blandy

I don't think that on its own is "racist". I live in a town in Lancashire that is mostly white people. When I moved here 30 years ago, I'd go to Manchester and most of the people there were also a similar mix (or lack of mix). Now there's all kinds of people from all over. I've "noticed" it. I've noticed that the mix of people around has changed. I'm fine with it, but I can imagine people sort of feeling that "their" country has changed and that some of them would find it all a bit disconcerting. I stress I don't think it's bad, and I don't think it's really anything much to do with the EU, but as per the post about fear of immigration being biggest where there isn't much, it's kind of human nature, or human nature for a lot of humans to be cautious about "different". Of course when we get to know the "different" we tend to find out they're not actually different at all. Hence people where there are many more folk from different backgrounds being cool with it. But some politicians and media play on that early fear of the different and ramp it up for their own means.

One of those New fangled F-35 fighters just pootled past the window. (not my pic)

I don't know a lot about films, but one I like from the 90s (just) is "Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai". Ever since i first saw it yonks ago, I've looked out for films directed by Jim Jarmusch. There's a sort of calm about them, somehow. Anyway, good film, great soundtrack.

I'm no Corbyn fan, by a very, very, long way, but he (or his advisors) got this one spot on. Why help Johnson out of a self imposed hole, by agreeing to timing of an election that would both free Johnson and harm Corbyn, when he can wait a couple of week longer and have the election, but further harm Johnson's prospects and enhance his own. He'll still lose, mind, but everyone but the reckless tories will benefit. It's the role and duty of the opposition to oppose, not to lie supine while the government wrecks the country.

Yes, the member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip needs to pay much more care to the unintended effects of entering alliances with serially unfaithful words removed, like that saucy, reclining fantasist JRM.

Different strokes... To me, Corbyn was indeed getting hugely barracked by the tories - pretty disgracefully so. But he managed to come across, after the first 45 seconds or so as pretty good - he made good points, grounded in reality and mixed in with the more partisan stuff. Blackford afterwards was calmer, but didn't really hit home and wandered off into very SNP (as you'd expect) "Scotland" this that and tho other. Fair enough to an extent, but it was in the UK parliament. Johnson was dreadful. He re-used his joke from last week, and offered basically no defence of his position of PM of the UK doing that he's done. We know much of what he said was simply false. I guess we all see it differently

I saw that on the telly last night. I (genuinely) thought Corbyn was pretty good. He gave the floppy Johnson a stiff talking to.

Broad, is he? Crickey. Him and Jimmy going would be a blow. He's been excellent this series, Broad. Bairstow's one where he was in great form, then all the one days stuff has messed with his test batting. He's definitely good enough to bat in the middle order - 4 to 7 or so. Ultimately England lack two batsmen for the top 3, there's not so much wrong apart from that major flaw. At least Rory Burns has sort of looked the part.

Root for sure would be a certain pick, if not as Captain. Bairstow too, IMO and Broad. I think Moeen Ali should be in the squad too.

Her personal approach is remain, as you say. That's fine. The problem bit is trying to defend Labour's policy which is still, after all this time, utterly mental. They want to negotiate a Labour "jobs first" Brexit deal, then hold a referendum on it. A Their deal or remain referendum. They would then campaign for.....???? in the referendum. Either their own deal, making them a leave party, or alternatively a remain vote, against their own deal, making them a remain party that offers a referendum to leave - as stupid as Cameron, only more so, because they've seen where that led. Get off the fence, be one thing or the other. Lead, don't follow the polls and election predictions for Grimsby or Walsall or Islington or Scotland or wherever.

I used to read him regularly when he was in the Independent Newspaper, and a bit when he moved to the Grauniad, but he sort of lost me with his flip on Corbyn and with his flip and double standards and contradictions on the anti-semitism stuff. I think I've just come to the conclusion that most, if not all, political columnists are deliberately forcefully strident and completely shameless in flipping their paid-for opinions from time to time, even deliberately to create hits and readership and recognition. He's not the worst by a long way, but he's gone down in my estimation as a lot less principled than I thought he was.

It's alright, it'll change soon, for money.

I see hallucinogenic drugs are already legal in that there "down South"

Perhaps there's another aspect too?. What I mean is that the type of kids that went to these private fee paying posh schools - Johnson, Cameron Corbyn, Seamus Milne, Blair etc. - they all form their views from a perspective of privelege. The ones that lean left sort of draw up their socialism from a theoretical viewpoint, sitting up on high deciding what the poor people need done to, or for, them. With Corbyn for example I suspect it's a reason for his South American communist revolutionary admiration, ditto his reluctance to criticise Russia at all. It's just theory for him. Like Millionaire John Lennon "imagining" no possessions. He seems to have stuck to his schoolboy/student political views, unchanged for the past 50 years.

Thanks, but no thanks. I don’t like the author and certainly don’t like the main subject

I doubt it. I think he as a person changed a great deal, as have all political leaders. I doubt he’d recognise himself at the end from when he started. Same applies to May, Johnson,Corbyn etc. i think attaching labels is a mistake.if you tag someone with a label it’s easy to then dismiss anything they do. Having said that, Johnson’s a word removed.

I think there's an element of accuracy in that interpretation, but only an element. Clause 4 is an interesting one, because it used to be about common ownership of the means of production distribution and sale, or something along those lines - i.e. the state must own everything and run it, whereas Blair changed it to some sort of fluffy words about everyone having a share of wealth and opportunity. The old version was completely bonkers for the modern world, and the newer version was a sort of over-rideable "mission statement" of the sort that might be adopted by a photocopier company being "passionate" about scanning. One was a historic legacy and handicap, the other a load of easily ignored waffle. Blair and Brown started off and were too timid I ditching Thatcherite type policies that they inherited. They did great on things like 3rd world debt relief, but ran scared of the tory accusation, always made of financial recklessness - they used PFI to keep "public debt" off the ledger, as the tories had done. They should have scrapped it. They were (IMO) right to turn away from the very old labour "nationalise everything" philosophy. From a person in the street viewpoint, a heck of a lot got a heck of a lot better under Blair Brown, for a long period. His approach to Iraq was ruinous and appalling. The handling of the crash was OK, Darling was (IMO) on exactly the right lines with is response, too. Blairism, was pretty much self-defined as "the third way" wasn't it - neither Tory style, nor old Labour style, and while people can say it was too tory, or whatever, it wasn't that far off in getting results in a lot of areas, in many it worked. Key areas of society improved enormously. Blairs flaws, like pretty much all leaders were personal, not ideological - his (as you say) slavish lap-dog approach to Bush, and cowardice re-Murdoch. His "God" thing and his actions re Iraq which were just mendacious and deceptive. I agree most Corbynites want to kind of erase anything and everything that Blair ever did - like Trump with Obama, and it's a massive mistake. They define themselves far too much by what they are not and who they are not, and not nearly enough by what they ought to be and how they ought to behave. It poisons their approach to a whole range of problems. But they also hold a range of views and ideas and prejudices which are not only Corbynite v Blairism, but Corbynite v The world as it is. Bunker mentality thrashing out at all kinds. Er, Brexit, not going well is it? to stay on topic.

You posted an image and a link to this thread. Neither of those have ever been on the BBC. I surmise therefore that it’s either fake news, a posting error, or both, or something else entirely. That’s cleared that up then.

I don’t agree on that narrow point. I’m no Blair fan, by a very long way, but to me the fight in the Labour Party over B v C is a manifestation of something completely different.

Business people are humans. Humans have various characteristics. Some are altruistic, some devout, some faithless, some mean spirited, some selfish, some are needy, or prone to bullying, or timid, or competitive or collaborative or manipulative and all the rest. Any notion, or standpoint that starts from "all [X] are whatever" is ludicrous. The whole Brexit, or rich v poor, or that type of discussion tends towards polarisation around extreme viewpoints quite often. We have laws and regulators and so on which should restrain and prevent "bad" behaviours. With businesses, they are very imperfect and have become more and more so. Restraints have been allowed to wither - both by national and international conscious and unconscious action or inaction. The balance is way too far in favour of damaging behaviours, of Big Corp. over populations. Polluters, tax dodgers, rights abusers, profiteers and the like are running riot and responsibility is becoming a rarer stance. It's not a right wing or left wing thing that's led to that situation. Whether you look at the USA, Europe, Russia, China, South America, Australia - everywhere there are Governments and Dictators which have enabled, encouraged, tuned a blind eye, enriched themselves or despoiled the environment. And it's not a right wing, or a left wing thing that is the solution, either. It is perfectly possible to have a left, or right wing government that discourages and prevents and punishes "bad" or "damaging" behaviour, whether of individual or businesses. Across the world, leaders and leadership from all parts of the political spectrum have morphed over time into almost "robbers" of the land, seas and resources of nations, supported and egged on by businesses and others, by "money". The notion of "the greater good" has almost gone, a thing to be laughed at. There are exceptions, but they seen ever scarcer.

There's actually a lot to go on in a positive sense in your post. As others have said, you're a bright bloke, and then you like and get on with people you work with, you enjoy helping customers. It sounds like a heck of a good starting point for an employer. Then on top of that there will be stuff that you've done/got a background in which is hugely transferable - you've demonstrated an ability to work with, understand, implement and follow procedures and protocols, to form informed judgements and then follow through on them. To communicate well with "the public". You've worked with mathematical and financial issues and handled that responsibility on a daily basis. You've reported upwards succinctly and clearly. Not knowing which specific industry or line of work you'd like to follow in next isn't a big deal. It's the norm. "I'm used to this, but not sure I want to keep doing it, or what I'd want to do next" is probably the mindset of about 50% of the working, or seeking work, population. I don't know you well enough from here to say "you'd make a great [job type]", but I do know you're one of "the smart ones". A smart person with people skills is an asset in a wide range of jobs.

I thought it was genuinely a very sharp quip, as a response to "Wealthy people aren’t stupid or greedy" "Take it you're broke" was a witty retort relating to the alleged stupidity and greed. I would have been chuffed if I'd thought of it, and I'd hope that Xann would know I was kidding about, as he's easily smart enough to spot a quip. [edit] it seems it wasn't that clever. I will reset my opinion of Vive's wit to grade "F" [/edit]

IIRC a very adjacent poster proposed the thread should be titled in similar vein to the baby eating thread

My analogy isn't perfect, I accept that. I think when I wrote that, I was trying to express that a set of rules on how much a club can spend are not a means of earning money (as had been claimed). A limit on spending is just that. I d agree with your implied point that it helps cement (in the Premier league) the richest clubs (those with the extra Euro TV income) in place, because it (broadly) says "you can't spend more than you earn, but if you earn more, you can spend it"

It has, you’re right. We could go into proportional representation, but that’s a tangent. I’m in favour, but like I say, off topic.