"Why Old Britain's Time is Up"

22ANDUK · 16-04-2007, 11:58 AM

Time magazine has published an article regarding the issue of the 15 navy sailors and marines, and also the wider issue of modern Britain.

Whilst the article does 'hit the spot' in many areas, and I am embarrassed enought to admit this, I could not help sense a slight sense of irony. On how a magazine as supposedly distinguished and reputed as 'Time' has itself slid down the margins of decent journalism and taste. The use of crass American colloquial slang is an example of this as you will notice in the asides placed in the brackets.

Quote:

There's stiff competition — the handling of mad cow disease, the royal family's years of dysfunction — but it is hard to think of anything in modern times that has held Britain up to such, and such richly deserved, international contempt as the case of the 15 captured mariners in the Shatt al Arab. There was the original sin; messing about in lightly armed little boats in a waterway contested by Iran — a bit like poking a mad dog in the eye without being prepared to clobber it with a big stick if it bites. There has been the miserable, cringe-making behavior of the sailors and marines when in captivity. (As Max Hastings, distinguished military historian and journalist, said in the Daily Mail: Yes, the 15 had a very unpleasant and frightening ordeal, but if they were not ready for such a risk they should have worked at Tesco rather than in the armed forces.) And there has been the extraordinary, pantomimical flip-flop by Britain's Defence Secretary, Des Browne, on whether the sailors and marines could sell their stories (yes they could; oops, no they couldn't) to a media that has itself bounced from treating the 15 as plucky heroes one minute, the next sniveling weeds, and the next money-grubbing yobs. Government, armed forces, media — all have seemed to epitomize a society that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

How did Britain get like this? How did a society whose professed virtues were once those of duty, honor and discretion become a place of in-it-for-myself, let-it-all-hang-out emoting? Step forward those two women whose influence, combined — though one suspects they loathed each other — shaped a nation: Margaret Thatcher and Princess Diana.

Thatcher first. Her political party may have been called Conservative, but she was in truth one of the most radical leaders Britain has ever had. Thatcher could not abide the cozy and mildly corrupt arrangements that — as she saw it — had condemned post-1945 Britain to a managed decline, and was determined to blow them up. As one of her more waspish M.P.s once said, Thatcher could not see an institution without "hitting it with her handbag." But she never understood that once you removed the need to show deference to any institution — the BBC, the labor unions, the professions — you had undermined them all. If deference to the established order was so bad, why show it (for example) to the monarchy? Moreover — really for the first time in British politics — Thatcher placed market values, not abstract ones of duty and honor, at the heart of a social definition of success. In the 1980s, if you didn't make money (loadsamoney ... ), if you didn't cash in on your talents or luck, then you were worse than an idiot — you were somehow letting the side down.

Diana's contribution was just as subversive of the old Britain. In her later life — through the hugs, the tears, the riveting BBC interview of 1995 — and even more in her death, the Princess of Wales turned traditional British values on their head. It was all right to cry! It was bad to suffer in silence, repress your emotions, say, "Steady on, old girl," and generally act in a tight spot like Trevor Howard on the train platform at the end of Brief Encounter. In today's remake, Howard would be bawling like a baby; or — as we now know — like a young squaddie.

Taken together, Thatcherite and Dianist thought has given us the recent horrors: a situation in which not even members of the armed forces — hell, not even the leaders of the armed forces — seem comfortable framing military obligation in terms of duty and honor, and in which the media's badge of heroism is conferred on those who are merely victims (only for it to be ripped off again when the victims behave less like heroes than heels). It is a sad and miserable tale.

But here's the uncomfortable truth. Britain needed both Thatcher and Diana. Its old institutions were indeed rotten; its disdain for trade, for market values, was indeed debilitating, and condemned generations of Britons to stunted life chances. Britain's traditional masculine values of the stiff upper lip and "mustn't grumble" did indeed breed emotional cripples, unable to appreciate the heights — or handle the depths — of human experience.

A Britain in which those captured at sea would have just given name, rank and number; would only have been men; would have done no more in captivity than suck on a pipe while dressed in a peacoat; would have just muttered, "Hello sir, glad to be back," when released, was not in most ways a better place than the insanely meritocratic, undeferential, deinstitutionalized Britain that Thatcher and Princess Diana unleashed. Every so often, however, Britons should be allowed to look back at that older nation — and mourn its passing.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...609498,00.html

Westcountryman · 16-04-2007, 12:05 PM

I actually find some of that offensive. I would argue that Britiain still has its stiff upper lip.

However, I'll agree with the sentiment that modern Britain - even sadly the armed forces - are a pile of ****. People = great, Country poor.

As far as values and culture go these days, we're in debt. Community has all but gone out the window, decency, honesty and kindness have all but gone. The New Britain that we're entering into will be a horrid place indeed.

kernow · 16-04-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 22ANDUK

Time magazine has published an article regarding the issue of the 15 navy sailors and marines, and also the wider issue of modern Britain.

Whilst the article does 'hit the spot' in many areas, and I am embarrassed enought to admit this, I could not help sense a slight sense of irony. On how a magazine as supposedly distinguished and reputed as 'Time' has itself slid down the margins of decent journalism and taste.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...609498,00.html[/quote]

Sorry I don't agree! I thought it was a very good and (Unfortunately ) very true article. Just imagine Britain to-day if "Princess Di" had married "President Blair", They'd be leaders of the World! :shock: :roll:

Secretly I think that is how Cheri thinks her and Tone's future will be!

22ANDUK · 16-04-2007, 01:20 PM

No I liked the article's sentiments, just not its 'English'.

kernow · 16-04-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 22ANDUK

No I liked the article's sentiments, just not its 'English'.

It's the fink!(think) fought (thought) free(three) and emeedjutlee (immediately) type of English I can't stand!

mkpdavies · 16-04-2007, 07:03 PM

Hate to say it, but I think Britain (and England) could be finished. I'm hoping the local elections prove me wrong with a huge backlash against the old Troika of parties, but I don't get the feeling it will.

Simply we are running out of time. Every day now that ticks by, makes it that much harder to recover.

22ANDUK · 16-04-2007, 08:52 PM

I don't ever think Britain (or England) is finished yet - though I accept we are heading for the days when it could be.

But I do think the longer we leave it the harder it we be to reclaim it.

I'm up for it though.

andypandy · 16-04-2007, 08:59 PM

Many people were 'up for it' in the 1970's, the fight against the EU that is (or Common Market), but were thoroughly wazzed by the 'not up for it' brigade who willingly voted to keep Britain in the horrible mess we now call the EU. Unless people vote in their MILLIONS for anti-EU parties, we ARE finished, and each election that fails to elect anti-EU candidates is another nail in the coffin.

I would prepare your evacuation plans or 'living with the enemy' solution, unless anyone knows of a "cunning plan".

Britannist · 16-04-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

22andUK quoted (in the first posting to this thread): it is hard to think of anything in modern times that has held Britain up to such, and such richly deserved, international contempt as the case of the 15 captured mariners in the Shatt al Arab.

The article stinks.

It is anti-British in tone and is written by someone who gives the impression of still licking their wounds from the humiliation of the USA regarding Iran in 1980 just before Mr. Ronald Reagan (God Rest His Soul) became President of America. In other words, the author or authors of the article may not be disappointed at the UK's embarrassment regarding the abduction of its troops by Iran recently - because (they hope) it takes attention away from the American humiliation by Iran in 1980 (as well as causing problems for the British whom they seem to dislike).

I would like to know who wrote this article (in the first posting to this thread) - their origins etc. They appear to bear some sort of grudge against our nation. I expect no name has been put to the article - as is usually the case with the Economist magazine.

There exists in the USA a deeply unpleasant anti-British element who hate the UK. The Late Enoch Powell - regarded by many as the 'father of the anti-EU movement in the UK - always warned about certain Americans out to destroy British influence (including by trying to submerge the UK into a Franco-German controlled EU Superstate).

Britannist · 16-04-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Hate to say it, but I think Britain (and England) could be finished.

The europhiles want you to think like that, Matthew.

It's they who are going to be finished - not our country. The question is not if the europhiles are going to be finished - it's when.

16-04-2007, 12:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	I actually find some of that offensive. I would argue that Britiain still has its stiff upper lip. However, I'll agree with the sentiment that modern Britain - even sadly the armed forces - are a pile of ****. People = great, Country poor. As far as values and culture go these days, we're in debt. Community has all but gone out the window, decency, honesty and kindness have all but gone. The New Britain that we're entering into will be a horrid place indeed. __________________ Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

16-04-2007, 07:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	Hate to say it, but I think Britain (and England) could be finished. I'm hoping the local elections prove me wrong with a huge backlash against the old Troika of parties, but I don't get the feeling it will. Simply we are running out of time. Every day now that ticks by, makes it that much harder to recover. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-04-2007, 01:20 PM	#4 (permalink)
22ANDUK Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,438	No I liked the article's sentiments, just not its 'English'.

16-04-2007, 08:52 PM	#7 (permalink)
22ANDUK Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,438	I don't ever think Britain (or England) is finished yet - though I accept we are heading for the days when it could be. But I do think the longer we leave it the harder it we be to reclaim it. I'm up for it though.

16-04-2007, 08:59 PM	#8 (permalink)
andypandy Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 880	Many people were 'up for it' in the 1970's, the fight against the EU that is (or Common Market), but were thoroughly wazzed by the 'not up for it' brigade who willingly voted to keep Britain in the horrible mess we now call the EU. Unless people vote in their MILLIONS for anti-EU parties, we ARE finished, and each election that fails to elect anti-EU candidates is another nail in the coffin. I would prepare your evacuation plans or 'living with the enemy' solution, unless anyone knows of a "cunning plan".