Does Britain no longer have as much relevance to the world?

[Slog]

Due to PP I knew that there was an upcoming election but I was shocked to find out that it is in a matter of days. While the US elections in blockbuster and every Tom, Dick and Harry knows about it and has opinion on it, it seems that a large majority of people across the world don't even know it is happening. Most certainly I wouldnt be surprised if a majority of people outside UK (the educated kind) cant even name the candidates or the parties.

It just seems its an election no one really cares about. Forget the US presidential election, even the recent French elections got a lot of media coverage and had global interest.

The decision of the UK people clearly doesnt seem to be impactful enough either way for many to care about.

Seems like Britain's best days are truly behind it and the little Island is on its way to nondescriptness

 

[Slog]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/opinions/weirdest-election-in-memory-campbell-opinion/index.html

Some excerpts:

Of the many elections I have covered in my time as a political journalist or worked in as a campaigner and strategist, the current UK general election is perhaps the weirdest, the most surreal, I have ever known.

If any readers outside the UK were unaware that we are even having one, fear not: you are far from being alone. Indeed, the seeming lack of international interest in the election is one of the many factors making it so strange.

The BBC recently ran a piece on just how little attention it is getting in the US, by comparison with the presidential election in France, for example, where Emmanuel Macron v. Marine Le Pen commanded attention around the globe for weeks.

Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May v. Labour's Jeremy Corbyn seems to be arousing widespread indifference by comparison. Even in the UK, when the two were interviewed back-to-back on live TV earlier this week, May having refused to go head-to-head, this "great showdown" pulled in only 2.5 million viewers. A showbiz talent show broadcast at the same time was watched by over three times as many.

Or does it say something about Britain becoming less interesting and less relevant to the world?

I fear it is the latter. Though Britain's vote to leave the European Union may have seemed in tune with these populist, Trumpian times, the US remains a superpower, whoever is at the helm.

Britain, on the other hand, has signaled not merely its own insularity, but with it our own future decline, reflected in the falling value of sterling -- and now in the falling interest in our politics.

When the election was called, the Russians were asked -- sign of the times -- whether they intended to hack and misinform their way into this one as they did the American and French elections. A Kremlin spokesman was possibly for once telling the truth when he said "we have no interest in the British election."

 

[Slog]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40064009

When it comes to the UK election, Americans have hardly been grabbing the popcorn. Box office it is not. And up against the summer blockbuster of the Trump presidency it looks more like a village hall production - the vicar's daughter playing the lead.

Modern-day movie-goers like franchises, with characters and plotlines that are instantly recognisable; with over-arching themes that comport with a broader narrative. The French presidential election fitted that bill, with Marine Le Pen cast as the female Trump, the face of populist fury.

But May versus Corbyn - it feels like an indie production with a very limited cinema release, a few movie theatres perhaps in Washington, New York and Boston.

Brexit worked on the franchise front. The prequel to Trump's unexpected victory last November, it truly was an epic. But the UK general election doesn't even feature Nigel Farage, one of the few British politicians American viewers are familiar with.


It's not even accurate to call it a forgettable election. Most Americans, I feel confident in saying, aren't aware it's even taking place.

Articles have appeared in the quality press. But they've felt perfunctory, dull but worthy yarns to mark something editors feel is vaguely important but not ones that demand front page attention. Where's the drama? Where are the unexpected twists? To stretch the movie metaphor to breaking point, where is Helen Mirren or Hugh Grant?

 

[marlonbrowndo]

So much for the empire where the sun never sets

 

[prakash]

There isn't even a mention of British elections in the nightly news.

Only CNN mentioned it, not ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox.

 

[Robert]

We still have a place on the UNSC. But if we decommission our nuclear deterrent we will be kicked off by the big boys who retain theirs. The EU still shelters under our nuclear shield, so we have that going for us.

We were a bridge between the USA and EU, but no longer. So we have given up that part if our influence.

The US still values us for our diplomatic links and excellent intelligence gathering, but that is about it.

 

[czar]

Agree in terms of hype around the elections. I was in West Africa ( Senegal) during the time Trump got elected, and even in a former French colony with no historical links to the US, there were a lot of people who were concerned about the elections in US and hoping a win for the democracts. The media , the state authorities and the administrators were keeping an eye over the proceedings of the elections and debating over who could be a better candidate for their region.

And back then of all the people of different Nationalities that I met , nearly everyone had some interest in US elections. I wouldn't even make much effort to get an update but somehow through the internet or the people got it everytime if there was a fresh debate between the two candidates or if Trump made another Anti-Muslim comment or planned to bring in anti-immigrant policies.

There was more buzz back home as the Indian media was covering it on a even larger scale. I think the events in US have much greater influence over most of the World compared to puny England.

If not for my interest in Cricket and visiting PP, I wouldn't even know about any elections in the UK . Anything related to UK hardly gets noticed compared to US . Not just the elections but even for referendums in Scotland, would have no idea about it if not for PP and Brit Paks endlessly discussing about it on the PP.

It makes no difference to the world over who gets elected in the UK. Have observed more hype for the elections in France over the one in UK.

 

[TM Riddle]

No one would have cared to bother with the British anymore if not for LOTR,HP and rock bands.
Even their cricket pitches are dead these days.

 

[Slog]

Agree in terms of hype around the elections. I was in West Africa ( Senegal) during the time Trump got elected, and even in a former French colony with no historical links to the US, there were a lot of people who were concerned about the elections in US and hoping a win for the democracts. The media , the state authorities and the administrators were keeping an eye over the proceedings of the elections and debating over who could be a better candidate for their region.

And back then of all the people of different Nationalities that I met , nearly everyone had some interest in US elections. I wouldn't even make much effort to get an update but somehow through the internet or the people got it everytime if there was a fresh debate between the two candidates or if Trump made another Anti-Muslim comment or planned to bring in anti-immigrant policies.

There was more buzz back home as the Indian media was covering it on a even larger scale. I think the events in US have much greater influence over most of the World compared to puny England.

If not for my interest in Cricket and visiting PP, I wouldn't even know about any elections in the UK . Anything related to UK hardly gets noticed compared to US . Not just the elections but even for referendums in Scotland, would have no idea about it if not for PP and Brit Paks endlessly discussing about it on the PP.

It makes no difference to the world over who gets elected in the UK. Have observed more hype for the elections in France over the one in UK.

Dude even in Pakistan everyone knew about the US elections and abt Clinton, Trump

And here barely anyone knows about the UK election despite our historical links. Heck majority people cant even name the current PM

Whats even shocking is that the French election got more coverage

 

[Rafa]

Agree with everything that is being said. On that note, Can we use this thread to educate a bit on the UK elections? Who are the candidates, parties and favorites ? Saw some discussions around Tory, Corbyn, Theresa May but have no idea who these people are and about the parties that they belong to.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

This is nothing new.


America is the Super Power. With Global terrorism of all sorts abd shapes being in ful swing the entire World looks at USA & it's policies. Yes it matters alot.


With terrorist attacks having Jehadis (so-called) behind it there has been a wave of growing Islamophobia in France. France previously a very safe Country has been the focus of Global attention. One of the strong candidate Macron was using Muslim hate card whereas on the other side it was Le Pen. Le Pen won.


With UK preferring to vote out of EU it did lose its world's prominence. Previously it was the Major force which Lead from front as a EU member. Brexit changed this.


Personally I like Japan. They quietly like to go about their own business and worry about themselves only.


While it is the Americans and those who want to become Amreeki in future, being the ones who want to be the " Maamay " of Entire World.

 

[kaayal]

The Royal family has more coverage than the British politics as a whole.

Feels like they are puppet behind the mighty Queen.

 

[Slog]

Agree with everything that is being said. On that note, Can we use this thread to educate a bit on the UK elections? Who are the candidates, parties and favorites ? Saw some discussions around Tory, Corbyn, Theresa May but have no idea who these people are and about the parties that they belong to.

theres a british election thread but its not very informative for someone not in tune with it. I dont get a lot of it either. Why is Corbyn so big among liberal hippies like Sanders was in US?

 

[santos11]

English people : Boring
English food : Bland
English Language : Unpleasant unlike French and Spanish.
English Sports : Test Cricket ( Need I say more? )
English Politics : Irrelevant

 

[shaz619]

Due to PP I knew that there was an upcoming election but I was shocked to find out that it is in a matter of days. While the US elections in blockbuster and every Tom, Dick and Harry knows about it and has opinion on it, it seems that a large majority of people across the world don't even know it is happening. Most certainly I wouldnt be surprised if a majority of people outside UK (the educated kind) cant even name the candidates or the parties.

It just seems its an election no one really cares about. Forget the US presidential election, even the recent French elections got a lot of media coverage and had global interest.

The decision of the UK people clearly doesnt seem to be impactful enough either way for many to care about.

Seems like Britain's best days are truly behind it and the little Island is on its way to nondescriptness

I feel the same way about US politics, have no idea about how things work there and care not besides the times someone sends me a video mocking Donald Trump for being moronic so I get a kick out of that much like a comedy and the same can be said for political pak tv shows; neither are civil but they make me laugh

 

[Slog]

I feel the same way about US politics, have no idea about how things work there and care not besides the times someone sends me a video mocking Donald Trump for being moronic so I get a kick out of that much like a comedy and the same can be said for political pak tv shows; neither are civil but they make me laugh

well not talking about individuals here

the general trend every where as pointed in articles above

here on PP as well everyone pretty much was involved in US election thread as well as France to a lesser extent.

UK thread just has Brtish pak posters.

 

[JaDed]

Lack of innovation,and hardly any major companies has hurt it's influence,they waste too much time on useless issues inspite of being first world country and having some of the top universities in the world.

ARM is the only British tech company that has something to offer in terms of innovation and a future base.

At the speed things are going there is a good chance CANADA and Aus will over take them in terms of innovation if they don't get their act together and all this will happen inspite of a proper system.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Britain has not paid enough for its sins across the world. Letting in immigrants is too little too late.

 

[James]

Definitely a fading power, but that's good. Following the Brexit we will have far less ties & baggage, at which point we need to spend several generations fixing our various socio-economic issues and not bothering the rest of the world. We have accumulated more relative poverty than many other developed countries since the War, and need to get our house in order.

 

[shaz619]

well not talking about individuals here

the general trend every where as pointed in articles above

here on PP as well everyone pretty much was involved in US election thread as well as France to a lesser extent.

UK thread just has Brtish pak posters.

You took interest though or hence would not have opened this thread anyhow it's a snap election with a predictable result so it's understandable that there won't be as much hype for it unless Labour shock the world with a win.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The last time something British was relevant was when Rowling released HP7.

 

[shaz619]

Definitely a fading power, but that's good. Following the Brexit we will have far less ties & baggage, at which point we need to spend several generations fixing our various socio-economic issues and not bothering the rest of the world. We have accumulated more relative poverty than many other developed countries since the War, and need to get our house in order.

Am sorry but that logic doesn't hold up imo, I know you voted to leave and am not knocking your IQ or anything like that as I see you as a smart fella so don't take offence but we will see in the coming years the negative economic implications but it's a a result we all have to live with because it's what the masses voted for and need to control the damage now.

 

[TM Riddle]

The last time something British was relevant was when Rowling released HP7.

Even Olympics couldn't generate that much enthusiasm and excitement.
Can't believe its been 10 years already!

 

[MenInG]

Deleted some rubbish posts on this thread

If you dont see your post now, you know that what you are posting is rubbish and personally dont have time to babysit posters so behave or get banned.

 

[Markhor]

As a Brit, I welcome that. Its a reflection of the fact we're having grown-up debates and discussions about domestic issues and not having the Big Brother-style, C grade Reality TV soap opera that was the US election.

Donald Trump wouldn't have been elected as a county councillor here let alone Prime Minister LOL. We'd have seen through the charlatan and conman that he is unlike our banjo playing, straw sucking hicks across the Atlantic.

As comparing us to France, you won't see a fascist coming second place here.

 

[Markhor]

[MENTION=139961]santos11[/MENTION] [MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION]

And yet here you are, discussing a sport every day invented by the English, on a forum created by an Englishman.

Unlike certain countries, we don't have minorities butchered in broad daylight and the victims waiting for justice over 15 years later. We don't have people murdered because of their dietary habits nor millions defecating on the streets, living in abject poverty as they cannot afford basic shelter and necessities.

Unlike certain countries that boast of being a superpower, we have free, universal healthcare for anyone that needs it - and we have thousands of your countrymen working in that health system FYI. This health system was created even when the country was drowning in oceanic levels of debt, its cities bombed out and on its knees after WW2, because we realised a nation's value is judged on how it treats its sick and vulnerable, not how many tanks and nuclear warheads its possesses or how big their PM's chest is.

If part of the country asks for its right to self-determination, we don't send half a million troops to violate their human rights but allow a peaceful referendum allowing a healthy democratic debate to occur.

Unlike certain countries, if a politician here is seen to have created the APPEARANCE of corruption, LET ALONE having actually committed financial corruption - that politician will resign faster than you can blink an eye. And we have a justice system that sends politicians to jail instead of giving them a clean chit.

You can breathe the air here without worrying about your long-term health. And above all, we don't have a system discriminating people on the basis of class, religion, gender or disability and have created legislation prohibiting it.

Don't throw stones when you live in glass houses.

 

[SandyB]

[MENTION=139961]santos11[/MENTION] [MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION]

And yet here you are, discussing a sport every day invented by the English, on a forum created by an Englishman.

Unlike certain countries, we don't have minorities butchered in broad daylight and the victims waiting for justice over 15 years later. We don't have people murdered because of their dietary habits nor millions defecating on the streets, living in abject poverty as they cannot afford basic shelter and necessities.

Unlike certain countries that boast of being a superpower, we have free, universal healthcare for anyone that needs it - and we have thousands of your countrymen working in that health system FYI. This health system was created even when the country was drowning in oceanic levels of debt, its cities bombed out and on its knees after WW2, because we realised a nation's value is judged on how it treats its sick and vulnerable, not how many tanks and nuclear warheads its possesses or how big their PM's chest is.

If part of the country asks for its right to self-determination, we don't send half a million troops to violate their human rights but allow a peaceful referendum allowing a healthy democratic debate to occur.

Unlike certain countries, if a politician here is seen to have created the APPEARANCE of corruption, LET ALONE having actually committed financial corruption - that politician will resign faster than you can blink an eye. And we have a justice system that sends politicians to jail instead of giving them a clean chit.

You can breathe the air here without worrying about your long-term health. And above all, we don't have a system discriminating people on the basis of class, religion, gender or disability and have created legislation prohibiting it.

Don't throw stones when you live in glass houses.

Though I agree that most of the posters in this forum are living in glass houses and that the UK invests in quality of life, healthcare, education etc like few others, But how much of the prosperity that you RIGHTLY claim was achieved by resources from the UK alone ?

The prosperity of Britain was bankrolled and supported by it colonies and territories even upto 3-4 decades back. So this thread is a discussion of whether the perceived loss of all that power and influence is a reason for the current lack of interest in UK affairs.

 

[JaDed]

[MENTION=139961]santos11[/MENTION] [MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION]

And yet here you are, discussing a sport every day invented by the English, on a forum created by an Englishman.

Unlike certain countries, we don't have minorities butchered in broad daylight and the victims waiting for justice over 15 years later. We don't have people murdered because of their dietary habits nor millions defecating on the streets, living in abject poverty as they cannot afford basic shelter and necessities.

Unlike certain countries that boast of being a superpower, we have free, universal healthcare for anyone that needs it - and we have thousands of your countrymen working in that health system FYI. This health system was created even when the country was drowning in oceanic levels of debt, its cities bombed out and on its knees after WW2, because we realised a nation's value is judged on how it treats its sick and vulnerable, not how many tanks and nuclear warheads its possesses or how big their PM's chest is.

If part of the country asks for its right to self-determination, we don't send half a million troops to violate their human rights but allow a peaceful referendum allowing a healthy democratic debate to occur.

Unlike certain countries, if a politician here is seen to have created the APPEARANCE of corruption, LET ALONE having actually committed financial corruption - that politician will resign faster than you can blink an eye. And we have a justice system that sends politicians to jail instead of giving them a clean chit.

You can breathe the air here without worrying about your long-term health. And above all, we don't have a system discriminating people on the basis of class, religion, gender or disability and have created legislation prohibiting it.

Don't throw stones when you live in glass houses.

Mate India as a unified country is 70 years old, do you want to go over the cruelty of British empire, at least many in India realize the harsh effects of troops deployment,where the sun never sets for the Empire is considered to be a compliment,a pride prevalent among many Brits for the genocide they committed across the globe, as a country if we realize our mistakes quicker than we already have done better.

The human right hypocrisy of Brits is well known ,the whole world would had come crashing down on us if he had bombed a country in another continent,but only Brits and it's allies are given medals for their service killing Innocents.

 

[Mamoon]

Clearly not, but it doesn't change the fact that the UK is the best country on Earth and the best place to live as well.

 

[TM Riddle]

[MENTION=139961]santos11[/MENTION] [MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION]

And yet here you are, discussing a sport every day invented by the English, on a forum created by an Englishman.

Unlike certain countries, we don't have minorities butchered in broad daylight and the victims waiting for justice over 15 years later. We don't have people murdered because of their dietary habits nor millions defecating on the streets, living in abject poverty as they cannot afford basic shelter and necessities.

Unlike certain countries that boast of being a superpower, we have free, universal healthcare for anyone that needs it - and we have thousands of your countrymen working in that health system FYI. This health system was created even when the country was drowning in oceanic levels of debt, its cities bombed out and on its knees after WW2, because we realised a nation's value is judged on how it treats its sick and vulnerable, not how many tanks and nuclear warheads its possesses or how big their PM's chest is.

If part of the country asks for its right to self-determination, we don't send half a million troops to violate their human rights but allow a peaceful referendum allowing a healthy democratic debate to occur.

Unlike certain countries, if a politician here is seen to have created the APPEARANCE of corruption, LET ALONE having actually committed financial corruption - that politician will resign faster than you can blink an eye. And we have a justice system that sends politicians to jail instead of giving them a clean chit.

You can breathe the air here without worrying about your long-term health. And above all, we don't have a system discriminating people on the basis of class, religion, gender or disability and have created legislation prohibiting it.

Don't throw stones when you live in glass houses.

Wow first time saw you loose the cool.
Don't see what has India got to do with the thread , the thread is about Britain and her losing relevance in the TODAY'S WORLD and not about England's general historical contribution which I already admitted was immense.
Before launching an emotional charged scathing attack on subcontinent perhaps you would like to revisit history first or shall I start giving you free lessons on here cause it seems like you have conveniently forgotten the great empire's role in dividing , butchering and making south asia a hellhole which it is currently or maybe they don't teach that in the UK anymore as they are too ashamed about it?
Undoubtedly , Britain is still far ahead in most indicators whether social or economical and is likely to be in nearby future but that doesn't mean we keep singing God save the queen with our eyes shut unaware of current happenings around the world in which Britain has comparatively far lesser role to play.
Face it the sun has finally started to set on the empire and God willing it will soon be the same neglected , alone group of islands it used to be during early christian era when India and Pakistan were great civilizations.
Good day

 

[DW44]

theres a british election thread but its not very informative for someone not in tune with it. I dont get a lot of it either. Why is Corbyn so big among liberal hippies like Sanders was in US?

Corbyn is basically Sanders raised to the nth power. Sanders is a far leftist on the US political spectrum but by UK standards, he'd be considered center-right at best. Corbyn is a full blown British leftist (the kind that would have been locked up in the US fifty years ago) - I doubt Sanders would get away with suggesting that water and power utilities, and railroads be nationalized. Corbyn's voter base is mainly young, college educated, folk and the working class as opposed to Theresa May's party which is slightly left of the US Democrats in terms of politics but occupies the same niche in the UK as the Republicans do in the US.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Perhaps Britain doesn't have as much relevance in the rest of the world, but it seems to carry disproportionate weight on PP. I'm not sure if that is due to colonial hangover or perhaps contributions of the many rockstar posters from the UK.

I just hope many of those who are predicting a shining future on their own continent are actually still around to see it happen. Right now I know where I'd rather be.

 

[Yossarian]

Due to PP I knew that there was an upcoming election but I was shocked to find out that it is in a matter of days. While the US elections in blockbuster and every Tom, Dick and Harry knows about it and has opinion on it, it seems that a large majority of people across the world don't even know it is happening. Most certainly I wouldnt be surprised if a majority of people outside UK (the educated kind) cant even name the candidates or the parties.

It just seems its an election no one really cares about. Forget the US presidential election, even the recent French elections got a lot of media coverage and had global interest.

The decision of the UK people clearly doesnt seem to be impactful enough either way for many to care about.

Seems like Britain's best days are truly behind it and the little Island is on its way to nondescriptness

The American and French elections were about electing one individual, the President, whereas the UK General Election is about electing 650 Members of Parliament from 650 separate constituencies, with each seat/constituency being an election on it's own right.
ie There are 650 separate elections that taken place. Even Theresa May (the current Prime Minister) has to fight an election as an MP in her own constituency in order to become an MP before she can become Prime Minister (as leader of the Conservative Party if they can get a majority).

It's easier to focus on two or three candidates fighting for one position, than thousands fighting for 650 positions.

 

[enkidu_]

Europe as a whole. Considering that the British still produce tons of artists/scientists/scholars known worldwide (the English language helps a lot here), I think France's case is way, way worse, when you remember than as recently as in the 70s their intellectuals (like Sartre) were widely discussed from Brazil to Japan. "Classical Europe" is just dying off a natural death like all civilizations. It shone from the scientific revolution in the 17th century up to the industrial butcheries of the two World Wars, which were the natural conclusion of empiricism/rationalism brought by the first movement ; so it's a civilization which would have lasted 3-4 centuries, which is the norm.

As Oswald Spengler said, every civilization is like an organism, and you can't expect peoples to go on for thousands of years : the Greeks, Romans, Indians, ... all arose and decayed, and it seems that the future will go back to Asia, notably China.

The reason for this décadence is the same for all civilizations, a law outlined by Ibn Khaldun in the 14th century, as he contemplated Al Andalus' own end : material prosperity brings a less spiritual/more individualistic approach in life, with its own consequences (no will to fight for ideals, no will to have children, etc).

 

[TM Riddle]

The American and French elections were about electing one individual, the President, whereas the UK General Election is about electing 650 Members of Parliament from 650 separate constituencies, with each seat/constituency being an election on it's own right.
ie There are 650 separate elections that taken place. Even Theresa May (the current Prime Minister) has to fight an election as an MP in her own constituency in order to become an MP before she can become Prime Minister (as leader of the Conservative Party if they can get a majority).

It's easier to focus on two or three candidates fighting for one position, than thousands fighting for 650 positions.

Modi in 2014 had probably more coverage than Theresa or Jeremy.
And India's parliamentary system is modeled on Britain with 550 elections for seats in the lower house.

 

[Yossarian]

Modi in 2014 had probably more coverage than Theresa or Jeremy.
And India's parliamentary system is modeled on Britain with 550 elections for seats in the lower house.

Yes, sure - In India.
Apart from British Indians, hardly anyone even knew that there was an election in India. And most Brits (apart from British Indians) still don't know who Modi is.

 

[TM Riddle]

Yes, sure - In India.
Apart from British Indians, hardly anyone even knew that there was an election in India. And most Brits (apart from British Indians) still don't know who Modi is.

In whole South Asia, and that's probably 10 times population wise compared to whole Europe.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes, sure - In India.
Apart from British Indians, hardly anyone even knew that there was an election in India. And most Brits (apart from British Indians) still don't know who Modi is.

That's the case all over the world really. Modi's world tours which were described as like rock concerts, were mostly played out in front of huge crowds of Indians. He sold out Wembley arena, but the average Brit wouldn't be aware of it. Strange really, Indians don't have much of a public presence in the UK, then out of nowhere there's 50 thousand of them packing out Wembley arena.

 

[Markhor]

Though I agree that most of the posters in this forum are living in glass houses and that the UK invests in quality of life, healthcare, education etc like few others, But how much of the prosperity that you RIGHTLY claim was achieved by resources from the UK alone ?

The prosperity of Britain was bankrolled and supported by it colonies and territories even upto 3-4 decades back. So this thread is a discussion of whether the perceived loss of all that power and influence is a reason for the current lack of interest in UK affairs.

The idea that British elections are receiving less international coverage because the loss of Empire and prestige is nonsense. We're not receiving international coverage because we don't have clowns who in TV debates boasting about the size of their genitals (Trump literally did this), crooks (Clinton) or fascists (Le Pen) with a remote chance of winning, and the debates have largely revolved around domestic issues (rightly) which obviously won't attract foreign audiences.

US election received the coverage it did as - like a car crash - its awful but something you can't take your eyes away from. The coverage was for all the wrong reasons.

No doubt the Empire played a huge role in developing Britain's manufacturing base. However that manufacturing base has been decimated and represents a small fraction of GDP. Nowadays its the service sector that sustains the UK economy.

National healthcare was established at a time when UK economy was on its knees after WW2 when debt was 213% of GDP so hardly a time of prosperity. Since then these services have been sustained by general taxation as unlike many in the SC, people realise the importance of paying taxation to fund essential services instead of finding ways to cheat paying them.

Mate India as a unified country is 70 years old, do you want to go over the cruelty of British empire, at least many in India realize the harsh effects of troops deployment,where the sun never sets for the Empire is considered to be a compliment,a pride prevalent among many Brits for the genocide they committed across the globe, as a country if we realize our mistakes quicker than we already have done better.

The human right hypocrisy of Brits is well known ,the whole world would had come crashing down on us if he had bombed a country in another continent,but only Brits and it's allies are given medals for their service killing Innocents.

Wow first time saw you loose the cool.
Don't see what has India got to do with the thread , the thread is about Britain and her losing relevance in the TODAY'S WORLD and not about England's general historical contribution which I already admitted was immense.
Before launching an emotional charged scathing attack on subcontinent perhaps you would like to revisit history first or shall I start giving you free lessons on here cause it seems like you have conveniently forgotten the great empire's role in dividing , butchering and making south asia a hellhole which it is currently or maybe they don't teach that in the UK anymore as they are too ashamed about it?
Undoubtedly , Britain is still far ahead in most indicators whether social or economical and is likely to be in nearby future but that doesn't mean we keep singing God save the queen with our eyes shut unaware of current happenings around the world in which Britain has comparatively far lesser role to play.
Face it the sun has finally started to set on the empire and God willing it will soon be the same neglected , alone group of islands it used to be during early christian era when India and Pakistan were great civilizations.
Good day

I know the history of oppression and bloodshed so no need for the lectures. I have posted in length about British atrocities in Bengal, Ireland, Kenya and elsewhere. I am delighted the Empire is in the dustbin of history.

However one would have thought BOTH India and Pakistan, having experienced subjugation and brutality, would have learned from its past and developed societies where human rights are respected. Instead both countries have poor human rights records and have built up their own records of oppression and mistreatment of its citizens. That's why I say don't throw stones in glass houses.

 

[Yossarian]

In whole South Asia, and that's probably 10 times population wise compared to whole Europe.

So because India has 20 times the population of the UK, and thus more Indians (in absolute terms) know the names of the leading Indian political figures than the number of Brits who know the names of leading British politicians proves what?

Heck, on that basis, more Indians (in total numbers) in many Indian states, considering the size of populations, know the names of their own States Chief Ministers than the number of Brits who know the name of the British PM.

All it proves is that India has a massive population, with around nine Indian states having larger populations than the whole of the UK, with some having more than 2 times, even more than 3 times, the population of the UK.

If Indian states were separate countries in their own rights, some would be in the top 15 countries in the world population wise. (The population of Uttar Pradesh is larger than the population of the whole of Pakistan).

So yes, numbers wise, in terms of number of people knowing the name of their countries PM, the Indian PM wins hands down versus the British PM.

 

[Markhor]

English people : Boring
English food : Bland
English Language : Unpleasant unlike French and Spanish.
English Sports : Test Cricket ( Need I say more? )
English Politics : Irrelevant

Let me address this gem which I didn't earlier. Where was the first domestic one day game played ? Which country had the first domestic limited overs competition ?

And which country first introduced T20 cricket ?! Which country held the first domestic T20 tournament ? It was India who were MOST skeptical of the format and inaugural T20 WC, and you were pushed into the IPL because of ICL. Who were being traditionalists there ?

So this idea everybody in England is a top hat wearing, ultra-traditionalist MCC member shows a lack of knowledge.

 

[TM Riddle]

So because India has 20 times the population of the UK, and thus more Indians (in absolute terms) know the names of the leading Indian political figures than the number of Brits who know the names of leading British politicians proves what?

Heck, on that basis, more Indians (in total numbers) in many Indian states, considering the size of populations, know the names of their own States Chief Ministers than the number of Brits who know the name of the British PM.

All it proves is that India has a massive population, with around nine Indian states having larger populations than the whole of the UK, with some having more than 2 times, even more than 3 times, the population of the UK.

If Indian states were separate countries in their own rights, some would be in the top 15 countries in the world population wise. (The population of Uttar Pradesh is larger than the population of the whole of Pakistan).

So yes, numbers wise, in terms of number of people knowing the name of their countries PM, the Indian PM wins hands down versus the British PM.

I said whole South Asia, that's like 8-9 countries in total.I bet outside the British isles barring a couple of countries , majority has no idea about the ongoing election campaigning in the UK.

 

[JaDed]

The idea that British elections are receiving less international coverage because the loss of Empire and prestige is nonsense. We're not receiving international coverage because we don't have clowns who in TV debates boasting about the size of their genitals (Trump literally did this), crooks (Clinton) or fascists (Le Pen) with a remote chance of winning, and the debates have largely revolved around domestic issues (rightly) which obviously won't attract foreign audiences.

US election received the coverage it did as - like a car crash - its awful but something you can't take your eyes away from. The coverage was for all the wrong reasons.

No doubt the Empire played a huge role in developing Britain's manufacturing base. However that manufacturing base has been decimated and represents a small fraction of GDP. Nowadays its the service sector that sustains the UK economy.

National healthcare was established at a time when UK economy was on its knees after WW2 when debt was 213% of GDP so hardly a time of prosperity. Since then these services have been sustained by general taxation as unlike many in the SC, people realise the importance of paying taxation to fund essential services instead of finding ways to cheat paying them.




I know the history of oppression and bloodshed so no need for the lectures. I have posted in length about British atrocities in Bengal, Ireland, Kenya and elsewhere. I am delighted the Empire is in the dustbin of history.

However one would have thought BOTH India and Pakistan, having experienced subjugation and brutality, would have learned from its past and developed societies where human rights are respected. Instead both countries have poor human rights records and have built up their own records of oppression and mistreatment of its citizens. That's why I say don't throw stones in glass houses.

Take of your monarchy and have them lose rights and then maybe you can lecture on rights issue,the same Royal family responsible for multiple killings around the world is the one that is respected and admired,in your logic not one Britisher should talk about India anymore,but India and its internal matters are raised at times by your MPs.

 

[Yossarian]

I said whole South Asia, that's like 8-9 countries in total.I bet outside the British isles barring a couple of countries , majority has no idea about the ongoing election campaigning in the UK.

I guarantee in at least 26 other countries the majority of the populations know there's a UK election about to take place. (Hint: rest of the EU).

 

[Slog]

Corbyn is basically Sanders raised to the nth power. Sanders is a far leftist on the US political spectrum but by UK standards, he'd be considered center-right at best. Corbyn is a full blown British leftist (the kind that would have been locked up in the US fifty years ago) - I doubt Sanders would get away with suggesting that water and power utilities, and railroads be nationalized. Corbyn's voter base is mainly young, college educated, folk and the working class as opposed to Theresa May's party which is slightly left of the US Democrats in terms of politics but occupies the same niche in the UK as the Republicans do in the US.

Hmm thanks

 

[Slog]

[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] - what is your explanation for indifference even among many British people (for eg low number for the interview/debate recently). Also it's undeniable that Britain doesn't hold the same influence in the world it did even in blairs time.

The top dog of Europe has been Germany for a while. Around Iraq war time it was the UK still

 

[Markhor]

Take of your monarchy and have them lose rights and then maybe you can lecture on rights issue,the same Royal family responsible for multiple killings around the world is the one that is respected and admired,in your logic not one Britisher should talk about India anymore,but India and its internal matters are raised at times by your MPs.

Anyone with an understanding of UK's constitution knows the monarchy have zero political authority. I'd abolish the monarchy tomorrow if I had the power as I find the notion of someone being born into privilege disgusting.

But the idea of stratifying society on the basis of people being born to a certain class or caste....hmm where does that remind me of JaDed saab ?

British people are some of the most critical about our government's foreign policy. Most people here opposed Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Many are disgusted we sell so many arms to the Saudis. On the other hand, you look online and in the media and it appears many Indians see no fault in whatever their government do and are not honest about their human rights record in Kashmir. And its the same for some Pakistanis who whitewash our record in Balochistan and East Pakistan.

Look, I am not a nationalist. I want human rights to be universal and for every country to be honest about their shortcomings. Yes you are entitled to speak about whatever country you want. However if we're talking about the human rights of internal citizens - then yes SC posters don't have much credibility in taking potshots at the UK given their own dire records.

 

[Poison]

Definitely a fading power, but that's good. Following the Brexit we will have far less ties & baggage, at which point we need to spend several generations fixing our various socio-economic issues and not bothering the rest of the world. We have accumulated more relative poverty than many other developed countries since the War, and need to get our house in order.

James this is inherently counter-intuitive in a world which is increasingly globalised. I expect Brexit to not weaken but strengthen ingrained generational inequality for the lower socio-economic classes.

 

[Markhor]

[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] - what is your explanation for indifference even among many British people (for eg low number for the interview/debate recently). Also it's undeniable that Britain doesn't hold the same influence in the world it did even in blairs time.

The top dog of Europe has been Germany for a while. Around Iraq war time it was the UK still

Well the low numbers for the so-called May-Corbyn "debate" on Sky/C4 is because it wasn't a debate. It was a Q&A. Theresa May chickened out of US-style head-to-head TV debates with her opponents. Although it still had 23.4% share of the viewing audience.

In 2010, the viewing figures for the head-to-head TV debate between the three main party leaders was 9.4 million, and in 2015 it was 7.4 million.

If there is indifference - its because we've had so many elections and referendums in a short space of time. We had the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, 2015 General Election, 2016 EU Referendum and now a snap election.

As for being top dogs, I couldn't care less as a voter about our government flexing on the international stage. Look where that got us under Blair. I'd rather they deal with our housing shortage, how to sustainably fund our health and social care systems with an increasingly elderly population and reform education.

Germany was the leading European economy (they actually invest in their manufacturing sector, still have strong trade unions and didn't try to turn their country into a poor man's US like our neoliberal governments but that's another matter) during Blair's time too. Given Britain is now leaving the European Union, obviously Germany will take the lead role in Europe. Britain still retains a seat at the UNSC and was part of the P5+1 group that negotiated the Iran nuclear deal - but again as a voter the "prestige" of the nation isn't a pressing issue.

 

[JaDed]

Anyone with an understanding of UK's constitution knows the monarchy have zero political authority. I'd abolish the monarchy tomorrow if I had the power as I find the notion of someone being born into privilege disgusting.

But the idea of stratifying society on the basis of people being born to a certain class or caste....hmm where does that remind me of JaDed saab ?

British people are some of the most critical about our government's foreign policy. Most people here opposed Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Many are disgusted we sell so many arms to the Saudis. On the other hand, you look online and in the media and it appears many Indians see no fault in whatever their government do and are not honest about their human rights record in Kashmir. And its the same for some Pakistanis who whitewash our record in Balochistan and East Pakistan.

Look, I am not a nationalist. I want human rights to be universal and for every country to be honest about their shortcomings. Yes you are entitled to speak about whatever country you want. However if we're talking about the human rights of internal citizens - then yes SC posters don't have much credibility in taking potshots at the UK given their own dire records.

Well casteism is looked down upon almost all our institutions ,here is the thing person of any caste can become the PM ,CM of this country,State could someone replace the Royal family?

Royal family might not have influence on the constitution but it would be ridiculous to think they are completely void of influence in Britain.Their lives matter more compared to an average English citizen.

British people being critical of their policy when they are killing people from around the globe who have nothing to do whatsoever with Britain means nothing.

Human rights is universal at a time when only your citizens want it?And I wasn't the one to bring in human rights issue you talked about Indian state butchering its citizens.

 

[Markhor]

Well casteism is looked down upon almost all our institutions ,here is the thing person of any caste can become the PM ,CM of this country,State could someone replace the Royal family?

Royal family might not have influence on the constitution but it would be ridiculous to think they are completely void of influence in Britain.Their lives matter more compared to an average English citizen.

Royal family is a purely symbolic institution so to compare it to PM or CM of India shows a lack of understanding about UK politics.

The Queen is the constitutional head of state and gives assent to every law made by Parliament - but her executive power is exercised by Parliament which is controlled by the party of the Prime Minister. Meaning she's a rubber stamp, that's it. Royal family isn't even allowed to make political statements - they must remain neutral at all times.

Again if we want to talk about royal families in politics - we don't have elected monarchs like on the SC where names like Gandhi, Sharif and Bhutto are exploited to no end to garner votes.

British people being critical of their policy when they are killing people from around the globe who have nothing to do whatsoever with Britain means nothing.

No but the difference is most Brits are honest about the government's foreign policy failings and the blood it has on their hands.

Do most Indians likewise criticise their policy in Kashmir that's also resulted in human rights violations and bloodshed or act as cheerleaders for their government like most on PP do ?

And I wasn't the one to bring in human rights issue you talked about Indian state butchering its citizens.

Yes I mentioned it because its amusing seeing Indian posters take potshots at British human rights record as if their own state has a clean chit on that issue.

 

[JaDed]

Royal family is a purely symbolic institution so to compare it to PM or CM of India shows a lack of understanding about UK politics.

The Queen is the constitutional head of state and gives assent to every law made by Parliament - but her executive power is exercised by Parliament which is controlled by the party of the Prime Minister. Meaning she's a rubber stamp, that's it. Royal family isn't even allowed to make political statements - they must remain neutral at all times.

Again if we want to talk about royal families in politics - we don't have elected monarchs like on the SC where names like Gandhi, Sharif and Bhutto are exploited to no end to garner votes.


No but the difference is most Brits are honest about the government's foreign policy failings and the blood it has on their hands.

Do most Indians likewise criticise their policy in Kashmir that's also resulted in human rights violations and bloodshed or act as cheerleaders for their government like most on PP do ?


Yes I mentioned it because its amusing seeing Indian posters take potshots at British human rights record as if their own state has a clean chit on that issue.

There are many Indians who criticize India's policies on Kahsmir,many even asking them to be independent (leftists) Prashant Bhushan,Arundhati Roy.

And policy failing? Is that the term Brits use for bombing nation's?When bombing countries on other continent is at best a 'policy' issue then surely all countries have a better day than Britishers.

And again elected monarchs are looked down upon here,reason for BJP making it big,if Royal family is a rubber stamp,the rubber stamp is still rich and influential in space of British life,rip them from that part become a republic ,many European countries have done it.

So hopefully in your logic no one should criticize Britain other than from Brits,or mock them ,well maybe you should let all the British Pakistanis know that about India.

 

[shaz619]

These people kill those who eat beef and have a big problem when it comes to getting rid of rape in their societies where the man often gets away with some of the most heinous of crimes; sexism is rampant as are extremist behaviours to minorities, how dare you people even point a finger at GREAT BRTAIN; know YOUR PLACE, we are above you on every level imaginable. This very forum and the sport of cricket is a product of GREAT BRITAIN.

 

[shaz619]

I myself have often received abuse from Indian posters because of my religion and colour on this very forum, but I just let it go because while tolerance towards creeds, races and religion is a norm in GREAT BRITAIN its entirely the opposite in the SC

 

[KingKhanWC]

It was a snap election and I don't understand why any other country esp in South Asia would want to hear about this election. Yes the American election is aired all over the world, I found this very strange apart from the comedy factor because they elected a clown.

As for Britain having relevance, it's not the Empire of the past and this is a good thing but it has a lot of relevance in the world being a great country.