"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[Lat-Literal]

Exactly. I don't feel that men have any right to pontificate about what is and isn't appropriate for women in relation to abortion, but just thinking about the prevention of future suffering like that ought to be enough to change opinions.

But as I said earlier, it is plain wrong to describe all male commentary as being about women or indeed about religion. It may principally be about the behaviour of men who go through partners rapidly, are not inclined towards using contraception and become adept at putting undue pressure on each without informing them that it is a lifestyle. I think it is probably very telling just how strong the non-religious as well as the religious patriarchy continues to be in the western world when this aspect of abusive male power is never mentioned/considered.

The combination of advanced contraception and the possibility of legalised abortion in the 60s should have been ideal timing so far as liberal people were concerned. Had legalised abortion arrived in the days when contraception was useless one would have expected the number of abortions to be high. That it didn't and it arrived at the time of better contraception was a great opportunity for abortions to be safe and also low in number. Instead, there are a million abortions per year in the US. They are of nothing like that level in the UK but they are rising especially for people in their 30s/40s. We the public don't know why. More chance of problems in pregnancy at that age perhaps or rather less substantial or careful reasons in some adults. No doubt a small minority. But we need to be far more informed and open on these matters before having to deal with the massive issues to be raised by Crispr Cas9.

Don't know where to find the final publication (which I assume was or will be, published after the result), but these were the 21 clauses covered, reported in the short policy paper, published on 9 March:

http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harri...94092-Mar2018/

Thank you.

...We stand here knowing the tragedy which befell Savita Halappanavar and her family...

Few can have forgotten her terrible story; it may indeed have acted as a catalyst for the referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-father-galway

Actually I knew of the story by name but didn't know the detail as I did not follow the referendum and just have questions now that it has been held.

[Lat-Literal]

Why not?

There was no referendum here in 1967 when David Steel introduced his Bill legalising abortion.

We have no Constitution, so there are no specific provisions which would need a referendum to overturn them before legislation could be initiated.

Besides, the DUP is not the only party at Stormont. And in a poll taken over a year ago, over 70% supported a change in the law.

I think we would be talking PMB and "a free vote of conscience" as per Steel's bill rather than a Government bill.

Wouldn't we?

There would be a parliamentary majority in favour of change.

As per timing and the potential for political shenanigans around it all, I'm not sure if this makes things easier or not.

I'm also not sure if this could be a peg for getting Stormont back up and running - and making its own decisions instead including on whether to have a referendum - or if that would be a political nightmare. In fact, I don't even know how the ultra-religious protestants and the catholics divide up on it. I just haven't thought it through. Isn't Michelle O'Neill pro choice? On the surface, it does seem there would be significant cross-faith bridging on both sides which may not be a bad thing in getting traditional divisions redrawn along semi-political lines.

[french frank]

I don't think I agree with the 'not taking it' bit. I think that advisory means not binding, but for the purpose of informing government policy/decisions. In the case of our 2016 EU referendum, the government, if it were brave, could have said 51.89/48.11 is inconclusive and as such will observe the status quo (which although is half of the in/out question, that is just a coincidence!). Of course there would have been uproar, but (with hindsight) would have been less dysfunctional than the current situation and easier to manage.

Yes, I agree with the last bit. Though I suppose any referendum could hardly have offered the same YES-NO choice since the government would only have the options of accepting the 'advice' or not accepting it. If they didn't accept it, in what sense could the result have 'informed' the government's policy/decision?

It sounded as if the 'advice' given to the Irish government was much more detailed than the subsequent referendum's YES-NO option, and it was at the pre-referendum stage that they listened to the advice and drew up their proposals. The nearest the UK got to that policy document was the £9m booklet which was distributed to every household which merely explained why it would be best if the UK remained in the EU, but didn't have any thoughts about what they would actually do if the voters rejected their advice. (And they still don't seem to have any thoughts now)

[ahinton]

I don't think I agree with the 'not taking it' bit. I think that advisory means not binding, but for the purpose of informing government policy/decisions.

So why do it that wa in the first place?

In the case of our 2016 EU referendum, the government, if it were brave, could have said 51.89/48.11 is inconclusive and as such will observe the status quo (which although is half of the in/out question, that is just a coincidence!). Of course there would have been uproar, but (with hindsight) would have been less dysfunctional than the current situation and easier to manage.

True, but then had it not put itself in this referendum position in the first place and without setting any minimum majority or turnout percentages when so doing, it had only itself to blame for the problems associated with the outcome of what it had promised and launched.

[teamsaint]

So why do it that wa in the first place?


True, but then had it not put itself in this referendum position in the first place and without setting any minimum majority or turnout percentages when so doing, it had only itself to blame for the problems associated with the outcome of what it had promised and launched.

Cameron's decision to hold a referendum was a flawed ( in terms of strategy) attempt to deal with tory civil war. But the splits in the party over the EU didn't exist in a vacuum. In part they reflected wider , long running mistrust of the way that the EU operates , including but not limited to our significant net financial contribution. In part they also reflect some rather half baked free trade/libertarian " values" held by some in the party and their friends in the media.
I think it is really important to acknowledge that successive British governments failed to deal adequately with discontent over Europe( Blair's " cavalier at best" approach to freedom of movement issues for example), and that this wider failure helped widen the divisions in the Tory party. It always felt to me that in the absence of government /EU actions which would appreciably move public opinion in a pro EU direction, that a referendum was going to happen sooner or later.
And there are dangers in making assumptions about where this upheaval will take us all.

[french frank]

The political scene - opinions and general atmosphere - is constantly shifting, often depending on random events which may be of emotional rather than political significance. The timing of political actions can be triggered by temporary circumstances. Interesting article in the Guardian today about Macron's determination to 'reform' the EU, an attempt which the UK government no longer has any interest in supporting because the UK is deemed to have moved on.

People who were against TTIP - in part a reason for their opposition to the EU, as far as I can see - will find themselves out of the frying pand and into the fire: the EU fighting against the US-imposed conditions, and the UK approaching the US on its own hoping to get a better deal than the EU could.

On sovereignty: UK sovereignty seems to me to be less important than the sovereignty of Parliament and supremacy of the judiciary over our own executive: that affects the lives of UK citizens much more immediately.

[Richard Barrett]

People who were against TTIP - in part a reason for their opposition to the EU, as far as I can see - will find themselves out of the frying pand and into the fire: the EU fighting against the US-imposed conditions, and the UK approaching the US on its own hoping to get a better deal than the EU could.

That is true. The imposition of TTIP by the EU was and is indeed one symptom of how undemocratic and how locked into neoliberal ideology the EU is, but nobody was expecting the USA to lurch into full-blown economic protectionism under a president who sees geopolitical interactions only in terms of winners and losers. For me that does somewhat change the calculation as to whether going ahead with Brexit is a good idea. But, however one sees it, I would still say that there's a very good chance of it not going ahead.

[french frank]

The imposition of TTIP by the EU was and is indeed one symptom of how undemocratic and how locked into neoliberal ideology the EU is

The conclusion may or may not be right, but I'm not sure how TTIP was ever 'imposed' (loaded phrase) since it didn't get beyond the stage of negotiation. The fact that the negotiations failed meant, presumably, either:

that the EU would not accept the US's terms, or

that the US would not accept the EU's terms.

(or both).

Both possibilities suggest that the EU was intent on protecting the interests of its members. As for the scare stories about a deal jeopardising the NHS, with US providers being allowed to take over services, many EU members have free and/or universal healthcare besides the UK. That was presumably why such health services were specifically excluded from any deal.

[Richard Barrett]

the EU was intent on protecting the interests of its members.

The EU was intent on protecting the interests of the ruling classes of its members, as usual. The principal problem with TTIP was the way it undermined democracy in favour of handing (even) more power to big business, which is no doubt why negotiations were going on behind closed doors.

[french frank]

The EU was intent on protecting the interests of the ruling classes of its members, as usual.

In what respect does that make TTIP different from most other influential political activity?

[Richard Barrett]

In what respect does that make TTIP different from most other influential political activity?

I don't know what you mean by "influential" political activity, I just thought it was worth pointing out that this is an aspect of the EU's workings which is underappreciated, unless for example you live in Greece. Anyway I promised myself I wasn't going to get sucked back into discussing the EU and Brexit! so that's it from me on the subject.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

So let's talk about modernism, elitism and the working classes.

Dennis Skinner (whose children I once taught) said everyone who works is "working class". I think I agree with him.

Elitism can be the result of extreme effort (like top sports personnel),
Or
Those who don't work, but rely on others to work for them.

Modernism - no, you've got me on that one.

[ahinton]

So let's talk about modernism, elitism and the working classes.

Dennis Skinner (whose children I once taught) said everyone who works is "working class". I think I agree with him.

I agree with him. Wow! I find myself in agreement with Dennis Skinner! That's one for the memoirs (or would be were I ever to write any, which I won't).

[vinteuil]

.

... the village adjacent to where I grew up was quadrisected by three small innominate roads. Some time in the 1960s the authorities thought it would be a good thing if they had names, and to get the locals on-side they devised a competition to choose a name. Imaginatively, two sets of names were put forward - First Lane, Second Lane, Third Lane; or, Top Lane, Middle Lane, Bottom Lane. Unsurprisingly, the first set was deemed too uninspiring : but there was a problem with the second set - no one wanted to live in 'Bottom Lane'. And so it is that the signs in the village now proclaim - 'Top Lane' - 'Middle Lane' - 'Third Lane'.

I think the same thing happened with our class nomenclature. There was 'upper class', 'middle class', 'lower class'. But then there was an awkwardness, and the word 'lower class' was deemed taboo; the euphemism 'working class' was used. But everyone knew what was meant...




.

[greenilex]

It is not in our stars but in ourselves
That we are underlings

but WS was an unashamed Tory bs

Does anyone remember “the understains” ?