No, not even in USD; he and his wife[1] combined would have been a billionaire in better exchange days but he's got a long way, even at $2:£1 before he's any kind of billionaire.
[1] who has ~£500M, largely from the family business, I believe.
The infosys part is pretty infuriating. He pushed through off payroll working reforms to make business a bit more nervous about using contractors then handed some more massive uk public sector contracts to infosys. Massively corrupt.
In 2022, the 'working class', are in offices, working. Which I suspect the PM, and government ministers all do. And often for longer hours, and over weekends.
> Sunak was born on 12 May 1980 in Southampton[10][11] to African-born Hindu parents of Punjabi Indian descent,[12][13] Yashvir and Usha Sunak.
Apparently coming from an immigrant family, modest background, becoming wealthy though hard work, and becoming PM is something to be despised?
As much as I despise this current bunch of MPs, I don't see anything wrong there. I doubt he would have achieved so much had his family stayed in Kenya.
Nothing in the parent comment is referring to its "race". He is a billionaire with a rich wife that hasn't been on a working class family wages for a very long time if he ever was. He cannot fathom the hardship that he is about to unleash on said working class.
To be descendant from immigrant is only relevant if you are a bigot with a potential impact on him becoming PM.
Parent comment has been edited, but either way, it is referring to Sunak being a billionaire and out of touch, which apparently is "a bad thing".
Despite the fact he comes from just about the most modest background possible. Which is surely something aspirational.
Nothing bigoted about that. And I don't see why someone's good fortune in life should be despised, just because they're an MP. Self-made wealth? Why not get angry with Alan Sugar, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and so on?
Although second generation immigrants, his father was a GP and his mother ran a local pharmacy. As a sibling comment notes, he attended a very privileged boarding school.
The South Asian diaspora that migrated to Africa in the 1930s and then on to the UK in the 1960s faced many hardships, but economic woes were not often one of them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of them have gone on to hold positions of power: Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, Shailesh Vara to name a few MPs.
Most of them lost everything. Idi Amin expropriated wealth from this group, that is how they ended up in the UK.
The reason why this group hasn't had economic woes is because they work harder than everyone else. I know a few families with this background, all of them came here with nothing, all their kids went to private school, they just worked harder and spent nothing. One family I know: three kids, all private school, their parents slept on the sofa and floor of their living room in a tiny flat, mother worked two/three jobs, dad worked 5am-10pm every day...if you didn't know what it took, they are privileged...but all anyone sees is "private school"...must be rich.
GPs and pharmacists didn't make that much money back then. Drawing sweeping conclusions about someone because of the school they went to (particularly given that Sunak was massively successful after school) is weak, it is the kind of narrow-minded viewpoint that the left constantly claims to be a victim of (in the UK).
Putting aside anecdata, survivorship bias, etc, at the of the day his parents spent a great deal of money on embedding him among the upper classes. Winchester, and its competitors, are not just a school you happen to pay for. Sending your children to live miles from home is rarely about quality of teaching.
There are many connections made in youth can continue to benefit you for the rest of your life. 33 PMs (of 56 in total) attended one of just 3 secondary schools, and 30 attended the same university. [1]
No one I've seen is commenting on his intelligence, but it is fair to question whether someone who has lived their teenage and adult life in and around the classical instituions of privilege (which are only accessible to and accepting of a minority) is a great choice for running a country having a cost of living crisis.
And I'm not sure where the idea that GPs didnt make that much comes from - £75k (adjusted) in the 90s was (and still is) a lot of money [2].
He lived in Southampton which is where Winchester is (roughly)...I mean it was like 10 miles from where he grew up (I thought about not continuing a reply on this mistake alone...you are just casting about wildly in the dark).
Correct, because the UK has highly-selective schools and has two universities that are much better than the rest. If you just transport someone into Oxbridge, they do not automatically become a success, it is just totally backwards-thinking.
Background makes no difference. Discriminating against someone because they are rich is not any different to discriminating against them because they are poor. Honestly, it is actually a little disturbing to see people conclude openly that because someone went to X school they must be a certain kind of person...awful.
And if you look at the chart, you will see when GPs began to earn a lot of money. I am not quite sure you understand what inflation-adjusted means if you are talking about it being a lot of money, it is the same value then and now...but paying for Winchester would still have been a substantial expense (he had siblings, he has said in interviews that the pressure on him to get a scholarship...which he didn't get...was immense).
This is getting unfortunately derailed. The debate is about whether Rishi's background renders him out of touch, not whether it gave him an unfair advantage.
Original claim (touristtam):
> He is a billionaire with a rich wife that hasn't been on a working class family wages for a very long time if he ever was. He cannot fathom the hardship that he is about to unleash on said working class.
Counter claim (DrBazza):
> he comes from just about the most modest background possible
Counter counter claim (Me):
> his father was a GP, his mother ran a local pharmacy, and he attended a very privileged boarding school
Rishi himself is on the record as making statements such as "I have no working class friends", "I always consider myself professional middle class", and "I tell inner city state school kids to apply to Oxford and talk to them about people like me, and then I shock them by saying I went to Winchester".
I'm not sure of the exact proportion of children attending public school per year in the UK, but I'm willing to bet it's a fraction of a percent. Both his siblings also attended private schools.
Rishi didn't have a "modest" background. He just didn't. Yes, his grandparents could be said to have grafted their way out of the working class. Yes, his parents worked hard to put him through a good education. That's exactly the point: he's never suffered and he doesn't know what being working class is like. He's been in the upper half of the middle class for his whole life.
> Honestly, it is actually a little disturbing to see people conclude openly that because someone went to X school they must be a certain kind of person...awful.
Basing it on the school he attended, which he had little influence over, is indeed nonsensical. Base your opinion on what he's said and done since instead. You'll probably come to the same conclusion though.
When I was a kid, my neighbours in the 70s were exactly who you're referring to. An Asian-Ugandan couple who worked and worked and spent everything on their two daughters, who were a bit older than me. One went to a grammar school, the other to... private school, because that's what they could afford. In fact, the daughter that went to private school was the only kid in my area that did.
Welcome to modern Britain. Making sacrifices is cheating. Success is rigged. Aspiration is boot-licking. The only socially acceptable form of success are gifts from the benevolent left-wing govt.
Again, this misrepresents the argument. No one is saying anything about cheating or boot-licking. The issue is that too many MPs are wealthy career politicians with no experience of normal working life. Whilst the public school track into politics has always been an issue, even in Labour the number of MPs with a working class background has plummeted over the last few decades. The detachment from working class reality is at a point where the leader now explicitly instructs front-benchers not to attend strike pickets.
Besides, isn't it more ambitious and impressive to have worked one's way into a position of political power without the silver spoon and elite connections? Look at Angela Rayner, a single mother and former care worker; Michael Gove, who worked his way up from an Aberdeen state school; or Dennis Skinner, who worked for 20 years a coal miner before representing Bolsover and giving Enoch Powell a run for his money in Parliament.
> While studying at Stanford, he met his future wife Akshata Murty, the daughter of N. R. Narayana Murthy, the Indian billionaire businessman who founded Infosys. Sunak and Murty are the 222nd richest people in Britain, with a combined fortune of £730m as of 2022.
>Apparently ... becoming wealthy though hard work ... is something to be despised?
>While studying at Stanford, he met his future wife Akshata Murty, the daughter of N. R. Narayana Murthy, the Indian billionaire businessman
Finding a billionaire's daughter to marry is hard work. I've been looking for one for years!
Sunak, an Oxford and Stanford educated billionaire, is perhaps the best candidate the Conservative party can unsurprisingly put forward at the current moment. Given his background as a successful investment banker at Goldman Sachs, one can only wonder about what his economic policies would look like.
I guess he was pretty successful, but I think it's mostly his wife's inherited money and you have to count her offshore holdings to make him a billionaire.[0]
It will be austerity 2.0 and the predictions are of a deeper recession because of tax increases and spending cuts (both already announced in general terms by Hunt, ally of Sunak and tipped to remain Chancellor).
Increasing the corporation tax is his policy, for instance.
A lot of the government's debt level issues also stem from the response to Covid when, hmm, Sunak was in charge of public finances...
Is Sunak not an MMT-er ? I heard him waxing lyrical about reducing the deficit early this year on i think it was Nick Ferarri's LBC show. He was pushing all the buttons for monetarism aficionados.
If he is an MMT-er then we might dodge austerity but i can't see him standing up to the bond markets after what the UK has just been through so that will hold him back. Also if he is an MMT-er there's the need for higher taxation and no-one has figured out how that side of MMT should work fairly yet i don't think?
> No one can seriously defend MMT now after central bank monetary policies during the pandemic led to inflation everywhere.
Central bank monetary policy did not lead to the current inflation, just like it did not lead to inflation in the post-GFC era. Unlike what some folks predicted back then:
> We believe the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called "quantitative easing") should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed's objective of promoting employment.
At least per the SF Fed's research, about half of the current situation in the US is/was supply-side issues, and about a third is the demand side of things:
I'm not an expert on this but i believe that is a statement not in opposition to MMT. Providing more money leads to inflation is something the MMT doctrine states and it claims the need for taxation to control this.
AIUI the contentious point of MMT is on crowding out private investment.
Hours of debates, and you still don't know his policies.
They are specifically not austerity 2.0, that is why they are raising taxes (Osborne reduced taxes significantly whilst cutting spending). All the measures to raise taxes were in order to sustain spending levels because there is no way to cut the large spending areas in the short-term. His approach has been to do that in the most fair way possible (the increase in corporation tax is combined with the introduction of a new small company rate which stays the same).
...and what was the alternative to furlough once the govt announced lockdowns?
No need for snide comments, especially when you're actually incorrect.
Hunt already said that there will be huge spending cuts.
What we're waiting for are the details of where these will fall, not if they will happen.
The increase of the corporation will hurt the economy further and remove a competitive advantage (new rate will be same as Germany's...). Again, this is not my opinion but what the reports from economists and analysists say.
This is a classic austerity approach to reduce debt. The conflict within the party is between that and reducing debt relatively to GDP (but perhaps not in absolute terms) by going for growth (making the cake bigger) but as we've seen that latter strategy is problematic because the markets do not really want to here about even further debt.
The rise in corporation tax for MNCs won't hurt competitiveness. The US had a 35% rate with no issues. We can raise ours to 25% with no issues. The only reason we reduced our rate to the level we did was because of tax havens in the EU, we have a global corporate tax deal which the EU will comply with (saying vaguely that you are right because "economists and analysists" say so is weak).
The issue with "going for growth" was that it wouldn't have boosted growth. The spending cuts were only required because of the tax cuts, the tax cuts aren't happening. When he was Chancellor, Sunak was cutting spending and this will likely continue (it has to, spending is far too high, the NHS became massively bloated during Covid). Reduction of debt will be gradual, the strategy is not austerity (as has been repeated ad nauseum, this happened after 2018 as well...some people just never stopped saying austerity was happening even when spending was rising significantly).
They know how to construct arguments and give reasons. They don't just make random claims to authority that are totally unverifiable. I would look at the "scientific method" to see that your laziness has baited you into being the person you accuse others of being.
No, any kind of spending cut doesn't not equal austerity 2.0. Labour would also be cutting spending, so that is austerity 2.0?
NHS spending is close to Germany levels, which is regarded as ludicrously inefficient, even for a private system, because of the emphasis on choice. I suspect that the difference between me and "people" is actually being aware of what NHS spending is.
Yeah it will probably be austerity 2.0, which is why I don't see him lasting more than 3 months unless Starmer absolutely bottles it. He can rule out a national election all he wants (https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-sunak-rules-out-nationa...), but by January I think he will be forced to let people vote again.
Liz Truss was elected Tory leader by the party's membership. MPs were, by and large, not very happy about it. Sunak was expected to win. Truss did what she did, her MPs turned on her, and she was forced to resign. Then there was another leadership contest with different rules which, after some horse trading between potential candidates, didn't give party members a vote and resulted in the uncontested appointment of the person the MPs wanted all along—Rishi Sunak. This does not sit well with some party members, although calling it a coup is excessive.
"Globalist elites" is an old dog whistle. Because the EU can't be blamed for the ruling party's failures any more, GB News (UK's InfoWars) had to recycle the old scapegoat.
There is a series of nested political dog whistles[0] that people are invoking when they use the word "globalist" to refer to - let's be clear - right wing conservatives who aren't right wing enough.
The idea behind these dog whistles is that multinational corporations and rich investors are actually a front for global communism. Yes, ruthlessly profit-seeking investors like George Soros, the man who broke the Bank of England's ERM peg[1], were actually "cultural Marxists" the whole time! Somehow. Ignore them being the worst examples of capitalism, an economic system Marx thought was evil that would eat itself. They said they like racial diversity and feminism, so they're clearly "cultural Marxists".
Anyone who remembers their WWII history should have alarms blaring in their head, because "cultural Bolshevism" was one of noted meth enthusiast Adolf Hitler's favorite phrases, and he used it in exactly the same sense I described in the previous paragraph. You see, it turns out this is actually just about demonizing the Jews, because it is always about demonizing the Jews. They may not know that they were going down that path, but that is where the logic leads.
"Globalism", outside of the dog whistle context, just means free trade and open borders; i.e. standard liberal[2] free market stuff. The people who lost out on free trade adopted the term to refer to the dog whistles I listed out above.
[0] I'm not even going to glorify it with the words "conspiracy theory". A conspiracy theory is a guess on what the rich and powerful are doing that may be right or wrong.
[1] European Rate Mechanism; it was the on-ramp to the Eurozone before the Euro was a thing. The failure to establish an ERM peg basically doomed the UK to never join the Euro.
Thanks, that's interesting. I had understood that globalism meant something like free trade which is why it seemed so confusing that it was now being bandied around as an insult by conservatives, especially as since Brexit was supposed to deliver a 'global Britain'. Your alternative makes more sense.
His “alternative explanation” is a red herring and mud slinging. “Globalism” refers to an economic structure featuring free trade and free movement of labor across borders. It's parallel to the terms "socialism" and "capitalism."
Many conservative oppose globalism, in particular nationalist and social conservatives. Especially now that, in both the UK and the US, Wall Street/Canary Wharf has aligned itself with socially liberal/economically neoliberal pro-immigration parties.
Obviously the free market types (both conservative and liberal) want to deflect any criticism of these trends. And unfortunately, any criticism of Wall Street/Canary Wharf will draw out some anti-semites. Which is why it's been Labour that's had the problem with anti-semitism: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-labour-a....
But it’s frankly gross to use that to shield globalization as an economic and political trend from criticism.
Globalism has a history, yes, but it’s unclear what reason we have to believe that has any connection to recent events. She wasn’t exactly ousted for going against some Tory ideal of being part of an internationally-integrated economy - those people voted to stay in the EU! - and given the heated “coup” miscategorization the right-winger explanation seems more likely.
Well, I'm a right-winger: a one-nation Tory to be precise. When I say globalism I mean: "structuring society and the economy around the free movement of capital, people, and goods across borders. Generally with the belief that these are good things." (I'm paraphrasing Rayiner's comment above). I do not mean: 'The Jews control everything and $(event) is part of an evil Jewish plot.'
Yeah, I remembered your posting history. I guess I would phrase my question as whether you really think that he used that as part of some thoughtful economic worldview but also felt “coup” was accurate?
I’m sure this has been said, but I think the Tories are headed for an election loss. Boris has stepped aside rather brilliantly, recognizing that the Tories are going to lose power, so that he can then assume the leadership and reclaim power later
This doesn't obviate his economic policies, which I'm inclined to dislike, but a part of me does feel gratified at the historical twists of fortune that landed an Indian the role of PM (as a fellow Indian).
Question for an American that doesn't know bollocks about British politics. Why wasn't he put into the Prime Minister position last time instead of Truss?
In the previous contest, there were many viable candidates, of which two went through to the final stage. This resulted in a ballot of all registered members of the Conservative party. This process took weeks and was criticised as a waste of time by many, leaving a power vacuum during the recent cost of living crisis.
What the members of the party want does not always align with what elected MPs think is best, nor what the public as a whole believes.
This time around, the requirements to be eligible to proceed in the contest were tightened - candidates needed 100 MPs supporting them. This was designed to speed up the process considerably.
At the deadline, Rishi was the only candidate that met the requirements, so he won by default, and there was no need to have a ballot of the members.
The previous 'run off' had many candidates where the one with the fewest votes (by MPs) was eliminated until there were 2 and then those 2 candidates were put forward to members of the Conservative party (80,000 members).
Party members "overwhelmingly" voted Truss. Rishi Sunak isn't liked by the people that matter most - the party members, and seemingly, the electorate.
Basically the Tory party is back where it was under John Major in the 90s. In-fighting and completely ignoring what the electorate think. It's odds on that Labour will get into power in 2024, not because they have the plan and the policies, but simply they're not the Tories.
It really is a case of 'those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it'. And here the Tories are. Arguably the last time Labour got elected on their own merit was many, many decades ago.
Frankly it's tedious to hear adversarial politics in Britain. But that's all we're going to get from the Labour Party for the next 2 years. They could be laying out policies, preparing for government, being an adult political party, and ignoring the Tories, because frankly, no one cares about the Tories at the moment. But Labour won't do that.
Because last time the Conservative party members had a vote and Liz Truss stood on a platform intended to appeal primarily to them. The reason she had to depart was because it tuens out she actually believed what she was saying and attempted to implement policies that were widely regarded by the markets and everyone else as, well, utterly batshit.
Reducing the basic rate: Labour had said they would support and Sunak said that it was his plan for 2024.
Cancelling the increase in National Insurance: Well, Hunt has said this will remain cancelled.
Cancelling the increase in corporation tax: Welcomed by economists and businesses. Increase is predicted to make recession worse.
Reducing the additional rate: Definitely not the right time, but note that this rate has only existed for 10 years.
So it is not that the policies are "widely regarded as utterly batshit". Individually they are not. But they were announced all at once without any hints of funding and that's what spooked the markets (more debts and fuel for inflation when the situation on both fronts is already bad).
The Conservative Party's rules for electing a new leader say that the party's MPs cast votes for candidates in successive rounds, with the candidate getting fewest votes in each round dropping out, until there are only two left. The party's wider membership (i.e. members of the public who have paid the membership fee) then vote to decide which of those two get the job.
Last time, Sunak got the most votes among MPs by some margin, with Truss coming second; but Truss won when the vote was put to the party members (possibly because they were very pro-Boris Johnson, and regarded Sunak as disloyal, seeing as it was his resignation that effectively forced Johnson's).
This time, Sunak was the only candidate to get enough nominations to run at all, so he won by default (though the number of nominations he got showed he was again the clear favourite among the party's MPs).
Because the party membership voted for Truss instead of him - they get to choose between the top two candidates the MPs select. Party membership is a lot smaller group than primary voters in the U.S. Why did the party pick Truss? Maybe they were uncomfortable with having someone non-white. Maybe they thought Truss could connect better to the electorate. Maybe they preferred her policy ideas.
I suspect a lot of members voted against Sunak because they believe he shafted Boris Johnson, who remains popular with members. Plus, Truss did the whole Thatcher 2.0 thing, which appeals to many Tories. I don't think race played a significant role. In my experience, the people most opposed to Sunak adore Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman.
I guess Sunak's father-in-law is the founder of Infosys, truly one of the most difficult-to-work-with and inept software consultancies I've ever run into
Could you provide a source? There's nothing I can find about Sunak being connected to the WEF in any way. Although the hashtag #wefpuppet has exploded on Twitter by what looks like a bot network.
It's a widely-accpetable abbreviation of 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' amongst many well-respected and intelligent institutions, whether you agree with it or not - ironically you're the ignorant one for not knowing that.
And there's no need for personal abuse in any case.
The average American uses "Britain" as a synonym for both the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and the sovereign state called the United Kingdom. Yes, it's "incorrect" to you, but the NYT's audience is Americans, so it's fine.
Well I guess I'm not a part of that "we", and I suspect quite a lot of people of Irish descent wouldn't be a part of it either. As another comment has pointed out, Great Britain does exclude Northern Ireland, and official language refers to it as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" [1]. People will generally specify Northern Ireland, and I've pretty much never heard anyone say, I don't know, "I'm going to Belfast, it'll be nice to hang out in Britain".
Do British people normalize referring to the entire thing as just Britain? Yeah, probably. But the colonizer will always try to normalize erasing you and replacing your language with their own.
I’m British but also of Irish descent (and also an Irish citizen) - might I suggest that you’re being a bit unnecessarily sensitive to find fault with people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland abbreviating that to “Britain” in day to day usage.
Also, “coloniser” from an American, America being literally a far more recent European colonial enterprise built on resource appropriation and African slavery … ? Somewhat ironic that the injustices of Anglo-Irish history seems to resonate more with you than perhaps injustices closer to home.
I mean, I'm not mad if you want to refer to Northern Ireland as Britain, you can do whatever you feel comfortable doing! It's just a subtle thing and I feel that language is important. Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QemYNQfix-c
To the rest of your point, it's not my fault I was born here because my family was forced to leave their homelands due to the effects of colonization (in Ireland and Algeria). My grandfather was abducted and murdered by the French due to his involvement with the FLN and the decolonization of Algeria. So that one is closer in historical time and trauma to me, but I think about Ireland quite often as well.
And yes I'm critical of US colonialism and enslavement, and this country's continued imperialism around the world. I fully support reparations to all indigenous people in the United States and the descendants of those that were formally enslaved. I've voluntarily paid land tax to Native American tribes that are indigenous to where I live (Brooklyn). It's all interdependent.
Yes, I'm well aware that Ireland is not in Great Britain. That does not change the point that many people in the US (who are of course not Ireland's colonizers) use Britain to refer to the UK as a whole. No one in the US would say "I'm going to Belfast, it'll be nice to hang out in Britain." It's shorthand for referring to the state. As in, "Britain has a new PM."
I've heard it used to refer to the country/nation of the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland, but never to refer to both main islands as a whole (The British Isles is what I would usually see for that).
The entire island of Ireland? Of course it's not Britain, that's absurd. But the part of that island which belongs to the UK? Wikipedia says it's called "Britain".
Was that meant to hold a poor tone? I imagine once it's explained, it's understood, it's a simple thing.
I can also understand why certain people would think coarse language encompassing the identity/ownership of a state, which was at the centre of a violent conflict in our lifetime, may be worth correcting in an effort to use more precise and up-to-date terms. It's a little complicated for historical reasons, it can't seriously be that hard for you to accept though, now that it's been explained to you?
> People from the RoI can join the armed forces of the UK? How?
The UK and the RoI obviously have a lot of complex cultural, social, family interlinks, and there are many exceptions to normal international boundaries between the two.
That includes yes RoI nationals, even if that's the only nationality they have, can join the British Army, and I think a couple hundred a year join in practice. The British Army has several regiments which specifically are Irish and recruit from the whole of Ireland, but they can join any part of the Army.
> Is it like a foreign legion kind of thing?
No it's fully integrated. English people for example can also choose to apply to join a traditionally Irish regiment if they wanted to.
> NI is part of the UK but the RoI is an independent nation, is it not?
Yes.
> The were even neutral in WW2, officially.
Yes and that's partly where the tradition of service in the British Army came from.
It isn't in this context! I know it's confusing and contradictory.
The "British" nationality doesn't exclude Northern Ireland.
The "Great Britain" team in the Olympics doesn't exclude Northern Ireland.
"Britain" and "Great Britain" are used as short forms for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", as well as being something by itself.
I understand what you're saying, and you're right, it's not in context. I disagree with using it in a colloquial context that removes the specificity of it though. British may be different, its usage is more prevalent, and I'll view it as a mark of ownership. Great Britain, the team, is shorthand, as in it excludes the rest of the title. The British Olympic Committee makes the distinction on their page. You can find examples where the distinction is not made, I'm not claiming it's absolute. I also disagree with using America as shorthand for the US. You can, I'll just disagree with you if you post a link to the wikipedia for the US as backing that "America" == "US"
Maybe my framing in the above post was too absolutist for you. That's fine. The link used as backing was a poor choice, if they made the point as you have, I would have qualified further.
Great Britain != Britain. I already responded to another of your comments. Read the first sentence of the Wikipedia United Kingdom article. It says that the UK is also commonly called "Britain".
There are colloquialisms that err on factual basis (i.e. Third World). That doesn't mean it's fine for news headlines to use them over more accurate descriptions. You wouldn't excuse this from a health care provider.
Sure I would. My doctor told me she was setting up an appointment for the "tetanus booster" a few weeks ago, and I wasn't super concerned when I discovered that the proper name for the booster is "Tdap" because it immunizes against diptheria and whooping cough as well.
Using the layman term of 'tetanus booster' is acceptable to me in this case, even though it comes with additional benefit. But this simplification is not equivalent with the err of claiming a Prime Minister has charge over only a subset of their domain.
The point of literally any news item is communication. To the majority of people, Britain and the UK are synonyms despite one being geographical and the other being political. Pedantry at the expense of clarity is a tradeoff no sane person would make when writing news articles and headlines.
Is it "race baiting" to note a simple and perhaps interesting fact? Would it have been "race baiting" to note upon Obama's election that he would be the first black US president?
Edit: also your pedantry is extremely obnoxious; no one expects a headline to include the phrase "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
It’s race baiting (and demeaning) to reduce someone to their skin color in a headline like this. It would have been fine to note the fact somewhere.
The term “person of color” is race baiting. It’s a recently created term that erases people’s real identities and replaces them with an identity that serves simply to stand in juxtaposition to white people. Sunak isnt a “person of color.” He’s a British national of Indian ethnicity.
>Edit: also your pedantry is extremely obnoxious; no one expects a headline to include the phrase "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
Well no, that's why people say "United Kingdom" or "UK".
> the uneducated rube who made the headline forgot that Northern Ireland exists.
What's Northern Ireland got to do with it? The Republic of Ireland has had a person of color as PM. Northern Ireland doesn't even have a PM - it has a "First Minister" (I had to look it up, I had no idea).
EDIT: Apparently the objection was about the use of "Britain" vs "the UK", not "person of color". To which I'll just quote Wikipedia:
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain,"[1]
You've missed the footnote next to the word "Britain":
>Usage is mixed. The Guardian and Telegraph use Britain as a synonym for the United Kingdom. Some prefer to use Britain as shorthand for Great Britain. The British Cabinet Office's Government Digital Service style guide for use on gov.uk recommends: "Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British (UK business, UK foreign policy, ambassador and high commissioner). But British embassy, not UK embassy."
Will be interesting to see if this PM's financial savviness will affect the war in Ukraine, i.e. by reversing or slowing the stupidest financial decision ever made by Europe, that is the decision to sanction Russia before winter. A softer take on Russia sanctions and warmer Moscow-London ties may mean peace, sooner, with less damage to Ukraine and to Europe.
> What all the parties to the conflict in Ukraine seem to have forgotten is that the future of mankind will not be determined by where international borders are drawn — these have never been static in history and doubtless will continue to change from time to time. The future of mankind will be determined by whether nations learn to settle their differences peacefully.
It's always easy to say "The world would be a better place if those who disagree with me would just...".
I'll raise your "Russia should just..." with "NATO should just not expand into Ukraine". Sure I'll lose some internet points but I'm illustrating that your simplification does not reflect that the other side has what they perceive as a valid point of view as well.
> We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become
> a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part
> of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent
> decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits. We stand firm
> in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course
> free from outside interference.
> The Annual National Programmes under the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) remain the
> mechanism by which Ukraine takes forward the reforms pertaining to its aspiration for
> NATO membership. Ukraine should make full use of all instruments available under the
> NUC to reach its objective of implementing NATO principles and standards. The success
> of wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating
> corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform,
> based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law,
> will be crucial in laying the groundwork for a prosperous and peaceful Ukraine.
> Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services
> of Ukraine, are particularly important. We welcome significant reforms already made by
> Ukraine and strongly encourage further progress in line with Ukraine’s international
> obligations and commitments.
> We will continue to provide practical support to reform in the security and defence
> sector, including through the Comprehensive Assistance Package. We will also continue
> to support Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen its resilience against hybrid threats,
> including through intensifying activities under the NATO-Ukraine Platform on
> Countering Hybrid Warfare.
> We welcome the cooperation between NATO and Ukraine with regard to security in the
> Black Sea region. The Enhanced Opportunities Partner status granted last year provides
> further impetus to our already ambitious cooperation and will promote greater
> interoperability, with the option of more joint exercises, training, and enhanced
> situational awareness.
> Military cooperation and capacity building initiatives between Allies and Ukraine,
> including the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade, further reinforce this effort. We
> highly value Ukraine’s significant contributions to Allied operations, the NATO
> Response Force, and NATO exercises.
I'm about as serious as I could be. I live in Ukraine, work for humanitarian NGOs here, and I regularly travel in and out of the front lines of the war.
It's not about appeasement, it's about plain common sense, i.e. not shooting oneself in the foot. Sanctions have hurt Europe more than Russia, their ruble and export revenues are actually up since before the war, while Europe is struggling with inflation and basic gas supply issues.
Ah, thanks for your reply and thanks for the work you are doing.
As I said though, I don't think reversing sanctions is a political option in the UK, even if it made sense financially. It would certainly be perceived as appeasing Putin.
Right now I think there is a general desire to hurt Putin's regime (without direct confrontation between NATO and Russia). Even if it hurts us too.
Maybe when Winter bites, attitudes will shift.
Edit: Putin's regime also carried out assassinations in our country using radioactive materials and nerve poison (which killed some innocent bystanders too). We really, really don't like him.
