"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
I agree. But we have still been in relative economic decline for the last century, and that is now biting. So we haven't 'done well'.
I’d far rather be alive now, than when the UK was indisputably the wealthiest nation on the planet - with a standard of living similar to modern Haiti.
What's that got to do with anything? So would I, but I would still rather live in a 2025 where we had retained our prosperity and leadership in world affairs.
"This should be the next battle: making it a legal obligation on service providers (as for employers and schools) to provide single sex loos and changing rooms (including as needed a safe private space for trans people)."
Agreed, except
1. "Trans" people are either male or female and when there are single-sex toilets they should use the appropriate one, i.e. according to their biological sex. Of course they should be safe, but issues regarding their safety can be dealt with under existing law against abuse, assault, harassment, etc. Nobody should assume that as a non-trans male under no illusion that I'm a woman I'm going to want to abuse or beat up a guy using the urinal next to mine who is wearing a frock.
2. Other next battles should include banning the use of terms such as "birth parent" in the state health system, and banning the trans cult from operating in schools.
This is such a huge example of petty officials "only following orders" - but so is most of the culture including especially internet culture.
What’s the point of dark chocolate ? Only pretentious people who look down on others eat dark chocolate.
It’s like Masterchef when they serve up an almost blue steak and the guest judges go to their stock reply .
In effect it might be too rare for the plebs but we’re above all that and are happy to eat it !
Good riddance to dark Toblerone !
Dark chocolate beats 'milk' hands down. It is not only tastier, it is better for you as well.
Milk chocolate is the infantalisation of food.
No, that's white chocolate.
Milk chocolate is the adolescentisation of chocolate and I for one like to remain in touch with my inner adolescent.
Agree. I love the cheapest milk chocolate. Lidl's cheapest is a winner for me. Probably made of grit, gerbil tails and cocoa powder, about a sixth the price of Lindt (59p per 100gm to be exact - they have shot up in price). They hide on the bottom shelf, probably next to the Slovakian gherkins and tins of strawberry flavoured herring. Food of the gods.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
The mistake you make is in equating GDP/Capita with the indicvidual wealth and wellbeing of the majority of the population. The US from 1970 onwards is a classic example. WHilst GDP and GDP/Capita both shot up, vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer.
That's simply not true.
Real household income change by quintile since 1967 (near enough to 1970):
In fact, the changes may have been higher because there are some reasons, which I won't go into here but they are well covered in the economic literature (see e.g. here https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.10.4.159 from the AEA), for thinking that American inflation indices bias those numbers downwards, so real income growth may be higher than indicated.
GDP is not always a perfect proxy for welfare for a number of reasons, but inequality in the US over the last fifty years isn't one of them.
Otoh, from your source which relatese to @Richard_Tyndall 's point: "vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer. " Richer Americans have done much better than middle income Americans who have in turn done better than poor Americans
Point of order - I'm as anti widening inequality as anyone but none of the groups actually got poorer did they?
Wealth is relative though really
Well, @Richard_Tyndall should have said "vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer relative to their peers" if that's what he meant.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
The mistake you make is in equating GDP/Capita with the indicvidual wealth and wellbeing of the majority of the population. The US from 1970 onwards is a classic example. WHilst GDP and GDP/Capita both shot up, vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer.
That's simply not true.
Real household income change by quintile since 1967 (near enough to 1970):
In fact, the changes may have been higher because there are some reasons, which I won't go into here but they are well covered in the economic literature (see e.g. here https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.10.4.159 from the AEA), for thinking that American inflation indices bias those numbers downwards, so real income growth may be higher than indicated.
GDP is not always a perfect proxy for welfare for a number of reasons, but inequality in the US over the last fifty years isn't one of them.
Otoh, from your source which relatese to @Richard_Tyndall 's point: "vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer. " Richer Americans have done much better than middle income Americans who have in turn done better than poor Americans
Point of order - I'm as anti widening inequality as anyone but none of the groups actually got poorer did they?
No. Which I said in my edit
So you did. To quote the incomparable Cher: If I could turn back time...
"This should be the next battle: making it a legal obligation on service providers (as for employers and schools) to provide single sex loos and changing rooms (including as needed a safe private space for trans people)."
Agreed, except
1. "Trans" people are either male or female and when there are single-sex toilets they should use the appropriate one, i.e. according to their biological sex. Of course they should be safe, but issues regarding their safety can be dealt with under existing law against abuse, assault, harassment, etc. Nobody should assume that as a non-trans male under no illusion that I'm a woman I'm going to want to abuse or beat up a guy using the urinal next to mine who is wearing a frock.
2. Other next battles should include banning the use of terms such as "birth parent" in the state health system, and banning the trans cult from operating in schools.
This is such a huge example of petty officials "only following orders" - but so is most of the culture including especially internet culture.
Jesus get a life
Unfortunate comment for Good Friday.
Patience needed - the wait is just three days
Less than that. The New Testament does a lot of inclusive counting. And the new day then started on what we call Saturday evening, (which is why the Jewish sabbath still starts on Friday evening) so you can light the new fire about 24 hours or less from now.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
"This should be the next battle: making it a legal obligation on service providers (as for employers and schools) to provide single sex loos and changing rooms (including as needed a safe private space for trans people)."
Agreed, except
1. "Trans" people are either male or female and when there are single-sex toilets they should use the appropriate one, i.e. according to their biological sex. Of course they should be safe, but issues regarding their safety can be dealt with under existing law against abuse, assault, harassment, etc. Nobody should assume that as a non-trans male under no illusion that I'm a woman I'm going to want to abuse or beat up a guy using the urinal next to mine who is wearing a frock.
2. Other next battles should include banning the use of terms such as "birth parent" in the state health system, and banning the trans cult from operating in schools.
This is such a huge example of petty officials "only following orders" - but so is most of the culture including especially internet culture.
Jesus get a life
Unfortunate comment for Good Friday.
Well, taken literally, wishing for the Third Coming would be a jolly Christian thing to wish for today.
"This should be the next battle: making it a legal obligation on service providers (as for employers and schools) to provide single sex loos and changing rooms (including as needed a safe private space for trans people)."
Agreed, except
1. "Trans" people are either male or female and when there are single-sex toilets they should use the appropriate one, i.e. according to their biological sex. Of course they should be safe, but issues regarding their safety can be dealt with under existing law against abuse, assault, harassment, etc. Nobody should assume that as a non-trans male under no illusion that I'm a woman I'm going to want to abuse or beat up a guy using the urinal next to mine who is wearing a frock.
2. Other next battles should include banning the use of terms such as "birth parent" in the state health system, and banning the trans cult from operating in schools.
This is such a huge example of petty officials "only following orders" - but so is most of the culture including especially internet culture.
Jesus get a life
Yours certainly sounds worthy of celebration now you've reached 20000 posts on a small country's betting site. And having the toughness to resist all pressure to move on from playground lingo too. Bravo!
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
It’s alright, I’ve had it when people brought it in at work from holiday. White, dark and plain.
Wouldn’t go out of my way to buy it but when it’s free I’ll give it a go.
White Toblerone is genuinely disgusting.
Dark Toblerone is fine.
The demise of WH Smith probably spells the end for Toblerone generally.
No
Toblerone is a supreme example of brilliant branding. You find it everywhere. In every minibar and duty free shop in the world. In every 7/11 in Thailand. In supermarkets in Myanmar and Montevideo - and Almaty
It says in its special shape: here is a bit of European chocolate luxury. A bit of glamorous Europe itself! Even if the reality is, for posher Europeans, a bit disappointing
It is to Europe perhaps what Coca Cola is to the USA
My surgeon - a prof who travelled the world for his job - told me he drunk Glenmorangie. I asked him why, as there are better whiskies out there. He replied something like: "If I go into a bar virtually anywhere in the world, I'll find Gelnmorangie. It's a decent whisky. It's quicker going in and asking for a Glenmorangie, than asking a clueless barman what whiskies they have, then having them wheel off a list of foreign rubbish."
Glenmorangie is now my favourite whisky.
I'd argue there aren't particularly 'better whiskies out there' objectively speaking - if it's possible to class all the products from one distillery as one whisky. Glenmorangie is a classic distillery and their Master Blender is very creative and extremely well-regarded amongst his peers.
Morangie is great. Whilst I bloody love whisky (drinking a nice Glendronach Peated atm to calm the nerves) I do think there is a huge amount of meh out there, And frankly so many distilleries where they seem practically indistinguishable from each other...
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it.
"We became rich off the back of the world's poor." To a very small extent. Nearly all of the growth in GDP per head over the last 200 years is the result of technological advances
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
It’s alright, I’ve had it when people brought it in at work from holiday. White, dark and plain.
Wouldn’t go out of my way to buy it but when it’s free I’ll give it a go.
White Toblerone is genuinely disgusting.
Dark Toblerone is fine.
The demise of WH Smith probably spells the end for Toblerone generally.
No
Toblerone is a supreme example of brilliant branding. You find it everywhere. In every minibar and duty free shop in the world. In every 7/11 in Thailand. In supermarkets in Myanmar and Montevideo - and Almaty
It says in its special shape: here is a bit of European chocolate luxury. A bit of glamorous Europe itself! Even if the reality is, for posher Europeans, a bit disappointing
It is to Europe perhaps what Coca Cola is to the USA
My surgeon - a prof who travelled the world for his job - told me he drunk Glenmorangie. I asked him why, as there are better whiskies out there. He replied something like: "If I go into a bar virtually anywhere in the world, I'll find Gelnmorangie. It's a decent whisky. It's quicker going in and asking for a Glenmorangie, than asking a clueless barman what whiskies they have, then having them wheel off a list of foreign rubbish."
Glenmorangie is now my favourite whisky.
I'd argue there aren't particularly 'better whiskies out there' objectively speaking - if it's possible to class all the products from one distillery as one whisky. Glenmorangie is a classic distillery and their Master Blender is very creative and extremely well-regarded amongst his peers.
Morangie is great. Whilst I bloody love whisky (drinking a nice Glendronach Peated atm to calm the nerves) I do think there is a huge amount of meh out there, And frankly so many distilleries where they seem practically indistinguishable from each other...
I certainly agree it’s an Old Reliable of the decent ones. You’ll offend no one with a good couple of fingers of that in a glass.
"This should be the next battle: making it a legal obligation on service providers (as for employers and schools) to provide single sex loos and changing rooms (including as needed a safe private space for trans people)."
Agreed, except
1. "Trans" people are either male or female and when there are single-sex toilets they should use the appropriate one, i.e. according to their biological sex. Of course they should be safe, but issues regarding their safety can be dealt with under existing law against abuse, assault, harassment, etc. Nobody should assume that as a non-trans male under no illusion that I'm a woman I'm going to want to abuse or beat up a guy using the urinal next to mine who is wearing a frock.
2. Other next battles should include banning the use of terms such as "birth parent" in the state health system, and banning the trans cult from operating in schools.
This is such a huge example of petty officials "only following orders" - but so is most of the culture including especially internet culture.
Jesus get a life
Yours certainly sounds worthy of celebration now you've reached 20000 posts on a small country's betting site. And having the toughness to resist all pressure to move on from playground lingo too. Bravo!
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
It’s alright, I’ve had it when people brought it in at work from holiday. White, dark and plain.
Wouldn’t go out of my way to buy it but when it’s free I’ll give it a go.
White Toblerone is genuinely disgusting.
Dark Toblerone is fine.
The demise of WH Smith probably spells the end for Toblerone generally.
No
Toblerone is a supreme example of brilliant branding. You find it everywhere. In every minibar and duty free shop in the world. In every 7/11 in Thailand. In supermarkets in Myanmar and Montevideo - and Almaty
It says in its special shape: here is a bit of European chocolate luxury. A bit of glamorous Europe itself! Even if the reality is, for posher Europeans, a bit disappointing
It is to Europe perhaps what Coca Cola is to the USA
My surgeon - a prof who travelled the world for his job - told me he drunk Glenmorangie. I asked him why, as there are better whiskies out there. He replied something like: "If I go into a bar virtually anywhere in the world, I'll find Gelnmorangie. It's a decent whisky. It's quicker going in and asking for a Glenmorangie, than asking a clueless barman what whiskies they have, then having them wheel off a list of foreign rubbish."
Glenmorangie is now my favourite whisky.
I'd argue there aren't particularly 'better whiskies out there' objectively speaking - if it's possible to class all the products from one distillery as one whisky. Glenmorangie is a classic distillery and their Master Blender is very creative and extremely well-regarded amongst his peers.
Morangie is great. Whilst I bloody love whisky (drinking a nice Glendronach Peated atm to calm the nerves) I do think there is a huge amount of meh out there, And frankly so many distilleries where they seem practically indistinguishable from each other...
I certainly agree it’s an Old Reliable of the decent ones. You’ll offend no one with a good couple of fingers of that in a glass.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
It's ludicrous to pretend that the colonial empire didn't contribute to the conditions that allowed Britain to spearhead the industrial revolution. You're just fooling yourself. Focusing on profit from individual colonies is just an accounting exercise.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
"This should be the next battle: making it a legal obligation on service providers (as for employers and schools) to provide single sex loos and changing rooms (including as needed a safe private space for trans people)."
Agreed, except
1. "Trans" people are either male or female and when there are single-sex toilets they should use the appropriate one, i.e. according to their biological sex. Of course they should be safe, but issues regarding their safety can be dealt with under existing law against abuse, assault, harassment, etc. Nobody should assume that as a non-trans male under no illusion that I'm a woman I'm going to want to abuse or beat up a guy using the urinal next to mine who is wearing a frock.
2. Other next battles should include banning the use of terms such as "birth parent" in the state health system, and banning the trans cult from operating in schools.
This is such a huge example of petty officials "only following orders" - but so is most of the culture including especially internet culture.
Jesus get a life
Yours certainly sounds worthy of celebration now you've reached 20000 posts on a small country's betting site. And having the toughness to resist all pressure to move on from playground lingo too. Bravo!
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
It's ludicrous to pretend that the colonial empire didn't contribute to the conditions that allowed Britain to spearhead the industrial revolution. You're just fooling yourself. Focusing on profit from individual colonies is just an accounting exercise.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
Most of the wealth was created post 1945 - that’s when the real takeoff happened.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
The empire started with Jamestown in, checks notes, 1607.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
It's ludicrous to pretend that the colonial empire didn't contribute to the conditions that allowed Britain to spearhead the industrial revolution. You're just fooling yourself. Focusing on profit from individual colonies is just an accounting exercise.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
Our wind power potential is excellent. Just got the usual luddites standing in our way.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Even with plundering the 'reparations' demands do not hold up, even just on the practical side of things.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
It's ludicrous to pretend that the colonial empire didn't contribute to the conditions that allowed Britain to spearhead the industrial revolution. You're just fooling yourself. Focusing on profit from individual colonies is just an accounting exercise.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
To be honest I question the value of Gross Domestic Product as a true measure in this circumstance. Ultimately it's a value of output but it does not (as far as I am aware) account for unproductive wealth. Wealth, ultimately, is just economic power to procure goods and services and gather possessions (land or otherwise).
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
It's ludicrous to pretend that the colonial empire didn't contribute to the conditions that allowed Britain to spearhead the industrial revolution. You're just fooling yourself. Focusing on profit from individual colonies is just an accounting exercise.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
No. With wealth comes power relative to others. You get powerful because you're rich.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Why are you bringing reparations into this? Nobody mentioned that other than you.
I also never said anything about colonialism being the sole cause of anything, I said it was naive to think that it didn't contribute to our position, which it is.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
It's ludicrous to pretend that the colonial empire didn't contribute to the conditions that allowed Britain to spearhead the industrial revolution. You're just fooling yourself. Focusing on profit from individual colonies is just an accounting exercise.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
No. With wealth comes power relative to others. Prosperity is the key to it all.
You could have all the gold in the world but if someone comes along with a bigger gun you're now poor.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Like most things it’s not as simple as “Britain’s wealth was founded on colonialism” or “the empire was a net cost”.
Britain’s Industrial Revolution was largely internally generated. Our rise to global hegemony was supercharged by privileged access to international markets, backed by the Royal Navy.
I’d say it was the informal empire and global influence of the 19th century more than any formal colonial extraction or possessions in India and beyond that did most of the work. Rather like the US’s informal trading empire, which MAGA is now working hard to dismantle.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
It's ludicrous to pretend that the colonial empire didn't contribute to the conditions that allowed Britain to spearhead the industrial revolution. You're just fooling yourself. Focusing on profit from individual colonies is just an accounting exercise.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
No. With wealth comes power relative to others. Prosperity is the key to it all.
You could have all the gold in the world but if someone comes along with a bigger gun you're now poor.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Why are you bringing reparations into this? Nobody mentioned that other than you.
I also never said anything about colonialism being the sole cause of anything, I said it was naive to think that it didn't contribute to our position, which it is.
I am suggesting that it is a reason behind the current trend of suggesting that the Empire was a money-accumulating exercise that made Britain rich.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Like most things it’s not as simple as “Britain’s wealth was founded on colonialism” or “the empire was a net cost”.
Britain’s Industrial Revolution was largely internally generated. Our rise to global hegemony was supercharged by privileged access to international markets, backed by the Royal Navy.
I’d say it was the informal empire and global influence of the 19th century more than any formal colonial extraction or possessions in India and beyond that did most of the work. Rather like the US’s informal trading empire, which MAGA is now working hard to dismantle.
My point, which you allude to, was rather that without colonialism/the empire we would just be a wealthy western power, rather than a former world hegemon.
I see that the US continues its spiral towards being a Putinist hellhole, good only for an in crowd to loot money from the rest.
Can the remaining democracies in the world survive without the US?
Today most nations in the world are democracies
I'm not sure I trust that statement given what you consider to be democratic states includes dictatorships that hold sham 'elections'.
I think that HYUFD's statement holds water, Freedom House ranks all nations (with a loose definition of nation) on political rights, the countries around the median have scores of 25 and 26 out of 40 (UK rates as a 39, USA is a 34). The countries in the median are Sri Lanka, Paraguay, Mexico, Bolivia, Philippines, Monaco and Moldova. I think all of them fit into the democracy bucket more than the not-democracy bucket.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
To be honest I question the value of Gross Domestic Product as a true measure in this circumstance. Ultimately it's a value of output but it does not (as far as I am aware) account for unproductive wealth. Wealth, ultimately, is just economic power to procure goods and services and gather possessions (land or otherwise).
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
If we chose to, we could send *hundreds* of Deadnoughts to scare natives. Would need some automation, of course. But we have sagans of money relative to 1909…
But we waste our money on the NHS and staying alive. And other such fripparies.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Why are you bringing reparations into this? Nobody mentioned that other than you.
I also never said anything about colonialism being the sole cause of anything, I said it was naive to think that it didn't contribute to our position, which it is.
I am suggesting that it is a reason behind the current trend of suggesting that the Empire was a money-accumulating exercise that made Britain rich.
That's exactly what the Empire was, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. Ridiculous.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Like most things it’s not as simple as “Britain’s wealth was founded on colonialism” or “the empire was a net cost”.
Britain’s Industrial Revolution was largely internally generated. Our rise to global hegemony was supercharged by privileged access to international markets, backed by the Royal Navy.
I’d say it was the informal empire and global influence of the 19th century more than any formal colonial extraction or possessions in India and beyond that did most of the work. Rather like the US’s informal trading empire, which MAGA is now working hard to dismantle.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
No we didn't, that's a fundamental misreading of the facts. We grew rich because we had an industrial revolution. If it was off the backs of anyone's poor it was the UK's poor. Of all our colonies, only India made a net profit.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
It's ludicrous to pretend that the colonial empire didn't contribute to the conditions that allowed Britain to spearhead the industrial revolution. You're just fooling yourself. Focusing on profit from individual colonies is just an accounting exercise.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
No. With wealth comes power relative to others. Prosperity is the key to it all.
You could have all the gold in the world but if someone comes along with a bigger gun you're now poor.
But you can afford bigger guns than them.
Only if you buy a bigger guns before the wealth is taken. Ultimately wealth only gives potential power whereas power is power in of itself.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
To be honest I question the value of Gross Domestic Product as a true measure in this circumstance. Ultimately it's a value of output but it does not (as far as I am aware) account for unproductive wealth. Wealth, ultimately, is just economic power to procure goods and services and gather possessions (land or otherwise).
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
There was a fascinating thread on Twitter or somewhere similar recently, which I’ll see if I can dig out. It was rebutting this idea that GDP isn’t a useful measure of economic wellbeing.
Essentially went through all the important measures: life expectancy, education, net assets, social mobility, access to healthcare etc etc. all of them more strongly correlated with GDP than anything else. All showing remarkably similar patterns across geography and time as GDP. Yes there are outliers skewed by huge income inequality or corporate profit shifting, but these are visibly outliers.
The upshot was that GDP is by far the best analogue for general population wellbeing out there.
I see that the US continues its spiral towards being a Putinist hellhole, good only for an in crowd to loot money from the rest.
Can the remaining democracies in the world survive without the US?
Today most nations in the world are democracies
I'm not sure I trust that statement given what you consider to be democratic states includes dictatorships that hold sham 'elections'.
I think that HYUFD's statement holds water, Freedom House ranks all nations (with a loose definition of nation) on political rights, the countries around the median have scores of 25 and 26 out of 40 (UK rates as a 39, USA is a 34). The countries in the median are Sri Lanka, Paraguay, Mexico, Bolivia, Philippines, Monaco and Moldova. I think all of them fit into the democracy bucket more than the not-democracy bucket.
It may be broadly true, but he thinks Russia is a democracy (holding elections, even if not free or fair, is all that matters apparently), so by the HYUFD metric very few places are not democracies.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Why are you bringing reparations into this? Nobody mentioned that other than you.
I also never said anything about colonialism being the sole cause of anything, I said it was naive to think that it didn't contribute to our position, which it is.
I am suggesting that it is a reason behind the current trend of suggesting that the Empire was a money-accumulating exercise that made Britain rich.
That's exactly what the Empire was, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. Ridiculous.
The Empire grew for all sorts of reasons. Its chief strategic rationale if there was one was to safeguard trading routes that were essential to our prosperity.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Like most things it’s not as simple as “Britain’s wealth was founded on colonialism” or “the empire was a net cost”.
Britain’s Industrial Revolution was largely internally generated. Our rise to global hegemony was supercharged by privileged access to international markets, backed by the Royal Navy.
I’d say it was the informal empire and global influence of the 19th century more than any formal colonial extraction or possessions in India and beyond that did most of the work. Rather like the US’s informal trading empire, which MAGA is now working hard to dismantle.
My point, which you allude to, was rather that without colonialism/the empire we would just be a wealthy western power, rather than a former world hegemon.
We were never the world hegemon. When Britain was at its height, America was very large and powerful, as was France, as was Russia, as were Prussia/Germany and Austria-Hungary. It was a multi-polar world. We were in the lead for a while, but nothing like the gulf between America and the rest in the 1990s.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
It would be interesting to get his account of this -
You do get a notable jump in GDP per capita, after the Black Death, but then, nothing much until towards the end of the 17th century.
Hmmm… the mad increases of the 20th cent make it hard to see, but
Or as a log graph (did we learn nothing during The Sickness?)
Looks like breaks in trend in late 1600s, 1800 or so and 1925.
I studied Seventeenth Century history at A Level, and it always felt like an extraordinary period: it started out with Elizabeth I still on the throne, and ended a (broadly) constitutional monarchy with a modern financial system.
I’m envious; it was a fascinating century. Pretty shit for most of the globe, though. War, famine, revolutions and mass death everywhere.
Read Parker's Global Crisis: he attributes the revolutions and famine to the mini ice age.
It's a persuasive thesis, if perhaps slightly overdetermined. Existence was certainly more precarious than for most of today's world, with the line between famine and plenty being a very narrow one.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Why are you bringing reparations into this? Nobody mentioned that other than you.
I also never said anything about colonialism being the sole cause of anything, I said it was naive to think that it didn't contribute to our position, which it is.
I am suggesting that it is a reason behind the current trend of suggesting that the Empire was a money-accumulating exercise that made Britain rich.
That's exactly what the Empire was, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. Ridiculous.
I think it's all a little like a Pachinko. Bit of chance, bit of hope, bit of profit (if you're lucky). I don't think there was much in the way of planning when it comes to the British Empire. Possibly one of the things that marks it out.
The 'Muddle Through and Hope it all works out Empire' does seem very British. The odd war there, the odd genocide over there, the occasional 'ingratiate ourselves with the prevailing ruler'. Plenty of malevolent racist/supremacists in the mix, plenty of orientalists, Hindu converts, ... whatever.
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
It’s alright, I’ve had it when people brought it in at work from holiday. White, dark and plain.
Wouldn’t go out of my way to buy it but when it’s free I’ll give it a go.
White Toblerone is genuinely disgusting.
Dark Toblerone is fine.
The demise of WH Smith probably spells the end for Toblerone generally.
No
Toblerone is a supreme example of brilliant branding. You find it everywhere. In every minibar and duty free shop in the world. In every 7/11 in Thailand. In supermarkets in Myanmar and Montevideo - and Almaty
It says in its special shape: here is a bit of European chocolate luxury. A bit of glamorous Europe itself! Even if the reality is, for posher Europeans, a bit disappointing
It is to Europe perhaps what Coca Cola is to the USA
My surgeon - a prof who travelled the world for his job - told me he drunk Glenmorangie. I asked him why, as there are better whiskies out there. He replied something like: "If I go into a bar virtually anywhere in the world, I'll find Gelnmorangie. It's a decent whisky. It's quicker going in and asking for a Glenmorangie, than asking a clueless barman what whiskies they have, then having them wheel off a list of foreign rubbish."
Glenmorangie is now my favourite whisky.
I'd argue there aren't particularly 'better whiskies out there' objectively speaking - if it's possible to class all the products from one distillery as one whisky. Glenmorangie is a classic distillery and their Master Blender is very creative and extremely well-regarded amongst his peers.
I think this has been true for a long time. My dad said to me about 30 years ago "If in doubt, just choose Glenmorangie"
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
It’s alright, I’ve had it when people brought it in at work from holiday. White, dark and plain.
Wouldn’t go out of my way to buy it but when it’s free I’ll give it a go.
White Toblerone is genuinely disgusting.
Dark Toblerone is fine.
The demise of WH Smith probably spells the end for Toblerone generally.
No
Toblerone is a supreme example of brilliant branding. You find it everywhere. In every minibar and duty free shop in the world. In every 7/11 in Thailand. In supermarkets in Myanmar and Montevideo - and Almaty
It says in its special shape: here is a bit of European chocolate luxury. A bit of glamorous Europe itself! Even if the reality is, for posher Europeans, a bit disappointing
It is to Europe perhaps what Coca Cola is to the USA
My surgeon - a prof who travelled the world for his job - told me he drunk Glenmorangie. I asked him why, as there are better whiskies out there. He replied something like: "If I go into a bar virtually anywhere in the world, I'll find Gelnmorangie. It's a decent whisky. It's quicker going in and asking for a Glenmorangie, than asking a clueless barman what whiskies they have, then having them wheel off a list of foreign rubbish."
Glenmorangie is now my favourite whisky.
I'd argue there aren't particularly 'better whiskies out there' objectively speaking - if it's possible to class all the products from one distillery as one whisky. Glenmorangie is a classic distillery and their Master Blender is very creative and extremely well-regarded amongst his peers.
I think this has been true for a long time. My dad said to me about 30 years ago "If in doubt, just choose Glenmorangie"
A little known fact is that it should actually be pronounced with the emphasis on fhe second syllable.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
Why are you bringing reparations into this? Nobody mentioned that other than you.
I also never said anything about colonialism being the sole cause of anything, I said it was naive to think that it didn't contribute to our position, which it is.
I am suggesting that it is a reason behind the current trend of suggesting that the Empire was a money-accumulating exercise that made Britain rich.
That's exactly what the Empire was, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. Ridiculous.
The Empire grew for all sorts of reasons. Its chief strategic rationale if there was one was to safeguard trading routes that were essential to our prosperity.
Exactly. Safeguarding trade routes to make money. Pretending it wasn’t profitable for Britain is ludicrous.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that in order for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to convince President Trump to put a pause on tariffs, he had to wait until Peter Navarro was in another meeting.
He and Howard Lutnick then rushed to the Oval Office, convinced Trump, and waited until he posted a Truth Social post announcing the news.
Spencer Hakimian @SpencerHakimian · 33m It’s pretty fucking insane that the president is so incapable of making these decisions on his own, that his cabinet secretaries have to *literally* trick him into choosing the correct option for the economy.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
The mistake you make is in equating GDP/Capita with the indicvidual wealth and wellbeing of the majority of the population. The US from 1970 onwards is a classic example. WHilst GDP and GDP/Capita both shot up, vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer.
That's simply not true.
Real household income change by quintile since 1967 (near enough to 1970):
In fact, the changes may have been higher because there are some reasons, which I won't go into here but they are well covered in the economic literature (see e.g. here https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.10.4.159 from the AEA), for thinking that American inflation indices bias those numbers downwards, so real income growth may be higher than indicated.
GDP is not always a perfect proxy for welfare for a number of reasons, but inequality in the US over the last fifty years isn't one of them.
Otoh, from your source which relatese to @Richard_Tyndall 's point: "vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer. " Richer Americans have done much better than middle income Americans who have in turn done better than poor Americans
Point of order - I'm as anti widening inequality as anyone but none of the groups actually got poorer did they?
Wealth is relative though really
Well, @Richard_Tyndall should have said "vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer relative to their peers" if that's what he meant.
Rich and poor is all relative. Inded that is the very language so beloved of the liberal classes (of which I suppose I must be a member). If we were to use absolute poverty then we would have to claim there is no such thing as poverty in the first world. Which is obviously false. All poverty is relative.
My point, both in my answer to Fishing and in the wider discussion on globalisation, is that the working and middle classes have indeed got poorer relative to the (largely artificial) increase in wealth in the world. The proportion of the world's wealth held by the richest has vastly increase whsilt there have been only very small increases in wealth levels for the vast majority of the working population. This is most stark in the US but also exists in mst other first world countries. And it is worse for Americans because of the lack of any effective safety net. When they fall they fall a very long way.
I occasionally read criticism of NZ food on here, which I find unfathomable.
Perhaps this was true before the 90s. I recall, as a child, being taken to dreary lineoleum cafes for a sausage roll and an instant coffee.
But starting the 90s, NZ benefited hugely from a new cafe culture, partly imported from Melbourne, resulting among other things in the invention of the flat white. NZ cafes are now well designed, urbane affairs where you can get a delicious “eggs benny” or your morning bircher museli as early as 6am. All British flat whites style cafes, owe homage in some way to their NZ templates.
The broader cuisine has been hugely improved by the infusion of Japanese, Korean, and Chinese migrants. When I first came to London in 2000 my love of sushi was considered a perversity by colleagues in my Mayfair based consultancy. Modern NZ food is “pan-Asian”.
It’s not perfect but I dare say it beats the fare on offer in Coventry or Hull.
Edit: I didn’t even mention NZ wine.
Agreed. I spend about 2 months of the year travelling round NZ and the cafe/restaurant food is generally of a slightly higher quality than in the UK, as well as being slightly cheaper especially with the weak NZ$ and the no-tipping culture.
NZ is the only place where people have started talking to me for no particular reason (in a friendly way). Happened in Wellington in 2016 on my only visit to the country, and in a couple of other places. My visit included going on the amazing train journey from Wellington to Auckland which takes about 12 hours.
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
It’s alright, I’ve had it when people brought it in at work from holiday. White, dark and plain.
Wouldn’t go out of my way to buy it but when it’s free I’ll give it a go.
White Toblerone is genuinely disgusting.
Dark Toblerone is fine.
The demise of WH Smith probably spells the end for Toblerone generally.
No
Toblerone is a supreme example of brilliant branding. You find it everywhere. In every minibar and duty free shop in the world. In every 7/11 in Thailand. In supermarkets in Myanmar and Montevideo - and Almaty
It says in its special shape: here is a bit of European chocolate luxury. A bit of glamorous Europe itself! Even if the reality is, for posher Europeans, a bit disappointing
It is to Europe perhaps what Coca Cola is to the USA
My surgeon - a prof who travelled the world for his job - told me he drunk Glenmorangie. I asked him why, as there are better whiskies out there. He replied something like: "If I go into a bar virtually anywhere in the world, I'll find Gelnmorangie. It's a decent whisky. It's quicker going in and asking for a Glenmorangie, than asking a clueless barman what whiskies they have, then having them wheel off a list of foreign rubbish."
Glenmorangie is now my favourite whisky.
I'd argue there aren't particularly 'better whiskies out there' objectively speaking - if it's possible to class all the products from one distillery as one whisky. Glenmorangie is a classic distillery and their Master Blender is very creative and extremely well-regarded amongst his peers.
Morangie is great. Whilst I bloody love whisky (drinking a nice Glendronach Peated atm to calm the nerves) I do think there is a huge amount of meh out there, And frankly so many distilleries where they seem practically indistinguishable from each other...
I certainly agree it’s an Old Reliable of the decent ones. You’ll offend no one with a good couple of fingers of that in a glass.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
To be honest I question the value of Gross Domestic Product as a true measure in this circumstance. Ultimately it's a value of output but it does not (as far as I am aware) account for unproductive wealth. Wealth, ultimately, is just economic power to procure goods and services and gather possessions (land or otherwise).
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
There was a fascinating thread on Twitter or somewhere similar recently, which I’ll see if I can dig out. It was rebutting this idea that GDP isn’t a useful measure of economic wellbeing.
Essentially went through all the important measures: life expectancy, education, net assets, social mobility, access to healthcare etc etc. all of them more strongly correlated with GDP than anything else. All showing remarkably similar patterns across geography and time as GDP. Yes there are outliers skewed by huge income inequality or corporate profit shifting, but these are visibly outliers.
The upshot was that GDP is by far the best analogue for general population wellbeing out there.
I'd have thought life expectancy at birth was better.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
To be honest I question the value of Gross Domestic Product as a true measure in this circumstance. Ultimately it's a value of output but it does not (as far as I am aware) account for unproductive wealth. Wealth, ultimately, is just economic power to procure goods and services and gather possessions (land or otherwise).
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
There was a fascinating thread on Twitter or somewhere similar recently, which I’ll see if I can dig out. It was rebutting this idea that GDP isn’t a useful measure of economic wellbeing.
Essentially went through all the important measures: life expectancy, education, net assets, social mobility, access to healthcare etc etc. all of them more strongly correlated with GDP than anything else. All showing remarkably similar patterns across geography and time as GDP. Yes there are outliers skewed by huge income inequality or corporate profit shifting, but these are visibly outliers.
The upshot was that GDP is by far the best analogue for general population wellbeing out there.
I'd have thought life expectancy at birth was better.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
To be honest I question the value of Gross Domestic Product as a true measure in this circumstance. Ultimately it's a value of output but it does not (as far as I am aware) account for unproductive wealth. Wealth, ultimately, is just economic power to procure goods and services and gather possessions (land or otherwise).
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
There was a fascinating thread on Twitter or somewhere similar recently, which I’ll see if I can dig out. It was rebutting this idea that GDP isn’t a useful measure of economic wellbeing.
Essentially went through all the important measures: life expectancy, education, net assets, social mobility, access to healthcare etc etc. all of them more strongly correlated with GDP than anything else. All showing remarkably similar patterns across geography and time as GDP. Yes there are outliers skewed by huge income inequality or corporate profit shifting, but these are visibly outliers.
The upshot was that GDP is by far the best analogue for general population wellbeing out there.
If they're all correlated with GDP then they must also be correlated with each other.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
To be honest I question the value of Gross Domestic Product as a true measure in this circumstance. Ultimately it's a value of output but it does not (as far as I am aware) account for unproductive wealth. Wealth, ultimately, is just economic power to procure goods and services and gather possessions (land or otherwise).
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
There was a fascinating thread on Twitter or somewhere similar recently, which I’ll see if I can dig out. It was rebutting this idea that GDP isn’t a useful measure of economic wellbeing.
Essentially went through all the important measures: life expectancy, education, net assets, social mobility, access to healthcare etc etc. all of them more strongly correlated with GDP than anything else. All showing remarkably similar patterns across geography and time as GDP. Yes there are outliers skewed by huge income inequality or corporate profit shifting, but these are visibly outliers.
The upshot was that GDP is by far the best analogue for general population wellbeing out there.
According to the World Bank US GDP per capita is almost $83,000 compared to around $50,000 for the UK. Yet US life expectancy is nearly 3 years less than the UK.
Moreover even though GDP per capita has increased by 67% between 2014 and 2024, US life expectancy has decreased from 78.8 years to 78.6 years in the same period.
What you claim might once have been the case, but the nature of wealth accumulation in the population in the last decade or more means that such correlations are no longer true.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
The other thing is that we had natural resources - particularly lots of good quality, relatively easily mined, coal - which turbo-charged the industrial revolution. If you take the view (and it's certainly arguable) that economic growth is mostly driven by cheap energy, post the invention of the steam engine our coal deposits probably had more to do with making us "top nation" in the Victorian era than anything else.
I'd argue that the same thesis holds true today, and one of the biggest reasons we've virtually no economic growth is that we've allowed energy (particularly electricity) to become very expensive.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
According to Kennedy’s rise and fall of the great powers Britain was richest per capita vs the rest of the world in the late 19th century. Then Germany and the USA rose, then Japan had a go post war, then the petrostates of the Gulf and finally the small Euro-entrepôts and Singapore.
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
To be honest I question the value of Gross Domestic Product as a true measure in this circumstance. Ultimately it's a value of output but it does not (as far as I am aware) account for unproductive wealth. Wealth, ultimately, is just economic power to procure goods and services and gather possessions (land or otherwise).
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
There was a fascinating thread on Twitter or somewhere similar recently, which I’ll see if I can dig out. It was rebutting this idea that GDP isn’t a useful measure of economic wellbeing.
Essentially went through all the important measures: life expectancy, education, net assets, social mobility, access to healthcare etc etc. all of them more strongly correlated with GDP than anything else. All showing remarkably similar patterns across geography and time as GDP. Yes there are outliers skewed by huge income inequality or corporate profit shifting, but these are visibly outliers.
The upshot was that GDP is by far the best analogue for general population wellbeing out there.
If they're all correlated with GDP then they must also be correlated with each other.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
It would be interesting to get his account of this -
You do get a notable jump in GDP per capita, after the Black Death, but then, nothing much until towards the end of the 17th century.
Hmmm… the mad increases of the 20th cent make it hard to see, but
Or as a log graph (did we learn nothing during The Sickness?)
Looks like breaks in trend in late 1600s, 1800 or so and 1925.
I reckon the long upswing starts in 1672 or so. Eyeballing it, may be July 5th?
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
It would be interesting to get his account of this -
You do get a notable jump in GDP per capita, after the Black Death, but then, nothing much until towards the end of the 17th century.
Hmmm… the mad increases of the 20th cent make it hard to see, but
Or as a log graph (did we learn nothing during The Sickness?)
Looks like breaks in trend in late 1600s, 1800 or so and 1925.
Eyeballing it I’d say the long upswing starts on July 5, 1672 or thereabouts
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
The mistake you make is in equating GDP/Capita with the indicvidual wealth and wellbeing of the majority of the population. The US from 1970 onwards is a classic example. WHilst GDP and GDP/Capita both shot up, vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer.
That's simply not true.
Real household income change by quintile since 1967 (near enough to 1970):
In fact, the changes may have been higher because there are some reasons, which I won't go into here but they are well covered in the economic literature (see e.g. here https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.10.4.159 from the AEA), for thinking that American inflation indices bias those numbers downwards, so real income growth may be higher than indicated.
GDP is not always a perfect proxy for welfare for a number of reasons, but inequality in the US over the last fifty years isn't one of them.
Otoh, from your source which relates to @Richard_Tyndall 's point: "vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer. " Richer Americans have indeed done much better than middle income Americans who have in turn done better than poor Americans. However none got poorer (absolutely)
I believe it looks quite different if run from the mid 70s
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that in order for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to convince President Trump to put a pause on tariffs, he had to wait until Peter Navarro was in another meeting.
He and Howard Lutnick then rushed to the Oval Office, convinced Trump, and waited until he posted a Truth Social post announcing the news.
“If I die, I want a loud death,” Hassouna wrote on social media. “I don’t want to be just breaking news, or a number in a group, I want a death that the world will hear, an impact that will remain through time, and a timeless image that cannot be buried by time or place.”
On Wednesday, just days before her wedding, 25-year-old Hassouna was killed in an Israeli airstrike that hit her home in northern Gaza. Ten members of her family, including her pregnant sister, were also killed.
The Israeli military said it had been a targeted strike on a Hamas member involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians. .
They offer no evidence for that assertion, one they make pretty well automatically - as they did with the recent murders of the medical workers, of course.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
It would be interesting to get his account of this -
You do get a notable jump in GDP per capita, after the Black Death, but then, nothing much until towards the end of the 17th century.
Hmmm… the mad increases of the 20th cent make it hard to see, but
Or as a log graph (did we learn nothing during The Sickness?)
Looks like breaks in trend in late 1600s, 1800 or so and 1925.
Eyeballing it I’d say the long upswing starts on July 5, 1672 or thereabouts
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
The other thing is that we had natural resources - particularly lots of good quality, relatively easily mined, coal - which turbo-charged the industrial revolution. If you take the view (and it's certainly arguable) that economic growth is mostly driven by cheap energy, post the invention of the steam engine our coal deposits probably had more to do with making us "top nation" in the Victorian era than anything else.
I'd argue that the same thesis holds true today, and one of the biggest reasons we've virtually no economic growth is that we've allowed energy (particularly electricity) to become very expensive.
There's long been a discussion about why the industrial revolution occurred mostly in Britain, rather than (say) France, which in many ways in a better position to be the crucible of modern industry. I think the answer is multi-factorial, and energy is just one part.
Access to coal pretty much throughout Britain is a big one, as is the massive iron ore deposits we had easily on hand. France has much less coal, in fewer areas. But as important were the financial aspects; capital was easily available, and attitude to risk was good. We were politically stable, allowing people to think beyond the next year or two. Empire gave us a ready market for goods.
There are other factors as well, such as our compact country making it easier and cheaper to transport goods than in larger countries, and our riverine systems allowing much trade before canals.
Although the industrial revolution had already started, IMV the French revolution, followed by the Napoleonic Wars, really hampered France's industrial development into the 1820s. That was then followed by other political shocks to the country. Industry in France during the revolution fell to 60% of what it as before, and there was a brain drain from France to the UK, the rest of Europe and even the USA. One famous person fleeing the terror was a certain Marc Brunel...
The question is can we catch the lightning in the bottle again?
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
The other thing is that we had natural resources - particularly lots of good quality, relatively easily mined, coal - which turbo-charged the industrial revolution. If you take the view (and it's certainly arguable) that economic growth is mostly driven by cheap energy, post the invention of the steam engine our coal deposits probably had more to do with making us "top nation" in the Victorian era than anything else.
I'd argue that the same thesis holds true today, and one of the biggest reasons we've virtually no economic growth is that we've allowed energy (particularly electricity) to become very expensive.
I think that's a good argument for why the industrial revolution started in the UK. I think it's a less good argument for why certain places are rich.
Japan, for example, had heinously expensive energy - often 2-3x that of Western Europe and even worse relative to the US - in the post WW2 period... and yet built what was comfortably the second richest place on the planet, before they got fucked by demographics.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
The other thing is that we had natural resources - particularly lots of good quality, relatively easily mined, coal - which turbo-charged the industrial revolution. If you take the view (and it's certainly arguable) that economic growth is mostly driven by cheap energy, post the invention of the steam engine our coal deposits probably had more to do with making us "top nation" in the Victorian era than anything else.
I'd argue that the same thesis holds true today, and one of the biggest reasons we've virtually no economic growth is that we've allowed energy (particularly electricity) to become very expensive.
I think that's a good argument for why the industrial revolution started in the UK. I think it's a less good argument for why certain places are rich.
Japan, for example, had heinously expensive energy - often 2-3x that of Western Europe and even worse relative to the US - in the post WW2 period... and yet built what was comfortably the second richest place on the planet, before they got fucked by demographics.
I've been on Sado (a rural-ish Japanese island) for the past few days. Going from there to Niigata and then Takasaki station areas is a dramatic change -- suddenly there are *so many* people, and lots of them under 40! (Sado's resident population is apparently about one-third people over 65. The gradual aging is visible in the buildings and facilities, not just the people...)
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
The other thing is that we had natural resources - particularly lots of good quality, relatively easily mined, coal - which turbo-charged the industrial revolution. If you take the view (and it's certainly arguable) that economic growth is mostly driven by cheap energy, post the invention of the steam engine our coal deposits probably had more to do with making us "top nation" in the Victorian era than anything else.
I'd argue that the same thesis holds true today, and one of the biggest reasons we've virtually no economic growth is that we've allowed energy (particularly electricity) to become very expensive.
I think that's a good argument for why the industrial revolution started in the UK. I think it's a less good argument for why certain places are rich.
Japan, for example, had heinously expensive energy - often 2-3x that of Western Europe and even worse relative to the US - in the post WW2 period... and yet built what was comfortably the second richest place on the planet, before they got fucked by demographics.
I've been on Sado (a rural-ish Japanese island) for the past few days. Going from there to Niigata and then Takasaki station areas is a dramatic change -- suddenly there are *so many* people, and lots of them under 40! (Sado's resident population is apparently about one-third people over 65. The gradual aging is visible in the buildings and facilities, not just the people...)
Have you tried the public communal bathing in the onsen? Wonder how the Japanese would approach the issue of Trans in transition. Makes the debates about public toilets somewhat minor.
“If I die, I want a loud death,” Hassouna wrote on social media. “I don’t want to be just breaking news, or a number in a group, I want a death that the world will hear, an impact that will remain through time, and a timeless image that cannot be buried by time or place.”
On Wednesday, just days before her wedding, 25-year-old Hassouna was killed in an Israeli airstrike that hit her home in northern Gaza. Ten members of her family, including her pregnant sister, were also killed.
The Israeli military said it had been a targeted strike on a Hamas member involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians. .
They offer no evidence for that assertion, one they make pretty well automatically - as they did with the recent murders of the medical workers, of course.
Another appalling slaughter conducted by the genocidal maniacs . And the west just isn’t interested anymore .
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
The argument for reparations would not be based on whether we profited from British colonies, but whether those colonies suffered because of British rule.
Consider a more recent example: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That invasion has been economically deleterious for Russia. By your logic, Russia therefore cannot owe Ukraine reparations. However, that’s because you don’t understand reparations. Russian reparations are due because of the damage Russia has done to Ukraine.
Whether reparations make sense for much more historically distant events is the more relevant debate.
🇺🇸→🇺🇦 Agree to peace NOW! 🇺🇦→🇺🇸 OK. Unconditional ceasefire, negotiated in a day
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Dear russia, please 🙏 agree to peace 🇷🇺→🇺🇸 NO. We want to wage a criminal war. To be clear, we’ll murder children every week
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Oh, that’s how you are? Well then, we walk away 🤦🏻♂️
Who will ever take us seriously? Russia invaded Ukraine to kill Ukrainians for being Ukrainian. The bravest nation on earth is defending itself, and we can’t choose a side?
🇺🇸→🇺🇦 Agree to peace NOW! 🇺🇦→🇺🇸 OK. Unconditional ceasefire, negotiated in a day
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Dear russia, please 🙏 agree to peace 🇷🇺→🇺🇸 NO. We want to wage a criminal war. To be clear, we’ll murder children every week
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Oh, that’s how you are? Well then, we walk away 🤦🏻♂️
Who will ever take us seriously? Russia invaded Ukraine to kill Ukrainians for being Ukrainian. The bravest nation on earth is defending itself, and we can’t choose a side?
Time for Europe to plan for the US completely abandoning Ukraine, as that now seems a fairly likely outcome.
That was obvious back in November - but no one thought it would be this blatant
When we pointed this out to the Trumpites on PB they denied it. Now they have either disappeared or back the American betrayal. It's clear that the mad king forms their opinions.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
Man, wait until you hear about Italy.
The home of the pizza, sans pineapple. Probably explains their decline.
They've been in decline since the Romans.
Free fall, really.
But still their silly GDP per capita chart would show exactly the same thing as ours - all it shows is the march of time and technology.
The point of the chart is that even the beggars on the street are far better off (and the same in Italy) than people in the same situation at the start of the 20th cent.
Actual progress, with better food, better health care etc.
As Kipling noted, the power and Empire is just fripperies.
The mistake you make is in equating GDP/Capita with the indicvidual wealth and wellbeing of the majority of the population. The US from 1970 onwards is a classic example. WHilst GDP and GDP/Capita both shot up, vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer.
That's simply not true.
Real household income change by quintile since 1967 (near enough to 1970):
In fact, the changes may have been higher because there are some reasons, which I won't go into here but they are well covered in the economic literature (see e.g. here https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.10.4.159 from the AEA), for thinking that American inflation indices bias those numbers downwards, so real income growth may be higher than indicated.
GDP is not always a perfect proxy for welfare for a number of reasons, but inequality in the US over the last fifty years isn't one of them.
Otoh, from your source which relatese to @Richard_Tyndall 's point: "vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer whilst a much smaller number at the top got richer. " Richer Americans have done much better than middle income Americans who have in turn done better than poor Americans
Point of order - I'm as anti widening inequality as anyone but none of the groups actually got poorer did they?
Wealth is relative though really
Well, @Richard_Tyndall should have said "vast numbers of Americans - particularly the Middle Classes - got poorer relative to their peers" if that's what he meant.
Rich and poor is all relative. Inded that is the very language so beloved of the liberal classes (of which I suppose I must be a member). If we were to use absolute poverty then we would have to claim there is no such thing as poverty in the first world. Which is obviously false. All poverty is relative.
My point, both in my answer to Fishing and in the wider discussion on globalisation, is that the working and middle classes have indeed got poorer relative to the (largely artificial) increase in wealth in the world. The proportion of the world's wealth held by the richest has vastly increase whsilt there have been only very small increases in wealth levels for the vast majority of the working population. This is most stark in the US but also exists in mst other first world countries. And it is worse for Americans because of the lack of any effective safety net. When they fall they fall a very long way.
Does this go back to the "Musk is a loser" conversation of twenty-four hours ago?
At the bottom of the pile, or back in time, extra money is more food, shelter, health... essentials of life. A bit higher up the scale, extra money is more nice stuff or more security that there will still be nice stuff in the future. Again, it's easy to see how that brings more happiness.
The higher one goes, the more nebulous that link. At some point (isn't there a saying about living off the interest on the interest?), the mechanism converting cash into contentment slows down. Maybe it never quite stops, but I'm pretty confident that it's more logarithmic than linear. In which case, Musk (lots of cash but angry and miserable lots of the time) is a loser, however high his dollar score.
In which case the USonian model, where much of the wealth generated ends up in a smallish number of accounts is generating less national contentment than it could. With the effects we are seeing, which should worry "reform rather than revolution" conservatives.
Maybe that chap who spoke about selling all you have and giving it to the poor was onto something.
I assume the rather Orwellian "trans-identifying men" refers to the people that most of us would call trans women. Since this is the group that one would expect to be primarily affected by the Supreme Court judgement, it is hardly surprising that their opinion was sought by the media. To see it as some kind of misogynistic plot seems a very odd reading of the situation, especially in a world where there is so much actual misogyny that one could focus on instead.
🇺🇸→🇺🇦 Agree to peace NOW! 🇺🇦→🇺🇸 OK. Unconditional ceasefire, negotiated in a day
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Dear russia, please 🙏 agree to peace 🇷🇺→🇺🇸 NO. We want to wage a criminal war. To be clear, we’ll murder children every week
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Oh, that’s how you are? Well then, we walk away 🤦🏻♂️
Who will ever take us seriously? Russia invaded Ukraine to kill Ukrainians for being Ukrainian. The bravest nation on earth is defending itself, and we can’t choose a side?
Time for Europe to plan for the US completely abandoning Ukraine, as that now seems a fairly likely outcome.
That was obvious back in November - but no one thought it would be this blatant
It is the inevitable consequence of that disgraceful display in the White House in particular and the appalling extortion that Trump has been attempting since.
Germany has been stepping up shell production in a very big way. There was an interesting story yesterday about a new defence system against drones that we have been developing that can incapacitate them with radio waves. It is the intelligence and satellite capacity that Europe is going to struggle to replace but hopefully we have been working hard on this for the last few months. We need to be ready for the US abandonment. It is coming.
GDP is OK as a measure but we need to be careful not to make it a target of policy. For instance, we could increase GDP by having the NHS charge £1,000 for each hospital visit, and offset this with a universal benefit payment of £1,000 per hospital visit. No-one would be any better off but both GDP and GDP per capita will have grown.
For similar reasons, we need to be wary of international comparisons because different countries might do things in different ways.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
The other thing is that we had natural resources - particularly lots of good quality, relatively easily mined, coal - which turbo-charged the industrial revolution. If you take the view (and it's certainly arguable) that economic growth is mostly driven by cheap energy, post the invention of the steam engine our coal deposits probably had more to do with making us "top nation" in the Victorian era than anything else.
I'd argue that the same thesis holds true today, and one of the biggest reasons we've virtually no economic growth is that we've allowed energy (particularly electricity) to become very expensive.
There's long been a discussion about why the industrial revolution occurred mostly in Britain, rather than (say) France, which in many ways in a better position to be the crucible of modern industry. I think the answer is multi-factorial, and energy is just one part.
Access to coal pretty much throughout Britain is a big one, as is the massive iron ore deposits we had easily on hand. France has much less coal, in fewer areas. But as important were the financial aspects; capital was easily available, and attitude to risk was good. We were politically stable, allowing people to think beyond the next year or two. Empire gave us a ready market for goods.
There are other factors as well, such as our compact country making it easier and cheaper to transport goods than in larger countries, and our riverine systems allowing much trade before canals.
Although the industrial revolution had already started, IMV the French revolution, followed by the Napoleonic Wars, really hampered France's industrial development into the 1820s. That was then followed by other political shocks to the country. Industry in France during the revolution fell to 60% of what it as before, and there was a brain drain from France to the UK, the rest of Europe and even the USA. One famous person fleeing the terror was a certain Marc Brunel...
The question is can we catch the lightning in the bottle again?
I might have a threader on this...
IMHO, the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were crucial in driving the Industrial Revolution here, and retarding it in France and the Netherlands. From 1808-14, we produced a million muskets, for delivery to the Spanish army alone. During the Terror, it could be fatal to be an inventor, or scientist.
The Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions, and the growth of trade since 1800, have been massive boons. Just try to imagine what it would be like, to live in a world where 90% live in absolute poverty, as in 1820.
"The share of Americans who consider Russia an “enemy” has fallen to its lowest point since it began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to a poll published Thursday by Pew Research Center. The shift owes largely to evolving views among Republicans amid stark changes in U.S. policy and diplomacy toward Russia and Ukraine under President Donald Trump.
The survey found the share of Americans who said Russia was an “enemy” had fallen to 50 percent, from 61 percent in April 2024 and 70 percent in March 2022, just after the invasion began.
The softening in attitudes toward Russia was far sharper among Republican voters, with 40 percent saying Russia was an enemy, down from 58 percent last year and 69 percent in March 2022. Thirty-four percent of Americans overall now describe Russia as a competitor of the United States, while just 9 percent said it was a partner."
When the USA gets attacked again - and they will (*) - there will not be a coalition of the willing to help them. And this time, more people will just shrug their shoulders and say; "You see, that's what it feels like!"
(*) They will get attacked, because MAGA still see the USA as the most important world power. As Russia sees itself. And as China sees itself. That will lead to conflicts between them, probably proxy, but maybe worse. Also, to be the most important power, you need to throw your weight around - witness all Trump's Gaza nonsense. And that creates enemies who will want to fight you asymmetrically - as happened on 9/11 and before.
Russia does not see itself as “the most important world power”. They’re not delusional to that extent
They know America and China are much stronger and likely always will be
But they want to be seen as top of the next tier. A truly great power albeit not a superpower. It’s the potential demotion to the third tier - “economy the size of Spain” and all that - that really exercises them
What Putin wants is the resurrection of the old "spheres of influence" polity. Xi would probably be happy with that, as would the America First zealots.
The "End of History" as posited by Fukuyama would be well and truly up-ended. As would Western liberal democracy.
Yes that’s a sharp analysis
We'd be quite fucked. Our prosperity depends on free and open global trade.
The reason we've done well the last century is that at first we policed it and then the Americans took over.
If no-one does then, well, we're in trouble.
We haven't done well in the last century.
Don't be silly.
Since 1925, we have gone from being probably the world's second wealthiest and most powerful country, to being the sick man of Europe (again). Don't get me wrong, I have every faith in our country that we can bounce back, but we've had a century of almost constant decline. Doing well is the situation improving, or at least staying the same.
The UK is middling to good in a European context. We rightly focus on the negative things that set us apart - like industrial electricity costs - but on most measures we're not bad at all.
That doesn't suit far-right and far-left political agitators, because it negates the need for a revolution. That's why you get lies about zero steel production or no manufacturing sector, or widespread homelessness or racism or whatever. The UK remains successful, based on strong institutions and a decent and law-abiding populace.
The countries that I, personally, want the UK to look more like are capitalist monarchies like Sweden and Denmark. And I want to us to approach that settlement in a conservative and plodding way. I get my excitement from smashing my jaw while mountain biking or a bad fall from climbing, not my politics.
But we shouldn't be 'good to middling in the European context'. We came from a higher level than any other country in Europe. And it isn't about Empire and telling people what to do - that was decorative and in most cases a cost not a source of revenue. It's about our ability and will to prosper.
We became rich off the back of the world's poor and we didn't invest the proceeds. That Britain is never coming back and you need to accept it. Mismanagement at its finest at all levels.
I'm trying to work out when the UK was the richest country in the world, excluding exploitative colonialism. It's a great question. Ultimately most of our power and economic growth stemmed from the simple fact we are an island.
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
England became rich from wool in the late middle ages (or so I understand, it's not my period). That was our trade for a very long time.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
"The concept of empire". Now you're just being pedantic. The industrial revolution did not pre-date colonialism and that's what we're talking about.
You might want to read into this a bit. I studied the British Empire as part of my undergraduate degree (admittedly a wee while ago) and the industrial revolution was touched on both at A-level and again in economic history at degree level.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
The argument for reparations would not be based on whether we profited from British colonies, but whether those colonies suffered because of British rule.
Consider a more recent example: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That invasion has been economically deleterious for Russia. By your logic, Russia therefore cannot owe Ukraine reparations. However, that’s because you don’t understand reparations. Russian reparations are due because of the damage Russia has done to Ukraine.
Whether reparations make sense for much more historically distant events is the more relevant debate.
You only pay reparations if you are comprehensively defeated in war.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
🇺🇸→🇺🇦 Agree to peace NOW! 🇺🇦→🇺🇸 OK. Unconditional ceasefire, negotiated in a day
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Dear russia, please 🙏 agree to peace 🇷🇺→🇺🇸 NO. We want to wage a criminal war. To be clear, we’ll murder children every week
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Oh, that’s how you are? Well then, we walk away 🤦🏻♂️
Who will ever take us seriously? Russia invaded Ukraine to kill Ukrainians for being Ukrainian. The bravest nation on earth is defending itself, and we can’t choose a side?
Time for Europe to plan for the US completely abandoning Ukraine, as that now seems a fairly likely outcome.
That was obvious back in November - but no one thought it would be this blatant
When we pointed this out to the Trumpites on PB they denied it. Now they have either disappeared or back the American betrayal. It's clear that the mad king forms their opinions.
In my best Peter Dinklage voice:
‘The Mad King did as he liked. Did anyone ever tell you what happened to him?’
🇺🇸→🇺🇦 Agree to peace NOW! 🇺🇦→🇺🇸 OK. Unconditional ceasefire, negotiated in a day
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Dear russia, please 🙏 agree to peace 🇷🇺→🇺🇸 NO. We want to wage a criminal war. To be clear, we’ll murder children every week
🇺🇸→🇷🇺 Oh, that’s how you are? Well then, we walk away 🤦🏻♂️
Who will ever take us seriously? Russia invaded Ukraine to kill Ukrainians for being Ukrainian. The bravest nation on earth is defending itself, and we can’t choose a side?
Time for Europe to plan for the US completely abandoning Ukraine, as that now seems a fairly likely outcome.
That was obvious back in November - but no one thought it would be this blatant
It is the inevitable consequence of that disgraceful display in the White House in particular and the appalling extortion that Trump has been attempting since.
Germany has been stepping up shell production in a very big way. There was an interesting story yesterday about a new defence system against drones that we have been developing that can incapacitate them with radio waves. It is the intelligence and satellite capacity that Europe is going to struggle to replace but hopefully we have been working hard on this for the last few months. We need to be ready for the US abandonment. It is coming.
By all accounts, it was the Trump/Biden debate that persuaded the German military/intelligence establishment that much more was needed.
“If I die, I want a loud death,” Hassouna wrote on social media. “I don’t want to be just breaking news, or a number in a group, I want a death that the world will hear, an impact that will remain through time, and a timeless image that cannot be buried by time or place.”
On Wednesday, just days before her wedding, 25-year-old Hassouna was killed in an Israeli airstrike that hit her home in northern Gaza. Ten members of her family, including her pregnant sister, were also killed.
The Israeli military said it had been a targeted strike on a Hamas member involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians. .
They offer no evidence for that assertion, one they make pretty well automatically - as they did with the recent murders of the medical workers, of course.
Another appalling slaughter conducted by the genocidal maniacs . And the west just isn’t interested anymore .
Throughout my childhood and early adult life I had enormous admiration for the plucky Israelis surrounded by a sea of enemies but so effective, so efficient, so brave. Some of this came from the novels of Leon Uris, some from the Six Day war and the raid on Entebbe and a lot, of course, from the terrible events of the Second World War. October 7th reignited some of that but I am increasingly appalled at what they have become.
The worst days of apartheid were relatively benign compared to this. We like to pretend, because they are a democracy surrounded by tyrants, that we have common values and beliefs. We simply don't. Under admittedly terrible stress a democracy has become evil and we need to call it out as such.
I assume the rather Orwellian "trans-identifying men" refers to the people that most of us would call trans women. Since this is the group that one would expect to be primarily affected by the Supreme Court judgement, it is hardly surprising that their opinion was sought by the media. To see it as some kind of misogynistic plot seems a very odd reading of the situation, especially in a world where there is so much actual misogyny that one could focus on instead.
The invective directed at Trans-women while there is virtually none against Trans-women is itself a form of misogyny. The idea that biological men could feel themselves gender aligned with women is quite a threat to a world view based on patriarchal misogyny.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
The media have failed to explain the ruling properly. So no change there !
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes, the comparisons to Section 28 are clear and unambiguous.
I'm actually happy that the court has ruled. Men. Women. Lets move on from pointless rows about definitions and pass laws which actually work.
The one which makes me giggle hardest are the women gleefully posting that "men will be removed" from toilets and changing rooms. Which suggests enforcement. Mrs RP said "what, are they proposing the pants police to check admission?" - exactly.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Exactly my worry. Not the judgment, but the reaction to it. The story gives certain people licence to say what they were always thinking: that trans people are all dangerous freaks, men in frocks, perverts, sports cheats. “Pretending”.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes, the comparisons to Section 28 are clear and unambiguous.
I'm actually happy that the court has ruled. Men. Women. Lets move on from pointless rows about definitions and pass laws which actually work.
The one which makes me giggle hardest are the women gleefully posting that "men will be removed" from toilets and changing rooms. Which suggests enforcement. Mrs RP said "what, are they proposing the pants police to check admission?" - exactly.
Yes and it's a stupid thing to say anyway because most places (including my work) that institute gender neutral toilets do so by creating separate individual cubicles.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Exactly my worry. Not the judgment, but the reaction to it. The story gives certain people licence to say what they were always thinking: that trans people are all dangerous freaks, men in frocks, perverts, sports cheats. “Pretending”.
Yes, but we all think that about judges anyway so it doesn't make any difference.
Oh, sorry, that wasn't who you were talking about?
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes, the comparisons to Section 28 are clear and unambiguous.
I'm actually happy that the court has ruled. Men. Women. Lets move on from pointless rows about definitions and pass laws which actually work.
The one which makes me giggle hardest are the women gleefully posting that "men will be removed" from toilets and changing rooms. Which suggests enforcement. Mrs RP said "what, are they proposing the pants police to check admission?" - exactly.
That would be good, but the early signs are not promising. If this has been a culture war, the vibes are more Versailles Treaty than Marshall Plan.
Which is probably massively the most common response in history, for all we all know that it doesn't bloody work.
This is the bit that gets me: “.. DOGE demanded root access. Not auditor access. Not admin.
They were given “tenant owner” privileges in Azure — full control over the NLRB’s cloud, above the CIO himself. This is never supposed to happen…
.. They disabled the logs. Berulis says DOGE demanded account creation with no recordkeeping.
They even ordered security controls bypassed and disabled tools like network watcher so their actions wouldn’t be logged..”
It gets worse; read the whole thread.
If that's true, that is absolutely extraordinary.
Exactly how a criminal gang would operate.
Oh .. wait !
It has been confirmed that a member of a criminal gang, having been deported to El Salvador, will never live in the US again.
The 28 year old female had acted as the human face of the group, concealing its crimes, frauds, and kidnappings, while trying to conceal what was happening from law enforcement agencies.
'Katherine Leavitt is in the right place now - a jail in El Salvador - and there she stays,' confirmed a judge in Washington DC.
'We're still trying to decide what to do with the members of the gang. Imprisoning them may be tricky because they have so much control over so many law enforcement officials including a number of bent judges.'
Comments
ALL TO ACTIVISM
@CalltoActivism
BREAKING: New York State Attorney General Letitia James breaks her silence, responding to Trump's retaliation against her and hands him his ass.
Letitia James is a fearless woman. Must-watch:
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1913246898762178739
To a very small extent. Nearly all of the growth in GDP per head over the last 200 years is the result of technological advances
I suggest Anglo-Saxon England after Alfred, with market towns etc. You could argue the agricultural revolution, though that was happening elsewhere and the real gains from that came from the subsequent industrial revolution, some of which was dependent on Empire. Neolithic Orkney? In terms of soft power, 2012 and the Olympics was peak UK I'd guess.
And it's also a misreading of the facts to say Britain is never coming back - it's as much a logic fail to say we're uniquely incapable and poorly off as it is to say we're uniquely superhuman and chosen to lead the world.
Our fundamentals are very good - they always have been. We have a good climate with little extreme weather. We have plentiful energy resources. We have the protection of the sea. We are also a creative and resourceful people with a conscience and sense of mission. Even the energy with which we've embraced suicidal eco and woke shit has an admirable quality to it looked at in some ways. So I think there are lots of reasons to be optimistic.
I don't disagree that our fundamentals are good but we are not going to be a world power again and with power comes wealth relative to others.
A little tell, there. Just a little one.
We have a consistent history of prospering.
And the industrial revolution absolutely was not dependent on Empire. It pre-dated the concept of Empire for a start.
Good night
We have done OK economically since the late 1980s. Slow growth since 2008 but most of our per capita GDP peers except the oil-rich USA, Qatar and UAE and fiscal havens Ireland and Singapore did too. Of course other countries have caught up or overtaken us in absolute terms, but most of those have much bigger populations. The biggest relative declines were from the 1910s to the 1970s.
The precursors of the industrial revolution were the agrarian revolution (we could suddenly produce far more food, and needed less agricultural workers, driving people to towns) and the 18th century enlightenment and work of thinkers like Adam Smith. These are widely recognised precursors, not something I am 'pretending' about.
Just because the popular narrative runs that we plundered the colonies and therefore owe 'reparations', doesn't mean it's actually true.
There was a time where we could probably send warships to any corner of the world and, if we wanted, take whatever they had. How do you measure that with GDP?
I also never said anything about colonialism being the sole cause of anything, I said it was naive to think that it didn't contribute to our position, which it is.
Britain’s Industrial Revolution was largely internally generated. Our rise to global hegemony was supercharged by privileged access to international markets, backed by the Royal Navy.
I’d say it was the informal empire and global influence of the 19th century more than any formal colonial extraction or possessions in India and beyond that did most of the work. Rather like the US’s informal trading empire, which MAGA is now working hard to dismantle.
But we waste our money on the NHS and staying alive. And other such fripparies.
Essentially went through all the important measures: life expectancy, education, net assets, social mobility, access to healthcare etc etc. all of them more strongly correlated with GDP than anything else. All showing remarkably similar patterns across geography and time as GDP. Yes there are outliers skewed by huge income inequality or corporate profit shifting, but these are visibly outliers.
The upshot was that GDP is by far the best analogue for general population wellbeing out there.
Existence was certainly more precarious than for most of today's world, with the line between famine and plenty being a very narrow one.
The 'Muddle Through and Hope it all works out Empire' does seem very British. The odd war there, the odd genocide over there, the occasional 'ingratiate ourselves with the prevailing ruler'. Plenty of malevolent racist/supremacists in the mix, plenty of orientalists, Hindu converts, ... whatever.
A guddle.
@yashar
NEW
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that in order for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to convince President Trump to put a pause on tariffs, he had to wait until Peter Navarro was in another meeting.
He and Howard Lutnick then rushed to the Oval Office, convinced Trump, and waited until he posted a Truth Social post announcing the news.
Spencer Hakimian
@SpencerHakimian
·
33m
It’s pretty fucking insane that the president is so incapable of making these decisions on his own, that his cabinet secretaries have to *literally* trick him into choosing the correct option for the economy.
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1913351729648722203
My point, both in my answer to Fishing and in the wider discussion on globalisation, is that the working and middle classes have indeed got poorer relative to the (largely artificial) increase in wealth in the world. The proportion of the world's wealth held by the richest has vastly increase whsilt there have been only very small increases in wealth levels for the vast majority of the working population. This is most stark in the US but also exists in mst other first world countries. And it is worse for Americans because of the lack of any effective safety net. When they fall they fall a very long way.
"Is that it? A measly two fingers?"
Moreover even though GDP per capita has increased by 67% between 2014 and 2024, US life expectancy has decreased from 78.8 years to 78.6 years in the same period.
What you claim might once have been the case, but the nature of wealth accumulation in the population in the last decade or more means that such correlations are no longer true.
I'd argue that the same thesis holds true today, and one of the biggest reasons we've virtually no economic growth is that we've allowed energy (particularly electricity) to become very expensive.
If only it wasn’t real…
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/gaza-photojournalist-killed-by-israeli-airstrike-fatima-hassouna
As a young photojournalist living in Gaza, Fatima Hassouna knew that death was always at her doorstep. As she spent the past 18 months of war documenting airstrikes, the demolition of her home, the endless displacement and the killing of 11 family members, all she demanded was that she not be allowed to go quietly.
“If I die, I want a loud death,” Hassouna wrote on social media. “I don’t want to be just breaking news, or a number in a group, I want a death that the world will hear, an impact that will remain through time, and a timeless image that cannot be buried by time or place.”
On Wednesday, just days before her wedding, 25-year-old Hassouna was killed in an Israeli airstrike that hit her home in northern Gaza. Ten members of her family, including her pregnant sister, were also killed.
The Israeli military said it had been a targeted strike on a Hamas member involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians. .
They offer no evidence for that assertion, one they make pretty well automatically - as they did with the recent murders of the medical workers, of course.
Access to coal pretty much throughout Britain is a big one, as is the massive iron ore deposits we had easily on hand. France has much less coal, in fewer areas. But as important were the financial aspects; capital was easily available, and attitude to risk was good. We were politically stable, allowing people to think beyond the next year or two. Empire gave us a ready market for goods.
There are other factors as well, such as our compact country making it easier and cheaper to transport goods than in larger countries, and our riverine systems allowing much trade before canals.
Although the industrial revolution had already started, IMV the French revolution, followed by the Napoleonic Wars, really hampered France's industrial development into the 1820s. That was then followed by other political shocks to the country. Industry in France during the revolution fell to 60% of what it as before, and there was a brain drain from France to the UK, the rest of Europe and even the USA. One famous person fleeing the terror was a certain Marc Brunel...
The question is can we catch the lightning in the bottle again?
I might have a threader on this...
Japan, for example, had heinously expensive energy - often 2-3x that of Western Europe and even worse relative to the US - in the post WW2 period... and yet built what was comfortably the second richest place on the planet, before they got fucked by demographics.
Consider a more recent example: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That invasion has been economically deleterious for Russia. By your logic, Russia therefore cannot owe Ukraine reparations. However, that’s because you don’t understand reparations. Russian reparations are due because of the damage Russia has done to Ukraine.
Whether reparations make sense for much more historically distant events is the more relevant debate.
https://x.com/aarmlovi/status/1892213268384493973?s=46
TLDR: it’s all about GDP.
At the bottom of the pile, or back in time, extra money is more food, shelter, health... essentials of life. A bit higher up the scale, extra money is more nice stuff or more security that there will still be nice stuff in the future. Again, it's easy to see how that brings more happiness.
The higher one goes, the more nebulous that link. At some point (isn't there a saying about living off the interest on the interest?), the mechanism converting cash into contentment slows down. Maybe it never quite stops, but I'm pretty confident that it's more logarithmic than linear. In which case, Musk (lots of cash but angry and miserable lots of the time) is a loser, however high his dollar score.
In which case the USonian model, where much of the wealth generated ends up in a smallish number of accounts is generating less national contentment than it could. With the effects we are seeing, which should worry "reform rather than revolution" conservatives.
Maybe that chap who spoke about selling all you have and giving it to the poor was onto something.
Germany has been stepping up shell production in a very big way. There was an interesting story yesterday about a new defence system against drones that we have been developing that can incapacitate them with radio waves. It is the intelligence and satellite capacity that Europe is going to struggle to replace but hopefully we have been working hard on this for the last few months. We need to be ready for the US abandonment. It is coming.
For similar reasons, we need to be wary of international comparisons because different countries might do things in different ways.
All economic statistics are rubbish.
The Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions, and the growth of trade since 1800, have been massive boons. Just try to imagine what it would be like, to live in a world where 90% live in absolute poverty, as in 1820.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
‘The Mad King did as he liked. Did anyone ever tell you what happened to him?’
Oh .. wait !
The worst days of apartheid were relatively benign compared to this. We like to pretend, because they are a democracy surrounded by tyrants, that we have common values and beliefs. We simply don't. Under admittedly terrible stress a democracy has become evil and we need to call it out as such.
I'm actually happy that the court has ruled. Men. Women. Lets move on from pointless rows about definitions and pass laws which actually work.
The one which makes me giggle hardest are the women gleefully posting that "men will be removed" from toilets and changing rooms. Which suggests enforcement. Mrs RP said "what, are they proposing the pants police to check admission?" - exactly.
Oh, sorry, that wasn't who you were talking about?
Which is probably massively the most common response in history, for all we all know that it doesn't bloody work.
The 28 year old female had acted as the human face of the group, concealing its crimes, frauds, and kidnappings, while trying to conceal what was happening from law enforcement agencies.
'Katherine Leavitt is in the right place now - a jail in El Salvador - and there she stays,' confirmed a judge in Washington DC.
'We're still trying to decide what to do with the members of the gang. Imprisoning them may be tricky because they have so much control over so many law enforcement officials including a number of bent judges.'
Is this transdebating.com? Perhaps you should rename it.