The problem is, she only has to ASK for an extension. If they refuse (or put condition that May thinks are unacceptable, like she has to say please), she can say she has done what she was asked to.
But it is a good move. I hope the EU leaders listen and say she can have an extension if she has a peoples vote with Remain as an option.
Someone's gonna be really, really disappointed. It was the only logical guaranteed outcome of Cameron's fucking referendum. If he gets a decent night's sleep at all, it only goes to show that he must have the conscience of a psychopath.
Yes on a purely practical level this is true - and it’s equally true that neither of those constituencies will get what they wanted and the incentive will be for the Tories to run on a culture war platform.
Like culture wars everywhere, one would have to be manufactured, and it seems to me that even the further right are still experimenting with what issues have most salience; but I assume the use of terms like 'Cultural Marxists' and 'citizens of nowhere' by members of the cabinet indicate one direction in which they see this developing.
In the immediate future I assume it'll be further tax cuts, legends of immigrant welfare recipients and very real concerns.
Damn. I've had to apologise to my MP. I still wouldn't vote for him or his party, but he's managed to write to everyone in his constituency who signed the petition explaining his position and actions. He's actually been thinking.
Damn. I've had to apologise to my MP. I still wouldn't vote for him or his party, but he's managed to write to everyone in his constituency who signed the petition explaining his position and actions. He's actually been thinking.
Like culture wars everywhere, one would have to be manufactured, and it seems to me that even the further right are still experimenting with what issues have most salience; but I assume the use of terms like 'Cultural Marxists' and 'citizens of nowhere' by members of the cabinet indicate one direction in which they see this developing.
In the immediate future I assume it'll be further tax cuts, legends of immigrant welfare recipients and very real concerns.
I think it would be different than the culture wars here in the US, though, in that there would be less of a focus on abortion. How much do LGBT rights play into the culture wars in the UK?
@stonespring said -
I think it would be different than the culture wars here in the US, though, in that there would be less of a focus on abortion. How much do LGBT rights play into the culture wars in the UK?
Abortion wouldn’t feature at all. It’s a non subject here. LGBT rights - no culture wars I can see.
The major problem I see, spoken and unspoken, is immigration.
@stonespring said -
I think it would be different than the culture wars here in the US, though, in that there would be less of a focus on abortion. How much do LGBT rights play into the culture wars in the UK?
Abortion wouldn’t feature at all. It’s a non subject here. LGBT rights - no culture wars I can see.
The major problem I see, spoken and unspoken, is immigration.
I think some of these things are bubbling under the surface in the UK, but I agree the major "culture war" will be about xenophobia - first driving out Europeans and then anyone else who isn't white. Unfortunately this isn't the end but just the start.
Although the "culture-war" aspect that was exploited by Farage etal in 2016 (and, he still bangs on about) is class based. It's about an "elite" ruining life for the "ordinary working person". Which is very rich since it's generally people like Farage (public school educated, merchant banker, professional politician) pushing this and he's about as far from being an ordinary working bloke as you can get. And, some of the leading groups campaigning against a very hard brexit/for a People's vote are the trade unions.
So are we still in essence a feudal society? If the like if Treeza feel they don’t need to speak to us or our representatives about the deal and negotiate it herself, if people are swayed by rich men telling them that we should leave, the country will be alright eventually then may be feudal.
Yes, we're a pseudo-feudal society. The British Empire included the idea of "the white man's burden", the duty of the upper classes of British society to bring civilisation and order to the world - including the lower classes of Britain. Order included in our hymns, "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate". The basis by which people are among the elite may have changed, being born into wealth and power is giving way to those who have gained that status from a more lowly beginning, but once attained then there's the notion that they should care for the poor and make decisions on their behalf.
The basis by which people are among the elite may have changed, being born into wealth and power is giving way to those who have gained that status from a more lowly beginning.
Not really. Wealth and power is mostly inherited. Social mobility is mostly a myth in modern Britain.
62% of Cameron's cabinet was privately educated. 24% of May's.* 7% is the national figure.
This is a useful marker because if you compare the cost of private education to average earnings, you realise how completely unobtainable it is for most. Of that 7% will be some whose parents afford it easily and many who do so through massive sacrifice. Average fees are around £17,000 / year. According to the ONS data that's more than the income of 30% of the country. So if you work out disposable income and how many children in a family, you quickly realise that it really is a wealthy minority who can even think about private education.
The main culture war in the UK is easily being won by the wealthy convincing everyone that the poor deserve to be poor. The statistical anomalies of the individuals who started with nothing is just one of the more powerful weapons.
AFZ
*this is out of date, with the current rate of churn, it's impossible to keep up.
@stonespring said -
I think it would be different than the culture wars here in the US, though, in that there would be less of a focus on abortion. How much do LGBT rights play into the culture wars in the UK?
Abortion wouldn’t feature at all. It’s a non subject here. LGBT rights - no culture wars I can see.
The major problem I see, spoken and unspoken, is immigration.
I think some of these things are bubbling under the surface in the UK, but I agree the major "culture war" will be about xenophobia - first driving out Europeans and then anyone else who isn't white. Unfortunately this isn't the end but just the start.
From speaking to those who are likely to be on the "other side" to me it appears that the culture war is likely to be about what is called multi-culuralism. The problem is that these are the very people who hanker for the Great Days of The Empire, which of course is where these cultures, with different languages, religions and customs come from.
It is inevitably being reported that May is refusing to budge in any meaningful way. Colour me surprised.
Apparently when she met Nicola Sturgeon, Treeza had a prepared list if things that Sturgeon needed to compromise on, but was unwilling to suggest anything on which she herself might shift.
And now Treeza's neatly snookered between the demands of her party - who apparently regard both the European Elections and a new Referendum as the work of the Prince of Darkness himself - and the reasonable requests of the EU that we should sort out just what we want.
So she is trying to get the 20th June Extension. This is a trap. Extension beyond 20th June necessitates participation in the EU Parliament elections. If she succeeds, then she has the ultimate threat to all but the idiots in Parliament. Imagine it's the 19th June; the UK did not participate in the elections and hence there is NO way of getting a further extension and so at this point, it is literally her deal or No Deal and then her resignation followed by Boris or some other idiot as PM.
Theoretically, the UK could still revoke A50 in that time and then there's a huge legal problem for the EU parliament.
So that's why she wants the 20th June extension - to corner her opponents. Once again returning to the theme of trying to disempower and disenfranchise anyone who disagrees with her rather than arguing her case. She really is terrible.
On Radio4 Today this morning, they commented that the outcome of the EU Council meeting would depend, in large part on Mrs May's performance. If that's true - we're all fucked. Actually, I am quite content on this point as I think the Council see right through her, they know there's no real prospect of her getting her deal agreed and won't play that game. It's probably 31st December 2019... Mrs May (and much of the Tory party and the press) seem to forget two very obvious things: 1) Most, if not all, European leaders speak English (and certainly will get translations) and 2) They are all (by-definition) successful politicians; they will know that UK politics has a UK-flavor but as Khruschev noted politicians are the same, the world over. Hence, she cannot simply pull the wool over their eyes. They know that May might agree to all sorts of things that are non-binding only to be replaced by one of the ERG lot who has publically said that they want to rip up various agreements.
End of the year is the vital breathing space we need to unwind this mess. The signs are that the EU will continue to behave responsibly to all its members. But I won't relax until we know for sure.
I really don’t see how we have a choice not to have European Elections. As things stand, unless something can come out of the talks we will have to have them or we are well and truly stuffed.
According to France Info if an extension was agreed the UK would have to agree to stage EU elections on May 23 - but May might still be hoping to leave by May 22 and thus be able to cancel them.
This sounds even more stupid writing it out than it did reading it.
It really pisses me off that midst of all this people keep bleating on about whether the country/pm is ‘begging’ or ‘humiliated’ - who fucking cares ? We should not be making decisions on the future of the country for generations to come on the basis of whether we look cool or our feelings are hurt, or we’re bored of hearing about Brexit - but on how the country will or won’t function afterwards.
It really pisses me off that midst of all this people keep bleating on about whether the country/pm is ‘begging’ or ‘humiliated’ - who fucking cares ? We should not be making decisions on the future of the country for generations to come on the basis of whether we look cool or our feelings are hurt, or we’re bored of hearing about Brexit - but on how the country will or won’t function afterwards.
Perhaps, but the fact that the PM is humiliated plays an important part in how those decisions will be made. It does all sorts of things to the various power plays in progress, whether it's HoC vs PM, Tory party vs PM, PM vs EU27, etc.
I've been shown a brief summary of Treeza's speech to the HoC later today. Here it is:
'Nothing has changed. The Government will honour the result of the referendum and leave the EU in accordance with the will of the people. I will be re-presenting the agreement that I have struck with the EU to Parliament as often as necessary over the next few months. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the Labour Party are intent on thwarting the will of the people.'
I won't be around to read the headlines about our centenarian Glorious Leader (may She live for ever!) still taking Her Withdrawal Agreement to the United States Of The World*, for the several-hundredth time, at some distant future date......
(*The USOTW will not, of course, include Trumperica, renamed after its Perpetual Saviour in 2025).
Of that 7% will be some whose parents afford it easily and many who do so through massive sacrifice. Average fees are around £17,000 / year.
Private education has become significantly more expensive in the last quarter century. This article from the Independent shows school fees are 550% of those 25 years ago, as compared to about a factor of 2 for inflation / earnings.
When today's cabinet went to school, a private education, at least at a fairly minor public school, was affordable, more or less, by families with fairly average incomes. Things have changed.
When I started secondary school in the 1969 the fees at the school I went to were £21/term. It was, I think, a good school, but definitely minor, and its intake was significantly socially mixed because of the quantity of direct grant pupils it took.
Not being political or anything, but back in the 70s when I won a scholarship, our local direct grant school had two thirds of its intake on scholarships. No way could my mother, on a widow's pension, have afforded it. Of course a few years later it was forced to go independent, courtesy of the Iron Lady and her minions.
Of that 7% will be some whose parents afford it easily and many who do so through massive sacrifice. Average fees are around £17,000 / year.
Private education has become significantly more expensive in the last quarter century. This article from the Independent shows school fees are 550% of those 25 years ago, as compared to about a factor of 2 for inflation / earnings.
When today's cabinet went to school, a private education, at least at a fairly minor public school, was affordable, more or less, by families with fairly average incomes. Things have changed.
D'oh.
Yeah, I knew it was a bit of a risk using today's figures.
However, I do not accept your conclusion. What I was trying to do was to compare school fees with median income (or more helpfully the centiles).
I am slightly younger than most of the cabinet and whilst I knew a few 'middle class' people who sent their kids to private school, I think that's the same fallacy we see today where people think that they're not particularly well-off earning 40k per year. They're right in one sense given the cost of living but they are also a long way above the median income.
I couldn't find the income centiles for 1980 (say) quite so easily, nor the school fees. Also I used a conservative method - i.e. comparing the cost of fees to after-tax income. After tax income, of course is very different to disposable income.
So a quick back of an envelope method...
School fees up by 550%:
- that would make fees around £3000 / year in 1994.
and average income in 1994 according to this from the ONS was £277 per week pre-tax or £14,400/year. I am not sure if this mean or median
However, if the average school fee per child is a third of the average pre-tax income I still maintain that it is not reachable for most of the population.
This is definitely a crude method - incomes vary with age. Parents of school age children are usually in the middle-part of their career and hence earning more than at the start. Conversely most people have 2+ children, spend a third-half their post tax income on housing costs.
Even 25 years ago, whilst private education (non-Eton, non-Harrow, non-Winchester, non-Westminster etc.) appears to be more affordable than today, I think it a fallacy to think it was widely accessible.
My family was on an income close to the median in the 1980s. My fees at a second league public school (Bedford if you want to know) were paid by a bursary. Paying the full fees would have been utterly impossible. Even with the bursary it was only achieved by a trust fund left by my grandmother.
I used to listen to boys who went on two foreign holidays a year talk about the sacrifices their parents made to send them there. We got a fortnight in a static caravan in Bude. They hadn't a clue what most people actually earned.
Tell me about it. I had to be collected from a concert at school late one night. The other girls couldn't believe that my mother had to come and get me on public transport. Luckily they'd given up bullying me by then.
One of the insidious aspects of private education is it insulates children from the realities of inequality and poverty, which makes it much easier to support policies which exacerbate both.
One of the insidious aspects of private education is it insulates children from the realities of inequality and poverty, which makes it much easier to support policies which exacerbate both.
Absolutely - and it gives them a fear of the ‘other’ polarising society further.
One of the insidious aspects of private education is it insulates children from the realities of inequality and poverty, which makes it much easier to support policies which exacerbate both.
Absolutely - and it gives them a fear of the ‘other’ polarising society further.
It gives all sides a fear of the other, and increases the unearned deference of poor to rich. Hence my preference for catchment areas, carefully assigned and strictly enforced.
One of the insidious aspects of private education is it insulates children from the realities of inequality and poverty, which makes it much easier to support policies which exacerbate both.
Absolutely this.
I don't have a problem with millionaires in the cabinet per se. I think it is entirely possible to be rich and still have insight and understanding to those who are hard up. But it doesn't come naturally, you have to work at it. Those who haven't experienced the crippling anxiety of not knowing if you can pay the rent or not, of genuine food insecurity will not feel it viscerally in the way that those who have lived it do. If you read J K Rowling's writings on this, you'll see that, whilst now being exceedingly rich, she hasn't forgotten the freezing streets of Edinburgh and writing in cafes, to keep warm.
Cameron and his government in particular gave every indication of this lack of insight. It's not just that they don't know but that they don't understand there's something even to know.
For me this was exemplified by the way Cameron talked about the NHS with respect to his son. No money insulates you from grief and no doubt that was a terrible thing for the family. However, in my professional life, I work with lots of disabled children and their families. Cameron's lived experience was fundamentally different to all the families I have met. Parents needing time off work, having to give up work. Lots of travel because the local hospital doesn't have specialist paediatric services, home adaptations etc. etc. The financial burden in huge with the knock-on effect to all of family life. Most parents of disabled children can't even think about a holiday, despite needing it more than most of us. They can't afford the holiday nor the extra costs of special needs or respite care. Being a millionaire, married to a richer millionaire makes a HUGE difference to this kind of life.
This clique of (mostly) Tory MPs have no insight into the stresses and struggles of someone like me, who is well paid. Not a hope of understanding the daily lives of those less well off than me. Because they do not think they need to try.
Comments
But it is a good move. I hope the EU leaders listen and say she can have an extension if she has a peoples vote with Remain as an option.
What is a culture war platform in the UK?
Like culture wars everywhere, one would have to be manufactured, and it seems to me that even the further right are still experimenting with what issues have most salience; but I assume the use of terms like 'Cultural Marxists' and 'citizens of nowhere' by members of the cabinet indicate one direction in which they see this developing.
In the immediate future I assume it'll be further tax cuts, legends of immigrant welfare recipients and very real concerns.
I think it would be different than the culture wars here in the US, though, in that there would be less of a focus on abortion. How much do LGBT rights play into the culture wars in the UK?
Abortion wouldn’t feature at all. It’s a non subject here. LGBT rights - no culture wars I can see.
The major problem I see, spoken and unspoken, is immigration.
I think some of these things are bubbling under the surface in the UK, but I agree the major "culture war" will be about xenophobia - first driving out Europeans and then anyone else who isn't white. Unfortunately this isn't the end but just the start.
Britain hasn't had a revolution (yet).
Not really. Wealth and power is mostly inherited. Social mobility is mostly a myth in modern Britain.
62% of Cameron's cabinet was privately educated. 24% of May's.* 7% is the national figure.
This is a useful marker because if you compare the cost of private education to average earnings, you realise how completely unobtainable it is for most. Of that 7% will be some whose parents afford it easily and many who do so through massive sacrifice. Average fees are around £17,000 / year. According to the ONS data that's more than the income of 30% of the country. So if you work out disposable income and how many children in a family, you quickly realise that it really is a wealthy minority who can even think about private education.
The main culture war in the UK is easily being won by the wealthy convincing everyone that the poor deserve to be poor. The statistical anomalies of the individuals who started with nothing is just one of the more powerful weapons.
AFZ
*this is out of date, with the current rate of churn, it's impossible to keep up.
From speaking to those who are likely to be on the "other side" to me it appears that the culture war is likely to be about what is called multi-culuralism. The problem is that these are the very people who hanker for the Great Days of The Empire, which of course is where these cultures, with different languages, religions and customs come from.
Apparently when she met Nicola Sturgeon, Treeza had a prepared list if things that Sturgeon needed to compromise on, but was unwilling to suggest anything on which she herself might shift.
‘Bloody awkward woman’ indeed!
I suspect that I shall be numbered among the Faithful Departed by then, but my hopes are for my Heirs and Assigns.....
Brilliant! Thanks for sharing!
And it's all her own fault. Priceless!
So she is trying to get the 20th June Extension. This is a trap. Extension beyond 20th June necessitates participation in the EU Parliament elections. If she succeeds, then she has the ultimate threat to all but the idiots in Parliament. Imagine it's the 19th June; the UK did not participate in the elections and hence there is NO way of getting a further extension and so at this point, it is literally her deal or No Deal and then her resignation followed by Boris or some other idiot as PM.
Theoretically, the UK could still revoke A50 in that time and then there's a huge legal problem for the EU parliament.
So that's why she wants the 20th June extension - to corner her opponents. Once again returning to the theme of trying to disempower and disenfranchise anyone who disagrees with her rather than arguing her case. She really is terrible.
On Radio4 Today this morning, they commented that the outcome of the EU Council meeting would depend, in large part on Mrs May's performance. If that's true - we're all fucked. Actually, I am quite content on this point as I think the Council see right through her, they know there's no real prospect of her getting her deal agreed and won't play that game. It's probably 31st December 2019... Mrs May (and much of the Tory party and the press) seem to forget two very obvious things: 1) Most, if not all, European leaders speak English (and certainly will get translations) and 2) They are all (by-definition) successful politicians; they will know that UK politics has a UK-flavor but as Khruschev noted politicians are the same, the world over. Hence, she cannot simply pull the wool over their eyes. They know that May might agree to all sorts of things that are non-binding only to be replaced by one of the ERG lot who has publically said that they want to rip up various agreements.
End of the year is the vital breathing space we need to unwind this mess. The signs are that the EU will continue to behave responsibly to all its members. But I won't relax until we know for sure.
AFZ
Either way, May is already completely humiliated.
Thanks for the correction.
I agree about Tusk's plan and about May's status.
AFZ
This sounds even more stupid writing it out than it did reading it.
Perhaps, but the fact that the PM is humiliated plays an important part in how those decisions will be made. It does all sorts of things to the various power plays in progress, whether it's HoC vs PM, Tory party vs PM, PM vs EU27, etc.
Not when the cameras are on them anyway.
'Nothing has changed. The Government will honour the result of the referendum and leave the EU in accordance with the will of the people. I will be re-presenting the agreement that I have struck with the EU to Parliament as often as necessary over the next few months. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the Labour Party are intent on thwarting the will of the people.'
Any bets that I'm wrong?
(*The USOTW will not, of course, include Trumperica, renamed after its Perpetual Saviour in 2025).
Private education has become significantly more expensive in the last quarter century.
This article from the Independent shows school fees are 550% of those 25 years ago, as compared to about a factor of 2 for inflation / earnings.
When today's cabinet went to school, a private education, at least at a fairly minor public school, was affordable, more or less, by families with fairly average incomes. Things have changed.
Twycross Zoo rang. Their chimpanzees are very offended by being compared to MPs.
Yeah, I knew it was a bit of a risk using today's figures.
However, I do not accept your conclusion. What I was trying to do was to compare school fees with median income (or more helpfully the centiles).
I am slightly younger than most of the cabinet and whilst I knew a few 'middle class' people who sent their kids to private school, I think that's the same fallacy we see today where people think that they're not particularly well-off earning 40k per year. They're right in one sense given the cost of living but they are also a long way above the median income.
I couldn't find the income centiles for 1980 (say) quite so easily, nor the school fees. Also I used a conservative method - i.e. comparing the cost of fees to after-tax income. After tax income, of course is very different to disposable income.
So a quick back of an envelope method...
School fees up by 550%:
- that would make fees around £3000 / year in 1994.
and average income in 1994 according to this from the ONS was £277 per week pre-tax or £14,400/year. I am not sure if this mean or median
However, if the average school fee per child is a third of the average pre-tax income I still maintain that it is not reachable for most of the population.
This is definitely a crude method - incomes vary with age. Parents of school age children are usually in the middle-part of their career and hence earning more than at the start. Conversely most people have 2+ children, spend a third-half their post tax income on housing costs.
Even 25 years ago, whilst private education (non-Eton, non-Harrow, non-Winchester, non-Westminster etc.) appears to be more affordable than today, I think it a fallacy to think it was widely accessible.
AFZ
I used to listen to boys who went on two foreign holidays a year talk about the sacrifices their parents made to send them there. We got a fortnight in a static caravan in Bude. They hadn't a clue what most people actually earned.
Luxury!
Absolutely - and it gives them a fear of the ‘other’ polarising society further.
It gives all sides a fear of the other, and increases the unearned deference of poor to rich. Hence my preference for catchment areas, carefully assigned and strictly enforced.
Absolutely this.
I don't have a problem with millionaires in the cabinet per se. I think it is entirely possible to be rich and still have insight and understanding to those who are hard up. But it doesn't come naturally, you have to work at it. Those who haven't experienced the crippling anxiety of not knowing if you can pay the rent or not, of genuine food insecurity will not feel it viscerally in the way that those who have lived it do. If you read J K Rowling's writings on this, you'll see that, whilst now being exceedingly rich, she hasn't forgotten the freezing streets of Edinburgh and writing in cafes, to keep warm.
Cameron and his government in particular gave every indication of this lack of insight. It's not just that they don't know but that they don't understand there's something even to know.
For me this was exemplified by the way Cameron talked about the NHS with respect to his son. No money insulates you from grief and no doubt that was a terrible thing for the family. However, in my professional life, I work with lots of disabled children and their families. Cameron's lived experience was fundamentally different to all the families I have met. Parents needing time off work, having to give up work. Lots of travel because the local hospital doesn't have specialist paediatric services, home adaptations etc. etc. The financial burden in huge with the knock-on effect to all of family life. Most parents of disabled children can't even think about a holiday, despite needing it more than most of us. They can't afford the holiday nor the extra costs of special needs or respite care. Being a millionaire, married to a richer millionaire makes a HUGE difference to this kind of life.
This clique of (mostly) Tory MPs have no insight into the stresses and struggles of someone like me, who is well paid. Not a hope of understanding the daily lives of those less well off than me. Because they do not think they need to try.
AFZ