Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Talk of 'fault' presupposes that a wrong has been done, when what has actually happened is an unexpected result from a democratic process, but of a type that people on the other side of it cannot accept it as rational, and therefore legitimate. And I understand that, because tbh that was my instinctive reaction to both the Brexit vote and Trump's win. But talking about fault is pointless, because it doesn't offer any way forward, or even any useful analysis of the past. The time for catharsis is past (about Brexit at least), and Trump is such an inconsistent, contrary and improbable character to be US president that there's no predicting what might happen, and therefore what we may be seeking to blame people for. The wider Republican party are already beginning to outline a fairly conventional program that might be disagreed with but is not batshit crazy, and also includes some public spending policies that look suspiciously like 'anti-austerity'. And the chances of President Trump putting some of his more extreme promises into action already look like zero, or close to.

Trump seems to be expressing an Autocratic view on Abortion.. stating he is Pro Life.


Well I'm not sure that is for him to decide. It is something that will always create debate.

..and I'm sure it will.


As for ME. It's a Womans right to choose.


DulwichFox

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rants have ripples, Rahrah. And yours have sunk

> me.


POUS - you're right off course - tribalism isn't helpful. I wouldn't usually talk about 'the left' or 'the right' as though either is anything more than hugely reductionist and simplistic. But when people start couching their arguments in those terms (and whilst I'm still hugely pissed off) it's hard to not to say 'feck it let's play that game then'. It is childish, it is just ranting and no, it doesn't move us forward. But anger is part of he grieving process, so let me get it out of my system. I promise I'll move on to acceptance in time and start being a bit more rational. ;-)

Divide and Conquer - springs to mind.


If we let this become separationalism within or of society, we're letting the politicians win - and we know better than that.


I would suggest teaching tolerance at home to your children, seeing if you can influence the community positively. Breathe in hate - breathe out tolerance.


Otherwise, we all lose.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> If you are on the right of centre, claim your ground back.


I'm not - I'm a centrist. If you want to push it further, economically centre-right and socially centre-left.


> The only way we're going to get out of this is if we starting listening to each other.


Yep. Exactly what I've been saying.

I disagree with most of this (too many thesauruses and philosophy textbooks, no doubt).


Mainly because I do not see ameliorism as a credible strategy here. There was no point aiming for this in, say, the early 1930s. Of course, the MAJORITY of people then did feel this was what might save us (and they were wrong). It is absolutely the right response in normal times (those times when people are willing to adjust to good argument). But now (as then), the issue is whether or not this is a phase change (like water switching from liquid to boiling). I believe we now have boiling. So only discursive (I cannot countenance any other) attack seems appropriate. Of course this may be self-fulfilling: the human ship may well sink.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out- it is the poor that suffer most under uncontrolled immigration (since they do not own their own homes for a start)- so 'the left' have actually disadvantaged their own historical supporters. It is easy to be idealistic and altruistic when you are sitting pretty.....and you have all the vocabulary to dictate to the dispossessed how they should think and act.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out- it is

> the poor that suffer most under uncontrolled

> immigration (since they do not own their own homes

> for a start)- so 'the left' have actually

> disadvantaged their own historical supporters. It

> is easy to be idealistic and altruistic when you

> are sitting pretty.....and you have all the

> vocabulary to dictate to the dispossessed how they

> should think and act.


I agree with this, in a way. There's a crossover between what Trump/Farage have offered and a traditional Labour or left position. Protecting working class jobs, putting some barriers up on trade, pulling out of silly wars, "draining the swamp" etc.; these are all things that have been forgotten about by the working class parties. They're extremely unlikely to get any of these things back under Trump, but he's taken up that space very successfully.


I think it also shows that the battles around identity politics are totally irrelevant to most people. Think of the reams and reams of paper printed up with stories about transgender rights, Greer's no-platforming, everyday sexism etc. as if those were the burning issues of the day. If I was some unemployed Texan in a former steel mill town, or a resident of Sunderland, I'd gaze upon this as if it was news from another planet.

Well here is another one from my sociology textbook (I just can't help it). Whilst I'm sure the Archbishop (if he said it) would not fall into the trap, as with the Victorians the category 'the poor' may be recruited in ways that make people who are disadvantaged in many different dimensions seem a single entity. This may then be used to justify the status-quo - after all, if they exist as-such then they can be tarred with some single explanation of why they are poor; and the multiple circumstances of disadvantage (many to do with past government policies and future ones like grammar schools) can then be safely ignored.

I got flamed for being a cosmopolitan-liberal Guardian reader earlier so I think I might steer clear of engaging with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Don't think I can compete somehow. Except that it is a thoughtful article, highlighting the perils of being misread :-).


My post was only about the dangers of the category 'poor' that you used, not about immigration. And the word itself is perfectly useful; just not good as a classification. I get a lot of flack for using esoteric language; but sometimes it seems to me to be the most familiar words that are the most problematic. (yes of course DaveR can then say this sentence literally makes no sense - because the familiar words are the ones that are self-evident).


As for May, her view is that a 'citizen of the world is a citizen of nowhere' - here I strongly suspect, however unintentionally, she has managed to align herself with Trump.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out- it is

> the poor that suffer most under uncontrolled

> immigration


Though, as the article you kindly shared makes quite clear, in the same speech he said that the solution for this was for the government to target help to affected communities, not to take fewer refugees - in fact he called for the UK to take more asylum seekers.

I'm sure many of you will have already seen this video of Irish Senator (and former Equality Minister) Aodhan O'Riordain. According to The Times this morning it has now been viewed 3.5 million times in the US after being posted on Facebook. Carried here by the Irish Independent.


http://www.independent.ie/videos/irish-news/must-watch-aodhn-oriordins-passionate-speech-regarding-the-governments-reaction-to-trumps-victory-35207187.html

I remember when 9/11 happened. there were not a few people who expressed the view that the Americans deserved it for all the funds that they gave to NorAid! I wonder if the 3.5 million who viewed Aodhan O'Riordain's speech were those who donated.

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is not one person's 'virtue signalling', another

> person's 'telling the truth'?



What is happening in the UK is appalling.....truth? Is Donald Trump a fascist? - all pretty right on, easy opinions to hold to demonstrate how 'good' you are...... I saw this as it was shared by a zillion of my 'right on' friends but actually, what is he contributing to anything other than how worthy his opinions are? Bugger all other than that....other than a dislike of democracy I guess

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...