Jenny1

If you know anyone with a wood burning stove or open fire I'm sure they'd be grateful for them.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do find it interesting that no-one > was up in arms when the requirement was imposed on > the 3CNs. > > You're right. We should have reacted more to that.

Absolutely. There were plenty of 'sensible' reasons to vote for Brexit. And I can see that you were meaning something more defined and particular when you talked about authoritarianism than I did. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that everyone who voted for Brexit is an authoritarian. But surely what matters is how the current government are choosing to interpret and use the referendum result to push forward ideas which last year would have been labelled 'too BNP' by the Conservatives? I'm not saying they're going to implement any of this stuff - but as already noted here - the language really matters because it sets the tone of our society.

I think Rudd and May may be more authoritarian than you suggest jaywalker Also.... ------------------------------------------------------- > > It has nothing to do with Brexit as such - the > majority of those voting for Brexit are perfectly > sensible people (and indeed they were led by > old-fashioned globalising liberals Johnson and > Gove who will have been dismayed by the new May > agenda). > > I disagree. I think that this (by which I mean the new acceptability in political life of singling out foreigners) has a lot to do with Brexit. Politicians know that many Leave voters were 'protest' voters and identified the UKIP agenda as a way of making their lives more secure. And TM wants to grab the UKIP vote. That's why her cabinet are prepared to say things that would have been unacceptable even a year ago. And as to Johnson and Gove. The overriding characteristic of both in my view (though they differ in many ways) is not an adherence to globalising liberalism but a terrifying, childish self obsession.

I agree rahrahrah. I too have been left wondering what happened to the 'adults'. My hope of a return to balance and seriousness derives either from the Lib Dems being rejuvenated or from a new centrist party emerging from the remains of Labour. I suspect TM may have done enough to stop her own centrist MPs from defecting to a new 'centrist' home. But who knows, if a suitable alternative emerged they might make the move.

And to expand a bit on the point that was raised that we (who are old enough) remember an era when the National Front used to win a lot of votes. The feelings that fuel that politics never go away. They're always there in all societies, rumbling beneath the surface, and vigilance is required to keep them in check. What's alarming is that we're seeing them start to rise up to visible levels again. The only thing that keeps these feelings at a 'safe' level is a society managed to ensure welfare and security in a reasonably equable way. When people feel embattled they turn on 'the other' - anyone will do, even if the 'otherness' is very slight.

I'm afraid I'm quite old enough to have experienced all those things too. Remember sugar rationing? But the point is that we have just emerged from a prolonged period when it appeared that social democracy had (for the first time) become the norm in this country. And that, to my mind, was a very good thing. But (all of a sudden) that's not the case anymore. What we're being reminded of now is that you can't take social and economic stability for granted. Both Gordon Brown's government and the coalition did a good job of steering us out of choppy waters after the crash. But within the coalition developed the roots of our current problems. The Conservative obsession with 'balancing the books' at all costs was not sophisticated enough. It ignored the fact that when the economy is rocky you have to look to social as well as fiscal stability. They could have learnt something from Roosevelt in the US in the 30s. If only they'd woken up to the fact that they really needed some well targeted taxing and spending a little earlier than last week. The result of this failure has been the pinched public services that have fuelled people's sense of insecurity. This has stoked political extremism of all hues, and left us on the road to Brexit, which - ironically - threatens our economic stability again. So I don't think this is like Thatcher emerging after the chaos of the 70s. Though TM would surely like to take on that mantle. Our current problems derive from a completely different source.

I disagree ????. I think anything that makes it into a Home Secretary's conference speech has to be taken seriously. And I, like Jaywalker, am really concerned that we've now entered a political climate where it's considered acceptable to use fear of foreigners as a means of drumming up votes. I know you're not putting the question to me - but I would define the worst sectors of the British electorate as extremists on the 'right' and 'left'.

One of the first signs you're living in a banana republic, surely, this kind of caper.

In relation to frogs. They need somewhere safe, dark and damp to hibernate. So a key thing is not to tidy up your garden too much - but leave piles of leaves on borders and stacks of twigs up against fences.

Sorry Passiflora. I don't understand. What accident waiting to happen?

well done rch! It's good to know that, with persistence, good things can happen.

...by which I mean it makes it quite clear that it's referring to the British role during and after Nuremberg in forming current concepts of international human rights. And yes, I imagine they've chosen to highlight this issue now not only to mark the anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials but also to focus all our minds on this country's future approach to human rights.

I think the film answers the question very well.

To focus on the rules and processes for selecting the Labour leader risks ignoring the overarching political issues for the party and the country. As has been pointed out above the current 'battle for the soul of the Labour Party' is between those who want the party to be radically left wing and those who want it to be centrist. The former are quite happy not to be in government and the latter aren't. At root I don't really care what happens to any political party (let alone any party leader) - I care about what happens to people and to the country. I've voted Labour, Lib Dem and Green during the 32 years I've been allowed to vote. I'm not 'virulently' anti-Tory, but I've never lived under a Tory government whose policies I could approve. I don't belong to any party - but I do care about social justice. It's going to be very easy for me - and the many floating voters like me - to simply vote Green or Lib Dem now. I do feel a bit sad for the Labour party - I think Labour governments have done more than any other for this country during the course of my life - but as I say it's not really parties that matter - it's the well-being of the population as a whole.

The idea is that you butter their paws in the house (usually a new house after you've moved home - therefore a house in which the cats don't feel they 'belong'). They - being fastidious - immediately sit down to carefully lick the butter off. This takes some effort and time and is distracting. The act of washing themselves is calming and makes them feel 'at home' once more. It's a time honoured method.

This is an inspired idea Robert Poste's Child. Two 'peacocking man children' together. The 'chemistry' would be explosive and might make horribly successful TV. I'm sure the contract would preclude him from continuing as Foreign Secretary, thus putting a stop to his highly destructive global strutting.

When you butter his paws do make sure to do the tops, not the pads. My Mum made that mistake once and we ended up with three cats skating round the kitchen floor.

Quite. I absolutely agree LondonMix. But that's what I meant about the move to extremes - as illustrated by what you say above re the Labour Party - but also with UKIP's influence over the Conservatives. That's why I favour a re-invigorated Lib Dem Party or a new Centrist Party born out of Labour.

I agree with you LondonMix. That's certainly the way I feel. I think the drift towards extremism is to be seen in Labour too (as noted above). But my main problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't seem to be a competent team member - let alone team leader.

What we really need is a re-invigorated Lib Dem Party or a new centrist Party born partly out of the Labour Party. I do not trust the Conservative Party to adopt strong centrist policies.

...and to be clear. By failing to cushion the poor and disadvantaged more effectively from the effects of the global crash Cameron fostered the roots of extremism. He increased a lot of people's sense of insecurity, thus throwing them into the arms of UKIP, Momentum or whatever else was going. He created the impression that government and perhaps society as a whole (as currently structured) was unwilling or unable to protect them.

I think Cameron's problem was that he wasn't a serious person with a broad perspective on history or a deeply rooted social conscience. He presented himself, and undoubtedly thought of himself, as a 'One Nation Tory', but didn't actually do what was needed. I heard an interesting interview with his policy guy, Oliver Letwin, who many of us will remember as a keen Thatcherite. Letwin spoke about his own, I'm sure quite genuine, journey from the 'old days' when he perceived anyone who was poor or disadvantaged as simply needing to 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps', to his more nuanced understanding that society needs to be structured to help people get a decent start in life and to support them when things go wrong. He credited Tony Blair with making him understand the value of the latter view. But in reality Cameron's government didn't go nearly far enough in working out or implementing a strategy that did this. In the end Cameron wasn't enough like Blair or Brown. And one reason (among many) why this is a problem is because of 2008. If our current crop of politicians had a proper understanding of history they'd know very well what happens in the wake of global financial crashes. Extreme political polarisation and the rise of the 'lunatic fringe'. Left and Right cease to matter under these circumstances - it's all about 'personality politicians' (demagogues) with crowd-winning extreme messages and a desire to 'tear up the rulebook'. None of them should be trusted. During the '30s the poisonous Oswald Mosley was happy to be an MP for both Labour and Conservative, not to mention founding a couple of political parties himself. If we care about stability and fairness for the majority, we have to hang onto the centre ground very fiercely indeed. We mustn't be distracted by ideas of the evil 'right' or 'left', but be prepared to counter extremists of any hue, no matter where they come from.

I agree that too often they favour such projects rahrahrah, but clearly not always.

I agree with all that ???? except this ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the Referendum ...would have > come in the end whatever I don't think the referendum was inevitable. Cameron partly called it, of course, in order to win the last election (which ironically I don't think he particularly wanted to do - he showed signs of having had enough of being PM by then). I suspect his other motive was petulance and impatience. He'd simply got tired of Tory Eurosceptics, so challenged them to the referendum campaign. That was foolish of him. You're never going to get rid of all the griping, irritating people - and must learn to put up with them.