On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
One more thought on the Germans: there is a significant anti-CDU vote out there, akin to the anti-Tory vote in Britain, and as in most quasi-PR systems there is less fanatical party tribalism than in places like the US. As the SPD progress, it's possible that more of that will flock behind them, at the expense of both the Greens and Die Linke.
I do suspect that as the SPD are obviously 2nd in polls and the public realise there will be some Greens switching across. Having said which, the Green surge seemed to harm the Union directly so perhaps not.
I do have a small bet at 3/1 on Greens under 15% on this logic.
There is some logic to the idea that if you switch from Greens to SPD you might make a CDU/CSU+Greens coalition less likely, and an SPD+Greens+Linke coalition more likely (an option which the last couple of polls would just about allow, and perhaps a lot of Green voters would prefer). Especially if the SPD become biggest party.
The 1950s couldn't have been as bad as some people like to say for non-white people, because so many of them voluntarily decided to move here during that time. In fact, many of them probably moved to the UK because — at that time — it was a far more liberal and open-minded place than the places they were leaving. The Caribbean, for instance, would have more far more socially conservative in the 1950s than the UK. The same would have been true for most places in south Asia.
Surely economics had a lot to do with it, perhaps dominantly?
The 1950s couldn't have been as bad as some people like to say for non-white people, because so many of them voluntarily decided to move here during that time. In fact, many of them probably moved to the UK because — at that time — it was a far more liberal and open-minded place than the places they were leaving. The Caribbean, for instance, would have more far more socially conservative in the 1950s than the UK. The same would have been true for most places in south Asia.
Africa and Asia still is more socially conservative than the UK
I haven't read all the thread but we haven't really got people pinning for the 50s have we? And if we have did they live in that era.
I don't remember the 50s as I was 6 when we entered the 60s, but for me:
Outside loo only until 1963 Bathed in a tin bath in front of fire until 1963 No central heating until later in the 60s No phone until later in the 60s and then a party line Nobody was gay (or was it they couldn't admit it I wonder?) Don't be black Don't get pregnant out of wedlock Life expectancy after retirement at 65 was negligible and pointless If you went to a Secondary school then unless you were very lucky, tough, no matter how bright you were Similarly getting into University. I managed it in 73, but I never met anyone else from a Secondary school that did, but I knew many who were capable and much better than those that did.
Who the hell wants to go back to those values?
Those who are anti abortion, anti gay marriage, preferred the traditional family and family meals every night with the wife doing the housework while the husband went to work, anti easy divorce, want tighter immigration controls, are anti too many universities, want more grammar schools and more police on the beat and capital punishment back would gladly go back to the 1950s.
Indeed many of the above who most likely voted UKIP and Leave preferred the 1950s to now
I agree with you but:
They have false memories though don't they because they want all that but don't want an outside loo and no bathroom and no central heating and no phone and to die early and they probably don't want the water board, and GPO and no gas/electricity freedom, etc, etc.
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
Interestingly, that friend I mentioned earlier has now gone completely teetotal. We do say surely a glass of wine can't hurt but he is quite adamant that he doesn't want to have anything. I can understand.
And also, re-watching the West Wing, last night's episode (S1) was Leo McGarry saying (about his alcoholism and when asked if he ever wanted a drink): "That's the problem, I don't want a drink, I want 10 drinks."
Am pretty much sticking to weekends and as you say not Fridays in winter. I had forgotten how delicious and varied the stuff is. The best drink is proper bitter at an English pub in summer. Dry martinis also in with a shout, and the Dom Perignon I had for the first and only time in my life on my 60th birthday.
Fantastic! I had to buy all those Seedlip/Sea Arch expensive waters because my preferred gin is Sipsmith from the freezer, full fat fevertree tonic from the fridge - no ice, no lemon and jeez after a couple of those the following day is a huge challenge.
Let me get this right. You are incapacitated by..... two gin and tonics??!
That's how I start the evening. 2 or 3 G&Ts (Salcombe gin is my preference, but hard to get, otherwise Plymouth or Oystercatcher or Monkey 47)
Then I move on to wine
Of course I move onto wine afterwards you banana.
I am talking about in the bath at around 5pm and then perhaps with some anchovy-stuffed olives before supper. And then I start drinking.
On a Saturday.
And Monkey 47? Really?
Not seen Salcombe gin stateside. Can get Plymouth, which is my preference (not too surprising given I was born in the parish of St Jude's)
Aside from Sipsmith I quite like Hendricks also.
Hendricks is very good. A simple idea done well.
Portobello Road is my current go-to straightforward London Dry gin
Harris Gin is delightful. The bottle is beautiful too.
It is, so much so I bought one of these at a craft fair.
Far too spoiled for choice nowadays but Ardbikie is good, coincidentally based around the farm at which my mother was born.
Scotland Covid cases hit a new reporting day peak of 4,323.
Sturgeon refuses to rule out reintroducing some restrictions if necessary.
Could be tricky for the politicians. Given what's happening in Australia, it's hard to imagine anything other than a fairly severe lockdown making much difference.
This is quite depressing. It suggests that the return of schools will mean another wave, and then another lockdown. So this is coming to south Britain, too?
*firms up plans to buy shack in Anguilla*
The key figure, as always, is hospitalisations and ICU. Due to the horrific lag in Scoltand numbers we won't see if this is translating through yet.
If this is all "Return from Holiday"/"Back to School" LFT tests picking up asymptomatic cases then everything is fine. If it feeds into hospitalisation then things are much, much less fine.
As ever with Covid data it is far to early to tell. By next week it could all be over in Scotland, orrrrr it could be fucked.
Covid needs to get fucked.
We've vaccinated those who are willing to be vaccinated.
Anyone who isn't willing to be vaccinated that gets sick and dies will get sick and die. It's sad but death comes to us all eventually.
Anyone who has been vaccinated that still gets sick and dies will get sick and die. It's sad but death comes to us all eventually.
We can't have zero Covid. We need to learn to live (or die) with it.
No more interrupting schools, no more legal restrictions, no more lockdowns.
Justifying a lack of action to avoid preventable deaths on the grounds that "death comes to us all eventually" is a pretty slippery slope!
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
Interestingly, that friend I mentioned earlier has now gone completely teetotal. We do say surely a glass of wine can't hurt but he is quite adamant that he doesn't want to have anything. I can understand.
And also, re-watching the West Wing, last night's episode (S1) was Leo McGarry saying (about his alcoholism and when asked if he ever wanted a drink): "That's the problem, I don't want a drink, I want 10 drinks."
Am pretty much sticking to weekends and as you say not Fridays in winter. I had forgotten how delicious and varied the stuff is. The best drink is proper bitter at an English pub in summer. Dry martinis also in with a shout, and the Dom Perignon I had for the first and only time in my life on my 60th birthday.
Fantastic! I had to buy all those Seedlip/Sea Arch expensive waters because my preferred gin is Sipsmith from the freezer, full fat fevertree tonic from the fridge - no ice, no lemon and jeez after a couple of those the following day is a huge challenge.
Let me get this right. You are incapacitated by..... two gin and tonics??!
That's how I start the evening. 2 or 3 G&Ts (Salcombe gin is my preference, but hard to get, otherwise Plymouth or Oystercatcher or Monkey 47)
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
Interestingly, that friend I mentioned earlier has now gone completely teetotal. We do say surely a glass of wine can't hurt but he is quite adamant that he doesn't want to have anything. I can understand.
And also, re-watching the West Wing, last night's episode (S1) was Leo McGarry saying (about his alcoholism and when asked if he ever wanted a drink): "That's the problem, I don't want a drink, I want 10 drinks."
Am pretty much sticking to weekends and as you say not Fridays in winter. I had forgotten how delicious and varied the stuff is. The best drink is proper bitter at an English pub in summer. Dry martinis also in with a shout, and the Dom Perignon I had for the first and only time in my life on my 60th birthday.
I stick to every night, much better to be consistent and not binge.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
The 1950s couldn't have been as bad as some people like to say for non-white people, because so many of them voluntarily decided to move here during that time. In fact, many of them probably moved to the UK because — at that time — it was a far more liberal and open-minded place than the places they were leaving. The Caribbean, for instance, would have more far more socially conservative in the 1950s than the UK. The same would have been true for most places in south Asia.
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
Some of these new IPAs are ridiculously strong. And what's with this fad for hazy beers? The brewery does less work by not having to "fine" their beer and charge more for it...
Hence my "not overly strong," there's usually a couple in a mixed case with wifebeater alcohol levels - 5.9% and so on.
7% and up is not uncommon. Some are quite nice though, and on the plus side, the cans are small so the overall intake is limited.
I've got a Tiny Rebel special edition box arriving on Thursday.
Not keen once you are over 5% mark, much above that and it gets grim.
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
Interestingly, that friend I mentioned earlier has now gone completely teetotal. We do say surely a glass of wine can't hurt but he is quite adamant that he doesn't want to have anything. I can understand.
And also, re-watching the West Wing, last night's episode (S1) was Leo McGarry saying (about his alcoholism and when asked if he ever wanted a drink): "That's the problem, I don't want a drink, I want 10 drinks."
Am pretty much sticking to weekends and as you say not Fridays in winter. I had forgotten how delicious and varied the stuff is. The best drink is proper bitter at an English pub in summer. Dry martinis also in with a shout, and the Dom Perignon I had for the first and only time in my life on my 60th birthday.
Fantastic! I had to buy all those Seedlip/Sea Arch expensive waters because my preferred gin is Sipsmith from the freezer, full fat fevertree tonic from the fridge - no ice, no lemon and jeez after a couple of those the following day is a huge challenge.
Let me get this right. You are incapacitated by..... two gin and tonics??!
That's how I start the evening. 2 or 3 G&Ts (Salcombe gin is my preference, but hard to get, otherwise Plymouth or Oystercatcher or Monkey 47)
Then I move on to wine
Of course I move onto wine afterwards you banana.
I am talking about in the bath at around 5pm and then perhaps with some anchovy-stuffed olives before supper. And then I start drinking.
On a Saturday.
And Monkey 47? Really?
Ah. Phew. For a moment I thought you were a terrific lightweight. Disappointing.
Monkey 47 is an excellent gin. Pricey, tho - and foreign. I prefer patriotic British gins just because. Gin is our drink. We stole it from the Dutch but we made it ours.
Plymouth is my go to. Cotswold Dry is also good. And Chase - distilled in Herefordshire.
I've gone off Bombay and not hugely keen on Hendricks and Sipsmith, partly because the silly bottles put me off. I love the bottle shape of Plymouth gin: genius marketing.
Tanqueray 10 is good but bloody strong.
That is the end of my thoughts on gin. For now.
Beafeater gets a bad press but is the last major London Dry maker actually making in London. I went on a tour of their distillery in Vauxhall
They store samples of the botanicals in one large room together, the smell is just sensational.
LOL. It takes a discussion of gin to bring out plenty of differences on PB with no disagreeability.
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
56 units a week I think means you can drink 8 pints a night if you take 2 days a week off.
Friend of mine went to the doctors for a check up. Doc asked him do you drink a lot? And my mate said well yes I do drink quite a lot, to which the doc said: "ok what time in the morning do you start drinking?"
My friend recoiled and said you must be kidding. He drank a couple of glasses of wine a night which he thought was quite a lot.
Obviously the doc had a different (and more usual?) idea of what quite a lot meant.
It was still quite normal to have many pints and drive in the 70's
My late father in law told me there was a sheriff in east lothian in the 70s who would get a police escort home from the pub after having a skinfull then driving home. Different days thank goodness.
The 1950s couldn't have been as bad as some people like to say for non-white people, because so many of them voluntarily decided to move here during that time. In fact, many of them probably moved to the UK because — at that time — it was a far more liberal and open-minded place than the places they were leaving. The Caribbean, for instance, would have more far more socially conservative in the 1950s than the UK. The same would have been true for most places in south Asia.
Africa and Asia still is more socially conservative than the UK
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
Flavourly.com have brilliant selection.
Indeed. Just waiting for my latest delivery - a box of the usual Black Isle selection and a box of assorted new Scots ales to try.
I'm no expert, but reading that thread it sounds like Laschet is to CDU/CSU what Corbyn was to Labour.
Laschet is actually pretty centrist and ideologically close to Merkel, just uncharismatic and hapless. Plus don't forget Corbyn actually did pretty well on a populist platform in 2017 even if not in 2019.
If the SPD do win most seats and form a government with the Greens and FDP or Linke expect the Union to shift to the right in opposition and dump Laschet and Merkelism
I think an SPD-Green-FDP coalition is really difficult to see given the German liberals and Greens are a long way apart on economic matters. SPD-Green-Linke is a lot more likely. A Jamaica coalition (CDU-Green-FDP) is also unlikely, but CDU-Green more likely.
SPD-Green-Linke of course means that a Union-AfD-FDP coalition becomes possible in future elections too if as is likely the Union moved right in opposition. The FDP have already dealt with the AfD in Berlin, just Merkel and Laschet have refused to touch them.
In 2005 and 2013 the SPD could have formed a government with the Stalinist Linke and the Greens but refused as Linke were too extreme.
Similarly in 2017 Merkel and the Union could have formed a government with the populist right AfD and the FDP but refused as the AfD were too extreme.
If the SPD win most seats and now agree to do a deal with Linke then the era of centrist German politics is over. It would become polarised between leftwing and rightwing blocks.
CDU-Green likely no longer has the numbers
But the 2 options: (let's call them) centre-right+AfD and centre-left+Linke are not really that similar. SPD and Greens are currently in coalition with die Linke in 3 state parliaments (Berlin, Bremen and Thuringia) without centrist politics coming to an end. There have been no states where the AfD formed part of the government. In Thuringia the CDU wouldn't even allow its representatives to vote down the "Stalinist"-led government just to avoid them going through the same lobby as the AfD.
Those who are anti abortion, anti gay marriage, preferred the traditional family and family meals every night with the wife doing the housework while the husband went to work
The 1950s couldn't have been as bad as some people like to say for non-white people, because so many of them voluntarily decided to move here during that time. In fact, many of them probably moved to the UK because — at that time — it was a far more liberal and open-minded place than the places they were leaving. The Caribbean, for instance, would have more far more socially conservative in the 1950s than the UK. The same would have been true for most places in south Asia.
One of the reasons Kashmiris in particular came, in the early ‘60’s, to the mill-towns of Lancashire, I understood, was that they were prepared to work nights. The local were, apparently, no longer willing to do so.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I'm no expert, but reading that thread it sounds like Laschet is to CDU/CSU what Corbyn was to Labour.
Isn't he more to CDU/CSU what May was to the Tories?
Sounds to me as if he's a competent enough politician but a poor campaigner, lacking the energy and stomach for the fight. Corbyn had the opposite problem - people doubted his ability with good reason, but in fairness he was an energetic campaigner who was surprisingly up for it.
I think Northern AI means just as unelectable. Like May in 2017 if Labour had had someone better than Corbyn.
Being a little pedantic, May wouldn't have been "unelectable" in 2017 if Labour had had someone better than Corbyn. She probably wouldn't have won (although she also probably wouldn't have called a snap election). But the fact she was as it happens elected, albeit scraping home against a weak opponent, means she met the minimum standard of electability.
I'd define "unelectable" as someone who is opposed by too many people to ever have any serious chance, often due to being too extreme, too obviously incapable of leading, or both. Someone who doesn't just not win but CAN'T realistically hope to win even with good luck and a fair wind.
In a post-Trump world, I'm not sure how many people are genuinely unelectable.
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
Flavourly.com have brilliant selection.
Indeed. Just waiting for my latest delivery - a box of the usual Black Isle selection and a box of assorted new Scots ales to try.
I get those 48 tin cases but they go like hot cakes, trying to resist at present. PS: Black Isle is very nice, I liked Cameron's Spinnaker but they have not had in for a while.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
I'm no expert, but reading that thread it sounds like Laschet is to CDU/CSU what Corbyn was to Labour.
Laschet is actually pretty centrist and ideologically close to Merkel, just uncharismatic and hapless. Plus don't forget Corbyn actually did pretty well on a populist platform in 2017 even if not in 2019.
If the SPD do win most seats and form a government with the Greens and FDP or Linke expect the Union to shift to the right in opposition and dump Laschet and Merkelism
I think an SPD-Green-FDP coalition is really difficult to see given the German liberals and Greens are a long way apart on economic matters. SPD-Green-Linke is a lot more likely. A Jamaica coalition (CDU-Green-FDP) is also unlikely, but CDU-Green more likely.
SPD-Green-Linke of course means that a Union-AfD-FDP coalition becomes possible in future elections too if as is likely the Union moved right in opposition. The FDP have already dealt with the AfD in Berlin, just Merkel and Laschet have refused to touch them.
In 2005 and 2013 the SPD could have formed a government with the Stalinist Linke and the Greens but refused as Linke were too extreme.
Similarly in 2017 Merkel and the Union could have formed a government with the populist right AfD and the FDP but refused as the AfD were too extreme.
If the SPD win most seats and now agree to do a deal with Linke then the era of centrist German politics is over. It would become polarised between leftwing and rightwing blocks.
CDU-Green likely no longer has the numbers
But the 2 options: (let's call them) centre-right+AfD and centre-left+Linke are not really that similar. SPD and Greens are currently in coalition with die Linke in 3 state parliaments (Berlin, Bremen and Thuringia) without centrist politics coming to an end. There have been no states where the AfD formed part of the government. In Thuringia the CDU wouldn't even allow its representatives to vote down the "Stalinist"-led government just to avoid them going through the same lobby as the AfD.
The AfD supported the FDP in Berlin. Many on the right of the CDU and the CSU are open to deals with the AfD once Merkel and Laschet are gone.
Plus if the SPD-Greens and Linke form a governing coalition then the Union will have to do a deal with the AfD or it will almost never get into government again. It would have no choice but to move to the right and deal with the AfD.
The Union and their traditional allies the FDP no longer have the numbers to form centre right governments again on their own
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
What kind of church though? The Church of England's founding principle is divorce so would seem quite fitting
I'm no expert, but reading that thread it sounds like Laschet is to CDU/CSU what Corbyn was to Labour.
Isn't he more to CDU/CSU what May was to the Tories?
Sounds to me as if he's a competent enough politician but a poor campaigner, lacking the energy and stomach for the fight. Corbyn had the opposite problem - people doubted his ability with good reason, but in fairness he was an energetic campaigner who was surprisingly up for it.
I think Northern AI means just as unelectable. Like May in 2017 if Labour had had someone better than Corbyn.
Being a little pedantic, May wouldn't have been "unelectable" in 2017 if Labour had had someone better than Corbyn. She probably wouldn't have won (although she also probably wouldn't have called a snap election). But the fact she was as it happens elected, albeit scraping home against a weak opponent, means she met the minimum standard of electability.
I'd define "unelectable" as someone who is opposed by too many people to ever have any serious chance, often due to being too extreme, too obviously incapable of leading, or both. Someone who doesn't just not win but CAN'T realistically hope to win even with good luck and a fair wind.
In a post-Trump world, I'm not sure how many people are genuinely unelectable.
Trump has set a bar that practically nobody can get under.
Okay, time to don my flameproof suit and dive headlong into this topic ...
Personally, I want feminism to disappear because it has become irrelevant - in the same way it would be good if race became irrelevant. Any role should be open to anyone who can do it, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. And roles should be defined for characteristics the role requires, not to close out certain categories of people. What works for a man, woman, couple or family should be of no interest to the rest of us.
Until that time, feminism can perform a useful role in heading towards that goal - as long as the movement does not destroy itself in an orgy of stupid internal arguments.
As an aside, a nasty trend I've seen amongst online feminists is 'shaming' women who freely choose to chuck in their jobs to look after their kids. How dare they betray the cause by going back to old-fashioned roles?
One interesting talking point in this debate is the future of "women's networks" and designated awards ceremonies (eg "women in banking/technology/whatever") for previously male dominated industries. It seems pretty clear that they serve a purpose in helping achieve some form of equality, but it's less clear whether they are a help or a hindrance once equality has been achieved (or close to it). There is a strong argument that, by drawing attention to women being assumed to be a minority group, these concepts eventually start to do more harm than good to the cause.
I think that the founders of most such things would be horrified if anyone suggested disbanding them, and would consider it a backwards step. However, I don't see how you could ever get true equality if you have anything for one half of the workforce that you don't have for the other.
Contrast with ethnic minority groupings, which will always have a place as long as they are a minority in the wider population, because the purpose is to make networking within communities easier, and to reassure people they aren't the only ones. But, at some point feminists are probably going to have to accept that they aren't a "minority" in the strict sense of the word, and therefore they need to drop the special treatment.
In 4 decades of working I have always been in a minority - in every sector where I have worked. Not simply as a woman but as a woman with children. By the time of my last full-time role I was the only full-time Managing Director with children, all the rest were either part-time (1) or had no children.
Until women can have a career which does not end up curtailed because of family demands in the same way that men do feminism has an important, indeed, vital role to play.
Too many women and employers forget that women's working lives continue after they have families and that children grow up and there can be another 20-30 years or more left, in which they have much to offer. We are nowhere near that stage.
BBC - Taliban stopping Afghans going to the airport.
That means a lot of tortured and executed western allies - translators and the rest. They won't get out now. Tragic
You'd think they'd want them to go as the "enemy". Instead it looks as if they want them to stay so that they can be slaughtered. Not just tragic but evil.
One more thought on the Germans: there is a significant anti-CDU vote out there, akin to the anti-Tory vote in Britain, and as in most quasi-PR systems there is less fanatical party tribalism than in places like the US. As the SPD progress, it's possible that more of that will flock behind them, at the expense of both the Greens and Die Linke.
I do suspect that as the SPD are obviously 2nd in polls and the public realise there will be some Greens switching across. Having said which, the Green surge seemed to harm the Union directly so perhaps not.
I do have a small bet at 3/1 on Greens under 15% on this logic.
There is some logic to the idea that if you switch from Greens to SPD you might make a CDU/CSU+Greens coalition less likely, and an SPD+Greens+Linke coalition more likely (an option which the last couple of polls would just about allow, and perhaps a lot of Green voters would prefer). Especially if the SPD become biggest party.
I don't think this is clear at all. The SPD has been in coalition with the CDU/CSU for 12 of the 16 Merkel years. If SPD and Union get over 50% of the seats there is a very good chance of another GroKo.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Scotland Covid cases hit a new reporting day peak of 4,323.
Sturgeon refuses to rule out reintroducing some restrictions if necessary.
Could be tricky for the politicians. Given what's happening in Australia, it's hard to imagine anything other than a fairly severe lockdown making much difference.
This is quite depressing. It suggests that the return of schools will mean another wave, and then another lockdown. So this is coming to south Britain, too?
*firms up plans to buy shack in Anguilla*
The key figure, as always, is hospitalisations and ICU. Due to the horrific lag in Scoltand numbers we won't see if this is translating through yet.
If this is all "Return from Holiday"/"Back to School" LFT tests picking up asymptomatic cases then everything is fine. If it feeds into hospitalisation then things are much, much less fine.
As ever with Covid data it is far to early to tell. By next week it could all be over in Scotland, orrrrr it could be fucked.
Covid needs to get fucked.
We've vaccinated those who are willing to be vaccinated.
Anyone who isn't willing to be vaccinated that gets sick and dies will get sick and die. It's sad but death comes to us all eventually.
Anyone who has been vaccinated that still gets sick and dies will get sick and die. It's sad but death comes to us all eventually.
We can't have zero Covid. We need to learn to live (or die) with it.
No more interrupting schools, no more legal restrictions, no more lockdowns.
Justifying a lack of action to avoid preventable deaths on the grounds that "death comes to us all eventually" is a pretty slippery slope!
Not necessarily, if we've done all we can in terms of vaccination and it's not enough then we have to live with falling life expectancy until such time as there's enough natural immunity and it stops being "novel".
Life can't be put on hold indefinitely for it and if there are some people uncomfortable with that idea then they can do so on a personal level.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
What kind of church though? The Church of England's founding principle is divorce so would seem quite fitting
LOL. CoE, but although the bride was CoE (if she was anything..... her mother is, but he dad wasn't) the groom was RC. It was his mother who insisted on a church of some sort!
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
I think Pratchett and Gaiman got it right in Good Omens that most English people are quite certain that the church they don’t go to on Sunday is specifically the Church of England and none other.
Good luck with that. Another couple of weeks before the main influx of school kids is over. Then it will be all the empty nesters heading off there to avoid all the school kids.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Do they though? Are you sure it is not ticking the box on the form that defines your religion given to you at birth (what your parents are) rather than what you actually decide eg tick white, male, christian.
It would seem odd if you really were a christian to not get married in a church. Why wouldn't you?
So I suspect there are a significant number of people who designate themselves christian and are no more christian than me. I also suspect the drop in christianity is not due to a real drop in belief but a lot more of those people being honest with themselves.
Scotland Covid cases hit a new reporting day peak of 4,323.
Sturgeon refuses to rule out reintroducing some restrictions if necessary.
Could be tricky for the politicians. Given what's happening in Australia, it's hard to imagine anything other than a fairly severe lockdown making much difference.
This is quite depressing. It suggests that the return of schools will mean another wave, and then another lockdown. So this is coming to south Britain, too?
*firms up plans to buy shack in Anguilla*
The key figure, as always, is hospitalisations and ICU. Due to the horrific lag in Scoltand numbers we won't see if this is translating through yet.
If this is all "Return from Holiday"/"Back to School" LFT tests picking up asymptomatic cases then everything is fine. If it feeds into hospitalisation then things are much, much less fine.
As ever with Covid data it is far to early to tell. By next week it could all be over in Scotland, orrrrr it could be fucked.
Covid needs to get fucked.
We've vaccinated those who are willing to be vaccinated.
Anyone who isn't willing to be vaccinated that gets sick and dies will get sick and die. It's sad but death comes to us all eventually.
Anyone who has been vaccinated that still gets sick and dies will get sick and die. It's sad but death comes to us all eventually.
We can't have zero Covid. We need to learn to live (or die) with it.
No more interrupting schools, no more legal restrictions, no more lockdowns.
Justifying a lack of action to avoid preventable deaths on the grounds that "death comes to us all eventually" is a pretty slippery slope!
Not necessarily, if we've done all we can in terms of vaccination and it's not enough then we have to live with falling life expectancy until such time as there's enough natural immunity and it stops being "novel".
Life can't be put on hold indefinitely for it and if there are some people uncomfortable with that idea then they can do so on a personal level.
I appreciate the gains are more marginal than previously but we could do more here.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
As I said earlier 59% of the population still class themselves as Christian in theory.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
I think Pratchett and Gaiman got it right in Good Omens that most English people are quite certain that the church they don’t go to on Sunday is specifically the Church of England and none other.
I thought it was only in Wales that you had a Chapel that you didn't go to?
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
What kind of church though? The Church of England's founding principle is divorce so would seem quite fitting
LOL. CoE, but although the bride was CoE (if she was anything..... her mother is, but he dad wasn't) the groom was RC. It was his mother who insisted on a church of some sort!
I hope he realised the RC don't recognise CofE weddings (much as they did not recognise Henry's second marriage, leading to the creation of the CofE in the first place).
Hence Boris' Catholic wedding to Carrie was technically his first according to the Vatican and he could get married at Westminster Cathedral
One more thought on the Germans: there is a significant anti-CDU vote out there, akin to the anti-Tory vote in Britain, and as in most quasi-PR systems there is less fanatical party tribalism than in places like the US. As the SPD progress, it's possible that more of that will flock behind them, at the expense of both the Greens and Die Linke.
is there such a thing as efficient vote for any parties in Germany? can you get most seats even if you don't get most votes?
It's designed to be very proportional according to the party vote (once you've cleared 5%). That's why the total number of MPs can vary so much.
Well, on the direct seats there is a very, very strong 2 party bias. It is just that not that many Germans bother to vote tactically for the constituency vote, on the basis that the two-vote system means there is no difference to the final overall party distribution.
It is this 2 party bias in the direct seats which has lead to the increase in the overall total number of MPs as there becomes more and more parties in the Bundestag. This is why the 2 largest parties (surprise surprise) passed a law to cap the number of extra MPs that can be allocated t each party. Let's see if this hits the Greens and FDP next month.
One more thought on the Germans: there is a significant anti-CDU vote out there, akin to the anti-Tory vote in Britain, and as in most quasi-PR systems there is less fanatical party tribalism than in places like the US. As the SPD progress, it's possible that more of that will flock behind them, at the expense of both the Greens and Die Linke.
is there such a thing as efficient vote for any parties in Germany? can you get most seats even if you don't get most votes?
Barely. There are minor parties who don't get to 5% or local majorities and have zero seats, so one doesn't need 50% to get a majority. But basically the additional member system does a pretty good job in precise representation, though I note the comment downthread that it's being tweaked in a way that harms small parties (don't know the details).
Scotland Covid cases hit a new reporting day peak of 4,323.
Sturgeon refuses to rule out reintroducing some restrictions if necessary.
Could be tricky for the politicians. Given what's happening in Australia, it's hard to imagine anything other than a fairly severe lockdown making much difference.
This is quite depressing. It suggests that the return of schools will mean another wave, and then another lockdown. So this is coming to south Britain, too?
*firms up plans to buy shack in Anguilla*
The key figure, as always, is hospitalisations and ICU. Due to the horrific lag in Scoltand numbers we won't see if this is translating through yet.
If this is all "Return from Holiday"/"Back to School" LFT tests picking up asymptomatic cases then everything is fine. If it feeds into hospitalisation then things are much, much less fine.
As ever with Covid data it is far to early to tell. By next week it could all be over in Scotland, orrrrr it could be fucked.
Covid needs to get fucked.
We've vaccinated those who are willing to be vaccinated.
Anyone who isn't willing to be vaccinated that gets sick and dies will get sick and die. It's sad but death comes to us all eventually.
Anyone who has been vaccinated that still gets sick and dies will get sick and die. It's sad but death comes to us all eventually.
We can't have zero Covid. We need to learn to live (or die) with it.
No more interrupting schools, no more legal restrictions, no more lockdowns.
Justifying a lack of action to avoid preventable deaths on the grounds that "death comes to us all eventually" is a pretty slippery slope!
Not necessarily, if we've done all we can in terms of vaccination and it's not enough then we have to live with falling life expectancy until such time as there's enough natural immunity and it stops being "novel".
Life can't be put on hold indefinitely for it and if there are some people uncomfortable with that idea then they can do so on a personal level.
I appreciate the gains are more marginal than previously but we could do more here.
Only to a pretty small degree though I agree we should roll it out to 12+ and have a 50m person booster programme (essentially anyone who had their second dose more than 4 months ago) getting everyone topped up as and when it becomes available to them.
The data from Israel is really encouraging on infections even against delta it looks like the third dose brings efficacy above 90% again. The downside risk to not having a very wide booster programme is absolutely massive and the downside risk of having one is tiny. The JCVI are taking an absolute age and frankly it's time for Javid to step up and announce a 35m person booster programme and let the JCVI moan about being ignored afterwards.
The question about 1950s from @NickPalmer was regarding multiculturalism and whether we were better off then or now wrt to what the immigrant cultures have brought to the table, not to do with women, their rights, homosexuality etc etc.
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
What kind of church though? The Church of England's founding principle is divorce so would seem quite fitting
LOL. CoE, but although the bride was CoE (if she was anything..... her mother is, but he dad wasn't) the groom was RC. It was his mother who insisted on a church of some sort!
I hope he realised the RC don't recognise CofE weddings (much as they did not recognise Henry's second marriage, leading to the creation of the CofE in the first place).
Hence Boris' Catholic wedding to Carrie was technically his first according to the Vatican and he could get married at Westminster Cathedral
No idea, TBH, and since the divorce is acrimonious and I'm 'her' side I'm unlikely to find out.
Okay, time to don my flameproof suit and dive headlong into this topic ...
Personally, I want feminism to disappear because it has become irrelevant - in the same way it would be good if race became irrelevant. Any role should be open to anyone who can do it, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. And roles should be defined for characteristics the role requires, not to close out certain categories of people. What works for a man, woman, couple or family should be of no interest to the rest of us.
Until that time, feminism can perform a useful role in heading towards that goal - as long as the movement does not destroy itself in an orgy of stupid internal arguments.
As an aside, a nasty trend I've seen amongst online feminists is 'shaming' women who freely choose to chuck in their jobs to look after their kids. How dare they betray the cause by going back to old-fashioned roles?
One interesting talking point in this debate is the future of "women's networks" and designated awards ceremonies (eg "women in banking/technology/whatever") for previously male dominated industries. It seems pretty clear that they serve a purpose in helping achieve some form of equality, but it's less clear whether they are a help or a hindrance once equality has been achieved (or close to it). There is a strong argument that, by drawing attention to women being assumed to be a minority group, these concepts eventually start to do more harm than good to the cause.
I think that the founders of most such things would be horrified if anyone suggested disbanding them, and would consider it a backwards step. However, I don't see how you could ever get true equality if you have anything for one half of the workforce that you don't have for the other.
Contrast with ethnic minority groupings, which will always have a place as long as they are a minority in the wider population, because the purpose is to make networking within communities easier, and to reassure people they aren't the only ones. But, at some point feminists are probably going to have to accept that they aren't a "minority" in the strict sense of the word, and therefore they need to drop the special treatment.
In 4 decades of working I have always been in a minority - in every sector where I have worked. Not simply as a woman but as a woman with children. By the time of my last full-time role I was the only full-time Managing Director with children, all the rest were either part-time (1) or had no children.
Until women can have a career which does not end up curtailed because of family demands in the same way that men do feminism has an important, indeed, vital role to play.
Too many women and employers forget that women's working lives continue after they have families and that children grow up and there can be another 20-30 years or more left, in which they have much to offer. We are nowhere near that stage.
BBC - Taliban stopping Afghans going to the airport.
That means a lot of tortured and executed western allies - translators and the rest. They won't get out now. Tragic
You'd think they'd want them to go as the "enemy". Instead it looks as if they want them to stay so that they can be slaughtered. Not just tragic but evil.
Why is it less common for women to be in those positions? What makes it possible for men? I'd argue in most cases it is because the men are more likely to be married to someone who is prepared to give up, or does not want, a high powered and pressurised career. Those they marry then taken on the primary caregiver role. For women to do the same they would need to be partnered with someone who was willing to be the primary care giver.
I'm the main earner in my household. My wife works 2 days/week and doesn't want to work more as she wants to spent time supporting the kids. I would very happily myself go to working 2 days a week for her to work full time and for me to be the primary care giver but she does not want that. Not least because due to our different careers my earning potential is much higher. I would much rather have her lifestyle than mine!
I remember a discussion on here a while ago which compared men and women choosing their spouses. Men with high income potential are far more likely to marry women who have a lesser incoming potential. However, women with high income potential are not likely at all to marry those with one that is noticeably less. In other words, men are far more likely to pick a spouse who needs financial support than women are.
What this means is that if you are a high income potential woman who is married to a man with a similar income potential then it seems to be the case that the woman misses out far more. Until more women are prepared to marry men with less of an income potential then it is my belief that women will, unfortunately, always be outnumbered in the very high level positions.
After catastrophic few days - both in implementation and messaging - feels like @POTUS is trying to change narrative from this being Saigon 1975, to Dunkirk 1940 #Afghanistan
On the 1950s, I think it's easy to forget just how much more religious society was back then - for example, over 80% of people identified as practicing Christians (atheism would have been a bit like veganism today) and regular church attendance was over 10 million. Also, society was also socially stratified and deferential and people were constrained by that but to also to some extent secure in it.
The British Social Attitudes survey is instructive on this:
"People lived in relatively stable societies, in which they formed strong bonds and affinities with those with whom they lived and worked, and in which there were clear lines of moral authority. Now(adays), people have to navigate a fluid, diverse social environment in which they are free to choose their identity and moral code; individuals have to create their own lifestyles, rather than living out one inherited from their parents and reinforced by their social interactions with others."
It's a rise of secularism and individualism. Now, there are lots of positives about (in fact, mainly positives in my view) but let's not pretend it's a one-way street.
59.5% of the UK population still defined themselves as Christians in theory in 2011, just it is church attendance that has fallen dramatically since the 1950s.
Church weddings are becoming less common too. Of the last half dozen marriages in my extended family, only one was in church, and oddly that’s the only one which has ended in divorce
Weddings are becoming less common full stop. Down from about 350,000 a year in the 1950s to just over 200,000 a year now despite the fact we have a bigger population than then.
I wonder how many of those that get married in a church are religious or jut do it for the tradition. We didn't christen our children being atheist (not the babies obviously, but they have grown up to be atheists). My sister-in-law however and her children have done the full works re weddings and christenings. Then to my amazement I found out none of them believed in god. It was for the do. And now I am regretting we didn't have at least a non religious naming ceremony just to mark the occasion.
I find church weddings a bit odd. Hymns and prayers, for those outside the Christian milieu, are just strange. Public singing is a little uncomfortable at the best of times, without the additional layer of the songs professing something I don't believe. But it's rather nice to think that the ceremony you are watching is the same one, in the same building, that has been done for generations and generations. That to me is the nicest thing about a church wedding.
Non-religious naming ceremonies on the other hand are a bit contrived. We did one, for our oldest two, and it was quite nice - though that much sincerity all in one place without anyone to moderate it was strange. Didn't do one for our youngest. Never got round to it, and then suddenly she was too old. Still haven't fully decided who her godfather* is, though she has a couple of godmothers* Makes me feel slightly guilty every time I think about it.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Sweden has gone through similar changes, asset inflation, more kids to private school, lower taxes on the rich.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
The 1950s couldn't have been as bad as some people like to say for non-white people, because so many of them voluntarily decided to move here during that time. In fact, many of them probably moved to the UK because — at that time — it was a far more liberal and open-minded place than the places they were leaving. The Caribbean, for instance, would have more far more socially conservative in the 1950s than the UK. The same would have been true for most places in south Asia.
Surely economics had a lot to do with it, perhaps dominantly?
And here we are, back at my original point they started the whole conversation!
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
are you measuring inequality between middle and top? or bottom and the middle?
Both @NicolaSturgeon and CMO @DrGregorSmith said today that cases in England rose sharply after it eased restrictions (July 19). Public Health England figures below show cases were already dipping on July 19. Unsure, therefore, what FM and CMO were referring to...
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
are you measuring inequality between middle and top? or bottom and the middle?
Both @NicolaSturgeon and CMO @DrGregorSmith said today that cases in England rose sharply after it eased restrictions (July 19). Public Health England figures below show cases were already dipping on July 19. Unsure, therefore, what FM and CMO were referring to...
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
Yes it is an outstanding school, one of the best in the country, state or private.
We may well move to more rural Essex closer to Chelmsford if we have children for that reason
Both @NicolaSturgeon and CMO @DrGregorSmith said today that cases in England rose sharply after it eased restrictions (July 19). Public Health England figures below show cases were already dipping on July 19. Unsure, therefore, what FM and CMO were referring to...
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
I hope that if you do they are less foul-mouthed that the girls from the sister school that I had the doubtful pleasure of sharing a bus with some time ago. One of them in particular was very happy to broadcast to all and sundry a detailed description of her sexual exploits.
Okay, time to don my flameproof suit and dive headlong into this topic ...
Personally, I want feminism to disappear because it has become irrelevant - in the same way it would be good if race became irrelevant. Any role should be open to anyone who can do it, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. And roles should be defined for characteristics the role requires, not to close out certain categories of people. What works for a man, woman, couple or family should be of no interest to the rest of us.
Until that time, feminism can perform a useful role in heading towards that goal - as long as the movement does not destroy itself in an orgy of stupid internal arguments.
As an aside, a nasty trend I've seen amongst online feminists is 'shaming' women who freely choose to chuck in their jobs to look after their kids. How dare they betray the cause by going back to old-fashioned roles?
One interesting talking point in this debate is the future of "women's networks" and designated awards ceremonies (eg "women in banking/technology/whatever") for previously male dominated industries. It seems pretty clear that they serve a purpose in helping achieve some form of equality, but it's less clear whether they are a help or a hindrance once equality has been achieved (or close to it). There is a strong argument that, by drawing attention to women being assumed to be a minority group, these concepts eventually start to do more harm than good to the cause.
I think that the founders of most such things would be horrified if anyone suggested disbanding them, and would consider it a backwards step. However, I don't see how you could ever get true equality if you have anything for one half of the workforce that you don't have for the other.
Contrast with ethnic minority groupings, which will always have a place as long as they are a minority in the wider population, because the purpose is to make networking within communities easier, and to reassure people they aren't the only ones. But, at some point feminists are probably going to have to accept that they aren't a "minority" in the strict sense of the word, and therefore they need to drop the special treatment.
In 4 decades of working I have always been in a minority - in every sector where I have worked. Not simply as a woman but as a woman with children. By the time of my last full-time role I was the only full-time Managing Director with children, all the rest were either part-time (1) or had no children.
Until women can have a career which does not end up curtailed because of family demands in the same way that men do feminism has an important, indeed, vital role to play.
Too many women and employers forget that women's working lives continue after they have families and that children grow up and there can be another 20-30 years or more left, in which they have much to offer. We are nowhere near that stage.
BBC - Taliban stopping Afghans going to the airport.
That means a lot of tortured and executed western allies - translators and the rest. They won't get out now. Tragic
You'd think they'd want them to go as the "enemy". Instead it looks as if they want them to stay so that they can be slaughtered. Not just tragic but evil.
Why is it less common for women to be in those positions? What makes it possible for men? I'd argue in most cases it is because the men are more likely to be married to someone who is prepared to give up, or does not want, a high powered and pressurised career. Those they marry then taken on the primary caregiver role. For women to do the same they would need to be partnered with someone who was willing to be the primary care giver.
I'm the main earner in my household. My wife works 2 days/week and doesn't want to work more as she wants to spent time supporting the kids. I would very happily myself go to working 2 days a week for her to work full time and for me to be the primary care giver but she does not want that. Not least because due to our different careers my earning potential is much higher. I would much rather have her lifestyle than mine!
I remember a discussion on here a while ago which compared men and women choosing their spouses. Men with high income potential are far more likely to marry women who have a lesser incoming potential. However, women with high income potential are not likely at all to marry those with one that is noticeably less. In other words, men are far more likely to pick a spouse who needs financial support than women are.
What this means is that if you are a high income potential woman who is married to a man with a similar income potential then it seems to be the case that the woman misses out far more. Until more women are prepared to marry men with less of an income potential then it is my belief that women will, unfortunately, always be outnumbered in the very high level positions.
Amongst my close women friends, we are all of us married to men who earn less than us. The men are all doing interesting, good jobs. I would still say though that the primary care giver was still the woman. And interestingly it was still the assumption made by others.
So, for instance, schools always rang me first even though they had been told that my husband - as he was working from home and close by - should be the initial contact. Even my daughter's school did this, despite educating them all to go out and do great things, they assumed I was at home and always had parent-teacher meetings in the middle of the day. I had a bloody great row about it with them.
You make your choices and you accept that sacrifices have to be made.
When the children were small I never ever went to any after-work events. I worked hard but I was not going to sacrifice my time with the children for drinks and networking. And, doubtless, that affected my career progression. I even got criticised for it when I refused to go to some weekend event. To which I tartly replied that if it was important for work it could happen in work time.
I do think that young women need to think about their work life when children are older and plan ahead. As do employers. In many ways it is much harder when children are older than when they are babies/toddlers. And if there are not many like you to share with it can feel very lonely. It certainly was for me when mine were teenagers. And yet this is not much talked about and there is relatively little support or discussion about how best women can make the most of themselves and how organisations might aid and benefit from this.
So we do get a loss of experienced clever women with much to offer - at all sorts of levels below the very high level positions. That is a pity for them and for society as a whole.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
Yes it is an outstanding school, one of the best in the country, state or private.
We may well move to more rural Essex closer to Chelmsford if we have children for that reason
Both @NicolaSturgeon and CMO @DrGregorSmith said today that cases in England rose sharply after it eased restrictions (July 19). Public Health England figures below show cases were already dipping on July 19. Unsure, therefore, what FM and CMO were referring to...
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
From an entirely personal perspective I have mixed feelings about this. Daughter #1 is starting a grammar school in September. It is entirely right for her. Daughter #2 has another year before the 11+. I'd give her a 25% chance of passing. But even if she passed it might not be right for her. If she doesn't go there, there is basically a choice of 2 ok-to-good not-grammars. I'd be ok with either, but the schools I think would ideally suit her (she is mildly dyslexic and very sporty) we are out of catchment for and in all likelihood wouldn't get in. While there is, in theory choice of schools, in practice there isn't.
The local not-grammars that she could go to, however, strike me as considerably better than the bog standard comprehensives that were available when I was school age in the 80s. My view is that the persistence of grammars in Trafford was a result of Trafford, uniquely in GM, having a view that educational attainment mattered - and that ethos fed through to all the schools, not just the grammars.
Daughter #3 - who knows? But I am already mildly irritated by the thought of having to go through this all over again.
Personally, although the system works very well for daughter #1, she would be fine wherever she went. I think if I was able to travel back in time by 12 years I might make a different choice on where to live to be close to a school which would suit daughter #2. But realistically you can't know 12 years in advance what a school will be like, nor what a daughter will be like. And I don't feel strongly enough to uproot the whole family now.
Both @NicolaSturgeon and CMO @DrGregorSmith said today that cases in England rose sharply after it eased restrictions (July 19). Public Health England figures below show cases were already dipping on July 19. Unsure, therefore, what FM and CMO were referring to...
It's fake news but there's enough morons who will believe her because it's anti-England and that seems to be what drives the SNP more than anything else, hating England.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
I hope that if you do they are less foul-mouthed that the girls from the sister school that I had the doubtful pleasure of sharing a bus with some time ago. One of them in particular was very happy to broadcast to all and sundry a detailed description of her sexual exploits.
Sounds pretty much like what you would hear on the bus from some pupils from every school with teenagers in the country sadly, again perhaps a reflection of the post 1960s sexual liberation.
You would hear the same sort of thing from some of the more socially confident pupils whether at a comp, grammar, high school or public school
[snip] But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch. The 1950s were much more interesting if you were white, male and straight. Less so if you were a woman, or your boat was floated in unconventional ways, or you weren't from round these parts.[snip]
I'm not at all convinced that the 'less so if you were a woman' bit is correct. Although it's a common view nowadays, it seems to me to be based on a huge logical fallacy, namely that the women of the 1950s thought in the same way and had the same aspirations as the women of today. Yes, if a woman wanted a high-flying career or to be a bus driver, the 1950s wasn't great. But in general, they viewed the world differently then.
The other related point, which always surprises me, is how much women today are dismissive of the skills and achievements of women from ages past. Somehow the idea has taken root that that skills such as needlework, or dress making, or running a household without modern gadgets, were trivial drudgery and nothing to be proud of. Implicit in this also is the assumption that 'men's work' of the time was somehow more fulfilling and challenging, which (for most men throughout most of history) has not been the case.
I'm not actually convinced that men's work of today is necessarily any more rewarding than men's work of the past either. I do a job I'm interested in. I talk to people. I write reports. On a good day, I'll knock up a spreadsheet. It pays me reasonably well. But it's not as satisfying as seeing something built, or from seeing a load of stuff moved from one place to another. The satisfaction of seeing the results of your literal labours. The pleasant ache of the muscles. The victory over nature or over the inanimate object. To be clear, I'm not great at DIY. I've never re-pointed a pathway. It's almost a decade since I even put a shelf up. But still, doing an actual job around the house - not a great deal of thinking involved, but a modicum of skill (only a modicum - I'm bad at this sort of thing) and a bit of physical effort - gives a greater feeling of a job well done. At the weekend I unblocked a drainpipe, and cleared the weeds from the drive. Both were more satisfying than anything I've done at work in months. Both felt like 'proper' work.
Didn't Churchill say he was happiest when bricklaying?
I can totally understand that: the agreeable, slightly mindless rhythm of the work, a break for lunch, more hard but meaningful labour, a good appetite at the end which needs a big tasty dinner. Plus you can eventually say: Look, I built that wall
I'm very lucky that I love my creative work, which brings emotional and intellectual satisfaction, even if sometimes it is fiendishly hard or frustrating. But if it was easy it would not be satisfying
I cannot imagine doing a job that I disliked, or a job that bored me. I'd go mad
I gamble for a living but, as we are doing up our new house, I spent a week or two last month steaming the wallpaper off every room… it was probably the most relaxed I’d felt at work for 25 years. £100 a day, radio on, chat to the lads, pop down the cafe, enough money for a few pints after work on a Friday, I missed my calling
Okay, time to don my flameproof suit and dive headlong into this topic ...
Personally, I want feminism to disappear because it has become irrelevant - in the same way it would be good if race became irrelevant. Any role should be open to anyone who can do it, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. And roles should be defined for characteristics the role requires, not to close out certain categories of people. What works for a man, woman, couple or family should be of no interest to the rest of us.
Until that time, feminism can perform a useful role in heading towards that goal - as long as the movement does not destroy itself in an orgy of stupid internal arguments.
As an aside, a nasty trend I've seen amongst online feminists is 'shaming' women who freely choose to chuck in their jobs to look after their kids. How dare they betray the cause by going back to old-fashioned roles?
One interesting talking point in this debate is the future of "women's networks" and designated awards ceremonies (eg "women in banking/technology/whatever") for previously male dominated industries. It seems pretty clear that they serve a purpose in helping achieve some form of equality, but it's less clear whether they are a help or a hindrance once equality has been achieved (or close to it). There is a strong argument that, by drawing attention to women being assumed to be a minority group, these concepts eventually start to do more harm than good to the cause.
I think that the founders of most such things would be horrified if anyone suggested disbanding them, and would consider it a backwards step. However, I don't see how you could ever get true equality if you have anything for one half of the workforce that you don't have for the other.
Contrast with ethnic minority groupings, which will always have a place as long as they are a minority in the wider population, because the purpose is to make networking within communities easier, and to reassure people they aren't the only ones. But, at some point feminists are probably going to have to accept that they aren't a "minority" in the strict sense of the word, and therefore they need to drop the special treatment.
In 4 decades of working I have always been in a minority - in every sector where I have worked. Not simply as a woman but as a woman with children. By the time of my last full-time role I was the only full-time Managing Director with children, all the rest were either part-time (1) or had no children.
Until women can have a career which does not end up curtailed because of family demands in the same way that men do feminism has an important, indeed, vital role to play.
Too many women and employers forget that women's working lives continue after they have families and that children grow up and there can be another 20-30 years or more left, in which they have much to offer. We are nowhere near that stage.
BBC - Taliban stopping Afghans going to the airport.
That means a lot of tortured and executed western allies - translators and the rest. They won't get out now. Tragic
You'd think they'd want them to go as the "enemy". Instead it looks as if they want them to stay so that they can be slaughtered. Not just tragic but evil.
Why is it less common for women to be in those positions? What makes it possible for men? I'd argue in most cases it is because the men are more likely to be married to someone who is prepared to give up, or does not want, a high powered and pressurised career. Those they marry then taken on the primary caregiver role. For women to do the same they would need to be partnered with someone who was willing to be the primary care giver.
I'm the main earner in my household. My wife works 2 days/week and doesn't want to work more as she wants to spent time supporting the kids. I would very happily myself go to working 2 days a week for her to work full time and for me to be the primary care giver but she does not want that. Not least because due to our different careers my earning potential is much higher. I would much rather have her lifestyle than mine!
I remember a discussion on here a while ago which compared men and women choosing their spouses. Men with high income potential are far more likely to marry women who have a lesser incoming potential. However, women with high income potential are not likely at all to marry those with one that is noticeably less. In other words, men are far more likely to pick a spouse who needs financial support than women are.
What this means is that if you are a high income potential woman who is married to a man with a similar income potential then it seems to be the case that the woman misses out far more. Until more women are prepared to marry men with less of an income potential then it is my belief that women will, unfortunately, always be outnumbered in the very high level positions.
Amongst my close women friends, we are all of us married to men who earn less than us. The men are all doing interesting, good jobs. I would still say though that the primary care giver was still the woman. And interestingly it was still the assumption made by others.
So, for instance, schools always rang me first even though they had been told that my husband - as he was working from home and close by - should be the initial contact. Even my daughter's school did this, despite educating them all to go out and do great things, they assumed I was at home and always had parent-teacher meetings in the middle of the day. I had a bloody great row about it with them.
You make your choices and you accept that sacrifices have to be made.
When the children were small I never ever went to any after-work events. I worked hard but I was not going to sacrifice my time with the children for drinks and networking. And, doubtless, that affected my career progression. I even got criticised for it when I refused to go to some weekend event. To which I tartly replied that if it was important for work it could happen in work time.
I do think that young women need to think about their work life when children are older and plan ahead. As do employers. In many ways it is much harder when children are older than when they are babies/toddlers. And if there are not many like you to share with it can feel very lonely. It certainly was for me when mine were teenagers. And yet this is not much talked about and there is relatively little support or discussion about how best women can make the most of themselves and how organisations might aid and benefit from this.
So we do get a loss of experienced clever women with much to offer - at all sorts of levels below the very high level positions. That is a pity for them and for society as a whole.
As I posted upthread my mother worked right through my childhood. I vividly remember, even after over 70 years once hoping, desperately, that Mother would be home when I got there. I had achieved, for the first time I could really appreciate, something outstanding academically ...... top of the primary school class by a country mile ...... and I really wanted to tell her first, not Auntie, who acted as housekeeper.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
I hope that if you do they are less foul-mouthed that the girls from the sister school that I had the doubtful pleasure of sharing a bus with some time ago. One of them in particular was very happy to broadcast to all and sundry a detailed description of her sexual exploits.
Sounds pretty much like what you would hear on the bus from some pupils from every school with teenagers in the country sadly, again perhaps a reflection of the post 1960s sexual liberation.
You would hear the same sort of thing from some of the more socially confident pupils whether at a comp, grammar, high school or public school
No, this was by a distance the worst..... most overt ...... I have heard from a young person.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
If you can afford it you can choose an elite private school. It's a lot of money so I guess you're getting something valuable for it. Those who go this route must think so anyway. Course you have to be quite wealthy for this to be an option.
One more thought on the Germans: there is a significant anti-CDU vote out there, akin to the anti-Tory vote in Britain, and as in most quasi-PR systems there is less fanatical party tribalism than in places like the US. As the SPD progress, it's possible that more of that will flock behind them, at the expense of both the Greens and Die Linke.
is there such a thing as efficient vote for any parties in Germany? can you get most seats even if you don't get most votes?
It's designed to be very proportional according to the party vote (once you've cleared 5%). That's why the total number of MPs can vary so much.
Well, on the direct seats there is a very, very strong 2 party bias. It is just that not that many Germans bother to vote tactically for the constituency vote, on the basis that the two-vote system means there is no difference to the final overall party distribution.
It is this 2 party bias in the direct seats which has lead to the increase in the overall total number of MPs as there becomes more and more parties in the Bundestag. This is why the 2 largest parties (surprise surprise) passed a law to cap the number of extra MPs that can be allocated t each party. Let's see if this hits the Greens and FDP next month.
I'm not sure if any significant changes apply to this election, but I could be wrong, do you have a link to the cap rule? I know there are moves to try and reduce the size of the parliament. But surely any change that made the system significantly non-proportional would be disallowed by the constitutional court.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
I hope that if you do they are less foul-mouthed that the girls from the sister school that I had the doubtful pleasure of sharing a bus with some time ago. One of them in particular was very happy to broadcast to all and sundry a detailed description of her sexual exploits.
Sounds pretty much like what you would hear on the bus from some pupils from every school with teenagers in the country sadly, again perhaps a reflection of the post 1960s sexual liberation.
You would hear the same sort of thing from some of the more socially confident pupils whether at a comp, grammar, high school or public school
No, this was by a distance the worst..... most overt ...... I have heard from a young person.
I have heard sexual innuendo and foul language from plenty of local comp pupils on the tube and in the town, it happens in every school unfortunately and again would have been less common in the 1950s.
Just the more disciplined ones manage to keep it under control when pupils are on school grounds
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
I hope that if you do they are less foul-mouthed that the girls from the sister school that I had the doubtful pleasure of sharing a bus with some time ago. One of them in particular was very happy to broadcast to all and sundry a detailed description of her sexual exploits.
Sounds pretty much like what you would hear on the bus from some pupils from every school with teenagers in the country sadly, again perhaps a reflection of the post 1960s sexual liberation.
You would hear the same sort of thing from some of the more socially confident pupils whether at a comp, grammar, high school or public school
No, this was by a distance the worst..... most overt ...... I have heard from a young person.
I have heard sexual innuendo and foul language from plenty of local comp pupils on the tube and in the town, it happens in every school unfortunately
This wasn't innuendo. This was explicit and detailed.
England case numbers still showing no sign of joining in the celtic surge.
If there were real surges happening in Scotland and not just measurement biases from school returns, you'd expect to see some hint of the same pattern in England, so seems pretty reassuring.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
Taking these points one by one:
a) I know there are existing grammar schools. I'm not daft. It was a play on words. You said 'we could do with a few more grammar school', hence my 'no we couldn't'. Obviously I know it is possible.
b) Obviously the grammars will produce the highest number of Oxbridge entrants. Doh you did a selection. It doesn't mean the grammars are better. Those same pupils will still get into Oxbridge, but some you have thrown on the rubbish heap may as well.
c) You say the problem was there were not enough technical schools. Well you are wrong and I went through this. So take me for instance. You would have therefore sent me to a technical school. I failed my 11 plus good and proper and was an average pupil until I was about 13/14. I am completely incapable at anything technical yet I blossomed academically. I transferred to the Grammar school for my A levels and was fast tracked, taking A levels after 1 year and went on to Manchester Uni to study maths. But you want me to go to a technical school?
I left behind so many who were also late in blossoming but O levels became the end of their academic career because of the system (I was the exception). Similarly there were a huge number at the Grammar who although bright at 11 went no further and crashed and burned by the time they got to O levels. They may have flourished at a technical subject but never got a chance.
And how about those great at languages but flop at science and visa versa. Similarly music or art, etc, etc. People can be great at some subject and rubbish at others so why judge them across the board. Let them run at their own pace subject by subject by streaming.
Destroying so many lives at 11 is criminal and I saw so much of it. I was luck to escape, but to this day I regret I never got a chance at languages, because I was in the 'wrong' school.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
If you can afford it you can choose an elite private school. It's a lot of money so I guess you're getting something valuable for it. Those who go this route must think so anyway. Course you have to be quite wealthy for this to be an option.
If you live in a comprehensive area then the private schools will almost always be better academically, so if you are wealthy and want the best for your kids you send them private. Or else you buy a house in the catchment area of an absolutely outstanding state school.
If you live in a selective area however often the grammar schools get as good results as the private schools if not better, so if they pass the 11 or 13 plus then you can send them to the grammar. Only if they fail would you need to send them private
Cases in England are flat but there are regional variations offsetting one another. If I were to incur the wrath of the Scot Nat contingent on here and treat Scotland as a region of the UK as a whole then it is not such an outlier - it's about the same case direction as the South West of England. There are a lot of reasons for this, Boardmasters in the SW for example, but I'd venture to say that the fact that neither SW Eng nor Scotland were as badly hit as regions of England other than the SW in previous waves means that there is not as much infection acquired immunity, which is having an impact. There were MSOA's in west Devon that went months in the Spring with fewer than 3 cases (showing white on the dashboard map) but there's a lot of purple there now.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
I hope that if you do they are less foul-mouthed that the girls from the sister school that I had the doubtful pleasure of sharing a bus with some time ago. One of them in particular was very happy to broadcast to all and sundry a detailed description of her sexual exploits.
Sounds pretty much like what you would hear on the bus from some pupils from every school with teenagers in the country sadly, again perhaps a reflection of the post 1960s sexual liberation.
You would hear the same sort of thing from some of the more socially confident pupils whether at a comp, grammar, high school or public school
No, this was by a distance the worst..... most overt ...... I have heard from a young person.
I have heard sexual innuendo and foul language from plenty of local comp pupils on the tube and in the town, it happens in every school unfortunately
This wasn't innuendo. This was explicit and detailed.
Yes heard all that too, again a symptom of the post 1950s sexual liberation
When Leni Riefenstahl Came to Hollywood https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/leni-riefenstahl-hollywood-1235001606/ ...Only two major Hollywood players broke the boycott. Disney gave Riefenstahl a tour of his studio and showed her the storyboards to Fantasia. But when Riefenstahl asked Disney to screen Olympia and vouch for it, Disney balked. After all, he had to do business in this town.
Syndicated gossip columnist Hedda Hopper was more accommodating. She attended a private screening of Olympia, found its director “perfectly charming,”...
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
I hope that if you do they are less foul-mouthed that the girls from the sister school that I had the doubtful pleasure of sharing a bus with some time ago. One of them in particular was very happy to broadcast to all and sundry a detailed description of her sexual exploits.
Sounds pretty much like what you would hear on the bus from some pupils from every school with teenagers in the country sadly, again perhaps a reflection of the post 1960s sexual liberation.
You would hear the same sort of thing from some of the more socially confident pupils whether at a comp, grammar, high school or public school
No, this was by a distance the worst..... most overt ...... I have heard from a young person.
I have heard sexual innuendo and foul language from plenty of local comp pupils on the tube and in the town, it happens in every school unfortunately
This wasn't innuendo. This was explicit and detailed.
Well, part of the point of a good education is to help the pupil become more articulate.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
Taking these points one by one:
a) I know there are existing grammar schools. I'm not daft. It was a play on words. You said 'we could do with a few more grammar school', hence my 'no we couldn't'. Obviously I know it is possible.
b) Obviously the grammars will produce the highest number of Oxbridge entrants. Doh you did a selection. It doesn't mean the grammars are better. Those same pupils will still get into Oxbridge, but some you have thrown on the rubbish heap may as well.
c) You say the problem was there were not enough technical schools. Well you are wrong and I went through this. So take me for instance. You would have therefore sent me to a technical school. I failed my 11 plus good and proper and was an average pupil until I was about 13/14. I am completely incapable at anything technical yet I blossomed academically. I transferred to the Grammar school for my A levels and was fast tracked, taking A levels after 1 year and went on to Manchester Uni to study maths. But you want me to go to a technical school?
I left behind so many who were also late in blossoming but O levels became the end of their academic career because of the system (I was the exception). Similarly there were a huge number at the Grammar who although bright at 11 went no further and crashed and burned by the time they got to O levels. They may have flourished at a technical subject but never got a chance.
And how about those great at languages but flop at science and visa versa. Similarly music or art, etc, etc. People can be great at some subject and rubbish at others so why judge them across the board. Let them run at their own pace subject by subject by streaming.
Destroying so many lives at 11 is criminal and I saw so much of it. I was luck to escape, but to this day I regret I never got a chance at languages, because I was in the 'wrong' school.
At the moment you can only hold a ballot to close grammars not to open new ones, that is unfair for starters.
Oxbridge and the Russell Group are the conveyor belt to the top jobs, and still you have far more chance of getting there at a grammar than a comp.
You clearly were a late developer and got into the grammar school anyway for sixth form so have nothing to complain about
Okay, time to don my flameproof suit and dive headlong into this topic ...
Personally, I want feminism to disappear because it has become irrelevant - in the same way it would be good if race became irrelevant. Any role should be open to anyone who can do it, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. And roles should be defined for characteristics the role requires, not to close out certain categories of people. What works for a man, woman, couple or family should be of no interest to the rest of us.
Until that time, feminism can perform a useful role in heading towards that goal - as long as the movement does not destroy itself in an orgy of stupid internal arguments.
As an aside, a nasty trend I've seen amongst online feminists is 'shaming' women who freely choose to chuck in their jobs to look after their kids. How dare they betray the cause by going back to old-fashioned roles?
One interesting talking point in this debate is the future of "women's networks" and designated awards ceremonies (eg "women in banking/technology/whatever") for previously male dominated industries. It seems pretty clear that they serve a purpose in helping achieve some form of equality, but it's less clear whether they are a help or a hindrance once equality has been achieved (or close to it). There is a strong argument that, by drawing attention to women being assumed to be a minority group, these concepts eventually start to do more harm than good to the cause.
I think that the founders of most such things would be horrified if anyone suggested disbanding them, and would consider it a backwards step. However, I don't see how you could ever get true equality if you have anything for one half of the workforce that you don't have for the other.
Contrast with ethnic minority groupings, which will always have a place as long as they are a minority in the wider population, because the purpose is to make networking within communities easier, and to reassure people they aren't the only ones. But, at some point feminists are probably going to have to accept that they aren't a "minority" in the strict sense of the word, and therefore they need to drop the special treatment.
In 4 decades of working I have always been in a minority - in every sector where I have worked. Not simply as a woman but as a woman with children. By the time of my last full-time role I was the only full-time Managing Director with children, all the rest were either part-time (1) or had no children.
Until women can have a career which does not end up curtailed because of family demands in the same way that men do feminism has an important, indeed, vital role to play.
Too many women and employers forget that women's working lives continue after they have families and that children grow up and there can be another 20-30 years or more left, in which they have much to offer. We are nowhere near that stage.
BBC - Taliban stopping Afghans going to the airport.
That means a lot of tortured and executed western allies - translators and the rest. They won't get out now. Tragic
You'd think they'd want them to go as the "enemy". Instead it looks as if they want them to stay so that they can be slaughtered. Not just tragic but evil.
Why is it less common for women to be in those positions? What makes it possible for men? I'd argue in most cases it is because the men are more likely to be married to someone who is prepared to give up, or does not want, a high powered and pressurised career. Those they marry then taken on the primary caregiver role. For women to do the same they would need to be partnered with someone who was willing to be the primary care giver.
I'm the main earner in my household. My wife works 2 days/week and doesn't want to work more as she wants to spent time supporting the kids. I would very happily myself go to working 2 days a week for her to work full time and for me to be the primary care giver but she does not want that. Not least because due to our different careers my earning potential is much higher. I would much rather have her lifestyle than mine!
I remember a discussion on here a while ago which compared men and women choosing their spouses. Men with high income potential are far more likely to marry women who have a lesser incoming potential. However, women with high income potential are not likely at all to marry those with one that is noticeably less. In other words, men are far more likely to pick a spouse who needs financial support than women are.
What this means is that if you are a high income potential woman who is married to a man with a similar income potential then it seems to be the case that the woman misses out far more. Until more women are prepared to marry men with less of an income potential then it is my belief that women will, unfortunately, always be outnumbered in the very high level positions.
Amongst my close women friends, we are all of us married to men who earn less than us. The men are all doing interesting, good jobs. I would still say though that the primary care giver was still the woman. And interestingly it was still the assumption made by others.
So, for instance, schools always rang me first even though they had been told that my husband - as he was working from home and close by - should be the initial contact. Even my daughter's school did this, despite educating them all to go out and do great things, they assumed I was at home and always had parent-teacher meetings in the middle of the day. I had a bloody great row about it with them.
You make your choices and you accept that sacrifices have to be made.
When the children were small I never ever went to any after-work events. I worked hard but I was not going to sacrifice my time with the children for drinks and networking. And, doubtless, that affected my career progression. I even got criticised for it when I refused to go to some weekend event. To which I tartly replied that if it was important for work it could happen in work time.
I do think that young women need to think about their work life when children are older and plan ahead. As do employers. In many ways it is much harder when children are older than when they are babies/toddlers. And if there are not many like you to share with it can feel very lonely. It certainly was for me when mine were teenagers. And yet this is not much talked about and there is relatively little support or discussion about how best women can make the most of themselves and how organisations might aid and benefit from this.
So we do get a loss of experienced clever women with much to offer - at all sorts of levels below the very high level positions. That is a pity for them and for society as a whole.
My wife and I both work four days a week. The schools, and before that nurseries, are no more likely to phone one of us than the other, AFAICS. We've both sacrificed promotability for childcare. We both necessarily eschew after work events. These are choices you make as a family. Had I had an opportunity for some hugely well-paid job my wife might have worked rather less, or not at all; had she had a similar opportunity, I would have worked less or not at all. That's not the path either of us chose to pursue, though the extent to which this is choice are half chance and dependent on all sorts of other factors anyway. But I don't agree it's a result of some big conspiracy against women.
And there are not women's tasks or men's tasks, there is just a massive amount of stuff which needs doing. This includes generating income, childcare, education, feeding them and clothing them, house maintenance, taxiing them about, etc, etc. In our house, we both work, but not all the time. We both do childcare, but not all the time. I do most of the food shopping and preparation, the wife does most of the clothes shopping and washing. We both do the housework. I will do jobs which require heavy things to be lifted or high shelves to be reached, my wife will do jobs which require an element of patience with technology or which require good eyesight.
Other families will make different choices.
But I am never going to get to particularly senior levels within my organisation because I simply don't have the time to commit to it - because of the choices we have made as a family. That's not the dice being loaded against women, or parents, or anyone else, just a recognition that there are only so many hours in the day.
The only respect I will agree that there is any element of the dice being loaded against women are that women will need to make some serious sacrifices for the months either side of giving birth. Pregnancy is often hard and breastfeeding is limiting. But that is not in itself career limiting unless you have hordes of children; and is the result of biology, not society.
Always a joy to see the 'scrap heap' theory of Grammar Schools trotted out by people with no remotely recent experience. The Comps in East Essex by the 2 main Grammars tend to have above average results so quite hard to see much of a secondary modern impact, given they no longer exist and there is no curriculam apartheid blocking off anyone's life chances based on the 11+.
I joined a grammar at 14, my brother joined at 16, we both went to a University we'd have had precious little chance of going to if left to a Comprehensive where collecting lots of Bs would have been considered a success rather than a failure.
Okay, time to don my flameproof suit and dive headlong into this topic ...
Personally, I want feminism to disappear because it has become irrelevant - in the same way it would be good if race became irrelevant. Any role should be open to anyone who can do it, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, age, etc. And roles should be defined for characteristics the role requires, not to close out certain categories of people. What works for a man, woman, couple or family should be of no interest to the rest of us.
Until that time, feminism can perform a useful role in heading towards that goal - as long as the movement does not destroy itself in an orgy of stupid internal arguments.
As an aside, a nasty trend I've seen amongst online feminists is 'shaming' women who freely choose to chuck in their jobs to look after their kids. How dare they betray the cause by going back to old-fashioned roles?
One interesting talking point in this debate is the future of "women's networks" and designated awards ceremonies (eg "women in banking/technology/whatever") for previously male dominated industries. It seems pretty clear that they serve a purpose in helping achieve some form of equality, but it's less clear whether they are a help or a hindrance once equality has been achieved (or close to it). There is a strong argument that, by drawing attention to women being assumed to be a minority group, these concepts eventually start to do more harm than good to the cause.
I think that the founders of most such things would be horrified if anyone suggested disbanding them, and would consider it a backwards step. However, I don't see how you could ever get true equality if you have anything for one half of the workforce that you don't have for the other.
Contrast with ethnic minority groupings, which will always have a place as long as they are a minority in the wider population, because the purpose is to make networking within communities easier, and to reassure people they aren't the only ones. But, at some point feminists are probably going to have to accept that they aren't a "minority" in the strict sense of the word, and therefore they need to drop the special treatment.
In 4 decades of working I have always been in a minority - in every sector where I have worked. Not simply as a woman but as a woman with children. By the time of my last full-time role I was the only full-time Managing Director with children, all the rest were either part-time (1) or had no children.
Until women can have a career which does not end up curtailed because of family demands in the same way that men do feminism has an important, indeed, vital role to play.
Too many women and employers forget that women's working lives continue after they have families and that children grow up and there can be another 20-30 years or more left, in which they have much to offer. We are nowhere near that stage.
BBC - Taliban stopping Afghans going to the airport.
That means a lot of tortured and executed western allies - translators and the rest. They won't get out now. Tragic
You'd think they'd want them to go as the "enemy". Instead it looks as if they want them to stay so that they can be slaughtered. Not just tragic but evil.
Why is it less common for women to be in those positions? What makes it possible for men? I'd argue in most cases it is because the men are more likely to be married to someone who is prepared to give up, or does not want, a high powered and pressurised career. Those they marry then taken on the primary caregiver role. For women to do the same they would need to be partnered with someone who was willing to be the primary care giver.
I'm the main earner in my household. My wife works 2 days/week and doesn't want to work more as she wants to spent time supporting the kids. I would very happily myself go to working 2 days a week for her to work full time and for me to be the primary care giver but she does not want that. Not least because due to our different careers my earning potential is much higher. I would much rather have her lifestyle than mine!
I remember a discussion on here a while ago which compared men and women choosing their spouses. Men with high income potential are far more likely to marry women who have a lesser incoming potential. However, women with high income potential are not likely at all to marry those with one that is noticeably less. In other words, men are far more likely to pick a spouse who needs financial support than women are.
What this means is that if you are a high income potential woman who is married to a man with a similar income potential then it seems to be the case that the woman misses out far more. Until more women are prepared to marry men with less of an income potential then it is my belief that women will, unfortunately, always be outnumbered in the very high level positions.
Amongst my close women friends, we are all of us married to men who earn less than us. The men are all doing interesting, good jobs. I would still say though that the primary care giver was still the woman. And interestingly it was still the assumption made by others.
So, for instance, schools always rang me first even though they had been told that my husband - as he was working from home and close by - should be the initial contact. Even my daughter's school did this, despite educating them all to go out and do great things, they assumed I was at home and always had parent-teacher meetings in the middle of the day. I had a bloody great row about it with them.
You make your choices and you accept that sacrifices have to be made.
When the children were small I never ever went to any after-work events. I worked hard but I was not going to sacrifice my time with the children for drinks and networking. And, doubtless, that affected my career progression. I even got criticised for it when I refused to go to some weekend event. To which I tartly replied that if it was important for work it could happen in work time.
I do think that young women need to think about their work life when children are older and plan ahead. As do employers. In many ways it is much harder when children are older than when they are babies/toddlers. And if there are not many like you to share with it can feel very lonely. It certainly was for me when mine were teenagers. And yet this is not much talked about and there is relatively little support or discussion about how best women can make the most of themselves and how organisations might aid and benefit from this.
So we do get a loss of experienced clever women with much to offer - at all sorts of levels below the very high level positions. That is a pity for them and for society as a whole.
A few rambles on this:
Times may be a'changin'. I'm a stay-at-home dad, with a wife who has always earned more then me (even when she worked for me on projects). I'm first on the school's contact list, and they always try me first. The same is true for friends of ours who are in the same situation, and whose kids go to a different school.
I can't remember having any problem with anyone in authority - schools, etc - about being the primary carer. A few other parents ... less so. If women want men to take more part in childcare, then (some) should be a darned sight more accepting of men who do so.
The key has to be for men to take on more of the childcare responsibilities, either nearly full-time like me, or sharing if both work. And for employers to have a different attitude - I know one company who does not accept a five-year gap in a male employee's resume for childcare. But that boss is an *!&^%!^ (*). Fortunately Mrs J works in an industry where flexitime is very acceptable.
But as a whole, I think society is getting there, albeit slowly.
Kids are the problem (and a beautiful problem to have). Unless you are willing to palm them off on relatives or friends, then one of a couple has to look after them - even if there are pre- and after-school clubs. This means less time for work, and therefore an impact on the career over those who do not have kids.
But there are other issues. A friend of ours is divorced with two kids, with no family in the area. The kids' father is absent. She manages thanks to friends, a good employer, and a lot of hard work.
Sometimes you cannot have everything. Life is about compromises: if you want kids, some things have to give slightly; free time, money, sleep, and yes, even career. A career may well be damaged slightly over colleagues who do not have kids: but then having kids might well be a compensation in itself.
(*) He also tried to forbid employees to work from home during Covid.
My grandparents came to the UK for a better life (and much encouragement from the UK government who wanted the empire links to continue)
One thing few people like to talk about is the fact the largest volunteer army in history was the British Indian Army, my great grandfather served in that army and according to one of my grandfathers my great grandfather loved it, allowed him to feel equal with the Brits. You cannot beat bonds like that, so my great grandfather told his son to go to the UK.
I think one of the things that is quite the pull factor now as it was then was they could all speak English.
Because English is the lingua franca of the world expect more immigration.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We have just moved to within the catchment area of KEGS in Chelmsford and it is my ambition to get both my sons in there
I hope that if you do they are less foul-mouthed that the girls from the sister school that I had the doubtful pleasure of sharing a bus with some time ago. One of them in particular was very happy to broadcast to all and sundry a detailed description of her sexual exploits.
Sounds pretty much like what you would hear on the bus from some pupils from every school with teenagers in the country sadly, again perhaps a reflection of the post 1960s sexual liberation.
You would hear the same sort of thing from some of the more socially confident pupils whether at a comp, grammar, high school or public school
No, this was by a distance the worst..... most overt ...... I have heard from a young person.
I have heard sexual innuendo and foul language from plenty of local comp pupils on the tube and in the town, it happens in every school unfortunately
This wasn't innuendo. This was explicit and detailed.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
Taking these points one by one:
a) I know there are existing grammar schools. I'm not daft. It was a play on words. You said 'we could do with a few more grammar school', hence my 'no we couldn't'. Obviously I know it is possible.
b) Obviously the grammars will produce the highest number of Oxbridge entrants. Doh you did a selection. It doesn't mean the grammars are better. Those same pupils will still get into Oxbridge, but some you have thrown on the rubbish heap may as well.
c) You say the problem was there were not enough technical schools. Well you are wrong and I went through this. So take me for instance. You would have therefore sent me to a technical school. I failed my 11 plus good and proper and was an average pupil until I was about 13/14. I am completely incapable at anything technical yet I blossomed academically. I transferred to the Grammar school for my A levels and was fast tracked, taking A levels after 1 year and went on to Manchester Uni to study maths. But you want me to go to a technical school?
I left behind so many who were also late in blossoming but O levels became the end of their academic career because of the system (I was the exception). Similarly there were a huge number at the Grammar who although bright at 11 went no further and crashed and burned by the time they got to O levels. They may have flourished at a technical subject but never got a chance.
And how about those great at languages but flop at science and visa versa. Similarly music or art, etc, etc. People can be great at some subject and rubbish at others so why judge them across the board. Let them run at their own pace subject by subject by streaming.
Destroying so many lives at 11 is criminal and I saw so much of it. I was luck to escape, but to this day I regret I never got a chance at languages, because I was in the 'wrong' school.
I take issue with 'destroying so many lives at 11'. No-one's life is destroyed by going to Sale High School or Wellington School Timperley or Ashton-upon-Mersey High School. These are good schools. And they certainly do languages.
FPT HYUFD 10:03AM edited 10:07AM OldKingCole said: » show previous quotes Well, I was there, and there was a widespread feeling that we'll all be dead soon in a nuclear war. Girls who got pregnant were thrown out of school and often their families. Homosexuals were imprisoned...... and the police used to hang about places where they were believed to congregate to make some easy arrests. People were executed for crimes they didn't commit.
We were working to make the world better. But then youth often does! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For social conservatives who take a traditional line on the family there were fewer unmarried mothers in the 1950s, fewer divorces, homosexuality was only practised behind closed doors and abortion was not legal and contraception was not openly available so sex was largely solely within marriage. Immigration was also more tightly controlled. Many support capital punishment today too.
In Truman and Ike and Attlee and Churchill there were also leaders prepared to stand up for the West.
For socialists most of the main industries were nationalised, most industries were heavily unionised and there was a higher top rate of tax, so they also preferred the 1950s too.
The only people who really would have hated the 1950s are liberals and libertarians
As I said, I was there. And I was a socialist then. And I, personally, sold contraceptives. As I recall, immigration wasn't 'controlled'; people could, and did, come if they wished, and could afford to travel. In any debate on capital punishment the question 'how do you make sure you're right every time' usually reduces proponents to a sort of mumbling.
I repeat I was there; there's a lot wrong today but young people are by no means as sifted as they were then.
The pill was not available on the NHS until 1967.
The UK had a more socialist economy in the 1950s and more socially conservative laws, that is just fact.
If you are a liberal you may welcome the changes since then, if you are a social conservative you will not as indeed if you are a socialist you would prefer a pre Thatcher society economically even if you welcome the social liberalism since then
You may recall that I was a pharmacist, back in the day; I was supplying other forms of contraception and occasionally advising on Family Planning before the pill became available, and, without wishing to nit-pick, it was in fact available on private prescription, for several years before 1967.
The laws were what they were, but what I am saying, having been a teenager in the 50's and having teenage (and older) grandchildren now, that, as I said before there's a lot wrong today, but young people are by no means as shafted by the system as they were then. Their life opportunities are much greater.
But some of the nostalgia is the howling of people kicked off their perch.
I think the opposite of this is true. People are nostalgic for a time when there was more optimism about ordinary people being able to improve their lives. I'd argue that from the 1950s to the 1990s there was a feeling that you could progress through your own efforts which has declined over the last 15 to 20 years.
Mainly down to asset inflation - consistently voted for by the public and delivered by the government. Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
Actually wealth inequality is now lower in the UK than Sweden thanks to most owning a high value home.
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Nope we couldn't. The grammar school system was appalling. Do you never wonder why nobody asks for the restoration of secondary schools?
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
Yes we could.
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
Taking these points one by one:
a) I know there are existing grammar schools. I'm not daft. It was a play on words. You said 'we could do with a few more grammar school', hence my 'no we couldn't'. Obviously I know it is possible.
b) Obviously the grammars will produce the highest number of Oxbridge entrants. Doh you did a selection. It doesn't mean the grammars are better. Those same pupils will still get into Oxbridge, but some you have thrown on the rubbish heap may as well.
c) You say the problem was there were not enough technical schools. Well you are wrong and I went through this. So take me for instance. You would have therefore sent me to a technical school. I failed my 11 plus good and proper and was an average pupil until I was about 13/14. I am completely incapable at anything technical yet I blossomed academically. I transferred to the Grammar school for my A levels and was fast tracked, taking A levels after 1 year and went on to Manchester Uni to study maths. But you want me to go to a technical school?
I left behind so many who were also late in blossoming but O levels became the end of their academic career because of the system (I was the exception). Similarly there were a huge number at the Grammar who although bright at 11 went no further and crashed and burned by the time they got to O levels. They may have flourished at a technical subject but never got a chance.
And how about those great at languages but flop at science and visa versa. Similarly music or art, etc, etc. People can be great at some subject and rubbish at others so why judge them across the board. Let them run at their own pace subject by subject by streaming.
Destroying so many lives at 11 is criminal and I saw so much of it. I was luck to escape, but to this day I regret I never got a chance at languages, because I was in the 'wrong' school.
At the moment you can only hold a ballot to close grammars not to open new ones, that is unfair for starters.
Oxbridge is the conveyor belt to the top jobs, and still you have far more chance of getting there at a grammar than a comp.
You clearly were a late developer and got into the grammar school anyway for sixth form so have noting to complain about
I have nothing to complain about? What? How selfish can you get? I am complaining about all those pupils whose lives were ruined by that system, not mine. Also did you not read my comment about languages that I missed out on while I wasted my time on woodwork and metalwork which was useless to me?
Re getting into Oxbridge you do understand the maths here don't you if you select at 11 you will off course get a higher percentage into Oxbridge than a Comp that hasn't selected. That doesn't make the Grammar better at all.
It's 'interesting' that in the debate over social conservatism or whatever in the 1950's no-one has mentioned that bane of many young men's lives, National Service. Which many of my friends did, but which I managed to avoid, being still a student when it ended.
I was actually on the point of doing so - but didn't want to trigger an even worse argument. Too many people ended up whitewashing coal in the depot, or serving in Korea, to satisfy their elders' wishes for a nice socially conservative polity. And it didnt' do the forces much good even then.
I wonder how many, now elderly, German ladies, who came over here as soldier's brides in the 50's actually, formally, took British citizenship? And how many of them haven't formalised their position post 2020?
I know someone whose dad came over on the Windrush's first immigration voyage - and also someone else who was on it when it caught fire and sank somewhere near Egypt (not sure if Med or Red Sea).
I looked up the passenger manifest for that first Windies trip. It lists the passengers, quite clearly, as 'British' ...
My father grew up in South Africa and first came to the UK in the late 50s at age 21 to fulfil his National Service obligation. On the first day out of Cape Town the Australian with whom he was sharing a cabin went 'boat happy' and threw all of my dad's luggage out of a convenient porthole. The 50s were fucked.
My father remembers people habitually drinking and driving from pub to pub in the 1950s. OK there were far fewer cars and they were less powerful but even so.
Wikipedia says there were no actual designated limits in the UK until 1967...!! seems nuts now.
I can remember people saying "one over the eight" - which meant you had drunk more than eight pints of beer, and therefore you'd reached a stage where you probably should not drive
EIGHT PINTS
I believe that when weekly recommended alcohol unit consumption limits were initially introduced, the 'safe' bar was initially set at....er.......56 units.
Sounds about right. Simon Hoggart suggested that the units in question are measures of volume, based on one kitchen unit.
Maybe the authorities relied on the quality of the alcohol to limit intake. Let's face it, much of it was shite. All those Party Sevens, Double Diamond, Worthington E, Watneys Red Barrel, Blue Nun, Black Tower etc.
The hangovers must have been ferocious.
When people read that medieval peasants drank nothing but beer (because it was safer than water) and therefore they must have been pissed all day, they forget that the beer was seriously weak. Literally: "small beer" or "small ale". The alcohol content could be as low as 1%, or less
By contrast, beers and wines are all getting stronger, these last decades. Especially red wines
I have just started drinking again after 15 years teetotalism. The best new thing is small tins of craft IPA, not overly strong, which I am presently getting ridiculously cheap in pound-a-can new customers only deals which target me on facebook.
Some of these new IPAs are ridiculously strong. And what's with this fad for hazy beers? The brewery does less work by not having to "fine" their beer and charge more for it...
Hence my "not overly strong," there's usually a couple in a mixed case with wifebeater alcohol levels - 5.9% and so on.
7% and up is not uncommon. Some are quite nice though, and on the plus side, the cans are small so the overall intake is limited.
I've got a Tiny Rebel special edition box arriving on Thursday.
Not keen once you are over 5% mark, much above that and it gets grim.
Agreed Malcolm. Also wines over about 13%. It gets like you are drinking large glasses of sherry. The tendency of producers to edge up the alcohol content is both unhealthy and unwelcome.
I'm no expert, but reading that thread it sounds like Laschet is to CDU/CSU what Corbyn was to Labour.
Laschet is actually pretty centrist and ideologically close to Merkel, just uncharismatic and hapless. Plus don't forget Corbyn actually did pretty well on a populist platform in 2017 even if not in 2019.
If the SPD do win most seats and form a government with the Greens and FDP or Linke expect the Union to shift to the right in opposition and dump Laschet and Merkelism
I think an SPD-Green-FDP coalition is really difficult to see given the German liberals and Greens are a long way apart on economic matters. SPD-Green-Linke is a lot more likely. A Jamaica coalition (CDU-Green-FDP) is also unlikely, but CDU-Green more likely.
SPD-Green-Linke of course means that a Union-AfD-FDP coalition becomes possible in future elections too if as is likely the Union moved right in opposition. The FDP have already dealt with the AfD in Berlin, just Merkel and Laschet have refused to touch them.
In 2005 and 2013 the SPD could have formed a government with the Stalinist Linke and the Greens but refused as Linke were too extreme.
Similarly in 2017 Merkel and the Union could have formed a government with the populist right AfD and the FDP but refused as the AfD were too extreme.
If the SPD win most seats and now agree to do a deal with Linke then the era of centrist German politics is over. It would become polarised between leftwing and rightwing blocks.
CDU-Green likely no longer has the numbers
But the 2 options: (let's call them) centre-right+AfD and centre-left+Linke are not really that similar. SPD and Greens are currently in coalition with die Linke in 3 state parliaments (Berlin, Bremen and Thuringia) without centrist politics coming to an end. There have been no states where the AfD formed part of the government. In Thuringia the CDU wouldn't even allow its representatives to vote down the "Stalinist"-led government just to avoid them going through the same lobby as the AfD.
The AfD supported the FDP in Berlin. Many on the right of the CDU and the CSU are open to deals with the AfD once Merkel and Laschet are gone.
Plus if the SPD-Greens and Linke form a governing coalition then the Union will have to do a deal with the AfD or it will almost never get into government again. It would have no choice but to move to the right and deal with the AfD.
The Union and their traditional allies the FDP no longer have the numbers to form centre right governments again on their own
The CDU won't be doing any kind of deal with the AfD any time soon. It would destroy the party.
IF the CDU became the main opposition (it's still more likely they will remain in government) they would probably be well placed to take power in future elections, but not by cosying up with the AfD. They have shown that they are perfectly capable of forming coalitions with the FDP, the SPD and the Greens or combinations of those parties.
Have a look at the governments in the Bundesländer, now and in the last few years.
I don't know what you mean with the AfD supported the FDP in Berlin - maybe you could provide a link.
My grandparents came to the UK for a better life (and much encouragement from the UK government who wanted the empire links to continue)
One thing few people like to talk about is the fact the largest volunteer army in history was the British Indian Army, my great grandfather served in that army and according to one of my grandfathers my great grandfather loved it, allowed him to feel equal with the Brits. You cannot beat bonds like that, so my great grandfather his son to go to the UK.
I think one of the things that is quite the pull factor now as it was then was they could all speak English.
Because English is the lingua franca of the world expect more immigration.
That army's victory over the Japanese in Burma is surely one of the greatest feats of arms under the Union Jack anywhere and any time.
Comments
Only 3 million now attend church weekly in the UK (albeit with a small increase in evangelical and Orthodox church attendance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html
They have false memories though don't they because they want all that but don't want an outside loo and no bathroom and no central heating and no phone and to die early and they probably don't want the water board, and GPO and no gas/electricity freedom, etc, etc.
Far too spoiled for choice nowadays but Ardbikie is good, coincidentally based around the farm at which my mother was born.
https://tinyurl.com/yw7psx4n
https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-springtime-in-an-english-village-1944-online
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional/2017
About a quarter of those couples who do still get married have religious ceremonies now, so still rather more than the less than 10% of adults who attend church weekly
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-58318695
I'd define "unelectable" as someone who is opposed by too many people to ever have any serious chance, often due to being too extreme, too obviously incapable of leading, or both. Someone who doesn't just not win but CAN'T realistically hope to win even with good luck and a fair wind.
In a post-Trump world, I'm not sure how many people are genuinely unelectable.
PS: Black Isle is very nice, I liked Cameron's Spinnaker but they have not had in for a while.
Plus if the SPD-Greens and Linke form a governing coalition then the Union will have to do a deal with the AfD or it will almost never get into government again. It would have no choice but to move to the right and deal with the AfD.
The Union and their traditional allies the FDP no longer have the numbers to form centre right governments again on their own
Until women can have a career which does not end up curtailed because of family demands in the same way that men do feminism has an important, indeed, vital role to play.
Too many women and employers forget that women's working lives continue after they have families and that children grow up and there can be another 20-30 years or more left, in which they have much to offer. We are nowhere near that stage. You'd think they'd want them to go as the "enemy". Instead it looks as if they want them to stay so that they can be slaughtered. Not just tragic but evil.
So significantly fewer Christians have church weddings and baptisms than those who call themselves Christian, let alone attend church every Sunday. So that would seem more significant than a few atheists who like a traditional country church rather then registry office wedding and christening
Life can't be put on hold indefinitely for it and if there are some people uncomfortable with that idea then they can do so on a personal level.
It was his mother who insisted on a church of some sort!
Also see school league tables and entry gamification - again popular with the electorate.
Result - reversal of meritocracy.
It would seem odd if you really were a christian to not get married in a church. Why wouldn't you?
So I suspect there are a significant number of people who designate themselves christian and are no more christian than me. I also suspect the drop in christianity is not due to a real drop in belief but a lot more of those people being honest with themselves.
Another PB thread full of 'experts' and nobody has mentioned the finest Gin in production
The Botanist
That is all
There is also nothing wrong with parents having the information to choose the best choice for their child, though we could do with a few more grammars like we had in the 1950s too
Hence Boris' Catholic wedding to Carrie was technically his first according to the Vatican and he could get married at Westminster Cathedral
It is this 2 party bias in the direct seats which has lead to the increase in the overall total number of MPs as there becomes more and more parties in the Bundestag. This is why the 2 largest parties (surprise surprise) passed a law to cap the number of extra MPs that can be allocated t each party. Let's see if this hits the Greens and FDP next month.
The data from Israel is really encouraging on infections even against delta it looks like the third dose brings efficacy above 90% again. The downside risk to not having a very wide booster programme is absolutely massive and the downside risk of having one is tiny. The JCVI are taking an absolute age and frankly it's time for Javid to step up and announce a 35m person booster programme and let the JCVI moan about being ignored afterwards.
US may use military bases to house more Afghan refugees.
It's 'definitely the plan' to get to 100,000 people evacuated by US by the end of the week, says John Kirby.
https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1430179439174893568?s=20
Those things have improved but that’s not because of mass immigration or multiculturalism, in fact the immigrants tend to be less progressive in those regards than boring old white English men
I'm the main earner in my household. My wife works 2 days/week and doesn't want to work more as she wants to spent time supporting the kids. I would very happily myself go to working 2 days a week for her to work full time and for me to be the primary care giver but she does not want that. Not least because due to our different careers my earning potential is much higher. I would much rather have her lifestyle than mine!
I remember a discussion on here a while ago which compared men and women choosing their spouses. Men with high income potential are far more likely to marry women who have a lesser incoming potential. However, women with high income potential are not likely at all to marry those with one that is noticeably less. In other words, men are far more likely to pick a spouse who needs financial support than women are.
What this means is that if you are a high income potential woman who is married to a man with a similar income potential then it seems to be the case that the woman misses out far more. Until more women are prepared to marry men with less of an income potential then it is my belief that women will, unfortunately, always be outnumbered in the very high level positions.
#Afghanistan
https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1430182528116273156?s=20
Non-religious naming ceremonies on the other hand are a bit contrived. We did one, for our oldest two, and it was quite nice - though that much sincerity all in one place without anyone to moderate it was strange. Didn't do one for our youngest. Never got round to it, and then suddenly she was too old. Still haven't fully decided who her godfather* is, though she has a couple of godmothers* Makes me feel slightly guilty every time I think about it.
*yes, I know. Another word is needed.
Having gone thru' that system and seen the harm it did to so many secondary school and grammar school pupils it should never see the light of day again.
you can stream rather than making life changing choices at 11.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1430167420178685975?s=20
Indeed, in Tory controlled Kent and Bucks and Lincolnshire the system is still entirely selective. There are also still a few grammars here in Essex in Chelmsford and Colchester as well as in parts of suburban London, Manchester and Birmingham and Devon and Warwickshire.
Even today the state schools with the highest number of Oxbridge entrants tend to be from grammars. From 1964 to 1997 all our PMs were grammar school educated, since then they have been mainly private school educated.
The problem with selection was not the grammars, it was not enough technical schools for the non grammar pupils, now high schools in selective areas offer GCSEs to all pupils and more vocational options as well
We may well move to more rural Essex closer to Chelmsford if we have children for that reason
So, for instance, schools always rang me first even though they had been told that my husband - as he was working from home and close by - should be the initial contact. Even my daughter's school did this, despite educating them all to go out and do great things, they assumed I was at home and always had parent-teacher meetings in the middle of the day. I had a bloody great row about it with them.
You make your choices and you accept that sacrifices have to be made.
When the children were small I never ever went to any after-work events. I worked hard but I was not going to sacrifice my time with the children for drinks and networking. And, doubtless, that affected my career progression. I even got criticised for it when I refused to go to some weekend event. To which I tartly replied that if it was important for work it could happen in work time.
I do think that young women need to think about their work life when children are older and plan ahead. As do employers. In many ways it is much harder when children are older than when they are babies/toddlers. And if there are not many like you to share with it can feel very lonely. It certainly was for me when mine were teenagers. And yet this is not much talked about and there is relatively little support or discussion about how best women can make the most of themselves and how organisations might aid and benefit from this.
So we do get a loss of experienced clever women with much to offer - at all sorts of levels below the very high level positions. That is a pity for them and for society as a whole.
Daughter #1 is starting a grammar school in September. It is entirely right for her.
Daughter #2 has another year before the 11+. I'd give her a 25% chance of passing. But even if she passed it might not be right for her. If she doesn't go there, there is basically a choice of 2 ok-to-good not-grammars. I'd be ok with either, but the schools I think would ideally suit her (she is mildly dyslexic and very sporty) we are out of catchment for and in all likelihood wouldn't get in. While there is, in theory choice of schools, in practice there isn't.
The local not-grammars that she could go to, however, strike me as considerably better than the bog standard comprehensives that were available when I was school age in the 80s. My view is that the persistence of grammars in Trafford was a result of Trafford, uniquely in GM, having a view that educational attainment mattered - and that ethos fed through to all the schools, not just the grammars.
Daughter #3 - who knows? But I am already mildly irritated by the thought of having to go through this all over again.
Personally, although the system works very well for daughter #1, she would be fine wherever she went. I think if I was able to travel back in time by 12 years I might make a different choice on where to live to be close to a school which would suit daughter #2. But realistically you can't know 12 years in advance what a school will be like, nor what a daughter will be like. And I don't feel strongly enough to uproot the whole family now.
You would hear the same sort of thing from some of the more socially confident pupils whether at a comp, grammar, high school or public school
Just the more disciplined ones manage to keep it under control when pupils are on school grounds
If there were real surges happening in Scotland and not just measurement biases from school returns, you'd expect to see some hint of the same pattern in England, so seems pretty reassuring.
a) I know there are existing grammar schools. I'm not daft. It was a play on words. You said 'we could do with a few more grammar school', hence my 'no we couldn't'. Obviously I know it is possible.
b) Obviously the grammars will produce the highest number of Oxbridge entrants. Doh you did a selection. It doesn't mean the grammars are better. Those same pupils will still get into Oxbridge, but some you have thrown on the rubbish heap may as well.
c) You say the problem was there were not enough technical schools. Well you are wrong and I went through this. So take me for instance. You would have therefore sent me to a technical school. I failed my 11 plus good and proper and was an average pupil until I was about 13/14. I am completely incapable at anything technical yet I blossomed academically. I transferred to the Grammar school for my A levels and was fast tracked, taking A levels after 1 year and went on to Manchester Uni to study maths. But you want me to go to a technical school?
I left behind so many who were also late in blossoming but O levels became the end of their academic career because of the system (I was the exception). Similarly there were a huge number at the Grammar who although bright at 11 went no further and crashed and burned by the time they got to O levels. They may have flourished at a technical subject but never got a chance.
And how about those great at languages but flop at science and visa versa. Similarly music or art, etc, etc. People can be great at some subject and rubbish at others so why judge them across the board. Let them run at their own pace subject by subject by streaming.
Destroying so many lives at 11 is criminal and I saw so much of it. I was luck to escape, but to this day I regret I never got a chance at languages, because I was in the 'wrong' school.
If you live in a selective area however often the grammar schools get as good results as the private schools if not better, so if they pass the 11 or 13 plus then you can send them to the grammar. Only if they fail would you need to send them private
When Leni Riefenstahl Came to Hollywood
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/leni-riefenstahl-hollywood-1235001606/
...Only two major Hollywood players broke the boycott. Disney gave Riefenstahl a tour of his studio and showed her the storyboards to Fantasia. But when Riefenstahl asked Disney to screen Olympia and vouch for it, Disney balked. After all, he had to do business in this town.
Syndicated gossip columnist Hedda Hopper was more accommodating. She attended a private screening of Olympia, found its director “perfectly charming,”...
She told me an anecdote about the 1950s/60s that shocked me.
She was an academic earning very good money not just for a woman but for a man of that era.
So in her mid 20s she decided to apply for a mortgage.
Bank manager told her that he would only approve a mortgage if a male blood relative under the age of 35 (or a husband) applied with her.
Both her brothers earned considerably less than her but she couldn’t get the mortgage until they signed on.
Fortunately one of them did and she got the mortgage. But she would have been utterly screwed on the mortgage if she had no brothers.
Seems utterly bizarre to us.
Oxbridge and the Russell Group are the conveyor belt to the top jobs, and still you have far more chance of getting there at a grammar than a comp.
You clearly were a late developer and got into the grammar school anyway for sixth form so have nothing to complain about
And there are not women's tasks or men's tasks, there is just a massive amount of stuff which needs doing. This includes generating income, childcare, education, feeding them and clothing them, house maintenance, taxiing them about, etc, etc. In our house, we both work, but not all the time. We both do childcare, but not all the time. I do most of the food shopping and preparation, the wife does most of the clothes shopping and washing. We both do the housework. I will do jobs which require heavy things to be lifted or high shelves to be reached, my wife will do jobs which require an element of patience with technology or which require good eyesight.
Other families will make different choices.
But I am never going to get to particularly senior levels within my organisation because I simply don't have the time to commit to it - because of the choices we have made as a family. That's not the dice being loaded against women, or parents, or anyone else, just a recognition that there are only so many hours in the day.
The only respect I will agree that there is any element of the dice being loaded against women are that women will need to make some serious sacrifices for the months either side of giving birth. Pregnancy is often hard and breastfeeding is limiting. But that is not in itself career limiting unless you have hordes of children; and is the result of biology, not society.
I joined a grammar at 14, my brother joined at 16, we both went to a University we'd have had precious little chance of going to if left to a Comprehensive where collecting lots of Bs would have been considered a success rather than a failure.
Times may be a'changin'. I'm a stay-at-home dad, with a wife who has always earned more then me (even when she worked for me on projects). I'm first on the school's contact list, and they always try me first. The same is true for friends of ours who are in the same situation, and whose kids go to a different school.
I can't remember having any problem with anyone in authority - schools, etc - about being the primary carer. A few other parents ... less so. If women want men to take more part in childcare, then (some) should be a darned sight more accepting of men who do so.
The key has to be for men to take on more of the childcare responsibilities, either nearly full-time like me, or sharing if both work. And for employers to have a different attitude - I know one company who does not accept a five-year gap in a male employee's resume for childcare. But that boss is an *!&^%!^ (*). Fortunately Mrs J works in an industry where flexitime is very acceptable.
But as a whole, I think society is getting there, albeit slowly.
Kids are the problem (and a beautiful problem to have). Unless you are willing to palm them off on relatives or friends, then one of a couple has to look after them - even if there are pre- and after-school clubs. This means less time for work, and therefore an impact on the career over those who do not have kids.
But there are other issues. A friend of ours is divorced with two kids, with no family in the area. The kids' father is absent. She manages thanks to friends, a good employer, and a lot of hard work.
Sometimes you cannot have everything. Life is about compromises: if you want kids, some things have to give slightly; free time, money, sleep, and yes, even career. A career may well be damaged slightly over colleagues who do not have kids: but then having kids might well be a compensation in itself.
(*) He also tried to forbid employees to work from home during Covid.
One thing few people like to talk about is the fact the largest volunteer army in history was the British Indian Army, my great grandfather served in that army and according to one of my grandfathers my great grandfather loved it, allowed him to feel equal with the Brits. You cannot beat bonds like that, so my great grandfather told his son to go to the UK.
I think one of the things that is quite the pull factor now as it was then was they could all speak English.
Because English is the lingua franca of the world expect more immigration.
Re getting into Oxbridge you do understand the maths here don't you if you select at 11 you will off course get a higher percentage into Oxbridge than a Comp that hasn't selected. That doesn't make the Grammar better at all.
IF the CDU became the main opposition (it's still more likely they will remain in government) they would probably be well placed to take power in future elections, but not by cosying up with the AfD. They have shown that they are perfectly capable of forming coalitions with the FDP, the SPD and the Greens or combinations of those parties.
Have a look at the governments in the Bundesländer, now and in the last few years.
I don't know what you mean with the AfD supported the FDP in Berlin - maybe you could provide a link.