British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
Initially Churchill main concern about Germany was they would take our God given rightful possession of India from us.
No, after the Government of India Act 1935 was passed, making the provinces of India self-governing and leaving only reserved powers of intervention and foreign and defence policy in the hands of the Raj in New Delhi, Churchill, who had loudly opposed the Act, accepted it (as a Parliamentarian) and accepted that it would mean complete Indian self-government in due time. The Act formed the framework of the interim constitutions of India and Pakistan when independence came in 1947. (Churchill didn't like the term 'independence', because the legislation made India and Pakistan Dominions, but Attlee's letter in reply pointed out that the Dominions were independent states, and that was that.) Churchill's main concern about the Germans was that they would overrun Europe and attack this country, as indeed they tried to do.
There was obviously no question of Germany taking India. But the Japanese did intend to, till their defeat in Burma by the British and Indian Fourteenth Army under Slim. I doubt that Indians would have cared for Japanese overlords any more than the Chinese and Koreans did. An Indian division (all-volunteer, the 2.5-million-man Indian Army of that time being reputedly the largest volunteer army in history, though the British Army of 1914-16 may have exceeded it with possibly 2.6 million volunteers before conscription) also fought well against the Germans in North Africa and Italy.
Britain also abolished the Atlantic slave trade and fought an actual naval war against it. Portugal transported more enslaved Africans than any other country, and as to who 'facilitated' the trade, it was the West Africans who, as was their ancient custom, rounded the people up, shackled them, put them on the death march to the slave ports (with a 20% death rate, at least as high as on the ships of the infamous Middle Passage, if not higher) and sold them. Until the 20th century, ownership of sl
None of which justifies the UK's part in the slave trade of Africans to the Americas, so I don't understand the point you're making.
ok thanks.
Winston Churchill was outraged though and made a public announcement in a speech condemning the murder of the jews.
That was his 'A crime without a name' radio address in the summer of 1941, exposing the beginnings of the Holocaust like Babi Yar, which he made despite the risk of revealing that the British had broken the Enigma code. He claimed the information came from British liaison officers with the Red Army, even though there were no such liaison officers just then. Surprisingly the Germans swallowed it.
Well just for you it went like this:
Me: UK did some terrible things with the slave trade that's a lot worse than most other countries
You: Well that's ok because the UK abolished slavery at home, remember, and anyway we could never have exploited Africa so much without the help of other Africans which makes it ok so shrug who cares, and by the way look at Portugal and also by the way <
Good luck to anyone trying to work out what your actual point is if it's anything other than blather. At least you didn't go on another posting rant about what atrocious people NHS nurses are again, after one bad experience, or about how Sir Keir Starmer QC KFC BBQ will be a wonderful centrist Labour leader and by the way he lives a few doors away from me unimpressive name-dropping nonsense.
Here's the Kentish Town hero a few years ago. What a fine principled man.
** NEWSFLASH: Sunak meets target **
No, after the Government of India Act 1935 was passed, making the provinces of India self-governing and leaving only reserved powers of intervention and foreign and defence policy in the hands of the Raj in New Delhi, Churchill, who had loudly opposed the Act, accepted it (as a Parliamentarian) and accepted that it would mean complete Indian self-government in due time. The Act formed the framework of the interim constitutions of India and Pakistan when independence came in 1947. (Churchill didn
1945 is after 'initially. His warning about the threat to europe was in 1934!
I dont understand any idea that churchill didn't see the rise of germany as a threat to the british empire.
** Sorry that should be "1935 is after initially ...."
thanks lads!
Perverts and sex criminals party has been at it again.
Even former Telegraph/Mail/Spectator columnist Pete Oborne gets it.
1945 is after 'initially. His warning about the threat to europe was in 1934!
I dont understand any idea that churchill didn't see the rise of germany as a threat to the british empire.
You said India. The Germans could threaten the India shipping route from Britain via the Med and Suez (not so easily the Cape route), but they'd have a long way to go, via land campaigns in the Middle East or the Soviet Union or both, before they got anywhere near India. The threat to India was more likely to come from the Japanese, and it represented an existential threat to India itself, not merely to British rule.
Germany's potential threat to this country, once the Nazis built up a large navy and air force as well as a vast army, was fairly obvious, and it is to Churchill's credit rather than otherwise that he did not hide his eyes from it as so many fashionably did in the late Thirties. (Though, again, Chamberlain did re-arm massively in case appeasement failed and, ultimately, brought Churchill back into Cabinet when war was imminent.)
You said India. The Germans could threaten the India shipping route from Britain via the Med and Suez (not so easily the Cape route), but they'd have a long way to go, via land campaigns in the Middle East or the Soviet Union or both, before they got anywhere near India. The threat to India was more likely to come from the Japanese, and it represented an existential threat to India itself, not merely to British rule.
Germany's potential threat to this country, once the Nazis built up a large nav
The point of 1934 was that 1935 wasn't intitially.
Re the threat to the british empire and England. This link has the notes of his 1934 radio broadcast (again before 1935). You may think the threat wasn't apparant until the later 30s but Churchill was far more aware of the threat. 1000 years to build, an hour may lay it to dust
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...
(sorry for the clumsy link. It's a PDF on the UK Parliament website)
Same link. Again 1934
If we prepare our preparation should not be too late. Submission
will entail at the very least the passing and destruction of the British Empire, and the acceptance by our
people within and under a Teutonic domination of Europe of whatever future may be in store for small
countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Switzerland
Never mind ****ing 1934
We're entering the very damgerous era where the name calling is getting them to own it.
Speaking of name calling how come that pervy weirdo Saddam lickspittle Galloway won a by election?😆
I do like his new artiste look though, it's better than his previous elderly Che Guevara affectation.
labour managed to bollocks it up
they pulled their candidate over antisemitism a few days before the vote, but it was too late to actually pull the guy out and/or put someone new in there.
that left a vacuum, which mr indefatigability occupied
Ha, you mother****ers.
labour managed to bollocks it up
they pulled their candidate over antisemitism a few days before the vote, but it was too late to actually pull the guy out and/or put someone new in there.
that left a vacuum, which mr indefatigability occupied
It was obviously a complete shambles from Labour. None of the other main parties got many votes either though, I don’t think it’s fair to entirely blame Labour for the result.
meh theoretically yes but since the collapse of the libdems its a 'labour seat'
if farage gets in by winning south dibblingtonshire on-the-wold from tory incumbent piers montague edgington the third, son of piers montague edgington the second, grandson of his grace piers montague edgington the fifteenth earl of dibblingtonshire, i'm not gonna assign much blame to labour
Tories got 30% in Rochdale in 2019 compared to 12% this time. Reform significantly underperformed expectations. Lib Dem’s were nowhere, and the Greens made Labours candidate selection process look competent. Don’t get me wrong, it’s mostly Labours fault, but it was unimpressive stuff all round.
I think it was the first time ever that neither major party made the top two.
