As the London born child of 2 Irish migrants, I appreciate where he is coming from. My family returned to Ireland and i was educated differently from my English cousins.
Michael Wallace interesting observation. I have similar thoughts when I look at my English nephews and nieces and I know my children, who were born and educated in the Netherlands, do too.
Thanks for this, very informative. I never understood why Wales voted to leave. Like NI and Scotland, it was clearly against their own interest. Never knew so many English people with money moved there. Brexit is against everybody 's interest, apart from a very small number of extremely rich and even more greedy people, but I could understand the disgruntled protest vote by people who felt left behind, up to a point. The vile anti EU propaganda of most of the sorry excuse the UK has for a printing press tipped that particular balance. But the Welsh leave vote never made any sense. Now it does. So, thanks for that.
we won one world cup , the germans have won 3 nations cups , three world cups and every time we play germany our small minded supporters, mainly southern english, sing ' two world wars and one world cup. It embarrasses me no end , and others no doubt, and like many others we don't watch our national team play any more.
I find it very difficult to understand what Dorling is saying. There's an annoying echo and even turning up the volume doesn't help. Please Danny make your talks more accessible.
Does rising ethnic diversity correlate with the collapse of the welfare state? This would make sense from a purely genetic/evolutionary perspective. People might be less likely (all else being equal) to share resources with those who they are less closely related to.
It has in Sweden. The public were fine with high tax and spend when country was homogeneous. As became less so parties have sprung up, and with material and increasing vote share, saying "Yeah but the spend only on Swedish born people". As you say. Evolution.
Do you think it's substantially less important? Because I understand his argument about the importance of recent British history and the benefits the UK got from its colonial possessions; and the subsequent decline of it's economy and power (relatively) in the last decades. How do you see the legacy of the empire regarding the economy and social matters; and what are the main reason for the present situation in your opinion?
@@xyleblack2545 In the culture wars, you have to take everything people say with a grain of salt. Professors, checkmarks/blue ticks on twitter, journalists, etc. And I mean both sides. People straight up lie. Being a Ph.D. doesn't mean that they won't lie. It's an actual strategy. Lie while you're accusing the other side of lying. Most historians/economists would argue that empire was not profitable. The Swiss economist Paul Bairoch argued that in the 19th century, the export and import of goods and services, migration, net flows of returns on FDI, and other economic links with the rest of the world were immeasurably more important than links within empires. The UK invested and saw a profitable return on investment outside of its empire, e.g. Argentina. Argentina saw more net British investment than most of the empire combined. People would buy British goods whether or not they lived in the empire. Defacto empire was more profitable than hard empire. Especially for the British, who were primarily a maritime empire, their real power/wealth came from controlling sea lanes rather than Kabul or Dehli. So the notion that 'colonial possessions' made any positive long-term contribution(other than an obvious welcome cultural contribution, immigration, etc.,.) to the UK is unlikely to bear any real scrutiny. No serious scholarship says this. However, many argue it as fact. Look at India, for example. There is a lecture on TH-cam regarding the British Raj. the Professor involved is Indian. He goes with the myth that India was 70 percent of world GDP in 1700 and 10 percent in 1900(I can't remember the exact figures involved. It's not essential, though). This is a false narrative. Ignore that calculating world GDP in 1700 is a bit bonkers. And India didn't even exist as a state in 1700. It was more like 100 states(the British never partitioned India. Another myth). Let's assume it is correct that India did possess a significant share. Why is the Professor wrong to imply that the British empire stole all this wealth, i.e., shrunk Indian GDP? Firstly, any change in GDP would be relative. For example, India's GDP could have grown tenfold and still seen its share fall to 10 percent(much like the UK in the 20th century. As you point out). It's just that GDP grew more rapidly elsewhere. Like the UK, for example. What happened in the UK? It became a single modern state(as opposed to India being 100 states), the financial revolution, i.e., the monetary debt system. The emergence of the central bank. Governments could issue bonds and bondholders could see a return on their investment - the scientific revolution and, ultimately, the industrial revolution. Population growth exploded. India's wealth didn't shrink. The wealth of the world just grew. The pie simply got bigger. The legacy of empire and social matters? Where once resources were wasted away on the colonies and empire, they would ultimately be redirected into social welfare and economic rejuvenation. The end of empire saw the birth of the welfare state. Britain didn't get poorer without an empire it got significantly richer. Its people became prosperous and healthy. Universal education, healthcare, and suffrage are now the norm. Look at Russia in Ukraine. Why on earth would anyone in Britain yearn for that? Nah, it doesn't bear scrutiny at all. It's a bonkers notion.
Really every member country should have gone full Monty & joined the Euro from the launch. Although with hindsight maybe not Greece. Thatcher individualized Britain 40 years ago. Britain is an embarrassment internationally. All sentimentality for orange marmalade, real bacon , the Sunday Post and Galaxy chocolate aside, I´m glad I left 30 years ago. Maybe Britain should join the United States ?
Back in the Day when British Empire Citizens where coming to the Mother Country From India Pakistan and Bangladesh. An ultra right wing conservative politician decried the the United Kingdom would be overwhelmed with the amount that were coming. He was removed from office and found himself in Northern Ireland. At a political rally I asked him if it would be possible to repatriate the Planters to the Country that their Ancestors came from. His answer was a Resounding No . Because they were WHITE. Irish and EU Citizen
@@timdorset6015 An educated but still thick, despite of that, sort of person you mean ? Intelligence and thoughtfulness are rare qualities in England at this point in time so I'am not surprised you are not a big fan of them.
lol what do you expect??? we are british we won the war in 1945, the world cup 1966. we can do anything we like. we are British and we got America lol😂😂😂😂😂
@@BigHenFor What evidence is there that the fall in the cable rate explains Brexit? It's fine that the presenter is a socially liberal remain voter. Most lecturers are. But that does mean he isn't balanced. At all. E.g. he compares counties to towns. And says because counties had more leave nominal votes than several northern towns in aggregate. That means...... More people in Scotland voted leave than people called Bob. So what.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks, a most informative and thought provoking talk.
I'd love to hear from him right now as we approach some very _interesting_times_ ...
As the London born child of 2 Irish migrants, I appreciate where he is coming from. My family returned to Ireland and i was educated differently from my English cousins.
Michael Wallace interesting observation. I have similar thoughts when I look at my English nephews and nieces and I know my children, who were born and educated in the Netherlands, do too.
Thanks for this, very informative. I never understood why Wales voted to leave. Like NI and Scotland, it was clearly against their own interest. Never knew so many English people with money moved there.
Brexit is against everybody 's interest, apart from a very small number of extremely rich and even more greedy people, but I could understand the disgruntled protest vote by people who felt left behind, up to a point. The vile anti EU propaganda of most of the sorry excuse the UK has for a printing press tipped that particular balance.
But the Welsh leave vote never made any sense. Now it does. So, thanks for that.
Or
People are permitted to vote on social, political, cultural preferences. Not just economic.
we won one world cup , the germans have won 3 nations cups , three world cups and every time we play germany our small minded supporters, mainly southern english, sing ' two world wars and one world cup. It embarrasses me no end , and others no doubt, and like many others we don't watch our national team play any more.
it tells us that they take things and people for granted.
The Empire thing doesn’t really count when
you’re comparing us with European nations that also had Empires.
He would be so easy to destroy in a argument. Normal pro eu nutters. Totally blinkered vision.
I find it very difficult to understand what Dorling is saying. There's an annoying echo and even turning up the volume doesn't help. Please Danny make your talks more accessible.
I'm not sure how ~8million immigrants since ~2000 into one of most densely populated countries on earth is a myth, surely this is a fact?
Does rising ethnic diversity correlate with the collapse of the welfare state? This would make sense from a purely genetic/evolutionary perspective. People might be less likely (all else being equal) to share resources with those who they are less closely related to.
It has in Sweden. The public were fine with high tax and spend when country was homogeneous. As became less so parties have sprung up, and with material and increasing vote share, saying "Yeah but the spend only on Swedish born people".
As you say. Evolution.
Why are remainers obsessed with empire? It's weird.
Because they can't mentally cope with "The majority have a different opinion to me" so have to invent monsters under the bed
Do you think it's substantially less important? Because I understand his argument about the importance of recent British history and the benefits the UK got from its colonial possessions; and the subsequent decline of it's economy and power (relatively) in the last decades.
How do you see the legacy of the empire regarding the economy and social matters; and what are the main reason for the present situation in your opinion?
@@xyleblack2545 In the culture wars, you have to take everything people say with a grain of salt. Professors, checkmarks/blue ticks on twitter, journalists, etc. And I mean both sides. People straight up lie. Being a Ph.D. doesn't mean that they won't lie. It's an actual strategy. Lie while you're accusing the other side of lying.
Most historians/economists would argue that empire was not profitable. The Swiss economist Paul Bairoch argued that in the 19th century, the export and import of goods and services, migration, net flows of returns on FDI, and other economic links with the rest of the world were immeasurably more important than links within empires. The UK invested and saw a profitable return on investment outside of its empire, e.g. Argentina. Argentina saw more net British investment than most of the empire combined. People would buy British goods whether or not they lived in the empire. Defacto empire was more profitable than hard empire. Especially for the British, who were primarily a maritime empire, their real power/wealth came from controlling sea lanes rather than Kabul or Dehli.
So the notion that 'colonial possessions' made any positive long-term contribution(other than an obvious welcome cultural contribution, immigration, etc.,.) to the UK is unlikely to bear any real scrutiny. No serious scholarship says this. However, many argue it as fact. Look at India, for example. There is a lecture on TH-cam regarding the British Raj. the Professor involved is Indian. He goes with the myth that India was 70 percent of world GDP in 1700 and 10 percent in 1900(I can't remember the exact figures involved. It's not essential, though). This is a false narrative. Ignore that calculating world GDP in 1700 is a bit bonkers. And India didn't even exist as a state in 1700. It was more like 100 states(the British never partitioned India. Another myth). Let's assume it is correct that India did possess a significant share. Why is the Professor wrong to imply that the British empire stole all this wealth, i.e., shrunk Indian GDP? Firstly, any change in GDP would be relative. For example, India's GDP could have grown tenfold and still seen its share fall to 10 percent(much like the UK in the 20th century. As you point out). It's just that GDP grew more rapidly elsewhere. Like the UK, for example. What happened in the UK? It became a single modern state(as opposed to India being 100 states), the financial revolution, i.e., the monetary debt system. The emergence of the central bank. Governments could issue bonds and bondholders could see a return on their investment - the scientific revolution and, ultimately, the industrial revolution. Population growth exploded. India's wealth didn't shrink. The wealth of the world just grew. The pie simply got bigger.
The legacy of empire and social matters? Where once resources were wasted away on the colonies and empire, they would ultimately be redirected into social welfare and economic rejuvenation. The end of empire saw the birth of the welfare state. Britain didn't get poorer without an empire it got significantly richer. Its people became prosperous and healthy. Universal education, healthcare, and suffrage are now the norm. Look at Russia in Ukraine. Why on earth would anyone in Britain yearn for that? Nah, it doesn't bear scrutiny at all. It's a bonkers notion.
They want to rejoin one. Empires crash and burn. The Third Reich did the British Empire did and the Fourth Reich er EU will
Really every member country should have gone full Monty & joined the Euro from the launch. Although with hindsight maybe not Greece. Thatcher individualized Britain 40 years ago. Britain is an embarrassment internationally. All sentimentality for orange marmalade, real bacon , the Sunday Post and Galaxy chocolate aside, I´m glad I left 30 years ago. Maybe Britain should join the United States ?
A bit harsh, but I have to agree...
Back in the Day when British Empire Citizens where coming to the Mother Country From India Pakistan and Bangladesh. An ultra right wing conservative politician decried the the United Kingdom would be overwhelmed with the amount that were coming. He was removed from office and found himself in Northern Ireland.
At a political rally I asked him if it would be possible to repatriate the Planters to the Country that their Ancestors came from. His answer was a Resounding No .
Because they were WHITE.
Irish and EU Citizen
was it enoch powell? the man who invited them in the first place?
Is this speaker really a professor?
Reality has a leftwing bias...
an educated person would recognise him as such
@@profoundbathroomgraffiti yes & with such perspicacity too.
He’s literally a top professor at oxford but a dumb-dumb like you can’t tell..
@@timdorset6015 An educated but still thick, despite of that, sort of person you mean ? Intelligence and thoughtfulness are rare qualities in England at this point in time so I'am not surprised you are not a big fan of them.
Balanced? This guy should have stayed at Newcastle Uni.
lol what do you expect??? we are british we won the war in 1945, the world cup 1966.
we can do anything we like. we are British and we got America lol😂😂😂😂😂
You seem unfamiliar with evidence-based analysis but, sadly, the facts don't care about your feelings.
@@BigHenFor
What evidence is there that the fall in the cable rate explains Brexit?
It's fine that the presenter is a socially liberal remain voter. Most lecturers are. But that does mean he isn't balanced. At all.
E.g. he compares counties to towns. And says because counties had more leave nominal votes than several northern towns in aggregate. That means......
More people in Scotland voted leave than people called Bob. So what.