mancjon - Memberso what label am I supposed to wear, then?
difficult
Edit - although i'm not labelling you or anything ...
I might accept "Awkward Squad"... 
Chat Forum
[closed]
The Smiths' Morrissey: 'Royals are benefit scroungers'
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
There are no divisions by CLASS any more. There are however very many divisions by WEALTH. Some upper class people are also wealthy, this is not a coincidence, but it is historical.
Dunno about that Molgrips
Only takes one look at this pair, her with her scowly face and him with his OBE on the wrong side, to show that you can be wealthy, and you can be 'posh', you can mingle with the right crowd, and get invited to all the right places - but theres certainly always going to be a significant division of Class that all the money and status in the world really can just never make up for
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not riding with ernie today then, Fred?
No, because I'm a wronged, oppressed lefty and there's only so much oppression a lad can take.
There are no divisions by CLASS any more.
That's an interesting statement. By that I spose you mean there are no apparent barriers to 'success' for anyone. Theoretically true, I'll give you that, but there are still plenty of glass ceilings. The Old Boy's Network is still very much alive. Whatever the Paranoid Righties say.
And I agree that we need to find a workable alternative before we get the guillotines out, but there are signs that the Status Quo is crumbling, and things are changing. That we've had far more public discussion and debate surrounding the validity of the Monarchy these last couple of weeks, compared to 30 years ago, that's for sure.
One interesting thing I noticed on Friday; travelling through bits of London that were alternatively deprived, wealthy, left wing, conservative, it was surprising just how little apparent support there was for the Royals. Hardly any flags, bunting, etc. I counted less than a dozen homes with anything that displayed Royal support. Not saying there wasn't any, but there just wasn't the fervour that went with Charles and Di. As though people can't be bothered any more. And although the telly screamed about street parties etc, the ones they showed all seemed pretty stage-managed affairs, not the spontaneous community efforts we saw in 1981.
Now I'm not one for 'off with their heads', as the royals are just people like everyone else. I just don't really see why they should have so much privilege without earning it.
'Divine right To Rule'.
Discuss.
Posted 1 year ago # -
There are no divisions by CLASS any more. There are however very many divisions by WEALTH. Some upper class people are also wealthy, this is not a coincidence, but it is historical.
So it does not exist anymore ,is historical in nature , not a coincidence and yet still exists. I am as confused now as you seem to be. I have rarely seen so many contradictions in such few words Good effort.
Can you provide a list of the poor upper class you know the ones in coucil houses and terraced houses [no wealth] so I can fully understand WTF you are trying to say?
Seriously I cannot decide if you are a gentle troll or full of silly thoughts.
PS please dont try and answer I cant be arsed and fear it will be as painful as you telling me why you are a socialist who believes in the free market.
whoppit
Liberal democratic free market capitalist / Tory wet /Nick clegg??Posted 1 year ago # -
Elf
Interesting point about the street parties, got me thinking.
Rather than a sign of less support for the Royals it could also be seen as a sign of a more divided community where people are only really interested in themselves and not the greater whole if you see what i mean.
Posted 1 year ago # -
PS please dont try and answer I cant be arsed and fear it will be as painful as you telling me why you are a socialist who believes in the free marke
Jesus. Who pissed in your coffee this morning?
My point was fairly simple, sorry if you can't follow. I won't expand because you said not to
However afaik there are lots of relatively poor class people, however I cannot (obviously) provide a list.
Posted 1 year ago # -
PS please dont try and answer I cant be arsed and fear it will be as painful as you telling me why you are a socialist who believes in the free market.
But we all have to work with the free-market unless you mean something different from what i understand ie. capitalism. Socialism in terms of controlling the means of production doesn't work very well.
If Socialism means just that then i'm not one. What i want is capitalism with a social conscience and this requires a certain amount of state intervention.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Rather than a sign of less support for the Royals it could also be seen as a sign of a more divided community where people are only really interested in themselves and not the greater whole if you see what i mean.
Good point. But then surely the monarchy's role is to unite it's subjects under one common belief in their nation, no?
That doesn't seem to have worked at all really. In fact I'd suggest that such an ostentatious display of wealth, at a time of increasing austerity amongst the 'commoners', will only serve to arouse even stronger anti-monarchic feelings amongst the populace.
Posted 1 year ago # -
What i want is capitalism with a social conscience
Here you go:
Posted 1 year ago # -
What i want is capitalism with a social conscience
Try this:
Posted 1 year ago # -
Interesting point about the street parties, got me thinking.
Rather than a sign of less support for the Royals it could also be seen as a sign of a more divided community where people are only really interested in themselves and not the greater whole if you see what i mean.
Or it could indicate that royalists in the London area, due to their proximity, were more likely to have gone into the Centre of London to celebrate, rather than stay at home and put up bunting?
Regards lack of spontaneity - well, that was pretty much banned in the name of enfinsafety wasn't it, since people had to apply to the council beforehand, then by their very nature, they were less spontaneous and more staged!
Posted 1 year ago # -
In fact I'd suggest that such an ostentatious display of wealth, at a time of increasing austerity amongst the 'commoners', will only serve to arouse even stronger anti-monarchic feelings amongst the populace.
Totally agree. But i'm not sure the Royals are the cause of this, rather a "victim" (in the loosest sense of the word). I guess i'm just worried that it's all a bit of a sideshow and we lose perspective on the real issues in this country.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Molgrips
Yes, i wouldn't mind if i wasn't too old to emigrate to be honest. I don't personally see things getting much better in this country now we have a govt. that seems determined to do to the public sector what Maggie did to the private sector.
I really don't like to think what type of society we will be when this govt. has finished it's job.
Posted 1 year ago # -
No need to worry Mancjon. They'll mess up public services so badly that everyone will suddenly rediscover a left leaning tendency left dormant since 1979 and change the govt at the end of this term.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hope so. The argument is often that labour spend, spend, spend and then the Conservative come in and sort it all out.
I prefer to look at this way. The Tories try to turn into a mean spirited, self interested nation and then Labour get in and try to remind us that there is more to life than simply looking after yourself.
Posted 1 year ago # -
True although Labour didn't do quite so well this time around on that front. Naturally I blame Maggie
Posted 1 year ago # -
Health Care and Education both improved significantly under Labour from 1997-2010. As well as many other things.
Tories woon't have managed the economy any better. Education and Health Care wooduv continued to worsen.
I also blame Maggie for anything that goes wrong.
Tick tock, tick tock....
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well, when all else fails, it's a pretty safe bet to blame Maggie, chances are she did something to make it worse
Posted 1 year ago # -
So next time I'm hoping for an AV vote that brings in a coalition of Labour, Lib Dem and green.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hmmm, not so sure about Lib Dems any more. I had some sympathy with their position after the election and also their argument for forming a coalition with the Tories.
But they have been duped IMO. This is a conservative govt with a conservative agenda and the Lib Dems have had very little input into what is actually happening. Each day that goes by they look more and more uncomfortable and out of place.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Limp Dems = Tories with even less balls.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I feel that the Lib Dems are still good folk but they've been put in a no-win situation by circumstances and the Tories, which is a shame.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Lib Dems have sold out and swapped principled politics for a self indulgent moment in power.
Posted 1 year ago # -
in a republic /more egalitarian society some influential families/individuals will exist and develop over time but it is nothing compared to that which is entrenched here.
Of course it isn't. They need a few more years to catch up. Parents look after their kids and no matter how great great great grandpappy got money and power, they will ensure the perpetuation of the family line.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091101831.html
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0227elections_hess.aspx
Posted 1 year ago # -
Lib Dems have sold out and swapped principled politics for a self indulgent moment in power.
Principled politics are useless if you aren't at the table.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Principled politics are useless if you aren't at the table.
You don't have to be in a formal coalition to bring your principles to the table.Posted 1 year ago # -
So if the Lib Dems had refused, what were the options? Sometimes compromise is vital.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Arguably they could have achieved more by putting the Conservatives in as a minority government. OK they wouldn't have got a referendum on electoral reform, but that's already been watered down to AV and not PR. They also wouldn't have had to back pedal quite so hard on University.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TooTall
good links and interestin reading but one included this quote
Since then, what has fascinated me most is the constant shifts in America's dynastic politics, with new families emerging and older ones leaving the field of combat. For instance, I didn't include the Bush family in my first book because, well, there was no Bush dynasty in 1966 -- just one former backbench senator from Connecticut. But what happened to the Stocktons, Tuckers, Lees and Livingstons?
also the top 5 dont hold office at the moment either so it exists but it is far more fluid that an aristocracy as this requires marriage to join rather than talent.
I feel that the Lib Dems are still good folk but they've been put in a no-win situation by circumstances and the Tories, which is a shame.
Interesting never thought of it like that and you do have a point but you cannot really abandon principles/pledges and still think you will have electoral appeal. It is hard to respect someone who stands on a platform then [largely] ignores it whilst forming the govt whatever the hue of the people doing this.
A vote for the lib dems is like a roll of the roulette wheel IMHOPosted 1 year ago # -
j_me - Member
Lib Dems have sold out and swapped principled politics for a self indulgent moment in power.
Yup. Sold out for ministerial cars
#
molgrips - MemberSo if the Lib Dems had refused, what were the options? Sometimes compromise is vital.
Posted 2 hours ago # Report-Post
As j_me says - agree a queens speech for a minority government to ensure we get a government in place but not enter a formal coalition. The bargaining chip would still be a referendum on AV and the lib dems then decide on a case by case basis on anything not in that original queens speech. This is what happened at Holyrood.
You don't get the ministerial cars and the empty titles ( can yo heare me Clegggy) but you do retain your integrity and you can still act as a moderating influence.
As it is Clegg has ended the Lib Dems - they are going to be virtually wiped out as s result as they have so clearly abandoned their principles. The vast majority of their voters are left leaning and especially in the last election a lot of people who could no longer "hold their nose and vote labour" voted for them only to see a tory governemnt.
Teh tories are now openly contemptuous of them. Their only hope for electoral survival is to bring own the government
Posted 1 year ago # -
Can they leave the coalition officially? They can can't they? It's not really official, so they can all decide to vote against the Govt if they want..?
EDIT: And, if Lib Dem loses support, where will that support end up? I seem to remember they got a lot of Labour defectors last time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If they do they will be accused of being untrustworthy. Its their best chance tho - there will be some issue that thay cannot reconcile their position with the tory right nd once the referendum is lost they haeve no reason to stay
Teh support will end up with labour and the greens mainly - maybe nationalists in Scotland and wales
Posted 1 year ago # -
So it's game on the next election then? Or will the Tories be kicked out due to the 'blame everything on the incumbent' factor?
Posted 1 year ago # -
You don't get the ministerial cars and the empty titles ( can yo heare me Clegggy) but you do retain your integrity and you can still act as a moderating influence.
Not really, it's just not as black and white as that. If a minority govt. had been formed then the lib dems could easily have been accused of using their position to obtain what they wanted. In effect, they could quite easily be seen to be blackmailing the govt. to pursue their own policies. And then they would have looked just as opportunistic, if not more and people would be decrying them for holding the country to ransom.
Because of the way the coalition has turned out people are now condemning the lib dems but it wasn't so clear cut at the time (hindsight is a wonderful thing).
Basically they were between a rock and hard place. I don't think they sold out at the beginning, at least not the majority of lib dems in the coalition. I think given the choice they would have gone for a lib/lab coalition but they felt the country would not accept that (+ Brown's intransigence).
So they did the next best thing. A minority govt. is prone to instability and i think that played a part in their reasoning as well. Just to be clear though, i don't think they are saints, i suspect the opportunity of govt. power helped some of them make the choice. And at the time, i think a lot of people were prepared to give them a chance. And i think they honestly believed they could affect things a lot more than they actually have.
But it hasn't worked out that way. Their influence is minimal and if they remain in this coalition until the end they will be all but indistinguishable from the Conservatives. And although Clegg and a few others seem to be able to accept this i'm not sure the majority will. IMO i don't think this coalition will last it's full term because either -
1) the economy will recover and the Conservatives will take the credit, force the coalition to splinter and then go to the country to try and gain a majority govt.
2) the lib dems will no longer be able to participate in what is proving to be an increasingly right wing agenda
Either way i think Clegg is finished.
Personally i hope 2) happens above and we end up with Labour or a coalition including Labour. I suspect that the majority of lib dems would be much happier with that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
manc john - I was shouting for minority government from the beginning - it works in Scotland with the SNP minority government. Bills are passed on their merits not because of being whipped thru.
I think Clegg was dazzled by the chance of power and showed his naivety.
Its allwater under the bridge but has damaged the country and ended the Lib Dems as a party. It will be very interesting to see the backlash after Thursday - they are going to end up loosing massive numbers of seats - maybe ending up in 5th place in Scotland
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
