Signs of the Times

[Serial_Apologist]

Cameron Lies 1

I wonder if there will be a Panorama on this...

Cameron Lies 2

IDS ran rings around a poorly-briefed Andrew Neil on this, on Sunday Politics yesterday. I dunno why programme of this sort, with difficult complex issues to unpick, are chosen at all if they are allocated insufficient time for discussion.

[aeolium]

It's a sign of the times, and the government we are landed with, when a Culture Secretary supports ticket touts:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ticket-touts-are-classic-entrepreneurs-who-should-be-allowed-to-operate-without-interference-says-new-culture-secretary-sajid-javid-9252429.html

[Serial_Apologist]

It's a sign of the times, and the government we are landed with, when a Culture Secretary supports ticket touts:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-9252429.html

He's off to a good start then! <whistle>

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

he wont be selling them abroad the UK economy is still smaller, exporting less and borrowing more by George!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

meanwhile back in the zeitgeist:

where lecherous shysters get pissed at our expense

and more on the pols

and on the polis

[Serial_Apologist]

Pfizer the unappetiser

So now we learn that, the b.o.d. having rejected Pfizer's ever-so kind offer to take them over, Astrazeneca's shareholders have effectively brought about a 20 percent decrease in the value of their investments - presumably thinking the failed bid would have been a jolly good idea, in line with Cameron's blatant advocacy of the takeover, and how dare you people, who run the company in which we've been so jolly well prepared to demonstrate our patriotism by deigning to lend you money we want to make even more for ourselves by so doing, fail to foresee how we would react?

A government spokesperson stated that this deal - which was first bid for in January, wasting goodness knows how much in time and legal expenses - well, four months' worth, actually - is "a matter for the companies themselves". So that's all right then. But it does rather give the lie to notions of the all-round benefits of having a share-owning democracy though, doesn't it? I find myself split between two aspects of capitalism as an endemic systemic problem: who should one support: the Astrazdeneca directors, the Astrazeneca shareholders, or the takeover bid?

Pfizer can come back for a second bite, btw.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the workers and the poor bloody punters who have to buy the stuff they make ... if the whole caboodle was nationalised or mutually owned by the public then one might give a fig or two for the shareholders make g>r

[amateur51]

My next-door neighbours are a large mosque and a Pakistani Community Centre.

The window of the community centre is swathed in a huge flag of Pakistan and an England flag of similar size. Several cars in the mosque car park are sporting England flags.

What would Messrs Cameron & Gove and Mrs May say, I wonder?

[Serial_Apologist]

My next-door neighbours are a large mosque and a Pakistani Community Centre.

The window of the community centre is swathed in a huge flag of Pakistan and an England flag of similar size. Several cars in the mosque car park are sporting England flags.

What would Messrs Cameron & Gove and Mrs May say, I wonder?

Allah akhbar?

[Serial_Apologist]

8.00 Generation Right

Tonight on Radio 4:

"Reports on research suggesting young adults' political beliefs are edging to the righty of those held by their families when they were the same age"

Are edging???

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

all foreigners innit

[amateur51]

Tonight on Radio 4:

"Reports on research suggesting young adults' political beliefs are edging to the righty of those held by their families when they were the same age"

Are edging???

A rather flimsy programme based on a dodgy premise, I thought followed by an even worse programme about sexual harassment in the workplace - oh dear, important issues treated too flippantly.

[amateur51]

all foreigners innit

Immigrants undercutting workers? Why not rephrase it as "greedy multi-national employers making larger profits by exploiting unorganised non-UK labour"?

[aeolium]

Personally I have come round to the belief that the advantages of the free movement of people principle within Europe are now outweighed by the disadvantages and that there is also a strong argument on grounds of equity for reviewing it. It's true that it was one of the core founding principles of the community; that it is an advantage for those willing and able to seek work and/or residence in another European country; that it is probably beneficial to the economies of countries with declining birthrates; and that it has led to much greater cultural diversity throughout the member countries. Yet it also disadvantages those with less transferable skills and who find themselves competing with a larger pool of labour with reduced terms and conditions and wages; it increases pressure on public services, access to limited housing, and makes it extremely difficult to plan for the provision of those services (compare the last government's projections for East European migration to the UK with the actual numbers); it has fuelled, for the best part of two decades, the rise of nationalist, populist and in some cases - Golden Dawn, Jobbik - spectacularly unpleasant political parties. A Demos report on the rise of mainly right-wing populist parties in Europe showed that concerns about immigration long predated the 2008 recession. The recent European election results shows that it is now one of the key issues affecting people's perceptions of Europe, and this may go on to affect the nature of national governments in some major European countries.

There is another aspect to this. Those who defend the free movement principle have - in some cases rightly - pointed to the racism and xenophobia of some of the populist parties that have sprung up or flourished and argued that to oppose free inter-European migration is to exhibit a kind of fortress mentality. Yet to non-Europeans, their exclusion from the privileged world of inter-European migration can make the principle look equally like a fortress mentality, an exclusivity elevated to the European level and extended to a predominantly white population. As immigration has risen up the European political agenda, countries have competed to clamp down on immigration from beyond Europe (and indeed political refugees and asylum-seekers, witness the derisory numbers of Syrian refugees accepted by the UK). Many European countries have within living memory been colonial powers, yet as they welcome - or at least permit - migration from their EU fellow-members they shut the door upon the residents of their former colonies. There is a thread elsewhere on this board which is about how we should remember slavery. One way would be to ensure that the inhabitants of former European colonies are accorded the same migration rights as other Europeans, even if this means restricting those of the latter. I have some interest in this as I am married to someone from the Caribbean. Her grandfather fought with the Allies in Egypt in the last war, yet her relatives have to battle the horrendously expensive and labyrinthine visa process simply to visit here.

The European free movement principle is one that I used to support yet now I view it in the same light as the plan for monetary and political union: an idea that was fine for the time it was conceived but which is now causing more damage to the EU than benefit, and which crucially seems to have lost the backing of much of the electorate of Europe.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think I agree with everything aeolium has said in #119. Something we should remember, which UKIP must surely be uncomfortable in reminding us, is that the EU is the capitalist class's way of rationalising its sphere of operations to maximise profits, and if this priority comes before the circumstances of most other people on the ground, so much the worse for them: business's first duty being making profits and secondly its shareholders. It's even useful fostering a bit of divide-and-rule in the process as a by-product.

There is a thread elsewhere on this board which is about how we should remember slavery. One way would be to ensure that the inhabitants of former European colonies are accorded the same migration rights as other Europeans, even if this means restricting those of the latter. I have some interest in this as I am married to someone from the Caribbean. Her grandfather fought with the Allies in Egypt in the last war, yet her relatives have to battle the horrendously expensive and labyrinthine visa process simply to visit here.

I think the above should be reproduced in the How do we remember slavery thread.