Because The United Kingdom?

[swerve]

 

But then english needs more letters than the standard latin alphabet anyway.

 

Bring back "þ"!!!

 

And edh.

[swerve]

I think that you're fine if it's Piers Morgan, otherwise, no.

 

In other news, our newest political celebrity demonstrates understands a complete understanding of the concept of "Fitted for but not With" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35337432

 

Words fail me.

It's all bout the jobs! See, if we build ballistic missile submarines, then thousands of skilled manual workers will be kept employed, working hard & with pride to make four magnificent symbols of Britain's prowess, which will prove to the rest of the world exactly how much they must respect us for our ability to - er - make something completely pointless & useless, at enormous expense.

 

For Corbyn, the fact that the subs would have no military utility is unimportant, as if he ever becomes PM he wouldn't use them (or any other part of the armed forces) anyway. But by keeping GMB & Unite members employed, they'd get him the continued backing of the current leaders of those unions, who backed him for party leader, & help fund the party.

 

He's a man of principle.

[Mike Steele]

Can someone point out a party that actually has a well considered defence policy please?

All yours are "fitted for not with"

[DB]

I see Stuart has spun the answer I was going to give - the UK's financial sector takes a disproportionate share of the GDP compared to most other states. For me, this is because the financial sector is relatively large. For Stuart, this is because the manufacturing sector is disproportionately small.

 

For once, Eeyore, your glass is half full.

 

 

(If you don't get it, Eeyore is my avatar.)

[Ivanhoe]

 

Can someone point out a party that actually has a well considered defence policy please?

All yours are "fitted for not with"

 

 

As is ours. Both parties love defense spending, they just don't give a crap whether the hardware kills the enemy effectively or not.

[Roman Alymov]

British people are proud of colonialism and the British Empire, poll finds http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

[Panzermann]

British people are proud of colonialism and the British Empire, poll finds http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

British Empire nostalgia. Exploring the world, drinking tea. It was such an exciting, old chap!

[Roman Alymov]

 

British Empire nostalgia. Exploring the world, drinking tea. It was such an exciting, old chap!

 

Well, I’m afraid this image is far from reality as colonization inflicted huge death toll not only on locals, but also on “whites” (as sea travel, living conditions and healthcare where very basic and hardly able to deal with overcrowding and disease). See dr. Watson who was, in modern terms, disabled war veteran with both injury and experience of tropical illnesses that nearly killed him – and he was officer and doctor…..

[Marek Tucan]

See dr. Watson who was, in modern terms, disabled war veteran with both injury and experience of tropical illnesses that nearly killed him – and he was officer and doctor…..

Well, in the modern incarnation in Sherlock he suffered war injury in the same region after all

[Panzermann]

Yes, it is eerie that without modification Watson's background story could be used today.

 

and in the original story he is a war veteran with issues as well. Just as Sherlock is a drug addict, albeit a highly functional one.

[Panzermann]

 

 

British Empire nostalgia. Exploring the world, drinking tea. It was such an exciting, old chap!

 

Well, Im afraid this image is far from reality as colonization inflicted huge death toll not only on locals, but also on whites (as sea travel, living conditions and healthcare where very basic and hardly able to deal with overcrowding and disease). See dr. Watson who was, in modern terms, disabled war veteran with both injury and experience of tropical illnesses that nearly killed him and he was officer and doctor..

Of course, Roman. No disagreement.

 

Keyword here is nostalgia. Looking back people see the good sides or what they imagine were good sides.

[Roman Alymov]

 

Keyword here is nostalgia. Looking back people see the good sides or what they imagine were good sides.

 

I think it is mostly product of later portraying Victorian age as sort of “Golden age” by literature (initially) and cinema (later). Present-day working class background men look back through the eyes of aristocracy, not workers and peasants send to Australia or Sineria for minor offence.

One Russian literature critic once said something like “We see nobles houses as places of culture and poetry – while for peasants of 1917 they where places where their fathers flogged and their mothers raped. No surprise they were happy burning them, sometimes with owners inside"

[Simon Tan]

Quite the contrary... as a person from the Commonwealth, I can definitely say that the British were far better colonialists than any other Europeans. Empire was always run on a very tight budget. The Foreign and Imperial office was notoriously parsimonious. And yet they left a functional civil service, the rule of law, security services that were answerable to the government of the day and most importantly, the English language. My own country has devolved in the half century of independence into a wannabe Arab kleptocracy.

[Roman Alymov]

Well the same with Russian literature of the same period – significant part of it was actually very critical of situation with peasants, workers and poor people in general, and Soviet school was always highlighting this, but somehow we ended up with “Russia we lost” narrative and ruined SU as result (if course it was not the only reason, but very important). Interesting thing is now author of both documentaries (“Russia we lost” and “We must not live this way”) is sort of pro-Russian and strongly regret this documentaries so important in braking up USSR.

[Roman Alymov]

 

 

 

I got impression most of current Rus teens are much more positive about USSR times then we, generation of last Soviet teens. They are not getting reasons of the state collapsing ( because their parents are shy to tell “it was our fault, we traded our state for illusion of Western luxury” and prefer to tell stories of evil enemies responsible – and it is not difficult since West proudly parade “victory in Cold War” on every corner)

[swerve]

 

 

British Empire nostalgia. Exploring the world, drinking tea. It was such an exciting, old chap!

 

Well, I’m afraid this image is far from reality as colonization inflicted huge death toll not only on locals, but also on “whites” (as sea travel, living conditions and healthcare where very basic and hardly able to deal with overcrowding and disease). See dr. Watson who was, in modern terms, disabled war veteran with both injury and experience of tropical illnesses that nearly killed him – and he was officer and doctor…..

 

A brother of one of my ancestors joined the army in 1807. Served 19 years 317 days, just under half in India. Discharged aged 40 - "Affliction of the heart, Dyspnoea, worn out, unfit". An older brother died in the army. A nephew was in the army from 1825 to 1846, & fought in Afghanistan in 1841-2. Discharged on health grounds - "chronic affliction of chest, with chronic rheumatism, owing to long service in a tropical climate". Emigrated to New Zealand. His wife died of dysentery four days before the ship reached port. Their child died 10 weeks later. He re-married - the widow of a comrade in the army, who'd emigrated on the same ship & died.

[Roman Alymov]

Didnt I read somewhere that there was an attempt to try and get some of the more negative comments about Stalin removed from the School Syllabus?

Regarding Stalin, the problem is there is no political consensus on this period of history in Russia. From one side, almost every family suffered in one way or another, from another side almost every family benefited in one way or another. As result most people got very mixed ideas resulting in different political parties to paint Stalin as angel or devil depending on their political agenda. So probably final result will be Stalin’s name just vanishing form trextbooks, as it was in late USSR.

[DB]

For me, the British Commonwealth represents one of the largest missed opportunities. I believe that there was an opportunity to develop a trading bloc that could have rivalled any other, but instead we seem to have stopped far short of that, concentrating on the Common Market instead. I'm not sure that the two would have been mutually exclusive, and I don't know why we didn't exploit what must have been an opportunity.

[Ivanhoe]

For me, the British Commonwealth represents one of the largest missed opportunities. I believe that there was an opportunity to develop a trading bloc that could have rivalled any other, but instead we seem to have stopped far short of that, concentrating on the Common Market instead. I'm not sure that the two would have been mutually exclusive, and I don't know why we didn't exploit what must have been an opportunity.

 

Realistically, in the time frame of 1930-1960, how much critical thinking was going on in the world of political economics? Britain made some bad choices, but then so did everybody. Its just that Britain was in bad shape from the war, and couldn't afford mistakes.

 

Plus, in that timeframe, the prevailing assumption was that Europe could go hot again at any time, thus better to group-hug continentals at whatever pound-cost, rather than ex-colonies and emerging markets who weren't within bomber distance of London Docks.

[Simon Tan]

The Commonwealth was doomed by piss poor British work practices doemstically. It lost all its natural motor car markets because it simply could not deliver product. The Japanese cars were available, it was a 8 month wait for a Mini. Which cost more and yet was hugely desirable. British industry was badly managed and terribly served by the unions. They danced a tango of self oblivion.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya--_G0nC5k

[Simon Tan]

The British motor industry could not look beyond its own ills to the great opportunities of the Commonwealth, where they drive on the correct side etc. The sole exception to this was of course the Land Rover. The Germans, who lost the war and even the French were much more competitive. 'British' companies dominated the financial services industry with HSBC, StanChart etc. British trading houses brought European goods to the Commonwealth but they role was ignored by governments and economic planners. Generations went east, and yet there was no structured approach to sending out expats and leveraging them.

[Ssnake]

Above all, I think, the class thinking in the British society has hurt your industrial development more than anything else. The key to success, at least in Germany it seems, is a relatively egalitarian attitude between workers and management as in "we're a team, and success or failure is everyone's responsibility". Where you have a sharp divide you also have a disconnect in responsibility and as a consequence resentment building up between management and work force; the "British disease" of the 1970s until mid 1980s seems to have come straight from that source.

 

The more intellectually demanding industrial production jobs become the less conducive to overall success is the "ideal" of "A mindless worker is a happy worker". Maybe Industry 4.0 will level the production field again, but that would be a largely jobless reindustrialization. Not sure if that's a net win.

[DB]

You have to differentiate between the UK class system and one based on wealth.

 

"Old Money" despised "New Money". The entrepreneurs were considered tradesmen and a necessary evil by the traditional upper class.

 

A proper gentleman did not have to work in trade.

[DB]

The reform of the House of Lords removed the majority of hereditary peers, thus removing the "disinterested" aspect of the role that some considered to be a positive and reinforcing the partisan elements that make it far less useful as a check on the Commons.

 

You do need to be a bit careful when looking at early scientists and philosophers - quite often you'd see that natural philosophers have become so in their spare time, made available because they were the second (or third, etc.) sons of gentry, and either provided with an allowance or having taken divinity been given a stipend as vicars. Perhaps they don't come from the first rank, but generally gentry. I think that it's not until later in the 19th century that those without family money could get the necessary education (Faraday being a notable exception)

[lucklucky]

You have a lot of Aristocracy in Government , established companies seeking Government protection and Universities and Colleges. In fact Nobility titles are today given by the Educational-Industrial complex.