|
|
Post by hireton on Sept 2, 2022 6:57:54 GMT
Something which hasn't received much attention during the Tory leadership camapaign is the fall in the value of the £. This morning trading at £1.16 against the US dollar.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,585
|
Post by Danny on Sept 2, 2022 7:02:28 GMT
While I am inclined to agree with the nonsense of virtue signalling voting and allegiance it's a bit more nuanced than that. If I lived in a constituency where the only likely outcome was a Tory or Labour representative I would 100% of the time vote Labour. But I don't. I live in a constituency where the liberal democrats have gained massively against the Tories at local elections and despite in the past being the second party to the Tories where Labour local representation has reduced to zero on the local council.I also live in a constituency where the liberal democrats have won the adjacent two constituencies against the Tories at Westminster level. As it stands at the moment the liberal democrats are simply a better fit particularly in regard to European union relations and a more likely method of ejecting our Tory mp. I could equally well support the green party but under fptp that would be virtue signalling nothing more. The bottom line is, the main attraction labour has for most voters is ABC, it is simply the biggest opposition party and so the obvious one to vote for to get rid of an unacceptable conservative government. That was also true when Blair won.
It was noticeable that Blair also arrived with more liberal rivals, who also won because they were ABC, but with a smattering of ABL thrown in the mix. Best i recollect, Blair did have some clear respected policies people liked, even if they were somewhat the opposite of hated con ones and therefore no brainers. More spending on health, housing, schools.
Truss apparently just argued to increase defence spending, radio suggested £150bn. Will she close hospitals to pay for this? Raise taxes? Bung it on the credit card?
To your point, libs massively harmed their prospects by propping up the cameron government. But they have a window again now because Con have made themselves more detestable (Cameron was Mr nice, and was chosen as leader because he was) and lab really arent offering anything particularly attractive. They have no vision, no grand plan. labour has no way to drive out libs as the better alternative to con in some constituencies.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,585
|
Post by Danny on Sept 2, 2022 7:09:31 GMT
First class degrees 10% in the 90s, 15% 2011, 30% now.
Arent we all clever?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 7:11:27 GMT
"Nearly half of British children now grow up outside the traditional two-parent household, according to a report on the make-up of the modern family. A review being published today by Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, has found that almost a quarter of families are headed by a lone parent, compared with the EU average of one eighth. Forty-four per cent of those born in 2000 will have spent some of their childhood up to age 17 outside a traditional “nuclear” family, compared with 21 per cent of people born in 1970." Very interesting report with revealing detail :- www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/report/family-and-its-protective-effect-part-1-of-the-independent-family-review/I have to confess that I didn't read the report in your link but the figures you quote are appalling. The basic building block of a healthy society is the traditional family. This has been systematically eroded for many years by both governing parties, sometimes for what seemed like good reasons, such as making divorce easier. However the cumulative effect over say the last 50-60 years has been to weaken this fundamental structure. It is sad . And given the link De Souza makes to the achievement & life chances of children ; depressing. No chance of addressing this in our politically polarised country . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 7:12:22 GMT
Just because Ukraine (and Russia) was mentioned. Die Zeit was reporting today that two high level civil servants are investigated in Germany for being Russian spies. As it is subscription only, you may want to search on Politico as they provided some sort of summary. They are in the "Energy Dept" according to the Times ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 7:18:16 GMT
Anyone but Corbyn?? Yeah it is a straw ma I thought he was a waste of space but voted for Corbyn because I would rather have seen him in Downing St than May or Johnson. I wanted a Labour Government. I didn’t get all precious “ooh I don’t think I can vote Labour with him in charge. Ooh I can’t decide. I might vote Green. I could spoil my ballot paper”. Ffs. Interesting that turning a blind eye to Corbyn , by a Labour voter, is being pragmatic and "not precious", but doing the same thing as a Tory voter in respect of Johnson, is unforgivably unprincipled. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,774
|
Post by steve on Sept 2, 2022 7:23:09 GMT
jib If you have no objection to freedom of movement ,why did you vote to end it? Immigration policy is under the control of the U.K. government just as it was as a member so if it's " unlimited " which it never was that's something to address to those who set the policy not by leaving an organisation that doesn't. As I understand it you objected to agricultural policy and fishing policies, apart from the blindingly obvious that these accounted for less than 5% of the benefits of membership it's also blindingly obvious at least to farmers and the fishing industry now that they were significantly better off in the European union. I won't address your other comment as it relates to something that only existed inside your own head.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,774
|
Post by steve on Sept 2, 2022 7:26:54 GMT
hireton Part of the reason why fuel prices, set in dollars have remained stubbornly high. The other being corporate greed of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 7:32:17 GMT
A neat summary of just how useless this man has been - Build nuclear which won't start generating until 2035, and buy a new kettle. Pathetic, really. One of the many failings of the departing PM is to forget that the use of simple , often humorous , metaphors to illustrate a larger theme , will be exploited by the Twittering peddlers of yahoo politics for their baying audience . And not to understand that they will use edited clips -not whole speeches. I listened ( watched) that speech and so understand the point he was trying to illustrate. It was utterly predictable that his choice of metaphor would be gleefully exploited by Twits and their Twitlings |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 2, 2022 7:33:50 GMT
Apologies to pjw1961 and Shevii for my seeming volte face here, but I had to waive my deep scepticism about the national relevance of local council by election results for these two little beauties that took place yesterday in my old manor of Redditch. I lived in Headless Cross and Oakenshaw for years and walked its streets and estates on countless occasions, leafletting and canvassing for Labour in national and local elections. It's been a Tory ward in all that time. Now it's red. The times they are a changing and Keir is on his way!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 7:39:52 GMT
Times reports an OPinium Survey which suggests that 1.7 million (!) people will respond to the Don't Pay Campaign's call to cease energy direct debits from Oct. 1. Truss's administration has a month to stop this happening, failing which the knock on effects will merely add to the gathering conclusion that the Tories cant make anything work properly. James Forsyth in the Times predicts a 1970's style end to a "Tory era". he is agreeing with you crossbat11  |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Sept 2, 2022 7:41:49 GMT
" will make their life different to what it would be under the Tories" - This is what i don't get, an apparent failure to appreciate the level of danger (and damage already done) the current, populist manifestation of the Tories represent not just to the material well being of the nation and it's inhabitants but also to political culture, civic discourse and the rule of law itself. To me it's clear that if we don't remove them soon by any means possible we could pass a point of no return beyond which we may encounter scenarios I don't even want to think about. This is an emergency situation and literally any alternative would improve all our lives at this point and the standing of the country in Europe and internationally. It's a stand up and be counted moment, not time to be haggling over policy details. If in power in a couple of years time Labour will in any case have no choice but to embrace imaginative policy ideas as the circumstances will demand no less. Before that though a laser like focus on getting these Tories out of power is needed. Once that's done we can focus on trying to keep them there for a very long time until they either implode under their internal contradictions (hopeful scenario) or completely reform themselves. As for New Labour. a) Reduction in child poverty. a) Surestart. c) Years spent at least looking like a modern, forward looking European democracy. I'd take them for those points alone. I do get cheesed off with the 'all the same' narrative and the 'red Tory Blair' stuff. Life under Blair's administrations was immeasurably better. Support for the NHS, for schools, for poor families, for public infrastructure. No government is perfect but I'd settle for a Blair government in an instant. Just ridiculous to suggest that Starmer won't deliver something any different from the last 12 years. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 2, 2022 7:44:59 GMT
Forgive me my excitement about political events in Redditch, but I'm genuinely delighted for my old friends in the CLP there. The diehards and old street warriors who've been fighting the good fight, in some cases, for 40 years. Some good years under Blair but mostly bad. The last five or six have been utterly dismal. Having held the borough council as recently as 7 or 8 years ago, Labour went down to a rump of four councillors in 2019 but, including the local elections in May and the two by elections last night, that figured has doubled to 8! My old mate Andy Fry, leader of the Labour Group, and Corbynite at heart, will have a bit more company on the Labour benches now.
It's a long shot but Redditch, once held by Labour 1997-2010, is winnable for the party in a good year.
Whatever, they'll be a spring in the step of my old confreres in the town this morning. Labour are winning again and something may be stirring in the forest at long last. The long nights of defeat and humiliation at election counts, disappointed and crestfallen little red rossetted huddles in the corner no more.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Sept 2, 2022 7:58:06 GMT
Anyone but Corbyn?? Yeah it is a straw ma I thought he was a waste of space but voted for Corbyn because I would rather have seen him in Downing St than May or Johnson. I wanted a Labour Government. I didn’t get all precious “ooh I don’t think I can vote Labour with him in charge. Ooh I can’t decide. I might vote Green. I could spoil my ballot paper”. Ffs. Interesting that turning a blind eye to Corbyn , by a Labour voter, is being pragmatic and "not precious", but doing the same thing as a Tory voter in respect of Johnson, is unforgivably unprincipled. Totally unprincipled as Johnson has no principles. Nothing wrong with Corbyn's principles, it was his lack of leadership and inablity to communicate effectively that was wrong with him |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 8:01:38 GMT
Interesting that turning a blind eye to Corbyn , by a Labour voter, is being pragmatic and "not precious", but doing the same thing as a Tory voter in respect of Johnson, is unforgivably unprincipled. Totally unprincipled as Johnson has no principles. Nothing wrong with Corbyn's principles, it was his lack of leadership and inablity to communicate effectively that was wrong with him Natch.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 8:02:04 GMT
Interesting that turning a blind eye to Corbyn , by a Labour voter, is being pragmatic and "not precious", but doing the same thing as a Tory voter in respect of Johnson, is unforgivably unprincipled. Totally unprincipled as Johnson has no principles. Nothing wrong with Corbyn's principles, it was his lack of leadership and inablity to communicate effectively that was wrong with him Even though I was a big Corbynite, I have to say that his stance on Ukraine would not have been popular, even with me. He may turn out to have been right but would have lost a ton of votes being right. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Sept 2, 2022 8:02:40 GMT
What exactly is the 'traditional' family? For much of history surely we lived much more communally than we do now. For most of human history would we not have lived in extended groups, not blocks of two parents plus kids? Wasn't the creation of the two adult isolated group a means of social control breaking up local links and loyalties, making central control easier?
I would think a communal model with friends, relatives or grandparents doing child raising, children learning a trade by working with their parents, all contributed to socialising children. Now we have specialist schools children attend, but that breaks the link between parent and child. It creates problems where parents are absent from a home at different times to children. We require both parents to work to fund what is considered an adequate home, but that breaks link with parents arguably just as much as if there is only one parent. Maybe single parents are forced to bring in other friends or relatives and therefore can compensate for a missing parent, could even do better than having two working parents, where gran is available. Perhaps the problem is really poverty where only one parent is available to work to support a child, and it really applies with two parent families also (because both are required to work and be absent the home) It's a bit of a myth that people once lived communally & that the nuclear household is a relatively modern invention. In England, pretty much as far back as we have evidence, marriage led to the formation of a new nuclear household. There were more three-generation households, but these were temporary arrangments & did not fundamentally disturb the basic model. In poorer families, which constitued the great majority, nucleararity [!] was maintained by "expelling" older children who could not pay their way; they went into agricutural service, apprenticeships etc in richer households, which were therefore larger than the poor ones through this addition of unrelated residents. These persons married late, later than we assume, forming a new household when they (maybe) inherited a little from their parents, or had built up some skills or scanty means during their period of service. This enforced chastity kept down the birth rate, indeed was a powerful form of social contra-conception, as it occurred during young people's most fertile years; as Malthus showed. It is also mythical that children looked after their parents in adavnced old age. They couldn't afford to. Indigent old people were dependent on poor relief, & poor widow's households were v poor. Projected social guilt about their condition was the basis of many withcraft accusations which were usually levelled against povwerty-stricken widows. I think you are right that kids get less direct parenting in their early years, because the model is that both parents work. Whether this broadens or narrows their experience it is hard tosay.When I was a young kid my mother always seemed at or near home & her absence for any length of time was v notworthy. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 2, 2022 8:04:11 GMT
It is a frequent misrepresentation of the left by Blairites, that the left act like nothing would be better under a right wing Labour Government.
But no one argues that Blair didn’t put more money into schools and hospitals. (Though the right ignore how the process involves handing more assets to the private sector, so long-term it can involve more costs etc.)
The problem the right ignore, is that despite this, the inequality trajectory overall can still be downwards, when you look at housing costs, utility bills, zero hours rather than full employment etc. And how hiking house prices means the better off can still get themselves into preferred schools etc.
Currently it can be quite handy in helping you have a better insulated home. This is the problem with the “But Blair did some good things!” refrain.
We know he did some good things. The problem is you have to look at the overall picture. Otherwise it’s like going “But Johnson got the vaccine programme going quickly!” and ignoring the rest.
Part of the reason we struggled with the pandemic is that Blair binned the Coronavirus plan they were given. Part of the reason we are struggling with energy now is that governments of that era didn’t plan for an energy crisis etc., though not just Labour obviously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 8:06:28 GMT
What exactly is the 'traditional' family? For much of history surely we lived much more communally than we do now. For most of human history would we not have lived in extended groups, not blocks of two parents plus kids? Wasn't the creation of the two adult isolated group a means of social control breaking up local links and loyalties, making central control easier? I would think a communal model with friends, relatives or grandparents doing child raising, children learning a trade by working with their parents, all contributed to socialising children. Now we have specialist schools children attend, but that breaks the link between parent and child. It creates problems where parents are absent from a home at different times to children. We require both parents to work to fund what is considered an adequate home, but that breaks link with parents arguably just as much as if there is only one parent. Maybe single parents are forced to bring in other friends or relatives and therefore can compensate for a missing parent, could even do better than having two working parents, where gran is available. Perhaps the problem is really poverty where only one parent is available to work to support a child, and it really applies with two parent families also (because both are required to work and be absent the home) It's a bit of a myth that people once lived communally & that the nuclear household is a relatively modern invention. In England, pretty much as far back as we have evidence, marriage led to the formation of a new nuclear household. There were more three-generation households, but these were temporary arrangments & did not fundamentally disturb the basic model. In poorer families, which constitued the majority, nucleararity [!] was maintained by "expelling" older children who could not pay their way; they went into agricutural service, apprenticeships etc in richer households, which were therefore larger than the poor ones through this addition of unrelated residents. These persons married late, later than we assume, forming a new household when they inherited a little from their parents, or had built up some skills or scanty means during their period of service. This enforced chastity kept down the birth rate, indeed was a powerful form of social conception, as it occurred during young people's most fertile years; as Malthus showed. It is also mythical that children looked after their parents in adavnced old age. They couldn't afford to. Indigent old people were dependent on poor relief, & poor widow's households were v poor. Projected social guilt about their condition was the basis of many withcraft accusations which were usually levelled against povwerty-stricken widows. I think you are right that kids get less direct parenting in their early years, because the model is that both parents work. Whether this broadens or narrows their experience it is hard tosay.When I was a young kid my mother always seemed at or near home & her absence for any length of time was v notworthy. A lot of old fogies (especially when they are also internet trolls) look back fondly to a time when men went out to work and women had the kids - apart from that fact that one income isn't enough nowadays (dammit two ain't!) there was also the problem that in that system women were basically housebound and de facto property of the men. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Sept 2, 2022 8:16:30 GMT
A lot of old fogies (especially when they are also internet trolls) look back fondly to a time when men went out to work and women had the kids - apart from that fact that one income isn't enough nowadays (dammit two ain't!) there was also the problem that in that system women were basically housebound and de facto property of the men. Yeh. My mother , like millions of other women of her generation, had to organise her own life during WW2 - husband away for years- & in her early widowhood, again so common given male mortality rates. This brought out a pretty remrakable resourcefulness & resilience that was latent in other periods of her life (their lives). |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 2, 2022 8:25:46 GMT
It's a bit of a myth that people once lived communally & that the nuclear household is a relatively modern invention. In England, pretty much as far back as we have evidence, marriage led to the formation of a new nuclear household. There were more three-generation households, but these were temporary arrangments & did not fundamentally disturb the basic model. In poorer families, which constitued the majority, nucleararity [!] was maintained by "expelling" older children who could not pay their way; they went into agricutural service, apprenticeships etc in richer households, which were therefore larger than the poor ones through this addition of unrelated residents. These persons married late, later than we assume, forming a new household when they inherited a little from their parents, or had built up some skills or scanty means during their period of service. This enforced chastity kept down the birth rate, indeed was a powerful form of social conception, as it occurred during young people's most fertile years; as Malthus showed. It is also mythical that children looked after their parents in adavnced old age. They couldn't afford to. Indigent old people were dependent on poor relief, & poor widow's households were v poor. Projected social guilt about their condition was the basis of many withcraft accusations which were usually levelled against povwerty-stricken widows. I think you are right that kids get less direct parenting in their early years, because the model is that both parents work. Whether this broadens or narrows their experience it is hard tosay.When I was a young kid my mother always seemed at or near home & her absence for any length of time was v notworthy. A lot of old fogies (especially when they are also internet trolls) look back fondly to a time when men went out to work and women had the kids - apart from that fact that one income isn't enough nowadays (dammit two ain't!) there was also the problem that in that system women were basically housebound and de facto property of the men. can look back fondly to a time when you could raise a family on a single income, regardless of who was in work at the time. I know some of my older colleagues in FE used that to take it in turns to get a degree while the other went out to work, for example. (This in turn could allow a partner to escape once they both had their degrees and associated career) One person gets ill, the other can go out to work. If interest rates go up, both can go out to work. If you can afford a house, then when you split up there is an asset to share etc. Full employment policies also means a single parent might have a better chance of a decent job without trying to juggle three part-time jobs etc. |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Sept 2, 2022 8:38:11 GMT
Colin: "One of the many failings of the departing PM is to forget that the use of simple , often humorous , metaphors to illustrate a larger theme , will be exploited by the Twittering peddlers of yahoo politics for their baying audience . And not to understand that they will use edited clips -not whole speeches.
I listened ( watched) that speech and so understand the point he was trying to illustrate. It was utterly predictable that his choice of metaphor would be gleefully exploited by Twits and their Twitlings"
A few points:
1. As far as I can tell, the clip wasn't edited; ie, it was an entire extract but was not mucked around with. So, the same as the selected extracts from articles that you like to offer up to us. It would be equally valid - and wrong-headed - for me to criticise you for failing to paste whole articles.
2. The clip served as a useful reminder of just what a shambling, incoherent prat he is. If he can't even master "the use of simple , often humorous , metaphors" no wonder he failed so comprehensively at the business of government.
3. Does his suggestion that a slow-boiling kettle wastes energy make any sense? My understanding is that time taken to boil is directly related to energy used. There may be a minor effect if furring slightly impedes heat transfer, but in that case if some of the the energy can't get into the water it has to go somewhere and the kettle will overheat disastrously. No doubt Alec can shed further light on this.
We recently had to buy a new kettle and when it arrived the box proclaimed "60% more efficient". That's amazing, I thought. Turned out the claim was based on a little plastic gizmo inside to show levels for one, two, or three cups' worth of water. The saving was based on boiling a cupful when that was all you needed, rather than filling the kettle. I wonder if befuddled Johnson, with an Ancient Greek-level understanding of electricity, was taken in by that bit of marketing bs?
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,159
|
Post by domjg on Sept 2, 2022 8:42:24 GMT
I have to confess that I didn't read the report in your link but the figures you quote are appalling. The basic building block of a healthy society is the traditional family. This has been systematically eroded for many years by both governing parties, sometimes for what seemed like good reasons, such as making divorce easier. However the cumulative effect over say the last 50-60 years has been to weaken this fundamental structure. It is sad . And given the link De Souza makes to the achievement & life chances of children ; depressing. No chance of addressing this in our politically polarised country . And how exactly would this be 'addressed'? With coercion US Republican style? This is just the way society has developed, deal with it. I thought the whole point of conservatism was that it didn't seek top down management and coercion of societal structure but just rolled with what is? A lesson US Republicans have forgotten and the reason many of them are no longer conservatives but have become simply fascists. If a cultural norm is no longer being enforced organically from the bottom up, it's a fools errand and authoritarian to try to bolster it from on high. This is modern America's problem in a nutshell.The Republicans are unable to deal with America as it is so they tie themselves in knots saying ludicrous things like a majority of US citizens are intrinsically un-American in attempts to justify their wicked plans for minority rule. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Sept 2, 2022 8:48:30 GMT
jib Of course you would say that it doesn't make it true. Single market membership involves no additional immigration unlimited or otherwise, freedom of movement is not immigration. Shame five years after you voted to leave you are still clueless as to what you were voting to leave. What does freedom of movement mean? EU, EEA and Swiss citizens have the right to move freely within the territory of the European Union, European Economic Area and Switzerland. When they are lawfully in one of those countries, they should not be treated differently from citizens of that country in terms of: Access to employment Working conditions Taxation Access to training Access to trade unions Access to (for example) housing, education, education for their children Not a major issue for me. I just wanted out from Stealth Federalisation and the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. But you are the one who doesn't understand. I just can't understand this. All those things you list that freedom of movement gave us are major good things. You even say yourself 'not a major issue for me'. You then describe 'stealth federalisation' the CAP and CFP as cancelling all these positives out and the reason you voted for brexit. Your position from this is strange because from your own words the benefits outweigh your perceived negatives. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Sept 2, 2022 8:49:09 GMT
After going to the gym in a bit, I plan to visit the on site shop at the Purity Brewery in Spernall Ash, there to partake of their special offer of 10% off all their beers when bought in boxes of 10 bottles or cans. They do an Aston Villa Purity IPA. The owner of the brewery is a big Villa fan and sponsor of the club. A classic start up business, it began as a micro brewery occupying a small farm outbuilding and has grown into a large brewery producing beers, lagers and ciders sold nationwide. It has taken over the whole farm now. The brewery and farm is situated in the Warwickshire countryside, about four miles from Redditch.
After the political earthquake in Redditch last night, and once stocked up with a few boxes of Purity's finest ales to bide me over another predictably traumatic footballing weekend, I intend to do a nostalgic detour around my old stomping ground of Headless Cross and Oakenshaw.
I will report back on whether I witness the remnants of any impromptu wild street parties that may have taken place after the by election result was announced, or giant flags bearing the visage if Sir Keir Starmer draped over the outsides of the many impoverished hovels that make up this benighted part of town.
I bid you adieu for now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 8:49:33 GMT
It is sad . And given the link De Souza makes to the achievement & life chances of children ; depressing. No chance of addressing this in our politically polarised country . And how exactly would this be 'addressed'? With coercion US Republican style? This is just the way society has developed, deal with it. I thought the whole point of conservatism was that it didn't seek top down management and coercion of societal structure but just rolled with what is? A lesson US Republicans have forgotten and the reason many of them are longer conservatives but have become simply fascists. If a cultural norm is no longer being enforced organically from the bottom up, it's a fools errand and authoritarian to try to bolster it from on high. This is modern America's problem in a nutshell. I suppose to stop the decline in two parent families which De Souza highlights. ...so a program to halt the trend in absent fathers. How ?- I don't know and given the ethnic / cultural disparities highighted in the report -politically impossible in this country I should think. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 8:52:05 GMT
Colin: "One of the many failings of the departing PM is to forget that the use of simple , often humorous , metaphors to illustrate a larger theme , will be exploited by the Twittering peddlers of yahoo politics for their baying audience . And not to understand that they will use edited clips -not whole speeches.
I listened ( watched) that speech and so understand the point he was trying to illustrate. It was utterly predictable that his choice of metaphor would be gleefully exploited by Twits and their Twitlings"A few points: 1. As far as I can tell, the clip wasn't edited; ie, it was an entire extract but was not mucked around with. So, the same as the selected extracts from articles that you like to offer up to us. It would be equally valid - and wrong-headed - for me to criticise you for failing to paste whole articles. 2. The clip served as a useful reminder of just what a shambling, incoherent prat he is. If he can't even master "the use of simple , often humorous , metaphors" no wonder he failed so comprehensively at the business of government. 3. Does his suggestion that a slow-boiling kettle wastes energy make any sense? My understanding is that time taken to boil is directly related to energy used. There may be a minor effect if furring slightly impedes heat transfer, but in that case if some of the the energy can't get into the water it has to go somewhere and the kettle will overheat disastrously. No doubt Alec can shed further light on this. We recently had to buy a new kettle and when it arrived the box proclaimed "60% more efficient". That's amazing, I thought. Turned out the claim was based on a little plastic gizmo inside to show levels for one, two, or three cups' worth of water. The saving was based on boiling a cupful when that was all you needed, rather than filling the kettle. I wonder if befuddled Johnson, with an Ancient Greek-level understanding of electricity, was taken in by that bit of marketing bs? It was an extract -exactly-divorced from its context and purpose. Which was to illustrate the failure of short termism in energy technology, and the advantages of taking a longer term view. But it failed, for the reasons I suggested, as Johnson's metaphors always do. Worse, it was unnecessary as his whole speech made the point well enough and his support for nuclear was manifest.. It will be interesting to see if his little dig at Truss comes to anything . He said Fracking is a waste of time. She is a fervent Fracker I believe (  ) |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,159
|
Post by domjg on Sept 2, 2022 8:52:55 GMT
And how exactly would this be 'addressed'? With coercion US Republican style? This is just the way society has developed, deal with it. I thought the whole point of conservatism was that it didn't seek top down management and coercion of societal structure but just rolled with what is? A lesson US Republicans have forgotten and the reason many of them are longer conservatives but have become simply fascists. If a cultural norm is no longer being enforced organically from the bottom up, it's a fools errand and authoritarian to try to bolster it from on high. This is modern America's problem in a nutshell. I suppose to stop the decline in two parent families which De Souza highlights. ...so a program to halt the trend in absent fathers. How ?- I don't know and given the ethnic / cultural disparities highighted in the report -politically impossible in this country I should think. Politically impossible in any liberal democracy I'd have thought |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 9:00:51 GMT
I suppose to stop the decline in two parent families which De Souza highlights. ...so a program to halt the trend in absent fathers. How ?- I don't know and given the ethnic / cultural disparities highighted in the report -politically impossible in this country I should think. Politically impossible in any liberal democracy I'd have thought No I don't think so. Cultural norms can and do change. The Society in which they exist can influence them. Sensitivity is required -of course. Education in the long run must be a big enabler. Actually I think women are the key to this particular problem. But it would require a political consensus which I can't see here. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Sept 2, 2022 9:20:35 GMT
I suppose to stop the decline in two parent families which De Souza highlights. ...so a program to halt the trend in absent fathers. How ?- I don't know and given the ethnic / cultural disparities highighted in the report -politically impossible in this country I should think. Politically impossible in any liberal democracy I'd have thought And what about widows and widowers left to bring up children alone or women in violent, abusive or coercive relationships. The problem with right wing governments is that they like to scapegoat groups of people in society as feckless and irresponsible. Similar situation to people on benefits. No distinction made for the disabled, those unable to find work, those with mental and physical health problems which restrict the type of work they can do. 'Strivers vs Shirkers". Life is a lot more complicated than many people feel comfortable with. |
|
)