> @noneoftheabove said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @kinabalu said: > > > I ran across an excellent piece in the NS by my current MP Gloria de Piero about that this morning. > > > https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/02/i-talked-my-leave-voting-constituents-about-brexit-what-i-learnt > > > > > > Thanks. Will read. And have now checked out the ones linked on the PT by ‘ralphmalph’. Which proved to be excellent pieces. Insightful and persuasive on why many of the WWC in En … > > > > > > BUT: > > > > > > I had already got with that programme. Years ago, I did. The great Owen Jones in his breakthrough book ‘Chavs’ was brilliant on it. It rings true to me and it is why I am loved up on the prospect of a radical, socialist leaning Labour government – because for all the flaws of Jeremy Corbyn as a leader his project is about prioritizing the badly off. > > > > > > So the same question is still torturing me – > > > > > > OK they voted Leave because - generically and with apols to the Stranglers, “Something Better Change” - understood - but why now, here in 2019, are WWC leavers flocking to No Deal Brexit and the liwho do care about them, about reducing inequality, and are proposing policies which make it clear that they do? > > > > > > The only way I can answer this with any logic is to conclude either that (i) they are enamoured with nationalism and matters of identity rather than economic and class self-interest, or (ii) they are not thinking clearly. Neither conclusion is particularly wholesome – hence my mental anguish. > > > > As I pointed out before they are not, Labour won unskas well in 2016 but they still voted Labour in 2017. > > > > > > It was slightly higher earning less welfare dependant skilled white working class C2s who both voted Leave in 2016 and then voted Tory in 2017 and will be strong Brexit Party voters in the European elections. There is nothing remotely 'illogical' about that! > > > > > > > > On this one HYUFD is right, Corbyn is good (economically) for the precariat but bad (economically) for the working class. The middle class would do very well from Corbyn economically as well from things like tuition fees. Tax rises on workers to pay for benefits and higher education does not help working people (whether they are needed or not is a separate question but it is lazy thinking to assume Corbyn=working class saviour). Corbyn is good (relatively at least in theory) for the DE precariat as he will increase their welfare payments and for the C1 lower middle class who will benefit from free tuition fees and higher public spending.
Corbyn is less good for skilled working class C2s who will have to pay higher taxes and are less likely to go to university and benefit from free tuition fees and are still concerned about immigration and upper middle class ABs who will also pay higher taxes and are more likely to use private education and healthcare than public services
The article from the new Statesman by Ms de Piero makes some very good points. There is an unpleasant arrogance from some Remainers who either don't understand how irksome it is, or do understand but don't care because they know they are superior beings.
Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts, and when you confuse the two, you look a fool. There's nothing so irksome as an arrogant fool.
The funny thing is, a lot on the left would agree with some of the stuff in there. The effects of 2008 are still being felt and will continue to be felt for a long time to come.
> @The_Taxman said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > > > @another_richard said > > > > > > > > > > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops. > > > > > > > > > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries! > > > > > > > > > > > > > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit: > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc > > > > > > > > That was a lie wasn't it. > > > > > > > > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ? > > > > > > Yes, he was wrong. But not 100% incorrect as some farmers have found it more difficult to recruit people to do these jobs even in the EU. I am not going to get involved any further in your tedious exchanges on Strawberries or Rotherham traveller communities.... > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you would prefer to 'affect change' on anyone pointing out inconvenient facts. > > No, the Brexit supporting press don't point out facts they just peddle anti-EU propaganda without any statistical underpinning. That is fine, that is their narrative but I as a consumer of their media have the right to oppose what they produce if I so wish. I have an independent mind, I investigate things. If I or a politician want to challenge the type of output being produced by large media entities. I don't see a problem with that. You are opposed to that because you support Brexit, that is your choice as it is mine to be anti-Brexit. I think media have a responsibility to their readership, the Brexit supporting media do not seem to be underpinning their output on economic or social reality, instead they focus on nationalistic rhetoric that will leave their readership even more frustrated. For example European immigrants being replaced by non-European immigrants, the reason for this is even if the UK economy is not performing well. There will still be Labour shortages for some work, the pull of a £9 minimum wage will be immense to an individual on £1 a day in a much less developed economy.
So you think they have a 'responsibility' to say things you agree with and if they don't 'affect change'.
Altogether now 'there are no strawberries in the shops'.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @stodge said: > > > > Evening all > > > > > > > > The housing problem isn't just about building or not building houses. It's a crisis of land management, planning, place, infrastructure and a raft of other things which can be grouped round a central question: "How are we going to live in the mid 21st century?" > > > > > > > > Housing isn't about having a place to eat, sleep or relax. It's about "place" - the whole notion of the environment around which and in which you eat, sleep, work, relax, play etc. The concept of separating these activities - you dwell in one place, you work in another place, you get entertained at other places comes from an age and a time when these activities were socially and culturally demarcated. The High Street was for shopping not for living (for the most part). You lived in the suburbs in your house alongside houses which looked the same - little boxes, little boxes etc. > > > > > > > > All of that was predicated on personal and available transport - you had a car or you took the bus or the train. That "life model" based on suburban living is breaking down and we need to think about how we live and work in different ways. > > > > > > > > I'd argue part of the political crisis of our time stems from the recognition the lifestyle model we have enjoyed since before WW2 is changing and whether from AI or from other factors, the security we enjoyed at home, at work in society and in our communities is being undermined and a lot of what we see is a backlash against that. There will always be affection for a "golden yesterday" if an uncertain tomorrow looms. > > > > > > I think that's right. > > > > > > I'll add that while many are worried that they might lose that 'life model' there are others who fear they will never achieve it to begin with. > > > > > > There is something I refer to as 'middle class regression' where people from a middle class background and who have a middle class education are unable to get a middle class lifestyle and its attributes including home ownership. > > > > > > > By 40 most people are still homeowners even if no longer by 30 > > If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70
Indeed.
The variations around the country might be interesting.
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > @Nigelb said: > > > Anyone betting on the baby's name? > > > > > > Anyone give a flying fnck ? > > > > > @Nigelb said: > > > Anyone betting on the baby's name? > > > > > > Anyone give a flying fnck ? > > > > Well it is presently leading the news not only here but in the US, France and Australia too so I would imagine a fair few do > > Monarchy = Socialism!
Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @another_richard said: > > > > @stodge said: > > > > Evening all > > > > > > > > The housing problem isn't just about building or not building houses. It's a crisis of land management, planning, place, infrastructure and a raft of other things which can be grouped round a central question: "How are we going to live in the mid 21st century?" > > > > > > > > Housing isn't about having a place to eat, sleep or relax. It's about "place" - the whole notion of the environment around which and in which you eat, sleep, work, relax, play etc. The concept of separating these activities - you dwell in one place, you work in another place, you get entertained at other places comes from an age and a time when these activities were socially and culturally demarcated. The High Street was for shopping not for living (for the most part). You lived in the suburbs in your house alongside houses which looked the same - little boxes, little boxes etc. > > > > > > > > All of that was predicated on personal and available transport - you had a car or you took the bus or the train. That "life model" based on suburban living is breaking down and we need to think about how we live and work in different ways. > > > > > > > > I'd argue part of the political crisis of our time stems from the recognition the lifestyle model we have enjoyed since before WW2 is changing and whether from AI or from other factors, the security we enjoyed at home, at work in society and in our communities is being undermined and a lot of what we see is a backlash against that. There will always be affection for a "golden yesterday" if an uncertain tomorrow looms. > > > > > > I think that's right. > > > > > > I'll add that while many are worried that they might lose that 'life model' there are others who fear they will never achieve it to begin with. > > > > > > There is something I refer to as 'middle class regression' where people from a middle class background and who have a middle class education are unable to get a middle class lifestyle and its attributes including home ownership. > > > > > > > By 40 most people are still homeowners even if no longer by 30 > > If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70
Most people have always started off buying a flat or terraced or semi detached house with a mortgage to get on the housing ladder, we have never had a generation where most have started off owning a detached house, you move up the ladder.
By 70 most will also have had much bigger inheritances than their parents or grandparents did too
1. Whether you are likeable and articulate. Do people want to go out for a beer with you? Do you have charisma?
2. Do you have your finger on a hot button issue? Do people think you care about the one issue they care about? When you give your answer in the debates, do people cheer?
3. Do you have a "constituency"? I.e. some captive voters you can rely on for support?
3.5 Organisation. Do you have a really strong organisation - particularly in Iowa and NH - to turn support into delegates.
If you look back at the Trump 2016, he had number 2 in spades: he was talking about immigration, and it was the hot button issue. And he had charisma. And his major competitor (Ted Cruz) was not a man you'd like to be trapped in a lift with.
Obama 2008 had 1 and 3 and definitely 3.5.
This time around:
Sanders has 2, 3 and 3.5. But not really 1. Biden has 3 - the Democratic loyalists. Warren has 2 and 3.5. She's built a great organisation in the early states. Beto has 1. But he doesn't have 2, 3 or 3.5. Mayor Pete similarly. Harris scores OK on 3, she should be able to appeal to Californians and African Americans and women. But what policies does she espouse? And while she's not without charm, she's not *that* exciting.
> @Sean_F said: > > @The_Taxman said: > > > @algarkirk said: > > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > > > > @algarkirk said: > > > > > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > > > > O/T Brexit party and Farage 'hype' called out by Chuka Umunna. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is a sensible move by Chuka but he needs to get it on Sky TV and BBC News to raise questions in peoples mind about the blatant propaganda being distributed by the Brexit supporting media. I think someone like Ken Clarke should throw his considerable political weight into this debate in citing the appalling way these Brexit supporting papers are acting against their readers interests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/farage-brexit-markle-baby-boy-chuka-umunna-change-uk-european-elections-a8901631.html > > > > > > > > > > > > No wiser. No better informed. > > > > > > > > > > As a potential CUK voter, I want to hear what they are for, how they think we can move on from here. Instead this piece is just another criticism, partly valid, partly exaggerated that does not move us forward, does not change peoples minds, and if anything works as excuse for the two divided groups to stay in their echo chambers ignoring the other half of the country. > > > > > > > > I think it is important to understand why Brexit happened in terms of how the debate was framed. The Brexit supporting media tipped the balance and to cancel Brexit, you have to attempt to change the output of the Brexit supporting media to a more neutral position. An analogy I like to use is that of water born disease in centuries past. The only way to stop the disease is to supply new water, drinking from stagnant pools will only result in the same disease and no progress. The Brexit supporting press desperately stick to the ridiculous position of an outcome that undermines Britain, removes opportunities for its people and results in lower living standards for all within the UK. It cannot be right for them to continue the narrative they do without them experiencing consequences.... > > > > > > > > > Not quite. We have a free media, a very free social media and a BBC which has been massively pro EU but had to be unbiased for a time. > > > > The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Sun are a free media but they choose to promote an extreme agenda that benefits nobody apart from Farage. All I am saying is strategically, those who oppose Brexit need to affect change on these Newspapers, if they want a different outcome. At the moment, the Brexit press are channelling their readership and the country into a situation a Lemming would relish. > > Nobody is compelled to read such media. > > Strange as it may seem, many people in the UK dislike the EU.
Most folk don't read any newspapers. Of those who do most ignore politics completely.
> @ydoethur said: > I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere. > > They should call him Earl. Just for the lols as Garter King of Arms actually goes through the roof.
> @ydoethur said: > I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere. > > They should call him Earl. Just for the lols as Garter King of Arms actually goes through the roof.
Prince Donald would be a nice way of cementing the special relationship.
> @another_richard said: > > @The_Taxman said: > > > @another_richard said > > > > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops. > > > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries! > > > > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc > > That was a lie wasn't it. > > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ?
Interesting use of 'extreme agenda' (staying as we were) - and how do you propose that they should not be 'allowed to continue'? Are you a bit concerned by the relative direction of change in the results for the Leave parties (Tory and UKIP) versus the Remain parties (LibDem and Green) in the recent local elections.
> @The_Taxman said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > @another_richard said: > > > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > > > @another_richard said > > > > > > > > > > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops. > > > > > > > > > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries! > > > > > > > > > > > > > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit: > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc > > > > > > > > That was a lie wasn't it. > > > > > > > > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ? > > > > > > Yes, he was wrong. But not 100% incorrect as some farmers have found it more difficult to recruit people to do these jobs even in the EU. I am not going to get involved any further in your tedious exchanges on Strawberries or Rotherham traveller communities.... > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you would prefer to 'affect change' on anyone pointing out inconvenient facts. > > No, the Brexit supporting press don't point out facts they just peddle anti-EU propaganda without any statistical underpinning. That is fine, that is their narrative but I as a consumer of their media have the right to oppose what they produce if I so wish. I have an independent mind, I investigate things. If I or a politician want to challenge the type of output being produced by large media entities. I don't see a problem with that. You are opposed to that because you support Brexit, that is your choice as it is mine to be anti-Brexit. I think media have a responsibility to their readership, the Brexit supporting media do not seem to be underpinning their output on economic or social reality, instead they focus on nationalistic rhetoric that will leave their readership even more frustrated. For example European immigrants being replaced by non-European immigrants, the reason for this is even if the UK economy is not performing well. There will still be Labour shortages for some work, the pull of a £9 minimum wage will be immense to an individual on £1 a day in a much less developed economy.
> @logical_song said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > @another_richard said > > > > > > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops. > > > > > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries! > > > > > > > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc > > > > That was a lie wasn't it. > > > > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ? > > Interesting use of 'extreme agenda' (staying as we were) - and how do you propose that they should not be 'allowed to continue'? > Are you a bit concerned by the relative direction of change in the results for the Leave parties (Tory and UKIP) versus the Remain parties (LibDem and Green) in the recent local elections.
The Brexit Party did not contest the Local elections and many Leave voters voted Independent (with Independents making big gains).
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > > @Nigelb said: > > > > > > > Anyone betting on the baby's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone give a flying fnck ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Nigelb said: > > > > > > > Anyone betting on the baby's name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone give a flying fnck ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Well it is presently leading the news not only here but in the US, France and Australia too so I would imagine a fair few do > > > > > > Monarchy = Socialism! > > > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs > > > And Meghan's homeland?
Broke away from us and our monarchy, however its neighbour Canada stayed part of the British Empire and retains our monarchy
> @ydoethur said: > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
> @HYUFD said: > > @ydoethur said: > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs > > > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples. > > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
> @logical_song said: > > @another_richard said: > > > @The_Taxman said: > > > > @another_richard said > > > > > > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops. > > > > > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries! > > > > > > > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc > > > > That was a lie wasn't it. > > > > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ? > > Interesting use of 'extreme agenda' (staying as we were) - and how do you propose that they should not be 'allowed to continue'? > Are you a bit concerned by the relative direction of change in the results for the Leave parties (Tory and UKIP) versus the Remain parties (LibDem and Green) in the recent local elections.
Try to follow the discussion from the start.
I was asking Taxman - it is him who is wanting to 'affect change' on people he disagrees with.
As to the local elections are you a bit concerned that the LibDems still can only reach 17% on the NEV ?
> @ydoethur said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere. > > > > > > They should call him Earl. Just for the lols as Garter King of Arms actually goes through the roof. > > > > > @ydoethur said: > > > I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere. > > > > > > They should call him Earl. Just for the lols as Garter King of Arms actually goes through the roof. > > > > Prince Donald would be a nice way of cementing the special relationship. > > I can't Trump that, although it would lack Juddgement.
> @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs > > > > > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples. > > > > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist > > The Kims in North Korea.
Presidents not monarchs, no different to the Bushes or Kennedys in the USA who have produced more than 1 President
> @ydoethur said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs > > > > > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples. > > > > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist > > North Korea! > > Edit - and if you say it isn't really Socialist I shall refer you to the work of the late Antony Flew and lecture you on language games.
North Korea is a Republic NOT a monarchy, its official title is even 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea'
> @williamglenn said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > > The Three Kims of orient are bearing gifts that traverse afar. > > Is someone with a key role in the succession called a Kim-maker?
There are plenty who would like to see a Kimslayer..
> @SandyRentool said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @ydoethur said: > > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs > > > > > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples. > > > > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist > > Spain. > > Edit: > > Wales > > Scotland > > New Zealand
None of those are socialist on any definition, even saying they are social democratic is a stretch, the fact they sometimes elect centre left governments is not the same thing
> @HYUFD said: > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > @ydoethur said: > > > > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs > > > > > > > > > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples. > > > > > > > > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist > > > > The Kims in North Korea. > > Presidents not monarchs, no different to the Bushes or Kennedys in the USA who have produced more than 1 President -------------------------------------------------------- The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed. (And if you are going to go the 'well they are president in practice' route, then why you are getting hysterical over the nomenclature others are using is beyond me).
In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss.
> @kle4 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @Sunil_Prasannan said: > > > > @ydoethur said: > > > > > > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples. > > > > > > > > > > > > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist > > > > > > The Kims in North Korea. > > > > Presidents not monarchs, no different to the Bushes or Kennedys in the USA who have produced more than 1 President > -------------------------------------------------------- > The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed. > > In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss.
It is no different, Kim Jong Un's official title is 'Supreme Leader of North Korea' and 'Chairman of the Workers' Party', the same titles his father had.
The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed.
In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss.
I didn't make any comment as to what title they have.
Whatever they call themselves, a state that has three consecutive heads of state from the same family is by any reasonable definition a monarchy.
> > > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
> > >
> > > The Kims in North Korea.
> >
> > Presidents not monarchs, no different to the Bushes or Kennedys in the USA who have produced more than 1 President
> The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed.
>
> In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss.
It is no different, Kim Jong Un's official title is 'Supreme Leader of North Korea' and 'Chairman of the Workers' Party', the same titles his father had.
No mention of being a King anywhere there
Kim Il-Sung was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong-Il, who was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong-un.
> @ydoethur said: > North Korea is a Republic NOT a monarchy, its official title is even 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea' > > Riiiight... > > So you're claiming they're a democracy, 'cos that's what they call themselves? > > In all seriousness, you do need to read the work of Antony Flew.
I think we are seeing HYUFD's legendary ability to know everything about everything and refusal to ever admit to being wrong (or rather than nuance and in this case metaphor can exist) taken to its logical conclusion in not being even able to entertain the possibility of a de facto monarchical arrangement because it is not official.
No one tell him that the Chinese Communist Party is not exactly a great example of full throated communist ideology, for christ's sake. And no one introduce him to the Liberal parties of the world which are actually conservative.
That's a strange choice of name. You'll never get it on the birth certificate. But King Frick I of England (VI of Scotland, obs) does have a ring to it...
> @ydoethur said: > The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed. > > In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss. > > I didn't make any comment as to what title they have. > > Whatever they call themselves, a state that has three consecutive heads of state from the same family is by any reasonable definition a monarchy.
No it is not.
Monarchy, the dictionary definition ' C ] a country that has a king or queen [ U ] the system of having a king or queen:
a system of government that has a king or queen, or a country that has this system of government'
> The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed.
>
> In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss.
>
> I didn't make any comment as to what title they have.
>
> Whatever they call themselves, a state that has three consecutive heads of state from the same family is by any reasonable definition a monarchy.
No it is not.
Monarchy, the dictionary definition ' C ] a country that has a king or queen
[ U ] the system of having a king or queen:
a system of government that has a king or queen, or a country that has this system of government'
No it is not. Monarchy, the dictionary definition ' C ] a country that has a king or queen [ U ] the system of having a king or queen: a system of government that has a king or queen, or a country that has this system of government' https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monarchy
How about defining the words 'king' or 'queen' from the same source:
'a male ruler of a country, who holds this position because of his royal birth.'
That sums up the latter two Kims perfectly.
You're back on your favourite hobby of refusing to admit an error.
Have you actually been on the Ullapool to Inverness ferry yet?
> @ydoethur said: > No it is not. > Monarchy, the dictionary definition ' C ] a country that has a king or queen > [ U ] the system of having a king or queen: > a system of government that has a king or queen, or a country that has this system of government' > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monarchy > > How about defining the words 'king' or 'queen' from the same source: > > 'a male ruler of a country, who holds this position because of his royal birth.' > > That sums up the latter two Kims perfectly. > > You're back on your favourite hobby of refusing to admit an error. > > Have you actually been on the Ullapool to Inverness ferry yet? Wrong again, neither Kim are of royal birth and I am not wrong on this you are.
North Korea is on no definition whatsoever a monarchy, you could just about argue it is a hereditary Republic but that is still not a monarchy
If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70
Plus they have to have kids at some point. Babies in flats are difficult: getting a buggy up and down stairs is no fun at all
Consider the layout of a terraced house, ideally bay and forecourted. Window out front so you can see who is approaching. Kitchen with window overlooking the back yard so you can see the kids play whilst you prepare a meal. Walls to obscure nosey neighbours. Secure, safe and expandable with bunk beds. That type of house used to be so widespread they were the province of poor people: have a look at old media from the 50's and before. Miners' cottages and council houses fit this pattern. But these days in the South East even middle-class folk have to live in flats, goddammit.
No one tell him that the Chinese Communist Party is not exactly a great example of full throated communist ideology, for christ's sake. And no one introduce him to the Liberal parties of the world which are actually conservative.
Jorg Haider's Freedom Party was a part of Liberal International before he became a Nazi.
Not that that's particularly relevant, but it does highlight how confusing these labels can be.
> @kle4 said: > > @ydoethur said: > > North Korea is a Republic NOT a monarchy, its official title is even 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea' > > > > Riiiight... > > > > So you're claiming they're a democracy, 'cos that's what they call themselves? > > > > In all seriousness, you do need to read the work of Antony Flew. > > I think we are seeing HYUFD's legendary ability to know everything about everything and refusal to ever admit to being wrong (or rather than nuance and in this case metaphor can exist) taken to its logical conclusion in not being even able to entertain the possibility of a de facto monarchical arrangement because it is not official. > > No one tell him that the Chinese Communist Party is not exactly a great example of full throated communist ideology, for christ's sake. And no one introduce him to the Liberal parties of the world which are actually conservative.
The Chinese Communist Party certainly was Communist under Mao even if it has now introduced a more mixed, market based economy.
Most centre right parties are economically liberal but socially more conservative (unless they are libertarian parties)
> @ydoethur said: > Kim Il-Sung was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong-Il, who was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong-un. > > There was a moment in 1996 when an American diplomat who hadn't been well-briefed misread his notes and referred to 'Kim Jong the Second.' > > As Freudian slips go...
Couldn't they have just stuck to a nice logical order, like Kim Jong Un, Kim Jong Deux, Kim Jong Trois...?
Wrong again, neither Kim are of royal birth and I am not wrong on this you are.
It's good to know William II, Henry I, Henry II, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII and George I were not royal because they or their parents seized power and bequeathed it to them rather than being proper royals.
Mind, it seriously buggers my teaching for next week.
> @viewcode said: > If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70 > > Plus they have to have kids at some point. Babies in flats are difficult: getting a buggy up and down stairs is no fun at all > > Consider the layout of a terraced house, ideally bay and forecourted. Window out front so you can see who is approaching. Kitchen with window overlooking the back yard so you can see the kids play whilst you prepare a meal. Walls to obscure nosey neighbours. Secure, safe and expandable with bunk beds. That type of house used to be so widespread they were the province of poor people: have a look at old media from the 50's and before. Miners' cottages and council houses fit this pattern. But these days in the South East even middle-class folk have to live in flats, goddammit.
Living in a 2 bed leasehold flat for a few years before moving to a semi or detached property is hardly Armageddon.
> If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70
>
> Plus they have to have kids at some point. Babies in flats are difficult: getting a buggy up and down stairs is no fun at all
>
> Consider the layout of a terraced house, ideally bay and forecourted. Window out front so you can see who is approaching. Kitchen with window overlooking the back yard so you can see the kids play whilst you prepare a meal. Walls to obscure nosey neighbours. Secure, safe and expandable with bunk beds. That type of house used to be so widespread they were the province of poor people: have a look at old media from the 50's and before. Miners' cottages and council houses fit this pattern. But these days in the South East even middle-class folk have to live in flats, goddammit.
Living in a 2 bed leasehold flat for a few years before moving to a semi or detached property is hardly Armageddon.
> @viewcode said: > > @viewcode said: > > > If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70 > > > > > > Plus they have to have kids at some point. Babies in flats are difficult: getting a buggy up and down stairs is no fun at all > > > > > > Consider the layout of a terraced house, ideally bay and forecourted. Window out front so you can see who is approaching. Kitchen with window overlooking the back yard so you can see the kids play whilst you prepare a meal. Walls to obscure nosey neighbours. Secure, safe and expandable with bunk beds. That type of house used to be so widespread they were the province of poor people: have a look at old media from the 50's and before. Miners' cottages and council houses fit this pattern. But these days in the South East even middle-class folk have to live in flats, goddammit. > > > > Living in a 2 bed leasehold flat for a few years before moving to a semi or detached property is hardly Armageddon. > > No, but it is suboptimal.
Tell that to the local LD and Residents' Association Nimbys then opposing more development
> @viewcode said: > By 70 most will also have had much bigger inheritances than their parents or grandparents did too > > Unfortunately they need to start a family much before then. Even in these days of fertility treatment giving birth at 70 is ill-advised...
As I have already said most people are on the property ladder by 40 not 70
John Harris, yet again, cuts through to tell us something genuinely interesting and important:
"And woven into this grimness is another big problem. In 2004, 96.5% of local councillors in England were white; according to recent figures, published just before last week’s elections, the figure was 95.8%. The same stats suggested that over a quarter of councillors were aged over 70, up from 14% 15 years ago, and half were over 60. Two-thirds were men."
> @ydoethur said: > Wrong again, neither Kim are of royal birth and I am not wrong on this you are. > > It's good to know William II, Henry I, Henry II, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII and George I were not royal because they or their parents seized power and bequeathed it to them rather than being proper royals. > > Mind, it seriously buggers my teaching for next week.
All of those had the title King so were by definition royal, the Kims neither have or had the title King nor were of royal birth
> @ydoethur said: > Couldn't they have just stuck to a nice logical order, like Kim Jong Un, Kim Jong Deux, Kim Jong Trois...? > > I've always rather enjoyed the way 'Kim Jong Un' is an almost perfect homophone for 'King Young 'Un' in English. > > If I were a mad conspiracy theorist I could put together whole chains of reasoning from this pleasing coincidence.
A similar thought has occurred to my pun-loving mind. The whole North Korean setup would be perfect for a surrealist, slapstick-based sitcom - we could call it 'The Jong-Uns'...
> @SandyRentool said: > It's great here. Sunil reposts one of his regular pieces of nonsense, HYUFD takes it seriously and now we are neck deep in a total load of bollocks. > > Makes a change from forecasting the result of the 2022 General Election based on polling for the EU elections...
I suppose it could be worse, we could be forecasting the result of the 2022 General Election based on North Korean polling.
> @HYUFD said: > > @ydoethur said: > > No it is not. > > Monarchy, the dictionary definition ' C ] a country that has a king or queen > > [ U ] the system of having a king or queen: > > a system of government that has a king or queen, or a country that has this system of government' > > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monarchy > > > > How about defining the words 'king' or 'queen' from the same source: > > > > 'a male ruler of a country, who holds this position because of his royal birth.' > > > > That sums up the latter two Kims perfectly. > > > > You're back on your favourite hobby of refusing to admit an error. > > > > Have you actually been on the Ullapool to Inverness ferry yet? > Wrong again, neither Kim are of royal birth and I am not wrong on this you are. > > North Korea is on no definition whatsoever a monarchy, you could just about argue it is a hereditary Republic but that is still not a monarchy > Aristotle would have had no difficulty classifying it as such. The Kims are like rulers in Renaissance Italy, who had a title like First Citizen.
Augustus was a monarch, despite never taking a royal title.
Comments
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @kinabalu said:
> > > I ran across an excellent piece in the NS by my current MP Gloria de Piero about that this morning.
> > > https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/02/i-talked-my-leave-voting-constituents-about-brexit-what-i-learnt
> > >
> > > Thanks. Will read. And have now checked out the ones linked on the PT by ‘ralphmalph’. Which proved to be excellent pieces. Insightful and persuasive on why many of the WWC in En …
> > >
> > > BUT:
> > >
> > > I had already got with that programme. Years ago, I did. The great Owen Jones in his breakthrough book ‘Chavs’ was brilliant on it. It rings true to me and it is why I am loved up on the prospect of a radical, socialist leaning Labour government – because for all the flaws of Jeremy Corbyn as a leader his project is about prioritizing the badly off.
> > >
> > > So the same question is still torturing me –
> > >
> > > OK they voted Leave because - generically and with apols to the Stranglers, “Something Better Change” - understood - but why now, here in 2019, are WWC leavers flocking to No Deal Brexit and the liwho do care about them, about reducing inequality, and are proposing policies which make it clear that they do?
> > >
> > > The only way I can answer this with any logic is to conclude either that (i) they are enamoured with nationalism and matters of identity rather than economic and class self-interest, or (ii) they are not thinking clearly. Neither conclusion is particularly wholesome – hence my mental anguish.
> >
> > As I pointed out before they are not, Labour won unskas well in 2016 but they still voted Labour in 2017.
> >
> >
> > It was slightly higher earning less welfare dependant skilled white working class C2s who both voted Leave in 2016 and then voted Tory in 2017 and will be strong Brexit Party voters in the European elections. There is nothing remotely 'illogical' about that!
> >
> >
> >
>
> On this one HYUFD is right, Corbyn is good (economically) for the precariat but bad (economically) for the working class. The middle class would do very well from Corbyn economically as well from things like tuition fees. Tax rises on workers to pay for benefits and higher education does not help working people (whether they are needed or not is a separate question but it is lazy thinking to assume Corbyn=working class saviour).
Corbyn is good (relatively at least in theory) for the DE precariat as he will increase their welfare payments and for the C1 lower middle class who will benefit from free tuition fees and higher public spending.
Corbyn is less good for skilled working class C2s who will have to pay higher taxes and are less likely to go to university and benefit from free tuition fees and are still concerned about immigration and upper middle class ABs who will also pay higher taxes and are more likely to use private education and healthcare than public services
> Anyone betting on the baby's name?
How come James is one of the favourites? Is someone having a laugh?
Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts, and when you confuse the two, you look a fool. There's nothing so irksome as an arrogant fool.
Fortunately, they tend to be rarer on here.
> Farage going the full whackjob:
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/06/nigel-farage-under-fire-alleged-antisemitic-tropes-far-right-us-talkshow-alex-jones
The funny thing is, a lot on the left would agree with some of the stuff in there. The effects of 2008 are still being felt and will continue to be felt for a long time to come.
I am sure matters will be suitably Oranged.
> > @tlg86 said:
> > Anyone betting on the baby's name?
>
> How come James is one of the favourites? Is someone having a laugh?
Hadn't thought about that! I guess the bookies are hoping Meghan gets to choose and goes for something a bit different.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > > > @another_richard said
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops.
> > > > >
> > > > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc
> > > >
> > > > That was a lie wasn't it.
> > > >
> > > > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ?
> > >
> > > Yes, he was wrong. But not 100% incorrect as some farmers have found it more difficult to recruit people to do these jobs even in the EU. I am not going to get involved any further in your tedious exchanges on Strawberries or Rotherham traveller communities....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Perhaps you would prefer to 'affect change' on anyone pointing out inconvenient facts.
>
> No, the Brexit supporting press don't point out facts they just peddle anti-EU propaganda without any statistical underpinning. That is fine, that is their narrative but I as a consumer of their media have the right to oppose what they produce if I so wish. I have an independent mind, I investigate things. If I or a politician want to challenge the type of output being produced by large media entities. I don't see a problem with that. You are opposed to that because you support Brexit, that is your choice as it is mine to be anti-Brexit. I think media have a responsibility to their readership, the Brexit supporting media do not seem to be underpinning their output on economic or social reality, instead they focus on nationalistic rhetoric that will leave their readership even more frustrated. For example European immigrants being replaced by non-European immigrants, the reason for this is even if the UK economy is not performing well. There will still be Labour shortages for some work, the pull of a £9 minimum wage will be immense to an individual on £1 a day in a much less developed economy.
So you think they have a 'responsibility' to say things you agree with and if they don't 'affect change'.
Altogether now 'there are no strawberries in the shops'.
Hendry's prediction it wouldn't go to the mid-session interval about 100-1 odds on.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @stodge said:
> > > > Evening all
> > > >
> > > > The housing problem isn't just about building or not building houses. It's a crisis of land management, planning, place, infrastructure and a raft of other things which can be grouped round a central question: "How are we going to live in the mid 21st century?"
> > > >
> > > > Housing isn't about having a place to eat, sleep or relax. It's about "place" - the whole notion of the environment around which and in which you eat, sleep, work, relax, play etc. The concept of separating these activities - you dwell in one place, you work in another place, you get entertained at other places comes from an age and a time when these activities were socially and culturally demarcated. The High Street was for shopping not for living (for the most part). You lived in the suburbs in your house alongside houses which looked the same - little boxes, little boxes etc.
> > > >
> > > > All of that was predicated on personal and available transport - you had a car or you took the bus or the train. That "life model" based on suburban living is breaking down and we need to think about how we live and work in different ways.
> > > >
> > > > I'd argue part of the political crisis of our time stems from the recognition the lifestyle model we have enjoyed since before WW2 is changing and whether from AI or from other factors, the security we enjoyed at home, at work in society and in our communities is being undermined and a lot of what we see is a backlash against that. There will always be affection for a "golden yesterday" if an uncertain tomorrow looms.
> > >
> > > I think that's right.
> > >
> > > I'll add that while many are worried that they might lose that 'life model' there are others who fear they will never achieve it to begin with.
> > >
> > > There is something I refer to as 'middle class regression' where people from a middle class background and who have a middle class education are unable to get a middle class lifestyle and its attributes including home ownership.
> > >
> >
> > By 40 most people are still homeowners even if no longer by 30
>
> If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70
Indeed.
The variations around the country might be interesting.
> > @Nigelb said:
>
> > Anyone betting on the baby's name?
>
> >
>
> > Anyone give a flying fnck ?
>
>
>
> > @Nigelb said:
>
> > Anyone betting on the baby's name?
>
> >
>
> > Anyone give a flying fnck ?
>
>
>
> Well it is presently leading the news not only here but in the US, France and Australia too so I would imagine a fair few do
>
> Monarchy = Socialism!
Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
Edit - and he misses to finish!
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @another_richard said:
> > > > @stodge said:
> > > > Evening all
> > > >
> > > > The housing problem isn't just about building or not building houses. It's a crisis of land management, planning, place, infrastructure and a raft of other things which can be grouped round a central question: "How are we going to live in the mid 21st century?"
> > > >
> > > > Housing isn't about having a place to eat, sleep or relax. It's about "place" - the whole notion of the environment around which and in which you eat, sleep, work, relax, play etc. The concept of separating these activities - you dwell in one place, you work in another place, you get entertained at other places comes from an age and a time when these activities were socially and culturally demarcated. The High Street was for shopping not for living (for the most part). You lived in the suburbs in your house alongside houses which looked the same - little boxes, little boxes etc.
> > > >
> > > > All of that was predicated on personal and available transport - you had a car or you took the bus or the train. That "life model" based on suburban living is breaking down and we need to think about how we live and work in different ways.
> > > >
> > > > I'd argue part of the political crisis of our time stems from the recognition the lifestyle model we have enjoyed since before WW2 is changing and whether from AI or from other factors, the security we enjoyed at home, at work in society and in our communities is being undermined and a lot of what we see is a backlash against that. There will always be affection for a "golden yesterday" if an uncertain tomorrow looms.
> > >
> > > I think that's right.
> > >
> > > I'll add that while many are worried that they might lose that 'life model' there are others who fear they will never achieve it to begin with.
> > >
> > > There is something I refer to as 'middle class regression' where people from a middle class background and who have a middle class education are unable to get a middle class lifestyle and its attributes including home ownership.
> > >
> >
> > By 40 most people are still homeowners even if no longer by 30
>
> If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70
Most people have always started off buying a flat or terraced or semi detached house with a mortgage to get on the housing ladder, we have never had a generation where most have started off owning a detached house, you move up the ladder.
By 70 most will also have had much bigger inheritances than their parents or grandparents did too
> Anyone betting on the baby's name?
I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere.
I think three and a half things matter:
1. Whether you are likeable and articulate. Do people want to go out for a beer with you? Do you have charisma?
2. Do you have your finger on a hot button issue? Do people think you care about the one issue they care about? When you give your answer in the debates, do people cheer?
3. Do you have a "constituency"? I.e. some captive voters you can rely on for support?
3.5 Organisation. Do you have a really strong organisation - particularly in Iowa and NH - to turn support into delegates.
If you look back at the Trump 2016, he had number 2 in spades: he was talking about immigration, and it was the hot button issue. And he had charisma. And his major competitor (Ted Cruz) was not a man you'd like to be trapped in a lift with.
Obama 2008 had 1 and 3 and definitely 3.5.
This time around:
Sanders has 2, 3 and 3.5. But not really 1.
Biden has 3 - the Democratic loyalists.
Warren has 2 and 3.5. She's built a great organisation in the early states.
Beto has 1. But he doesn't have 2, 3 or 3.5.
Mayor Pete similarly.
Harris scores OK on 3, she should be able to appeal to Californians and African Americans and women. But what policies does she espouse? And while she's not without charm, she's not *that* exciting.
> > @tlg86 said:
> > Anyone betting on the baby's name?
>
> How come James is one of the favourites? Is someone having a laugh?
After his Granddad.....
And Meghan's homeland?
> > @The_Taxman said:
> > > @algarkirk said:
> > > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > > > > @algarkirk said:
> > > > > > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > > > > O/T Brexit party and Farage 'hype' called out by Chuka Umunna.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this is a sensible move by Chuka but he needs to get it on Sky TV and BBC News to raise questions in peoples mind about the blatant propaganda being distributed by the Brexit supporting media. I think someone like Ken Clarke should throw his considerable political weight into this debate in citing the appalling way these Brexit supporting papers are acting against their readers interests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/farage-brexit-markle-baby-boy-chuka-umunna-change-uk-european-elections-a8901631.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No wiser. No better informed.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a potential CUK voter, I want to hear what they are for, how they think we can move on from here. Instead this piece is just another criticism, partly valid, partly exaggerated that does not move us forward, does not change peoples minds, and if anything works as excuse for the two divided groups to stay in their echo chambers ignoring the other half of the country.
> > > >
> > > > I think it is important to understand why Brexit happened in terms of how the debate was framed. The Brexit supporting media tipped the balance and to cancel Brexit, you have to attempt to change the output of the Brexit supporting media to a more neutral position. An analogy I like to use is that of water born disease in centuries past. The only way to stop the disease is to supply new water, drinking from stagnant pools will only result in the same disease and no progress. The Brexit supporting press desperately stick to the ridiculous position of an outcome that undermines Britain, removes opportunities for its people and results in lower living standards for all within the UK. It cannot be right for them to continue the narrative they do without them experiencing consequences....
> > >
> > >
> > > Not quite. We have a free media, a very free social media and a BBC which has been massively pro EU but had to be unbiased for a time.
> >
> > The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Sun are a free media but they choose to promote an extreme agenda that benefits nobody apart from Farage. All I am saying is strategically, those who oppose Brexit need to affect change on these Newspapers, if they want a different outcome. At the moment, the Brexit press are channelling their readership and the country into a situation a Lemming would relish.
>
> Nobody is compelled to read such media.
>
> Strange as it may seem, many people in the UK dislike the EU.
Most folk don't read any newspapers. Of those who do most ignore politics completely.
> I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere.
>
> They should call him Earl. Just for the lols as Garter King of Arms actually goes through the roof.
> @ydoethur said:
> I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere.
>
> They should call him Earl. Just for the lols as Garter King of Arms actually goes through the roof.
Prince Donald would be a nice way of cementing the special relationship.
https://elizabethwarren.com/debt/
> > @The_Taxman said:
> > > @another_richard said
> > >
> > > And there are no strawberries in the shops.
> >
> > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries!
> >
>
> We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc
>
> That was a lie wasn't it.
>
> Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ?
Interesting use of 'extreme agenda' (staying as we were) - and how do you propose that they should not be 'allowed to continue'?
Are you a bit concerned by the relative direction of change in the results for the Leave parties (Tory and UKIP) versus the Remain parties (LibDem and Green) in the recent local elections.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > @another_richard said:
> > > > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > > > @another_richard said
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops.
> > > > >
> > > > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc
> > > >
> > > > That was a lie wasn't it.
> > > >
> > > > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ?
> > >
> > > Yes, he was wrong. But not 100% incorrect as some farmers have found it more difficult to recruit people to do these jobs even in the EU. I am not going to get involved any further in your tedious exchanges on Strawberries or Rotherham traveller communities....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Perhaps you would prefer to 'affect change' on anyone pointing out inconvenient facts.
>
> No, the Brexit supporting press don't point out facts they just peddle anti-EU propaganda without any statistical underpinning. That is fine, that is their narrative but I as a consumer of their media have the right to oppose what they produce if I so wish. I have an independent mind, I investigate things. If I or a politician want to challenge the type of output being produced by large media entities. I don't see a problem with that. You are opposed to that because you support Brexit, that is your choice as it is mine to be anti-Brexit. I think media have a responsibility to their readership, the Brexit supporting media do not seem to be underpinning their output on economic or social reality, instead they focus on nationalistic rhetoric that will leave their readership even more frustrated. For example European immigrants being replaced by non-European immigrants, the reason for this is even if the UK economy is not performing well. There will still be Labour shortages for some work, the pull of a £9 minimum wage will be immense to an individual on £1 a day in a much less developed economy.
OMG - Meeks without the wit.
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > @another_richard said
> > > >
> > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops.
> > >
> > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries!
> > >
> >
> > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc
> >
> > That was a lie wasn't it.
> >
> > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ?
>
> Interesting use of 'extreme agenda' (staying as we were) - and how do you propose that they should not be 'allowed to continue'?
> Are you a bit concerned by the relative direction of change in the results for the Leave parties (Tory and UKIP) versus the Remain parties (LibDem and Green) in the recent local elections.
The Brexit Party did not contest the Local elections and many Leave voters voted Independent (with Independents making big gains).
The Euro elections will give a clearer indication
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
>
> > > @Nigelb said:
>
> >
>
> > > Anyone betting on the baby's name?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Anyone give a flying fnck ?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > @Nigelb said:
>
> >
>
> > > Anyone betting on the baby's name?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Anyone give a flying fnck ?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Well it is presently leading the news not only here but in the US, France and Australia too so I would imagine a fair few do
>
> >
>
> > Monarchy = Socialism!
>
>
>
> Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
>
>
> And Meghan's homeland?
Broke away from us and our monarchy, however its neighbour Canada stayed part of the British Empire and retains our monarchy
> Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
>
> Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
Edit - and if you say it isn't really Socialist I shall refer you to the work of the late Antony Flew and lecture you on language games.
> > @ydoethur said:
> > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
> >
> > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
>
> Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
Spain.
Edit:
Wales
Scotland
New Zealand
> > @another_richard said:
> > > @The_Taxman said:
> > > > @another_richard said
> > > >
> > > > And there are no strawberries in the shops.
> > >
> > > The UK has not left the EU as yet. Besides the UK will probably get non-European Immigrants to come and pick the Strawberries!
> > >
> >
> > We were told that there were no strawberries in 2017 because of Brexit:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYGggnF0WAc
> >
> > That was a lie wasn't it.
> >
> > Should the LibDems be allowed to continue or do we need to 'affect change' on their extreme agenda ?
>
> Interesting use of 'extreme agenda' (staying as we were) - and how do you propose that they should not be 'allowed to continue'?
> Are you a bit concerned by the relative direction of change in the results for the Leave parties (Tory and UKIP) versus the Remain parties (LibDem and Green) in the recent local elections.
Try to follow the discussion from the start.
I was asking Taxman - it is him who is wanting to 'affect change' on people he disagrees with.
As to the local elections are you a bit concerned that the LibDems still can only reach 17% on the NEV ?
> > @ydoethur said:
>
> > I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere.
>
> >
>
> > They should call him Earl. Just for the lols as Garter King of Arms actually goes through the roof.
>
>
>
> > @ydoethur said:
>
> > I reckon there will be a Prince in there somewhere.
>
> >
>
> > They should call him Earl. Just for the lols as Garter King of Arms actually goes through the roof.
>
>
>
> Prince Donald would be a nice way of cementing the special relationship.
>
> I can't Trump that, although it would lack Juddgement.
Snookered me there...
> > @ydoethur said:
>
> > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
>
> >
>
> > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
>
>
>
> Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
>
> The Kims in North Korea.
Presidents not monarchs, no different to the Bushes or Kennedys in the USA who have produced more than 1 President
> Strawberries are the most annoying fruit. They look like they will be so sweet but when you bite into them they are quite bitter.
Horrible things. Their mere smell from across the room makes me gag, no joke.
>
> The Three Kims of orient are bearing gifts that traverse afar.
Is someone with a key role in the succession called a Kim-maker?
> > @ydoethur said:
>
> > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
>
> >
>
> > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
>
>
>
> Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
>
> North Korea!
>
> Edit - and if you say it isn't really Socialist I shall refer you to the work of the late Antony Flew and lecture you on language games.
North Korea is a Republic NOT a monarchy, its official title is even 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea'
Pots Trump, and the Garter King with one shot.
> > @ydoethur said:
> >
> > The Three Kims of orient are bearing gifts that traverse afar.
>
> Is someone with a key role in the succession called a Kim-maker?
There are plenty who would like to see a Kimslayer..
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @ydoethur said:
> > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
> > >
> > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
> >
> > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
>
> Spain.
>
> Edit:
>
> Wales
>
> Scotland
>
> New Zealand
None of those are socialist on any definition, even saying they are social democratic is a stretch, the fact they sometimes elect centre left governments is not the same thing
> > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > > @ydoethur said:
> >
> > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
> >
> >
> >
> > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
> >
> > The Kims in North Korea.
>
> Presidents not monarchs, no different to the Bushes or Kennedys in the USA who have produced more than 1 President
--------------------------------------------------------
The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed. (And if you are going to go the 'well they are president in practice' route, then why you are getting hysterical over the nomenclature others are using is beyond me).
In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss.
So you're claiming they're a democracy, 'cos that's what they call themselves?
In all seriousness, you do need to read the work of Antony Flew.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
> > > > @ydoethur said:
> > >
> > > > Hardly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a Republic, as are Communist Cuba and North Korea, they had or have Presidents not Monarchs
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Given that in two of those countries the same family has ruled since the Communist takeover, that's a bad set of examples.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Name one socialist country with a monarchy? Even Sweden or Denmark, which have monarchies, are social democratic rather than full on socialist
> > >
> > > The Kims in North Korea.
> >
> > Presidents not monarchs, no different to the Bushes or Kennedys in the USA who have produced more than 1 President
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed.
>
> In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss.
It is no different, Kim Jong Un's official title is 'Supreme Leader of North Korea' and 'Chairman of the Workers' Party', the same titles his father had.
No mention of being a King anywhere there
Whatever they call themselves, a state that has three consecutive heads of state from the same family is by any reasonable definition a monarchy.
> North Korea is a Republic NOT a monarchy, its official title is even 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea'
>
> Riiiight...
>
> So you're claiming they're a democracy, 'cos that's what they call themselves?
>
> In all seriousness, you do need to read the work of Antony Flew.
I think we are seeing HYUFD's legendary ability to know everything about everything and refusal to ever admit to being wrong (or rather than nuance and in this case metaphor can exist) taken to its logical conclusion in not being even able to entertain the possibility of a de facto monarchical arrangement because it is not official.
No one tell him that the Chinese Communist Party is not exactly a great example of full throated communist ideology, for christ's sake. And no one introduce him to the Liberal parties of the world which are actually conservative.
As Freudian slips go...
> The latter two Kims were not presidents. So you are both taking the 'socialist monarchy' thing a bit too literally, and also not literally enough given mistaking the official titles they have claimed.
>
> In practice the Kims seem little different than a monarchy (hell, the 'eternal president' thing makes them seem roman emperorish), and I think even one does not want to accept that as a literal truth, suggesting it is no different to the Bushes or Kennedys is taking, well, royal amounts of piss.
>
> I didn't make any comment as to what title they have.
>
> Whatever they call themselves, a state that has three consecutive heads of state from the same family is by any reasonable definition a monarchy.
No it is not.
Monarchy, the dictionary definition ' C ] a country that has a king or queen
[ U ] the system of having a king or queen:
a system of government that has a king or queen, or a country that has this system of government'
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monarchy
'a male ruler of a country, who holds this position because of his royal birth.'
That sums up the latter two Kims perfectly.
You're back on your favourite hobby of refusing to admit an error.
Have you actually been on the Ullapool to Inverness ferry yet?
> No it is not.
> Monarchy, the dictionary definition ' C ] a country that has a king or queen
> [ U ] the system of having a king or queen:
> a system of government that has a king or queen, or a country that has this system of government'
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monarchy
>
> How about defining the words 'king' or 'queen' from the same source:
>
> 'a male ruler of a country, who holds this position because of his royal birth.'
>
> That sums up the latter two Kims perfectly.
>
> You're back on your favourite hobby of refusing to admit an error.
>
> Have you actually been on the Ullapool to Inverness ferry yet?
Wrong again, neither Kim are of royal birth and I am not wrong on this you are.
North Korea is on no definition whatsoever a monarchy, you could just about argue it is a hereditary Republic but that is still not a monarchy
Consider the layout of a terraced house, ideally bay and forecourted. Window out front so you can see who is approaching. Kitchen with window overlooking the back yard so you can see the kids play whilst you prepare a meal. Walls to obscure nosey neighbours. Secure, safe and expandable with bunk beds. That type of house used to be so widespread they were the province of poor people: have a look at old media from the 50's and before. Miners' cottages and council houses fit this pattern. But these days in the South East even middle-class folk have to live in flats, goddammit.
Not that that's particularly relevant, but it does highlight how confusing these labels can be.
Que?
> > @ydoethur said:
> > North Korea is a Republic NOT a monarchy, its official title is even 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea'
> >
> > Riiiight...
> >
> > So you're claiming they're a democracy, 'cos that's what they call themselves?
> >
> > In all seriousness, you do need to read the work of Antony Flew.
>
> I think we are seeing HYUFD's legendary ability to know everything about everything and refusal to ever admit to being wrong (or rather than nuance and in this case metaphor can exist) taken to its logical conclusion in not being even able to entertain the possibility of a de facto monarchical arrangement because it is not official.
>
> No one tell him that the Chinese Communist Party is not exactly a great example of full throated communist ideology, for christ's sake. And no one introduce him to the Liberal parties of the world which are actually conservative.
The Chinese Communist Party certainly was Communist under Mao even if it has now introduced a more mixed, market based economy.
Most centre right parties are economically liberal but socially more conservative (unless they are libertarian parties)
> Kim Il-Sung was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong-Il, who was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong-un.
>
> There was a moment in 1996 when an American diplomat who hadn't been well-briefed misread his notes and referred to 'Kim Jong the Second.'
>
> As Freudian slips go...
Couldn't they have just stuck to a nice logical order, like Kim Jong Un, Kim Jong Deux, Kim Jong Trois...?
Makes a change from forecasting the result of the 2022 General Election based on polling for the EU elections...
Mind, it seriously buggers my teaching for next week.
> If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70
>
> Plus they have to have kids at some point. Babies in flats are difficult: getting a buggy up and down stairs is no fun at all
>
> Consider the layout of a terraced house, ideally bay and forecourted. Window out front so you can see who is approaching. Kitchen with window overlooking the back yard so you can see the kids play whilst you prepare a meal. Walls to obscure nosey neighbours. Secure, safe and expandable with bunk beds. That type of house used to be so widespread they were the province of poor people: have a look at old media from the 50's and before. Miners' cottages and council houses fit this pattern. But these days in the South East even middle-class folk have to live in flats, goddammit.
Living in a 2 bed leasehold flat for a few years before moving to a semi or detached property is hardly Armageddon.
> Strawberries are the most annoying fruit. They look like they will be so sweet but when you bite into them they are quite bitter.
You must pay more attention to which varieties of strawberry you buy. They are quite different in flavour.
If I were a mad conspiracy theorist I could put together whole chains of reasoning from this pleasing coincidence.
That said, North Korea is still a monarchy by any reasonable definition.
> > @viewcode said:
>
> > If you count people on 30/35 year mortgages on leasehold flats with onerous terms as homeowners......with modern pay peaking around 40 not sure they will ever get to the stage of fully owning them even by 70
>
> >
>
> > Plus they have to have kids at some point. Babies in flats are difficult: getting a buggy up and down stairs is no fun at all
>
> >
>
> > Consider the layout of a terraced house, ideally bay and forecourted. Window out front so you can see who is approaching. Kitchen with window overlooking the back yard so you can see the kids play whilst you prepare a meal. Walls to obscure nosey neighbours. Secure, safe and expandable with bunk beds. That type of house used to be so widespread they were the province of poor people: have a look at old media from the 50's and before. Miners' cottages and council houses fit this pattern. But these days in the South East even middle-class folk have to live in flats, goddammit.
>
>
>
> Living in a 2 bed leasehold flat for a few years before moving to a semi or detached property is hardly Armageddon.
>
> No, but it is suboptimal.
Tell that to the local LD and Residents' Association Nimbys then opposing more development
We need a Prince Albert for the gaiety.
> By 70 most will also have had much bigger inheritances than their parents or grandparents did too
>
> Unfortunately they need to start a family much before then. Even in these days of fertility treatment giving birth at 70 is ill-advised...
As I have already said most people are on the property ladder by 40 not 70
"And woven into this grimness is another big problem. In 2004, 96.5% of local councillors in England were white; according to recent figures, published just before last week’s elections, the figure was 95.8%. The same stats suggested that over a quarter of councillors were aged over 70, up from 14% 15 years ago, and half were over 60. Two-thirds were men."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/05/national-politics-hope-councils-councillors-local-elections
Strawberries should not be eaten raw, they should be eaten with cream and sugar.
> Wrong again, neither Kim are of royal birth and I am not wrong on this you are.
>
> It's good to know William II, Henry I, Henry II, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII and George I were not royal because they or their parents seized power and bequeathed it to them rather than being proper royals.
>
> Mind, it seriously buggers my teaching for next week.
All of those had the title King so were by definition royal, the Kims neither have or had the title King nor were of royal birth
> Couldn't they have just stuck to a nice logical order, like Kim Jong Un, Kim Jong Deux, Kim Jong Trois...?
>
> I've always rather enjoyed the way 'Kim Jong Un' is an almost perfect homophone for 'King Young 'Un' in English.
>
> If I were a mad conspiracy theorist I could put together whole chains of reasoning from this pleasing coincidence.
A similar thought has occurred to my pun-loving mind. The whole North Korean setup would be perfect for a surrealist, slapstick-based sitcom - we could call it 'The Jong-Uns'...
> It's great here. Sunil reposts one of his regular pieces of nonsense, HYUFD takes it seriously and now we are neck deep in a total load of bollocks.
>
> Makes a change from forecasting the result of the 2022 General Election based on polling for the EU elections...
I suppose it could be worse, we could be forecasting the result of the 2022 General Election based on North Korean polling.
> > @ydoethur said:
> > No it is not.
> > Monarchy, the dictionary definition ' C ] a country that has a king or queen
> > [ U ] the system of having a king or queen:
> > a system of government that has a king or queen, or a country that has this system of government'
> > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monarchy
> >
> > How about defining the words 'king' or 'queen' from the same source:
> >
> > 'a male ruler of a country, who holds this position because of his royal birth.'
> >
> > That sums up the latter two Kims perfectly.
> >
> > You're back on your favourite hobby of refusing to admit an error.
> >
> > Have you actually been on the Ullapool to Inverness ferry yet?
> Wrong again, neither Kim are of royal birth and I am not wrong on this you are.
>
> North Korea is on no definition whatsoever a monarchy, you could just about argue it is a hereditary Republic but that is still not a monarchy
>
Aristotle would have had no difficulty classifying it as such. The Kims are like rulers in Renaissance Italy, who had a title like First Citizen.
Augustus was a monarch, despite never taking a royal title.