JoeLeg

While I agree Spitalfields couldn't be left as it was, what's been done to the whole area is not good, to say the least. It stands as an example of 'gentrification gone wrong'. Adapatation and growth are constants in urban (and to some extent rural) areas, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it's unstoppable in general, and I'm generally of the opinion these days that more harm than good is done. When we lose the character of an area we can never regain it. True, this must be balanced against (hopefully) lower crime and increased prosperity, and I only hope as we go forward that we learn lessons about balancing old and new, with both recognising what the other has to offer.

> > Safer ? Nicer > > There has NEVER in the history of East Dulwich > been more Burglaries.. Robberies.. Attacks on the > person.. > Bike Crime... Littering ... Dog Fouling .. as > there is today.. > > I have lived in the immediate area for 37 years.. > > > DulwichFox While I don't automatically dispute this, I'd be interested to know if SE22 and environs are suffering an equivalent rise in these types of times as other areas, or if it's something specific to the neighbourhood. Because if it's a reflection of crime in general then it's not really relevant, but if not then that's a different matter. Gentrification is complex. It can rip the heart out of communities, but sometimes those communities would be better served by adapting to changing times. I really miss th Soho of the '90s, for example, but I'm not sure that it deserved to stick around. Spitalfields on the other hand, I think is a crying shame.

But a fascinating subject! Many, many years ago a friends father (who was admittedly an avowed communist, the kind of guy who thinks the SWP are soft), when asked what the future held said "China. It's China, because they think in true long term ways. And there's so many of them." And he's turning out to be right. Although he's probably spinning in his grave at what they've done with 'communism', his prediction of how China would affect the rest of the world is becoming startlingly accurate. Post-Brexit our relationship with China will be more important than ever.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's too early to say whether young people have > had their future stolen from them. Well, you may believe that, I might even believe that, but there's a lot of them out there who don't, and they're entitled to be reassured. They get labelled Remoaners, Remainiacs and deniers of democracy, when all they want is a future. They need to be engaged with constructively. We all need to > wait and see what deal we agree with the EU, or > none at all. > > The second stage is once a deal is agreed, or not, > this country needs to put in place structures to > attract businesses to our shores and enable people > to go out and thrive. Logically this means low > taxes so workers can spend more to benefit the > economy. There are big implications here for state > spending of course. But as people are probably tired of me pointing out, we also need a cultural change if we're to prosper. Surely that should be starting now? All I get from this govt is a lack of detail and an assurance that I can trust them. Again, forgive me if I'm sceptical...

keano77 > Which I suppose substantiates my point above to > Alan Medic's link. But Rendell also points out that we've had these promises of a golden economic time for all before, and they never really translate into the magnificence predicted except for the few at the top. The gap between rich and poor has never been wider, and we're told Brexit will help but we've heard this before. Forgive us if we're sceptical. The oldies have seen all these > prophesies of 'economic disaster' before, have > taken a hit, got on with it and bounced back. One > more little hiccough like Brexit is just something > to take it your stride. I would avert that Brexit is sufficiently unprecedented (if that's grammatically acceptable) that we can't responsibly refer to it as a little hiccuping. We don't know what it will be yet. The economic/employment environment isn't the same, people are worried.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All good points JoeLeg. > > The last thing young people want to hear is some > monty python-esque we lived in a cardboard box > description of the bad old days. If you're being genuine here (and I assume you are), would you agree that youth - which often responds well to enthusiastic messages of optimism and 'we can do it' (as witness the success of Corby , Obama and even Trump) - would benefit from a positive campaign explaining just what you're talking about, and asking them to recognise the opportunities that you feel lie before them? Right now they believe they've had their future stolen from them by a bunch of older folk who want to go back to the 50's. If the country is somehow to unite then making people believe they do indeed will have a future is part of that. I'm increasingly despondent at the amount of "stop moaning it'll be alright" that I hear from Brexit voters. I wish we weren't here but here we are and now I'd like to see some concrete thoughts about how we can all benefit. I'm not hearing much of anything past the same demands for blind faith that I got during the campaign.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes Alan, I've read it thanks. I suppose it > depends on what is meant by damage. > > It strikes me that the older people mentioned in > the statistics are more optimistic, not fearing > short term unemployment for family members on the > basis things will be better in the long term. Which means nothing to people who lose their jobs. Getting another job is not the same to people these days. Those who have voted believing that come from a time when finding other employment was easier (mid-80's notwithstanding). I suspect there is a difference of opinion over the amount of risk involved. Those older folk are not the ones who will have to find other jobs. > They've known the ups and downs of economic cycles > in ways the younger workers have not experienced > and survived to tell the tale. Again, this comes across to younger people as sanctimonious lecturing about 'how things used to be'. While it may be accurate, the older generation is doing a terrible job of explaining it to the younger generation. > > Many of you will remember a certain Maggie > Thatcher who, inspired by ideas on monetarism, > market forces and a smaller state, closed and let > many important industries die natural deaths in > the 70s/80s. Regardless of your views on old 'milk > snatcher' it is undeniable that the country was > better off in subsequent years and there is an > element of 'get on your bike' to find the > opportunities available post-Brexit. > And now that we are in this situation I dearly hope that happens. If not then we will know who to blame. > Having said that, I suspect the period of > Thatcherism unleashed forces that have festered > (communities decimated etc for the grater good) > that played a large part in the vote to leave. While I'd love to blame Thatcher for everything (and she certainly started it) subsequent governments have done nothing to arrest the decline. The unfortunate truth is that many of those Leave voters are expecting a quicker change on their fortunes than is likely. They also don't expect to have to do much work for it, assuming that the UK of the future will just be better somehow. I suppose, given how the govt is being reticent on its vision of a post-Brexit UK, this is understandable. But somehow I suspect it to be unrealistic.

Keano mate, not all millenials, not all by a long shot, are in the position you describe. You've done well enough to give your son all that? Congratulations. But don't go assuming they're all in the same boat as our son. They ain't. Now a lot of the problems faced by them stem from a culture of instant gratification and the idea that we can have whatever we want without having to work too hard for it, that we'll never have to graft and save to get anywhere. Cheap credit and celebrity culture have (in my view) done more to ruin opportunities than politicians ever did. But it's also true that there were some certainties the baby boomer generation could count on that aren't there any more. The gig economy and zero hours contracts are good examples of that; the idea that you have to intern in some other way work for free before anyone will take a chance on you. Now that isn't such a bad thing - there's a lot of it in my industry and it works very well for all concerned - but it's coupled with a job market that makes it difficult if not impossible to make money to support yourself while you do that. You say the son is on an allowance from you; will you be cutting that off st some point and encouraging him to get a job while he studies? These are just some of the problems to be faced in a post-Brexit Britain. In theory there should be more jobs around for people, but will they takd them? Will they do them properly ETA - why do you think the LibDems are solely to blame for tuition fees?! Whatever party was in was going to raise them. That was coming regardless.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting Joe, I didn't know that...not excusing > it in any way but I wonder if it's to do with the > fact that large sections of the black community > are virulently homophobic? Do you know in all the time I was there, that never occurred to me? Though that said the attitudes displayed were in, shall we say, all directions. Indian, Chinese, African, you name it, the people concerned didn't like them. There was also a noticeable amount of sexism and - in such a word can exist - heterophobia. I guess in that respect it's no different than any other group that suffers some level of discrimination - one tends to look inwards for support and inevitably there's a risk that you see other societal groups as an enemy rather than a potential friend. It was a jarring experience, and not one I enjoyed.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree. Both Brexiters and Remainers want what's > best for the country. It seems very simple to me - > money is the crux of the matter. Britain leaves, > who'll cover the shortfall? France? Good luck with > that. Germany? Sorry, we're propping up this whole > shaky edifice. Why do you think money (divorce > settlement) is so important to the EU at this > early stage of the negotiations? > > Simple, Britain will pay it's debts. Britain will > also pay a bit more but you will not see 1 cent > until we get a trade deal with you that is > satisfactory for our parliament to vote for. > > What's problematic with that? Nothing is problematic with that. It seems an eminently sensible solution. The debate seems to be over the order in which we resolve this - I fear too many people in this land think we are in a position to play hardball over this, and that we can insist on negotiating both together when the EU wants to resolve the money first. We can't. Everyone wants a trade deal, so let's do as you say, agree the money and move on to the bit where we all make money and have jobs in the future. > > (Edited to add: has Vince Cable lost it?) No, I don't think he has. Let's be fair, the younger generation feel like a lot of older people who will be dead soon have made a decision that they will not suffer the consequences of if it goes wrong. They have pensions, property, and don't have to worry about getting a job, a career, a mortgage, paying for a family and so on. Younger people see the anti-immigration angle of the vote as anathema to the their view of a closer, more integrated world. The young believe hey have been told to sit down, shut up and do what their elders and betters tell them. And those same elders and betters will not be around when the world changes. It's an understandable point of view, and please note that I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong, simply that the elder generation needs to understand better how their actions have come across. If they think they're right, they need to do a better job of explaining to the under 30's why they've just done them a favour, because right now it looks very much like they just wanted to go back to the England of their childhood, and for that they have no one to blame but themselves. As for Vince? Well, the LibDems are the only party portraying themselves as truly anti-Brexit and need every vote they can get - seems like a pretty sensible position for a politician in his place to take.

I've read the article several times now, and I'm inclined to agree with JohnL, that I think the racial prejudice he's received within the gay scene has formed the basis for his feelings. I'm not going to add my two pence worth to what others have said because several good points have already been made, save to say that however much we might like to think otherwise, racism is still very much with us in the 21st century here in the UK. We don't see it so much in the inner city, just like there's not so much homophobia, sexism or xenophobia, but one doesn't have to travel much past zone 6 to find it popping up again. It's still there, and while we may have come a long way from 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish', we haven't come as far as we thought, and of course it goes in all directions, not just from white to black. It's incredibly complex and there's a tremendous amount of self-delusion going on with some people. Unfortunately the only way to get over it is to literally wait for the attitudes to die out. We are changing, as a society, for the better (in this regard), but it takes decades and decades. The increase in mixed-race relationships alone demonstrates that people are discarding the old thoughts, but we have a way to go. One thing I will touch on is his comment about the racial abuse he received from white gay men. Now this I can fully believe. In the mid-late 90's, while I was idly trying to find a career after leaving the Army, I fell into a job that for a couple of years resulted in me spending a lot of time in gay clubs, particularly Heaven and Trade (it's a long story). I was shocked by the level of racism openly displayed by otherwise intelligent and mature gay men. his is not to say that they all did - of course not - but the frequency with which I heard phrases and words that I would expect to hear only in a documentary about the Klu Klux Klan amazed me. Seriously, some of these guys would give Stormfront a run for their money. And they were utterly brazen about it - when I challenged them they dredged up the most outdated justifications and opinions to back up these hateful little thoughts. I asked my boss about it, and he said he had never been able to understand why so much racism existed in such a small group, but it was there. I can fully believe that the gay male community is still, to this day, not racially open and inclusive. It is a blight upon an otherwise proud and successful community which has done so much to further the cause of minority rights. Again, I stress that it is not something I found in all or even many gay men, but certainly in a far higher proportion than one would've expected. I have no doubt that, as in the rest of society, it is declining, but it's still there. If you're already black and gay - not an easy combination - to find that the community you want to join doesn't always like the colour of your skin must be a horrible shock.

Yeah, sounds about right.

The problem May has is that there's enough votes in both the hardcore Leave and Remain factions in the Commons to scupper the plans if they move too far in either direction, so everything has got try and appeal to both sides. Unless a lot of compromise is reached and both sides are willing to find a way through then it's going to be very difficult.

As I understand it, yes, pretty much. It's one of the reasons the whole process is so flawed; Rees-Mogg, Redwood, Fox and all the other ultra-hard Brexiters will be perfectly happy to lose the vote and have no deal.

The word around Whitehall for several weeks now has been that the UK govt is willing to pay ?10bn per year for three years on which we still have access to the Single Market during the 'translational phase', plus a final payment. Quite how this squares with the ending of free movement in 2019 I don't know, but perhaps the EU is willing to deal over that. I think May hopes to win a solid majority in order to be able to override any Remain rebellion and force through a hard deal, but now has to face up to being willing to be flexible. Could be wrong though...

Well this'll be the last thing I say then, but if you can't see where you've gone over the line then that's your problem. I suspect you and the internet aren't going to get on, because you can't seem to recognise the point at which you plainly needed to step away from the keyboard. I wish you luck; anger is a terrible poison, believe me I know.

Ronni, seriously, you're taking this too personally. I'm all for strong opinions being expressed without reservation but now you're just coming across as a bit foolish. Your age and gender have nothing to do with it, and openly threatening people isn't going to get you anywhere. You may indeed mean every word you say, in which case I'd suggest not getting involved in online discussions if you feel you can't - or shouldn't - keep the online world and real world separate. As I say, I'm totally in favour of people speaking their mind and not holding back, but even I recognise there's a line, and I think you just went over it. Maybe step away from the forum, and remember those things in life that you cherish and care about - the EDF plainly isn't one of them, so you aren't losing anything by not engaging with it. Defending your position is cool, but past that you're slipping into pure anger, which is never healthy.

Of course they think it's ok to fuck up the country; they won't have to deal with it. Wish I was surprised by that, but I'm not. They're totally happy to patronise and be condescending to younger people who will have to clean up the mess they've made, and have no idea of what they're doing.

John Kelly has been bought in to be a proper Leo McGarry, no doubt. He looks like he'd eat your eyeballs without breaking a sweat.

And slowly but surely the Republican Party reminds Trump that they own his arse.

red devil > > Farage is on record before the Ref saying if it > was a close vote for Remain the fight would go on, > in fact he quoted 52-48% as an example. And that right there showed up the hollowness of UKIP's position. After the result they were perfectly happy to admonish and abuse others for 'not accepting the result', having already stated that under the same circumstances they would not accept it if they lost. > I suspect immigration is a reason why a lot voted > for Brexit in the poorer areas, but that is > something that can be addressed without leaving > the EU. There are already means within the EU to > control immigration more than we currently do. > Plus there's more immigration from non-EU > countries, something we have total control over. > The Hard Brexiteers ignored all this and just > allowed immigration to be a convenient stick with > which to hit the EU with... Immigration was pretty much the ball game, and Leave knew it. We are always happy to blame our troubles on foreigners - we have a proud history of it in this land - and in fairness there are parts of this country that have suffered because of it. But we've thrown the baby out with the bath water now, and when the promised changes don't occur quickly enough - which they won't because most people have no understanding of the complexity involved and the Gov isn't bothering to explain it - there will be anger.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm sure what riles most Remainers is how the > Brexiteers have totally dismissed how close the > vote was and the concerns of Remainers. They > haven't taken the narrow margin into account at > all. It's all very ''We've won, fook you''. This is very true - there's been a near-total rejection of the idea that the 48% are still citizens of this country. However, in fairness a lot of communities felt they weren't being listened to by London and the other big urban areas, and successive govts have sidelined them. We as a nation have treated them as an irrelevance, and I've felt for a long time we shouldn't. That said, those are parts of the world where it's still pretty easy to find, shall we say, unenlightened views, and they've been very happy to take EU funds when offered, so I'm not sure that they are blameless. > I'd like to think that if the Ref result had been > the other way round with a close win for Remain, > that the Gov would've taken this on board and > addressed concerns from those who voted for > Brexit. We've witnessed the current Gov sitting-up > and taking notice that a lot of people in the > election voted against their plans for further > austerity, and accordingly they have dropped some > policies. Maybe, maybe not. I've seen a lot of comments from Brexiters to the tune of "if we'd lost we'd have accepted the result", which I don't believe for a second, and I think we would've seen a change in policy as a result of the pressure. Whether it would've been enough is a different matter. It's a shame that the same Gov can't do > likewise with Brexit, which to me makes it clear > that the 'Brexit at any cost' brigade are still > pulling May's strings... The Euro-sceptics scare May more than the Remainers. I can only imagine the back room dealing, threatening and begging going on. I have no idea how she'll get it all done.

It's possible that the ending of free movement won't really change anything at all, that registration will be about as effective as registering for the local neighbourhood watch. If you want to control immigration then you either need to stop people at point of entry (this requiring a visa system), or allow them in but only permit those with visa's to have a job (putting the onus on business to police immigration). Simple fact, as recognised by Hammond (and most of UK business), Johnson, even Davis, is that they can't just turn off the flow of labour to this country. Rightly or wrongly we are currently too reliant on low-skilled immigrant workers. We won't be ready to cut them off by March 2019, and I don't see how they can materially change things that fast.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40774251 > > Free movement to end in March 2019. Is this the PM > trying to put Hammond in his place? When will the > Conservatives understand the mess they have caused > and that this isn't about playing party games > anymore? > > Have they even a plan for the Irish border? This will be...interesting. If they really are going to end free movement in 2019 then the question becomes what replaces it? The Irish border is indeed a massive question, and I don't see how they can have one rule for Ireland and another for everyone else. I mean, if you're going to end free movement then does it get replaced by a visa system? I can't see how we restrict it without requiring people to hold a visa, anything else is still allowing entry to the country. Perhaps we can allow people to apply for a work visa once they have entered the country or something, but mostly this seems like a can of worms to me. If they mean ending all free movement, entirely, then we'll surely need some kind of system like any other non-EU country, and I'm just not convinced that we will be ready in less than two years.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heath81 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > more often than not this is the outcome of many > > political or religious debates, people pushing > > their own views down the throats of others!! > > I think you are absolutely correct heath81. > > I was disappointed with Alan Medic's post earlier. > He posted a NY Times link. I thought I'll click on > this (unusual for me), it might be an objective > view from across the pond, or at least a different > perspective. Sadly, it's written by our own Jenny > Russell, from the (London) Times, that well known > remainer. So, nothing new in the article and > remainer Alan posts a link that agrees with his > views. Nothing new here folks, move along. Is that in the same way that a Remainer might say "nothing new here folks, move along", when a well-known Brexiter writes an article? Just because it conforms to a viewpoint someone disagrees with doesn't make it irrelevant. > > Loz, > "The country is sick of low living standards, and > polls show that people are fed up with austerity > cuts to public spending. Voters wanted and > expected Brexit to make them richer." > > Correct. Cannot disagree with this part. As for > your second paragraph yes, it might takes years to > improve the lot of the less fortunate. What's > wrong with that. Nothing is wrong with that per se, but as Seabag points out, there is a huge question mark over whether Brexit will deliver what it promised. We live in an age of instant gratification and election-cycle promises made and usually broken or at least evaded. One of the main things that dissuaded me from voting Leave was the total absence of anything (and I mean ANYTHING) concrete from the Leave campaign. I was essentially being asked to take on faith that it would all somehow become better. On a matter of this magnitude I require more than than a demand for my blind allegiance to support it. Many people voted Leave because they wanted change, but they have little to no understanding that the change they want will, if it ever comes, be delivered imperceptibly slowly. If the Leave campaign had said "we'll make your lives better, but it's going to take at least a decade" I'm not sure they would've been so well received, but at least they would've been more honest. Too many people think that somehow come March 2019 it will be a land of milk and honey, and Brexit politicians are doing nothing to play down those expectations. > > JoeLeg, it would be nice to bring a different > perspective to many of the ideas expressed on this > thread but it appears I'm verging on trolling (ie, > disagreeing with the majority) so I'm going to > adopt a lower profile and let the sewing circle > reassure themselves. > Well, ok, that's your choice. I would say it isn't trolling to disagree, and the minority view must always be heard, but to be fair some of your comments are a bit troll-esque, though I think that's just your posting style, and nothing to do with Brexit in particular. This is a Remain-heavy area, and if you stick your head into the debate then you can't be surprised at the responses. To describe it as a sewing circle is no more valid than me levelling the same comment at any number of forums where a Leave mentality prevails - go and check out anything populated by the military, fishermen or most rural communities. It's a shame if you don't want to engage in debate, but that doesn't mean you have to belittle people who don't think the same way. We've ended up with some fairly polarised opinion in this country precisely because of that mindset.