King Charles is dead

[Berries]

Thought I would get in first.

That's a stand in.

[jellywrestler]

wow, and they have just named a post office after him, Charles the third post office, or C3PO for short

[Laava]

Long live King William the Millenial!

[mashman]

Wonder if Johnny Lydon will update his anthem too.

[neels]

Wonder if Johnny Lydon will update his anthem too.
I had the same thought, if Elton can remake candle in the wind for Diana, it seems only fair......

Think I probably need to leave The Smiths t-shirt away in the drawer for a while.

[jim.cox]

need to leave The Smiths t-shirt away in the drawer for a while.

I was wondering if the ghastly Liz Truss and her Thatcherite policies would lead to a Billy Bragg revival

[TheDemonLord]

I was wondering if the ghastly Liz Truss and her Thatcherite policies would lead to a Billy Bragg revival

Well, I can hope she implements some Thatcherite policies...

[Viking01]

Well, I can hope she implements some Thatcherite policies...

Morning.

Any policies in particular ?

Cheers, Viking

[TheDemonLord]

Morning.

Any policies in particular ?

Cheers, Viking

Not specific Policies, more a broader 'Being an Actual conservative and not a continuation of Blair"

[Viking01]

Not specific Policies, more a broader 'Being an Actual conservative and not a continuation of Blair"

Morning (again),

Since you mention Blair, are you saying that there are few (current) Conservatives that are conservative ?

If they're not Conservative, what are they ?

Cheers, Viking

[TheDemonLord]

Morning (again),

Since you mention Blair, are you saying that there are few (current) Conservatives that are conservative ?

If they're not Conservative, what are they ?

Cheers, Viking

There's some - not enough for my liking. In terms of what they are - I'm not 100% sure how you would categorize them specifically, however I can describe what they are:

They accept the Blairite Left-Wing axioms and presuppositions and then seek to fix them from a supposed right wing perspective.

As an example - the creation of Women-only shortlists for various positions. This is in response to the Left-Wing championing of Diversity and Inclusion (the current doctrine that has it's roots in Marxist theory).
The irony being that Thatcher herself was not the beneficiary of any such shortlist and was the UKs first Female Prime Minister. The Conservative position is to assert that advancement should be based on Meritocracy only.

Immigration is another area - both Legal and Illegal, Conservatives in the UK find it especially difficult to talk about Immigration, because the shadow of Enoch Powell looms large over them (even if he was correct on a number of things) - and again, we see that Tony Blair massively increased the amount of Net Migration into the country - which has caused many of the issues with Housing, the NHS, Infrastructure etc. etc. The Conservatives, despite being in power, have not repealed this or lowered it in any meaningful way.

Then you have things like Section 127 of the communications act etc. etc.

In all of this, you see the Conservatives essentially saying 'Tony Blair was right, Labour just didn't implement it properly, don't worry - We're conservatives, we'll properly manage Labours policies'

(and for the record - it's the same problem I see with National in NZ)

[Grumph]

As an example - the creation of Women-only shortlists for various positions. This is in response to the Left-Wing championing of Diversity and Inclusion (the current doctrine that has it's roots in Marxist theory).
The irony being that Thatcher herself was not the beneficiary of any such shortlist and was the UKs first Female Prime Minister. The Conservative position is to assert that advancement should be based on Meritocracy only.


You're a tad too eager to attribute doctrine to Marx. The bible said it first. Followed by the general acceptance of all being created equal and the concept of "fairness"
Ironic that now the so called "Christian Right" are the last bastion of unequality and prejudice.

[TheDemonLord]

You're a tad too eager to attribute doctrine to Marx.

That's because I've read the professors works who teach the current iteration of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity doctrine - and they cite Marx, Gramsci, Foucalt etc.

There's nothing Eager about it, I'm pointing to what they actually say.


The bible said it first. Followed by the general acceptance of all being created equal and the concept of "fairness"

Equality before the Law? All made in the image of God? Nothing wrong with that. That isn't what DIE is about though.

That is the Trojan Horse to hide the Marxism inside. Case in point - the Current Tory Cabinet - hailed as Champions of Diversity and Inclusion and there's no White Men in it - you'd think all the Lefty outlets would be overjoyed at finally getting what they've been telling us that they want for Years, and yet - it turns out, it's the wrong kind of Diversity and Inclusion... Because they aren't Communists.

Whodathunk.


Ironic that now the so called "Christian Right" are the last bastion of unequality and prejudice.

You sure about that? I mean - it's not the Christian Right that are trying to remove the anti-discrimination laws because they also block Affirmative Action (AKA Discrimination). Then there's CRT, and the most recent Democrat racist - saying you gotta treat White People like Shit, to keep them in their place. Imagine if a white Republican said the same about black people....

[Viking01]

There's some - not enough for my liking. In terms of what they are - I'm not 100% sure how you would categorize them specifically, however I can describe what they are:

They accept the Blairite Left-Wing axioms and presuppositions and then seek to fix them from a supposed right wing perspective.

As an example - the creation of Women-only shortlists for various positions. This is in response to the Left-Wing championing of Diversity and Inclusion (the current doctrine that has it's roots in Marxist theory).
The irony being that Thatcher herself was not the beneficiary of any such shortlist and was the UKs first Female Prime Minister. The Conservative position is to assert that advancement should be based on Meritocracy only.

Immigration is another area - both Legal and Illegal, Conservatives in the UK find it especially difficult to talk about Immigration, because the shadow of Enoch Powell looms large over them (even if he was correct on a number of things) - and again, we see that Tony Blair massively increased the amount of Net Migration into the country - which has caused many of the issues with Housing, the NHS, Infrastructure etc. etc. The Conservatives, despite being in power, have not repealed this or lowered it in any meaningful way.

Then you have things like Section 127 of the communications act etc. etc.

In all of this, you see the Conservatives essentially saying 'Tony Blair was right, Labour just didn't implement it properly, don't worry - We're conservatives, we'll properly manage Labours policies'

(and for the record - it's the same problem I see with National in NZ)

Thanks for the reply. Interesting.

From what you write, it seems more like a battle for the coveted "centre - right" political position - without executing some of the policies they'd like to implement (but which might lose them votes).

Re Thatcher: My impression of Thatcherism is that it was intended to (i) achieve a "small state" footprint (ii) reduce taxes (iii) reduce welfare hand-outs, all while seeking to achieve some notional "aspirational nation". Whatever the latter might have meant, or have been expressed.

If Thatcher couldn't achieve all of the above (especially the last) while the UK had the benefits of (i) North Sea gas and (ii) multiple public organisations that were then available for privatisation, I admit struggling to imagine how Maggie's latest incarnation is going to lead the charge to achieve it. :msn-wink:

The current farewell of Queen Elizabeth II will provide a national feel-good boost while it lasts, but I feel the current (post-Brexit / post Covid / Ukraine) economic situation is going to swiftly come back into focus for many in the UK
e.g.
-Dropping sterling exchange rate against the USD
-High inflation rate (even amongst the G7)
-Cost of Living situation (driven largely by energy costs)
-Struggling and under-resourced NHS
-Wealth inequality
-Ongoing external disputes affecting trade (e.g. the EU ; Northern Ireland)

That said, it's not "all roses" across the Channel in mainland Europe. Friends and family scattered across several EU countries are echoing similar sentiments. Challenging times ahead.

Cheers, Viking

[TheDemonLord]

Thanks for the reply. Interesting.

From what you write, it seems more like a battle for the coveted "centre - right" political position - without executing some of the policies they'd like to implement (but which might lose them votes).

Interesting - but I disagree that it's the Centre-Right.

The reason is because we have to determine what is Right and Left - currently a lot of Left Wing Politics is dominated by Marxist derived theories. I do not, however, believe that Left Wing politics is Marxist politics. I believe there is a genuine Left Wing position without the collectivization and Us/Them narrative from Marx.

If I'm correct on this (and I believe I am), then it stands to reason that the Centre-Right would have some common ground with this Non-Marxist Left. I'll use Benefits as an example - The Centre-Left position says that some people (for various reasons) end-up in dire straights and as a Society, it is to the benefit of us all to help them out. The Centre-right position says that's fair, but we need to make sure we are not disincentivizing them from helping themselves and we need to make sure that our generosity (as a society) isn't being abused.

Both points are reasonable, both are compassionate (although different forms of compassion) and neither are making group or identity claims.

That is not the same as what I see currently in too many Conservative Politicians. That said, there are a few both here and overseas) that are starting to reject the Left-Wing Axioms on certain issues.

If we go back to the Diversity/representation argument, at it's most fundamental core, it's inherently racist: "I cannot see an aspect of myself in you, because you don't look like me" - even a Centre-Right Politician should reject such a notion because of it's group identity claims.

Perhaps a better way to think of it, is to imagine an 'Atheist', discussing theology with a Christian. If the Atheist's argument is that they accept that there's a suprenatural Deity, they just reject that it is the Judeo-Christian one, then by definition the Atheist has already lost, they are no longer an Atheist.


Re Thatcher: My impression of Thatcherism is that it was intended to (i) achieve a "small state" footprint (ii) reduce taxes (iii) reduce welfare hand-outs, all while seeking to achieve some notional "aspirational nation". Whatever the latter might have meant, or have been expressed.

If Thatcher couldn't achieve all of the above (especially the last) while the UK had the benefits of (i) North Sea gas and (ii) multiple public organisations that were then available for privatisation, I admit struggling to imagine how Maggie's latest incarnation is going to lead the charge to achieve it. :msn-wink:

I don't see those as being incompatible. A Smaller State, Reduction in taxed, Less Welfare abuse and championing the ideal of what it means to be British aren't dependent on Gas or institutions to privatize.


The current farewell of Queen Elizabeth II will provide a national feel-good boost while it lasts, but I feel the current (post-Brexit / post Covid / Ukraine) economic situation is going to swiftly come back into focus for many in the UK

I've certainly seen the upswell in national unity in regards to her Death and there is a lot of Soul Searching at a national level - Who are the British in the 21st Century with Queen Elizabeth?

It could go one of two ways. It could be the catalyst to re-invigorate the people to have a shared sense of national identity and unity and forge a better, strong Britain.
Or it could all go to shit.

It really depends - IMO if the Conservatives can address some of the major issues (Immigration, especially illegal Immigration) and provide a shared vision of the Future.




e.g.
-Dropping sterling exchange rate against the USD
-High inflation rate (even amongst the G7)
-Cost of Living situation (driven largely by energy costs)
-Struggling and under-resourced NHS
-Wealth inequality
-Ongoing external disputes affecting trade (e.g. the EU ; Northern Ireland)

That said, it's not "all roses" across the Channel in mainland Europe. Friends and family scattered across several EU countries are echoing similar sentiments. Challenging times ahead.

Cheers, Viking

Almost all of those have 3 key factors:

Mass Migration, 'Progressive' Policies and Tyrannical Covid response.

I hope people learn the correct lessons, but am skeptical that they will.

[nerrrd]

Thatcher is certainly dead, though.

Wonder how she felt about the royal family (does the sovereign grant make them all beneficiaries?)

[Viking01]

You're a tad too eager to attribute doctrine to Marx. The bible said it first. Followed by the general acceptance of all being created equal and the concept of "fairness".

Ironic that now the so called "Christian Right" are the last bastion of unequality and prejudice.

Afternoon.

I think that there might be a little confusion re the Marx family.

It's true that the Marx Brothers (Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo and Zeppo) all hailed (or is that heiled) from Germany. And that they had a sixth brother (Manfried), first born but who died at an early age. But what is not nearly so well known is that they in fact had a seventh brother - Karl.

Karl was a fairly serious introspective type, and not into comedy at all. So when the family decided to leave Germany (and "go west to seek fame and fortune" in the US), Karl decided to split out on his own, ending up in London.

The English knew him as Charles (because they like to Anglicise everything). The present incumbent in their royal family should probably strictly be known as King Karl, but that's another story.

Anyway, his early writing attempts (non-fiction) were sadly not big sellers, but when he tried his hand at fiction, he had instant success with his first novel ( "Das Kapital"). Especially in Russia.

Post WW1 Russia was a fairly serious place, but the Bolsheviks apparently lapped it up. A bit of light reading to take away the worries of daily life, while they were busy re-organising the economy.

"Das Kapital" eventually ended up as a tetralogy, although sadly Karl only lived long enough to complete the first book. Fortunately, he left notes for the other 3 volumes that were to follow. The second and third books were completed by a ghost-writer (a colleague Fred Engels), with the fourth volume being finished after Fred's death by another admirer (philosopher Karl Kaputsky, sometimes written Kautsky).

I have to admit they're all a bit too serious for me. I'm more of a Groucho Marx fan.

Almost as well known, and with some great quotes. Especially his best known quote (the last one in the following list) :

https://www.brainyquote.com/lists/authors/top-10-groucho-marx-quotes

I can't help feeling that maybe even Vlad Putin is a secret admirer, and that he might be channeling Groucho at the moment. Who knows ?

As for all the current gender and wokeism debate ? I'm not sure what Groucho would have made of it all. Though whatever he might have had to say, I feel sure that it would have been "politically incorrect" as well.

Hope that little history recap helps.

Cheers, Viking

https://gamatiasz.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/1030.jpg