paying, FINALLY, their fair share.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/14/trump-external-revenue-service-tariffs-.html

It’s the 19th century Republican economic policy come back….

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

Casino_Royale said:

What's the opposite of the Iron Lady? The Paper Man?

Starmer is the Paper Man.

kjh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

glw said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

Next up new Army uniforms with very pointy hoods.

Designed by Hugo Boss.

I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.

We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.

We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.

I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'

In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

Except it wasn't really.

It was about the rights of parliament that ended up getting hijacked by religious extremists.

Malmesbury said:

kjh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

glw said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

Next up new Army uniforms with very pointy hoods.

Designed by Hugo Boss.

I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.

We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.

We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.

I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'

In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.

Including this crime against humanity…

Depicting a war criminal…

.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

We are a country defined by an idea. The idea of defending the Protestant succession.

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

Except it wasn't really.

It was about the rights of parliament that ended up getting hijacked by religious extremists.

Well, at The Putney Debates, the Grandees of the army (Cromwell and chums) had a discussion with the Leveller elements. Who wanted crazy stuff like universal voting (men only).

Cromwell regarded that as way too much.

kjh said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

glw said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

Next up new Army uniforms with very pointy hoods.

Designed by Hugo Boss.

I'm no Confederate but it did irk me slightly that every statue of Lee and Jackson came down.

We all know the rebellion was predicated on maintaining an economic system founded on slavery but they are pivotal figures in American history and skilled generals.

We could certainly find worse our side. Cromwell, for a start.

I used to have the same view until I became aware of the following: 'these statues were often erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct'

In speech marks because these aren't my words. It seems to be a generally accepted reason for the very large ones erected. They were mostly put up 40 years after the civil war to intimidate.

Nigelb said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.

Yeah, I don't buy that.

If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.

History is written by the victors.

In this case not.
History got rewritten, for the best part of a century, to romanticise the traitors and racist losers.

The reason I labelled this nonsense MAGA DEI, is that they're wanting to rename military bases after notorious military incompetents - solely because they were Confederates.

Which I suppose is appropriate for Hesketh, who is obviously not qualified for the role.

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.

Yeah, I don't buy that.

If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.

History is written by the victors.

The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.

Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.

Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.

Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.

kle4 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

Cookie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cookie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Leon said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tulip Siddiq resigns

Reeves next

No chance.

Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again

I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.

Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good

Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.

Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.

This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity

Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.

2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?

And actually I wonder about Reeves

The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth

I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM

Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial

The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.

SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.

Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.

Louise Haigh Transport Secretary

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE

Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.

So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.

From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.

So was it her employer who pressed charges?
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.

I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.

Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows

Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows

So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?

Haigh’s friends say she now regrets the guilty plea

I'll bet she does.

A lot of people come to regret accepting a police caution in return for no further action because they do not realise it comes with an implicit admission of guilt which can come back to haunt them. What Haigh's thought processes were, who's to say?

I think a lot of people would think they would hold firm in such a situation where they are innocent - or it is not as clear cut as a police investigation might think - but when push comes to shove and you're sat opposite a copper telling you it can go to trial with X potential punishment, or you can move on with your life, a lot of people would cave.

Heck, in some other situations some people might plead guilty just to avoid spending any time in jail ahead of trial .

I have a nasty suspicion if I found myself in a police state/conquered nation situation I'd be a collaborator the instant I was put under any pressure.

Nigelb said:

This won't be popular - Putin is thinking about doing a Cypress, and converting Russians' cash holdings of over $13,000 held at banks into bank shares.
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1879157806928134637

One way of preventing a bank run, but the wealthy will not be happy.

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

Your ignorance of US history is notable.
If your questions were sincere rather than rhetorical, I might occasionally answer them.

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb

Saw you a-marchin' with Robert E. Lee
You held your head a-high, tryin' to win the victory
You fought for your folks but you didn't die in vain
Even though you lost, they speak highly of your name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAbZ3I6-1lY

The only folk relitigating the civil war are those arguing that it wasn't a traitorous rebellion, in defence of slavery.

Do you think we should tear down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because he was a racist who wanted to preserve the empire and keep Britain white?

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.

Yeah, I don't buy that.

If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.

History is written by the victors.

The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.

Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.

Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.

Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

Your ignorance of US history is notable.
If your questions were sincere rather than rhetorical, I might occasionally answer them.

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb

Saw you a-marchin' with Robert E. Lee
You held your head a-high, tryin' to win the victory
You fought for your folks but you didn't die in vain
Even though you lost, they speak highly of your name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAbZ3I6-1lY

The only folk relitigating the civil war are those arguing that it wasn't a traitorous rebellion, in defence of slavery.

Do you think we should tear down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because he was a racist who wanted to preserve the empire and keep Britain white?

Do you think Oliver Cromwell was a traitor?

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.

Yeah, I don't buy that.

If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.

History is written by the victors.

The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.

Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.

Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.

Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.

I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)

TOPPING said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

Cookie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cookie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Leon said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tulip Siddiq resigns

Reeves next

No chance.

Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again

I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.

Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good

Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.

Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.

This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity

Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.

2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?

And actually I wonder about Reeves

The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth

I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM

Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial

The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.

SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.

Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.

Louise Haigh Transport Secretary

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE

Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.

So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.

From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.

So was it her employer who pressed charges?
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.

I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.

Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows

Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows

So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?

The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.

The trouble is the growing inconsistency in public life. Tell off-colour jokes behind the scenes on Masterchef, bye bye career. Actually kick a woman in the head, become an honourable member.

You're sounding like a front line soldier in Elon's twitter army.

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

williamglenn said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

Your ignorance of US history is notable.
If your questions were sincere rather than rhetorical, I might occasionally answer them.

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

You fought all the way, Johnny Reb, Johnny Reb
You fought all the way, Johnny Reb

Saw you a-marchin' with Robert E. Lee
You held your head a-high, tryin' to win the victory
You fought for your folks but you didn't die in vain
Even though you lost, they speak highly of your name

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAbZ3I6-1lY

The only folk relitigating the civil war are those arguing that it wasn't a traitorous rebellion, in defence of slavery.

Do you think we should tear down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because he was a racist who wanted to preserve the empire and keep Britain white?

Do you think Oliver Cromwell was a traitor?

He's certainly up there with Michael Heseltine.

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excl: Britain will await Trump’s blessing before finalising Chagos Islands deal with Mauritius, acc to people familiar with talks

Confidence has faded in UK that agreement will be secured before US inauguration, even if Mauritius sign off deal at special cabinet meeting tomo

https://www.ft.com/content/2a9ed94d-e163-404c-9ac3-c772961b6477?accessToken=zwAAAZRmSU9xkc8qntlN4WNATNOaw8dylhtkdw.MEUCIQDIDROcey7uA5e_K36Ovq3f4gaMQUuemI15deayoFszTQIgY00uekgVdqNTLIhQwbPDDSF_ewrQORoLLyq4QYW2Fog&segmentId=e95a9ae7-622c-6235-5f87-51e412b47e97&shareType=enterprise&shareId=abd0dd52-ebcd-46f6-9c35-68a86c480418

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.

Yeah, I don't buy that.

If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.

History is written by the victors.

The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.

Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.

Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.

Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.

I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)

Cookie said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

No, but I'm talking about the whole century. Thr gunpowder plot was an attempt to replace a Protestant nascent constitutional monarchy with Catholic absolutism. Absolutism is important since the plotters' motives wouldn't have been met if a Catholic constutional monarch were replaced by a Protestant one.
You're right about the civil war, but Charles I clearly has Catholic sympathies and was also not averse to a bit of absolutism.
Charles II was probably a Catholic but a sort of constitutional one - albeit reprisals against the previous regime were pretty brutal. James II was a Catholic with intention to be an absolutist one - hence the events of 1688.

Taz said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

We are a country defined by an idea. The idea of defending the Protestant succession.

So we are.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.

Carnyx said:

Taz said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

We are a country defined by an idea. The idea of defending the Protestant succession.

So we are.

One of us on PB has been known to express his upset at the thought of RC influence in Scotland arising from the fact that the Church of Scotland is no longer Established.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excl: Britain will await Trump’s blessing before finalising Chagos Islands deal with Mauritius, acc to people familiar with talks

Confidence has faded in UK that agreement will be secured before US inauguration, even if Mauritius sign off deal at special cabinet meeting tomo

https://www.ft.com/content/2a9ed94d-e163-404c-9ac3-c772961b6477?accessToken=zwAAAZRmSU9xkc8qntlN4WNATNOaw8dylhtkdw.MEUCIQDIDROcey7uA5e_K36Ovq3f4gaMQUuemI15deayoFszTQIgY00uekgVdqNTLIhQwbPDDSF_ewrQORoLLyq4QYW2Fog&segmentId=e95a9ae7-622c-6235-5f87-51e412b47e97&shareType=enterprise&shareId=abd0dd52-ebcd-46f6-9c35-68a86c480418

Nigelb said:

.

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

If they're "racist traitors", why were the bases named after them in the first place?

They are racist because they fought for the Confederacy (a country based and built on slavery) and they were traitors because they fought for the armed forces of another country against the properly constituted armed forces, government and constitution of the United States of America.

Yeah, I don't buy that.

If the rebellion had succeeded they be seen as secessionists or independence fighters, notwithstanding the slavery. Which I doubt would have lasted more than another 20 years anyway.

History is written by the victors.

The Confederacy banned at er… federal level, banning slavery. No state in the Confederacy could be anything other than a slave state.

Which would have made ending slavery pretty much impossible.

Yes, but it wasn't a sustainable position. Even if they'd won.

Arguable several ways. Look at how things went in the South, postwar, using debt peonage and convict labour to er… equip the plantations. That lasted until Fordism and the hyper-mass production economy.

I've just realised I know absolutely nothing about the south (or America in general) between the civil war and Ford. Any good books I should read (fact or fiction?)

That’s a LOT of history.
Chernow’s recent Grant biography isn’t a bad place to start.

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.

Middle of the road? Cromwell hated hereditary kings and was succeeded by his son.

Middle of the road? Cromwell was a Calvinist. Calvinists believe there are two sorts of human being under the unchanging decree of God, the elect and the non elect. They have a marked tendency to assume they are among the elect, and that people they don't like are not. It's a heresy which could be described as being as opposite to the spirit of Jesus as it is possible to get.

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Taz said:

The ruthless despatch of Tulip Siddiq

https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1879234135484760422?s=61

Per my earlier post re the Bell twins coincidence, has Rentoul missed the story or am I overthinking it?

Desperate take from Rentoul.

solarflare said:

Has anything gone right or well for Labour since the GE?

Nigelb said:

MAGA DEI means insisting that racist traitors be celebrated.

Pete Hegseth says US military bases should restore names of Confederate generals
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1878817312566108529

Cookie said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

No, but I'm talking about the whole century. Thr gunpowder plot was an attempt to replace a Protestant nascent constitutional monarchy with Catholic absolutism. Absolutism is important since the plotters' motives wouldn't have been met if a Catholic constutional monarch were replaced by a Protestant one.
You're right about the civil war, but Charles I clearly has Catholic sympathies and was also not averse to a bit of absolutism.
Charles II was probably a Catholic but a sort of constitutional one - albeit reprisals against the previous regime were pretty brutal. James II was a Catholic with intention to be an absolutist one - hence the events of 1688.

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

Cookie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cookie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Leon said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tulip Siddiq resigns

Reeves next

No chance.

Going well, isn’t it? Now the adults are in charge again

I just don't want people getting overexcited. You need to keep your wits about you when doing political punditry.

Just admit this is now a total shit show, and far worse than you envisaged, and we’re all good

Tulip is disappointing yes. Other than that, no not really. I'm a deep realist on growth, remember. I keep posting about it.

Anyway you agree about Reeves, don't you. She's safe as houses in her position. If you think otherwise there could be a bet to be had.

This resignation has absolutely no effect on Reeves, who will stand or fall depending on her actions and the market reactions over the coming months and of course her own backbenchers responses to her bringing back austerity

Yes, but the scent of blood is in the water and the sharks are circling.

2 ministers lost in 6 months who's next ?

And actually I wonder about Reeves

The recent photos of her show her looking haggard and deeply stressed. And very out of her depth

I wonder if she might resign on some pretext? I can’t see Starmer dumping her as sacking or losing a COTE is usually terminal, in the end, for a PM

Regardless I’d say the chances of her departing Number 11 have gone from minuscule to small but non trivial

The next one to go will probably be for something unexpected.

SKS has lost one minister on a theft accusation and the next on a link to corruption. Pick your crime.

Who was the theft one? I thought Tulip was the first.

Louise Haigh Transport Secretary

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=louise+haigh+theft&mid=4530BEFECCBD8BD7C3704530BEFECCBD8BD7C370&FORM=VIRE

Gosh yes. Forgotten about her already.

So - without wanting to miss the story - what did Louise Haigh do? The story appears to be "reported a phone stolen - found it wasn't stolen." For which she pleaded guilty to fraud. Is the inference that there is more to this story? The facts as they are reported feel like they are missing some details to make it make sense.

From the stories at the time it appeared her employer realised the lost phones were still in possession with Ms Haigh.

So was it her employer who pressed charges?
The gap between her explanation - "it was an honest mistake" - and what I think we're supposed to read into this ( she reported a phone as stolen which wasn't? - there was no robbery in the first place? Multiple phones? ) seems very large indeed. And the sentence appears to indicate the legal system regarded it as more than an honest mistake. But maybe that is just how the legal system works.

I remember thinking at the time there was surely more to come out, and then I forgot all about it.

Louise Haigh pleaded guilty to lying that phone was stolen, paper shows

Exclusive: Document sheds new light on episode that led to minister’s exit and guilty plea that friends say she regrets

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/10/louise-haigh-pleaded-guilty-to-lying-that-phone-was-stolen-paper-shows

So the theft was made up? If that's true, that's a far bigger story than was painted at the time. Slightly surprising she's still an MP, tbh. I suppose you do your time and move on - but are there any other convicted criminals in parliament?

The Reform bloke who kicked his girlfriend. Talk of bringing in a law to stop people like him being allowed to be an MP. Feels dodgy to select on type of crime.

I think it is a safeguarding issue.

If you were a female constituent or female member of staff at the Commons would you feel safe around him?

There's a reason why we allow people to find out if their partner has a record for domestic abuse.

Should he be allowed to work ever again?

The response would probably be should he get to be an MP, which maybe not, but there's a lots of other crimes people would feel the same way about, and so do you just prevent anyone with any offence standing as MP? As a mayor? As a councillor?

Restrictions on Police and Crime Commissioners are, oddly, far more severe than seeking to become an MP.

Ironically you can't be a councillor in the UK if convicted and given a prison sentence of 3 months or more for 5 years (even if suspended) yet you can still be elected as an MP as long as you are not in prison when elected. This time next week the President of the USA, arguably the most powerful man in the world, will be a convicted felon of course too

Sean_F said:

Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.

Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.

I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.

FF43 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Excl: Britain will await Trump’s blessing before finalising Chagos Islands deal with Mauritius, acc to people familiar with talks

Confidence has faded in UK that agreement will be secured before US inauguration, even if Mauritius sign off deal at special cabinet meeting tomo

https://www.ft.com/content/2a9ed94d-e163-404c-9ac3-c772961b6477?accessToken=zwAAAZRmSU9xkc8qntlN4WNATNOaw8dylhtkdw.MEUCIQDIDROcey7uA5e_K36Ovq3f4gaMQUuemI15deayoFszTQIgY00uekgVdqNTLIhQwbPDDSF_ewrQORoLLyq4QYW2Fog&segmentId=e95a9ae7-622c-6235-5f87-51e412b47e97&shareType=enterprise&shareId=abd0dd52-ebcd-46f6-9c35-68a86c480418

That would resolve one of several mysteries about the deal with Mauritius if so. Why is Starmer so anxious to get a deal over the line before the a Trump presidency starts? UK governments always do what the US tells them on Diego Garcia.

Pagan2 said:

FPT

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

I read Tulip's wiki entry when the allegations first came out, and she really is an insider.

"As a child, she met Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton and Mother Teresa, and her family was invited to the White House"

"Her maternal grandfather is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding leader and first President of Bangladesh.[12] Her mother's elder sister, Sheikh Hasina, was Prime Minister of Bangladesh from 2009 until ousted in 2024."

"She has worked for Amnesty International, the Greater London Authority, at Philip Gould Associates, the political consultancy firm run by New Labour strategist Philip Gould, Save the Children, and Brunswick Group, where she worked on corporate social responsibility initiatives for major British manufacturers, as well as for MPs Oona King, Sadiq Khan and Harry Cohen. "

That may go to explain why there was not enough inquiry into her background.

Surprised she was slumming it making a go as an MP and junior minister with those family connections.

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

Divine Right was more of an early modern, than a medieval, idea.

Medieval Parliaments quite often rejected royal requests for taxation, and vigorously criticised the King’s ministers.

I’d argue that kings like Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, were constitutional monarchs.

Well, their power was certainly constrained rather than absolute. They had very few rights to impose taxation (Ship Money, for example, was typically granted by parliament at the beginning of a Monarch's reign) beyond a very narrow scope. This meant they needed to negotiate in order to get money to pursue their goals.

On the other hand, day to day executive power existed almost entirely with the Crown, and so long as there was no pressing need for additional revenues, long periods could go by without Parliament being called.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.

No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.

Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Cookie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

The point is that to relitigate the civil war is to destroy the consensus that prevailed until very recently that people who fought for the confederacy were honourable and not traitors.

Hmm. They were traitors. I'm sure some people somewhere thought that they weren't, but traitors they were. Saying this is hardly "relitigation"

The New Orleans historian Andrew Rakich, who youtubes as "Atun-Shei", has an entertaining point-counterpoint ten-episode dramatisation on YouTube called "Checkmate, Lincolnites". It's thoroughly enjoyable and goes entertainingly non-linear by the last episode. The playlist is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDxu0APt9g&list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0

Enjoy

Nevertheless, military bases being named after these people was quite acceptable to all sides of the political spectrum until the very recent past. So I don’t really see that it's particularly shocking and unconscionable for some Americans who liked it that way to want to go back to the previous status quo.

And I bet a lot of those people would also quite like to go back to the 'status quo' that prevailed in the south at the time...

But they're so polite down there. Any good Christian will get a mint julep and a bed for the night if their car breaks down.

Many decent people fought for the Confederacy, but as for the cause itself…?

When you start a war against your countrymen that costs 700,000 lives, you need a better casus belli than wanting to keep people as chattels.

Makes me proud to be English given what our civil war was about.

Democracy.

A generous interpretation.

There's a reason why there's a statue of Cromwell outside Parliament.

No, I'd say Eagles is right, in a broad brush way. The whole of the 17th century was a battle of ideas between "monarch rules and can do what he likes" versus " not that". We can call the latter democracy if we stretch a definition to take account of the wildly different assumptions people lived under back then.
Pretty brutal civil war, of course. Great Britain suffered, what, a 10% population drop 1642-1649? Better than what is now Germany in its equivalent - the 30 years war - in which it lost 30% of the population.
Politically, arguably Britain was among the most advanced countries in the world coming out of the 17th century. The civil war was part of getting there (along with the glorious revolution.) It was monarchical absolutism vs protodemocracy disguised as Catholicism vs Protestantism.

Technically high church Anglicanism and Arminianism amongst the King and his supporters v low church Protestantism amongst Cromwell and his supporters. Neither The King nor Cromwell were Roman Catholic even if the Queen was

Cromwell was very much middle of the road, what with the demented Stuarts screaming about divine rigbht on the one hand, and the radical diggers and levellers and ranters on the other hand.

No he wasn't, not only did he execute the King, he abolished Bishops in the Church of England and scrapped the Book of Common Prayer and scrapped the House of Lords.

Cromwell was a fanatical low church evangelical Protestant even more anti monarchy and the Lords than Corbynites are, just he was not full on communist or anarchist like some of the diggers and levellers and ranters