Brexit

[David]

41 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I absolutely agree on the monarchy, but given the rise in nationalist fervour, I think we're further away from that than ever.

Agreed.

41 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I know not everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist or xenophobe (hell, I almost voted Leave myself), but I do believe the vast majority did vote Brexit out of either racism/xenophobia, or, at best, out of some kind of pernicious fear and anger at the wrong people, manifested as nationalism.

A lot of people did, that's for sure. However, rather than pointing the finger at them I think we should be looking at where they get their information from, for the most part. For far too long we've given the tabloids and mainstream media in this country a pass when it comes to the unfounded bollocks they get away with printing. We all chuckle about the "Daily Fail" and so on, but if it prints the same shit enough times people start to believe it.

As I said a while back in the Robinson thread, the Daily Mail is run by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, who's great-grandfather Harold Sidney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere started the publication.

Harmsworth was a supporter of Nazi Germany, being convinced that the Nazis would help restore the German monarchy. He actively tried to promote British support for Germany via his media platform, personally writing an editorial titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" or something similar, which praised Oswald Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine."

This prick referred to Hitler as "Adolf the Great" and was paying German spies, yet what happened to him when all of this came to light? Fuck all. His family still play a large part in what the British population sees and reads every day.

His fortune was built on right-wing hatred, and continues as such. 

How many times do we hear any of these names in the press as a reason for spreading misinformation and hatred? That's right, absolutely none. 

41 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

As to the House of Lords, whether it's binned or reformed, I don't think an elected second chamber is the way to go, because they'll just end up behaving the same way as so many MPs do, operating along careerist lines rather than out of a true sense of duty or responsibility. Obviously, I don't believe positions should be inherited, and I certainly think the Church of England can either get the fuck out, or we replace a big chunk of the Lords Spiritual with major representatives of other religious communities in the UK (I lean towards the former).

For me it's plain & simple. If you haven't been elected to a post by the public your position should amount to nothing more than advisory to those who have, in the strictest sense. No powers to amend or reject anything put forward by the elected people. And it shouldn't be inherited either, I agree there.

And the religious types can bugger off as well. It's 2019, not 1419, the days of us being told what to do and advised by charlatans who pretend to have a direct line to the man in the clouds should be long gone. That goes for all religions. There's a place for religion if people are into that kind of thing, but it should be nowhere near government.

23 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

How few layers is too few though? Round here there's a parish council, district council and county council with the UK and (for the moment) EU Parliaments above that.

That's where the streamlining and reforming would come in. We need to have a good, long look at exactly what these groups are doing. Are they really required in this day & age? In many cases what was applicable in the 50's, 60's, and 70's is no longer necessary.

23 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

Every time an authority has a boundary review in England it ends up with fewer seats, and some are being forcibly merged just to save central government money. Not having as many politicians is always a popular headline-grabbing move, but it also means less representation and less accountability. Neither of those is a good thing in my book. It affects the delivery of services that people rely on in a negative way.

see, I'm not keen on doing things just to save money. If there's a valid reason for it then fair enough, but although I'm very much in favour of less committees and suchlike, I'm not in favour of reducing the number of democratically elected individuals.

I'm wanting more transparency and more accountability, which means doing away with unelected, unneeded councils and committees.

23 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

Can't argue with any of that. The only difference is I hope the moment it's all done and dusted is when we either revoke Article 50 or rejoin the EU.

Unfortunately, I can't agree. I'd rather we remained outside the EU in its current form, and hope that by having a nation as economically powerful as the UK on the outside it causes the EU to look inwards and maybe make some much-needed changes.

Like the wife who's sick to death of how her husband acts, she can remain at home and try to reason with him, or she can push the issue by packing her shit and leaving, forcing him to actually recognise the situation and deal with it one way or the other.

Edited March 16, 2019 by David

[Brewster McCloud]

20 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

It is a lie, for the stats I just quoted you. Also, look at France - now officially the most visited country in the world, and they got rid of their monarchy over 200 years ago. Plenty of people still visit the chateaux, the Louvre, Versailles, Notre Dame, etc.

And come on - I'm pretty sure you know what I mean by "fail", which is a general sense: that a family could experience hardship or adversity from either their own failure to do well or from misfortune.

And yes, as I said earlier, I do think they shape how people think and react to things, or I wouldn't have said it. Culture is a significant method via which to exercise soft power, and we see it all the time throughout the world.

Yes, Singapore is the only example of a meritocracy, and therefore we should abandon the whole idea. And other meritocracies are imperfect, and therefore we should give up on them and not see them as constant works in progress where we make efforts to do and be better.

Rather flimsy statistics, though. We don't know how many people were surveyed and the "Tourism and Heritage" pdf link I clicked didn't work. Look what a big deal the last wedding was - people all over the world watched it for some reason, they like the pageantry I suppose. 

OK, so how do the royal family shape how the average British person thinks, in a way that is significant?

And do you want a meritocracy (with all its inherent bias, nepotism and lack of diversity) or a functioning democracy, like the UK has at present?

Edited March 16, 2019 by Brewster McCloud

[Brewster McCloud]

32 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

 

Not sure where you get the idea that Singapore is a meritocracy. Who gets to decide what 'merit' is anyway? One of the reasons Brexit needs to be stopped is to prevent an experiment in which Britain becomes like Singapore economically on a massive scale. That said, not a lot of people realise that most Singaporeans actually live in social housing! The death penalty part is another thing we should want to avoid. 

1

Exactly. Who gets to decide? People with existing power. Perhaps it isn't a genuine meritocracy, and I lean towards the idea that it's a quasi-dictatorship, but it's certainly what it prides itself on being. What do you mean "becomes like Singapore economically"? Hugely successful and rich? People live in social housing in Singapore because it's a tiny place and there just isn't enough room to build big houses. Everything costs a bloody fortune, but salaries are also high and the overall standard of living is actually pretty great, especially for expats. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Brewster McCloud

[David]

2 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Exactly. Who gets to decide? People with existing power. What do you mean "becomes like Singapore economically"? Hugely successful and rich? People live in social housing in Singapore because it's a tiny place and there just isn't enough room to build big houses. Everything costs a bloody fortune, but salaries are also high and the overall standard of living is actually pretty great, especially for expats. 

*Immigrants

[Brewster McCloud]

Whatever.

[David]

2 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Whatever.

No, it's not "whatever." As someone from the UK who's spent a fair amount of time living in other countries it pisses me off no end that when someone arrives in the UK to better their own circumstances they're referred to as immigrants or economic migrants, yet when we do the same we refer to ourselves as "expats."

We're not expats, we're immigrants for the most part.

Edited March 16, 2019 by David

[Brewster McCloud]

1 minute ago, David said:

No, it's not "whatever." As someone from the UK who's spent a fair amount of time living in other countries it pisses me off no end that when someone arrives in the UK to better their own circumstances they're referred to as immigrants or economic migrants, yet when we do the same we refer to ourselves as "expats."

We're not expats, we're immigrants for the most part.

Just another one of these silly hair-splitting debates over nomenclature that benefit no one. Expat, immigrant, alien, dreamer, call yourself whatever you like as far as I'm concerned. It is trivial at best, point scoring at worst. 

[David]

Just now, Brewster McCloud said:

Just another one of these silly hair-splitting debates over nomenclature that benefit no one. Expat, immigrant, alien, dreamer, call yourself whatever you like as far as I'm concerned. It is trivial at best, point scoring at worst. 

Well, we both know it isn't trivial at all, don't we? 

The term "immigrant" brings with it a certain type of image today, doesn't it? And it's a term that is almost exclusively used to describe people of non-western European origin who make the decision to move from their home country to another.

A family from Yorkshire that moves from England to Spain are a family of expats, while a family from Beirut who also move to Spain are a family of immigrants.

[Chris B]

45 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Rather flimsy statistics, though. 

Better than any you provided. And you already acknowledged that the people visiting would be visiting anyway.

[Brewster McCloud]

So what? Pick your bone with the media, not me. I'll refer to anyone as either an expat or an immigrant as they wish. You'll notice, I hope, that I've never actually referred to myself as an expat at any point in this thread, so get off the high horse. 

[David]

2 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

You'll notice, I hope, that I've never actually referred to myself as an expat at any point in this thread, so get off the high horse. 

I'm sure you think of yourself as an immigrant 😉

[Brewster McCloud]

2 minutes ago, Chris B said:

Better than any you provided. And you already acknowledged that the people visiting would be visiting anyway.

As you wish:

When Prince William married Kate Middleton in April 2011, the UK’s Association of Leading Visitor Attractions claimed it: 

Saw an additional 600,000 people come to London for the weekend, 60% from UK, 40% from overseas, spending £107m … The value to ‘brand Britain’ due to global media coverage was approximately £1 billion.

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-tourists-visit-britain-because-of-the-royal-family-88335

[Fog Dude]

34 minutes ago, David said:

That's where the streamlining and reforming would come in. We need to have a good, long look at exactly what these groups are doing. Are they really required in this day & age? In many cases what was applicable in the 50's, 60's, and 70's is no longer necessary.

see, I'm not keen on doing things just to save money. If there's a valid reason for it then fair enough, but although I'm very much in favour of less committees and suchlike, I'm not in favour of reducing the number of democratically elected individuals.

I'm wanting more transparency and more accountability, which means doing away with unelected, unneeded councils and committees.

Unfortunately, I can't agree. I'd rather we remained outside the EU in its current form, and hope that by having a nation as economically powerful as the UK on the outside it causes the EU to look inwards and maybe make some much-needed changes.

Like the wife who's sick to death of how her husband acts, she can remain at home and try to reason with him, or she can push the issue by packing her shit and leaving, forcing him to actually recognise the situation and deal with it one way or the other.

I'd gladly get rid of the Economical & Social Committee at EU level, which is a relic from decades gone by. I'm not wedded to local government borders of the 60s or 70s either, but central government always seems to choose the cheapest option of piecemeal mergers instead of rethinking the whole system from the ground up.

Other than that I'm wondering which unelected and unneeded committees you're referring to. The City of London is run by a 'corporation' (with 125 members for under 10,000 people) where businesses get more votes than residents, but other than that every council in the UK is democratically elected (albeit via a rubbish voting system in England and Wales). Some might have too many committees but I don't know how you go about determining or changing that. Every local government reorganisation in rural areas of the past 20 years has been done just to save money, whilst cities have got their stupid US-style vanity project 'mayors' who cost a lot but don't make life better for ordinary people. 

Were you actually referring to quangos by any chance? The EU isn't forcing us to have any of those. Every opposition party promises a bonfire of them and then fails to sack them off once in government.

If you're going down the less than tasteful and appropriate route of relationship metaphors, I'd say it's more like the electorate decided to give Brexit a peck on the cheek in June 2016, and the government is behaving as if that gives it the right to sleep with voters – including the 16 million who never consented in the first place – more than two and a half years later.

8 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Exactly. Who gets to decide? People with existing power. Perhaps it isn't a genuine meritocracy, and I lean towards the idea that it's a quasi-dictatorship, but it's certainly what it prides itself on being. What do you mean "becomes like Singapore economically"? Hugely successful and rich? People live in social housing in Singapore because it's a tiny place and there just isn't enough room to build big houses. Everything costs a bloody fortune, but salaries are also high and the overall standard of living is actually pretty great, especially for expats. 

Singapore is undoubtedly rich, but you and I clearly have different definitions of success. What's the point in a country being rich if it doesn't share out the wealth? As you say, it's actually full of clientelism so you now admit it's not even the kind of meritocracy you were arguing against! You've tied yourself in knots there. Oh, and it's a republic too, by the way. It's also a democracy, albeit an authoritarian one of the sort which I wouldn't like to see over here. It certainly doesn't come with 'lack of diversity' either.

Yes, going from a fishing village of a few hundred people to a city state of 5.6 million in under two centuries does require creative housing solutions. Even though we have more space in this country, we can afford to give everyone a decent home but those in charge choose to make that more difficult than it needs to be. 

[Brewster McCloud]

Just now, David said:

I'm sure you think of yourself as an immigrant 😉

Before you started getting arsey, it wasn't something I'd considered much because it's not important. What do you think, I parade around Jakarta in my golden robes referring to myself as an "expat" and demanding special favours?

[Brewster McCloud]

11 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

 

Singapore is undoubtedly rich, but you and I clearly have different definitions of success. Singapore rich if it doesn't share out the wealth? As you say, it's actually full of clientelism so you now admit it's not even the kind of meritocracy you were arguing against! You've tied yourself in knots there. Oh, and it's a republic too, by the way. It's also a democracy, albeit an authoritarian one of the sort which I wouldn't like to see over here. It certainly doesn't come with 'lack of diversity' either.

Yes, going from a fishing village of a few hundred people to a city state of 5.6 million in under two centuries does require creative housing solutions. Even though we have more space in this country, we can afford to give everyone a decent home but those in charge choose to make that more difficult than it needs to be. 

2

Well, what's your definition of success, then? Socialism, I suspect? I used Singapore as an example of an ostensible meritocracy that has some pretty big flaws; it was in response to Carbomb's point about monarchies somehow queering people's thinking and how we'd be better off with meritocracies. Singapore is a very ethnically diverse country, but its government isn't - they had Lew Kuan Yew and his cronies for 3 decades!