Bolitics If Britain is in decline what caused it?

[islingtonclaret]

As I brought up the Brown gold thing:

I still maintain he's a total bellend for doing it.

I'm not a Tory, so it's not really coming from someone who "has a Tory agenda". I'm not political at all, I gave up on that. Just an observation that it was a thick-as-pigshit thing to do.

[tonyh29]

As I brought up the Brown gold thing:

I still maintain he's a total bellend for doing it.

I'm not a Tory, so it's not really coming from someone who "has a Tory agenda". I'm not political at all, I gave up on that. Just an observation that it was a thick-as-pigshit thing to do.

Worse was he took advice was told don't sell it and them did so anyway as " Brown knows best " ruled the day

[drat01]

Worse was he took advice was told don't sell it and them did so anyway as " Brown knows best " ruled the day

Islington / Tony - so are seriously claiming that the problems that the UK face now are based on that particular decision re Gold?

[tonyh29]

I've not made any such claim I just added to the post above mine

[drat01]

I've not made any such claim I just added to the post above mine

Tricky winger side step :-)

Edited January 3, 2013 by drat01

[snowychap]

...yes our values are of a higher standard in some instances ...

Firstly, that's not some universal judgement, it's your's (and in some cases it's mine, too); secondly, you appear to have thoroughly missed the main point which was about imposition.

[colhint]

Like I said , some positives may have arisen from colonialism but it can't possibly be used as any justification for some major transgressions. We stole lands that were not ours , we enslaved millions of people for profit and exploited the poor to increase our wealth and power.

It was in no way a golden age . In fact it was quite the opposite , regardless of whether some of the colonies did indeed become better off somehow in the aftermath.

You really can't defend immoral behaviour on such an epic scale like that let alone look back at it out with pride .

Thats not really a fair reflection though, in my opinion, without colonisation from the earliest civilizations, there would have been very little progress for mankind. The majority of these brought benefits to mankind. the uk itself has been colonised several times. Now the fact that people die during the colonisation is just the way things have always been. If the alternative had been no colonisation I still maintain the human race would have been between 200 and 500 years behind where we are now. Without the Romans and Normans we would probably still have lived in wooden houses. The Origins of our empire really started during the 100 years war. The lessons from the vikings probably united the uk more than anything into one kingdom. The Norman invasion was horrific in lives lost. About the time of the Black prince is when we first dallied, into France, this was because the trade and taxation was all controlled in Normandy. When William the conquerer died there was a power struggle within the Norman kingdom, which left us with King Stephen. Bad King, this set the wheels in motion for the English to start defending for themselves and when the French decided our trade was not really permitted with either themselves or the Flemish. We started to take lands in Northern France. So really our empire started from a position of defending ourselves.

Now in Europe as a whole there were several nations seeking to colonise. Had they gained enormous wealth and power and we had not, there is no doubt we would have been bending the knee to most of the powers in Europe at the time.

Skip a couple of hundred years. Now as for the slave trade It was long in existence before we got involved. In fact our main involvement was shipping the slaves between Africa and The sugar plantations in the West Indies. Now thats not to say we did not bring thousands of slaves to these shores, but our prime revenue was in shipping them. Not that that excuses it. And as Tony mentioned earlier we ended it. Wilberforce tried for 20 years to bring it to an end. The main problem for him was there could be no agreement between the other key nations involved. Everyone was making to much money. If the Uk had unilaterally stopped. The slave trade would have continued, but no revenue for the UK. Now this is at a time when there is much power struggle in Europe when everyone was arming themselves. Again we had to pour money into our defenses. The only option was to increase trade, not likely without a strong Navy or increase taxation. So although it is a stain on mankind it was not just a UK thing. (Incidentally Penny lane by the Beatles is named after one of the biggest slave traders in England) However it must be remembered, there have been slaves since the begining of time. Now 2 of the main reasons for the slave trade were Sugar and cotton. There was huge demand for both throughout Europe. But that is human nature, something new and everyone wants it. You hear about the conditions in factories in the far east, and everyone complains , but as soon as nike or whoever bring a new range out the same people buy them by the millions.

So although empire building has caused very many deaths, and the Slave trade is a very cruel business, it was part of a cycle which has brought mankind to where it is now.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It was very much part of 'the way of things' but to look back at colonisation with a sense of glowing pride is wrong and anyone who does needs their head checked.

[Brumerican]

"Ahistory lesson I didn't need in fairness"

So although empire building has caused very many deaths, and the Slave trade is a very cruel business, it was part of a cycle which has brought mankind to where it is now.

Well obviously .

That in no way mitigates the behaviour at the time does it though ? and there is certainly nothing to be proud of is there ?

That is my one and only point here .

It was criminality on a global scale . It wasn't a golden age or a time to be regarded with fondness was it ?

I am not sure how I can make myself any clearer to be honest.

[islingtonclaret]

Islington / Tony - so are seriously claiming that the problems that the UK face now are based on that particular decision re Gold?

Hold your horses here and don't make me start going all Morpheus on you!

I did say it was an observation. Nothing more...

Edit - I've just realised in my first post on this I blamed Gordon Brown for everything. Which I do, but obviously said in jest!

Edited January 3, 2013 by islingtonclaret

[mjmooney]

Re: the British Empire and its good deeds. Nobody hates the repressive shit of Shariah law more than me. But I would prefer us to set an example. Invading countries and imposing our values on them by force doesn't work, quite the opposite in fact.

[Awol]

Re: the British Empire and its good deeds. Nobody hates the repressive shit of Shariah law more than me. But I would prefer us to set an example. Invading countries and imposing our values on them by force doesn't work, quite the opposite in fact.

There is fundamental mistake in the analysis of the Empire in this thread, it wasn't about colonisation, it was about trade. Wars were fought to open up new markets or to protect existing ones and the various fuzzy wuzzies were generally left alone under a pliant local ruler and a skeleton crew of British administrators. For example, Sudan is and was then the largest country in Africa but was effectively run by an Imperial staff of about 30 people.

Britain was and always has been in the business of business, the great 'civilising mission' was more to do with the Church and various upper middle class do-gooders than State policy, except where establishing things like infrastructure and the rule of law was in the interests of improving trade, like in India for example.

[meregreen]

We had an empire spanning almost a quarter of the globe

We powered ahead with the first industrial revolution

And people don't think we ever had a golden age :shock:

The decline ultimately came about as other countries caught us up and in some cases over took us

That and Gordon Brown of course ....

During that so called Golden Age most of our population lived in abject poverty and struggled to find enough to eat. Housing was rank and life expectancy for working class people was below 60. Trade Unionism and a determination by ordinary people to oppose the worst exesses of the Capitalist Market system slowly dragged our people from that squalor. The present Government seems to be doing its best to return us to those days.

[tonyh29]

During that so called Golden Age most of our population lived in abject poverty and struggled to find enough to eat. Housing was rank and life expectancy for working class people was below 60.

and of course the rest of the world was bathing in milk , sipping Heidseick by the bottle whilst living to a ripe old age of 752 !!

but back in the real world Chronic hunger and malnutrition were the norm for the majority of the population of the world ( including England) until the latter part of the 19th century.

However During the Industrial Revolution, life expectancy of children improved. The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829 , form example

If you don't think the Industrial revolution was a golden age , fair enough , but the advancements during that time were staggering

Edited January 11, 2013 by tonyh29

[meregreen]

and of course the rest of the world was bathing in milk , sipping Heidseick by the bottle whilst living to a ripe old age of 752 !!

but back in the real world Chronic hunger and malnutrition were the norm for the majority of the population of the world ( including England) until the latter part of the 19th century.

However During the Industrial Revolution, life expectancy of children improved. The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829 , form example

If you don't think the Industrial revolution was a golden age , fair enough , but the advancements during that time were staggering

Not entirely sure what your argument is here. In your earlier post your claim that the 19th century was a Golden age seemed to be based upon the fact that we had an Empire that scanned the globe and were undergoing an industrial revolution. I replied that ordinary peoples lives at that time were hardly condusive to labelling the era as a Golden age. You then counter this by stating that the whole world was suffering these depradations and that an awful child mortality rate of 38.1% was an improvement on an even more dreadful earlier one. Both of these facts would I think rather confirm that that particular period in history was most certainly not a Golden age. Personally I think we have yet to see any age deserve that accolade. Empires and industrialisation are not the best benchmark to measure such things. The quality of ordinary peoples lives is in my opinion of far greater imporance, and as you say,at that time, that was pretty awful on a global scale. I suppose it comes down to what the individuals criteria is for measuring such things. Ours obviously differ somewhat.

Edited January 12, 2013 by meregreen

[b23avfc]

Doug Ellis

[CI]

We need a good war

[chrisp65]

We need a good war

Ship Building

Robert Wyatt

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Houllier.