To you, when did Britain stop being "Great"?

[Butts]

It was in all probability Suez in 1956 that confirmed we were no longer a Great World Power.

Being unable to act alongside France and Israel without the "permission" of a former Colony - namely Uncle Sam

It's still a great place to live but not a "great power"

 

[muddythefish]

1979 - when neo-liberalism began to destroy the post-war consensus.

This.

 

[muddythefish]

It was in all probability Suez in 1956 that confirmed we were no longer a Great World Power.

... and this as well.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It stopped being great when the residents started being offended by every little thing possible...

I find that quite offensive.

I feel most offended by the way you took offence.

 

[Strat-tastic]

Oh come on you lot it's obvious innit?

It was when loco-hauled services stopped being the norm

 

[fowler9]

Oh come on you lot it's obvious innit?

It was when loco-hauled services stopped being the norm

This is the winner.

 

[Groningen]

Hopefully Donald Trump does not steal you "Great" and makes it Great USA.

 

[Busaholic]

Hopefully Donald Trump does not steal you "Great" and makes it Great USA.

That would Grate.

 

[birchesgreen]

It depends on how you define "great". If you define being great by military conquest and imperialism then that was a long time ago (and a good thing too). Personally i define great as being a country where everyone has a chance, where tolerance and fairness are ingrained in society. We seem to have lost that over the last few years.

 

[sk688]

When. We first started seeing

the (insert here) is GREAT

Britain ads from the government

 

[Moodster020]

A very interesting read through all the comments. Whilst on the subject of 'colonialism' & of times past, poverty & all the rest, i found this a very intriguing watch that ties into the 'colonialism' aspect. Any thoughts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFC18pFvo1g

 

[gazthomas]

I think this only relates to our archipelago. To call us great based on past military or colonial victories is wrong. As a nation I think we knock ourselves too much and it is part of our character, but what makes us great now is our outward looking and openness. And that's despite Brexit.

 

[PHILIPE]

When so many things, companies, football clubs, utilities were being taken over by Foreign owners.

 

[radamfi]

When so many things, companies, football clubs, utilities were being taken over by Foreign owners.

What is a "foreign owner"? Most large companies are owned by a variety of shareholders, including private investors of many nationalities as well as institutional and corporate shareholders.

 

[yorksrob]

What is a "foreign owner"? Most large companies are owned by a variety of shareholders, including private investors of many nationalities as well as institutional and corporate shareholders.

On whose stock exchange the company is listed is usually a good yardstick.

 

[radamfi]

On whose stock exchange the company is listed is usually a good yardstick.

Companies can choose to list on multiple exchanges. You can also have situations like easyJet Switzerland which looks like a subsidiary of a "British" company, but is in actual fact only 49% owned by easyJet plc.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Maybe we'd become a little bit greater as a country if we stopped worrying about the nationalities of the owners of companies, and focused instead on whether those companies are being run ethically and efficiently - which is surely far more important?

 

[yorksrob]

Companies can choose to list on multiple exchanges. You can also have situations like easyJet Switzerland which looks like a subsidiary of a "British" company, but is in actual fact only 49% owned by easyJet plc.

This is true, but it's quite rare, especially when compared to the number of UK companies that have ended up being taken over.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe we'd become a little bit greater as a country if we stopped worrying about the nationalities of the owners of companies, and focused instead on whether those companies are being run ethically and efficiently - which is surely far more important?

No, I don't think so.

We often hold up the German economy as a strong economy that we should emulate, yet we forget the layer of German owned mittelstrand of companies that are it's bedrock.

An "ethical" and "efficient" company is good, but it's better still if it's profits, it's wage bill and it's supply chain costs are being spent within the British economy.

Free marketeers will often say "who cares" who owns the company if the tax is spent here, conveniently forgetting that the greater part of a companies value comes from far more than the tax it pays.

 

[radamfi]

The London Stock Exchange has a significantly larger market capitalisation than any stock exchange outside the US, and is valued at more than triple the Deutsche Börse.

There are a number of huge multi-nationals listed on the LSE that earn most of their revenue outside the UK.

 

[Senex]

No, I don't think so.

We often hold up the German economy as a strong economy that we should emulate, yet we forget the layer of German owned mittelstrand of companies that are it's bedrock.

An "ethical" and "efficient" company is good, but it's better still if it's profits, it's wage bill and it's supply chain costs are being spent within the British economy.

Free marketeers will often say "who cares" who owns the company if the tax is spent here, conveniently forgetting that the greater part of a companies value comes from far more than the tax it pays.

Don't forget that as important as the Mittelstand are the local banks that support those local, family, companies — a sort of banking with an incentive to invest in its own area that has long since vanished in this country.

 

[yorksrob]

The London Stock Exchange has a significantly larger market capitalisation than any stock exchange outside the US, and is valued at more than triple the Deutsche Börse.

There are a number of huge multi-nationals listed on the LSE that earn most of their revenue outside the UK.

And where does that wealth, generated on the other side of the globe go ?

Some might percolate down into the real economy through pension funds etc, but not as much as a British based company with it's labour force and supply chain in Britain. How many times have we seen British companies forced to look abroad for investment because the City, for all it's wealth hasn't been interested in ong m wealth creation domestically.

 

[radamfi]

And where does that wealth, generated on the other side of the globe go ?

Some might percolate down into the real economy through pension funds etc, but not as much as a British based company with it's labour force and supply chain in Britain. How many times have we seen British companies forced to look abroad for investment because the City, for all it's wealth hasn't been interested in ong m wealth creation domestically.

You were complaining that "foreigners" own British companies, now you are complaining about "British" companies making money abroad! The world is now very interconnected and trying to place things into strict British/foreign categories is out-of-date, unnecessary and counter-productive.

 

[yorksrob]

You were complaining that "foreigners" own British companies, now you are complaining about "British" companies making money abroad! The world is now very interconnected and trying to place things into strict British/foreign categories is out-of-date, unnecessary and counter-productive.

If this is true, how come our continental neighbours are so keen not to allow their companies to fall into foreign hands ?

The French guard their companies very closely and only this week Chancellor Merkel has been proposing legislation to tighten up on foreign takeovers.

Free market platitudes, and making billions on the other side of the world are no substitute for a robust economy at home.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

An "ethical" and "efficient" company is good, but it's better still if it's profits, it's wage bill and it's supply chain costs are being spent within the British economy.

Free marketeers will often say "who cares" who owns the company if the tax is spent here, conveniently forgetting that the greater part of a companies value comes from far more than the tax it pays.

To me, it's not about supporting the free market (although people do often forget how good genuinely free markets can be at generating wealth) - it's about being against racism. If someone happens to be German, does that make them any less worthy as a human being than a British person? Does it make them less likely to be ethical? Of course not!

Conversely, if I, as a British citizen, have some interest in - say German railways or German beer production, or whatever, and wish to be involved with those activities, should I be disqualified or regarded as somehow less suitable because I happen to be British? I should certainly hope not - any more than I'd hope not to be disqualified because of the colour of my skin, or my sexuality, or any other aspect of who I am, other than my skills, my familiarity with the business and the market, my ability to get the job done, and my (hopefully, good) character.

There are certainly some issues that we need to be aware of to do with making sure that companies do have the interests of the communities in which they operate at heart (that possibly could be a particular issue when companies are owned in large part by foreign Governments), but there's a very fine line between worrying about that, and descending into something that looks rather too much like outright racism, and to my mind, many of the complaints about companies being owned by foreigners look too much like the latter

 

[Harbornite]

Depends what you mean by Great, Britain isn't as powerful on the international stage as it once was but it's a more tolerant country that generally offers its citizens a better quality of life than existed in the Imperial era, and it's still one of the world's top economies in terms of GDP, and a nuclear power

Regarding the decline of the empire, that happened gradually, with some events that sped up the process. Arguably the rot set in during the 1870s when the USA and recently-unified Germany began to compete more effectively with British industry. The years following the first world war saw the creation of the Irish free State and the Commonwealth, both examples of imperial decline from a certain point of view. Then you've got the Second World war, with 1941-1942 marking the fall of Singapore and Hong Kong to the Japanese (proving that Europeans weren't always superior). Britain was left bankrupt and in debt to the world's new superpower at the end of the war, with 1947 (independence for the "jewel in the crown") and 1956 (Suez incident) also being key indicators of imperial decline, although Britain did get the welfare state and nukes during this time. The late 1950s and 1960s saw the relatively peaceful process (Aden and Malaya aside) of decolonisation in Africa and Asia and by the 1970s, the process was all but complete with a few exceptions. Unfortunately, the process of industrial decline which began in 1945 was also accelerated during this time and that was partly why Britain ended up being labelled the sick man of Europe in the 1970s, before Thatcher got in. Whatever people say about the UK today, at least things aren't as bad as they were in the winter of 1978-79.