Damn sultan, how old are you?
The Great Get Together
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
I live in Hexham in the North East, it's 20 miles from Newcastle and is a pretty wealthy town but quite insular so I'll try and genralise the answers to what I hear in pubs, these aren't typically what I feel but what I hear around the bars from mates etc, most of whom are blue collar worker, from working class backgrounds.
1. What are the top 4 or 5 reasons people are divided in the UK. Please give specific descriptions of the groups of people.
The South / London / Liberal Left
People on the dole
The justice system
The Scottish
2. Why does the opposing group specifically dislike the other group?
The South / London / Liberal Left - they see Corbyn, Milliband, Abott, as all party of some stitch up on the North East, they believe no political party has any interest in what happens up here as long as minorities are looked after, though the people that live here have very little interest in the wider country than what happens in their little town whose biggest employer is an Austrian wood manufacturing plant.
There are quite a few Austrians, Germans and eastern Europeans in the town and they have fitted in great and there are no issues there, I never hear anyone complaining about migration but there are hardly any people from any other ethnicity who aren't white so I'm not sure what would happen if there was an influx of Syrian refugees but I'd imagine with it being a pretty wealthy town they'd fit in straight away with help from the older community in the town (i'll mention under 25's further on) even with the local UKIPers who I've found aren't really bothered about people's colour just they don't want mass immigration (even though it's very small here)
Younger people from working class backgrounds who have hardly left the area for any time are probably more resistant to immigration of people that aren't white, I reckon around 75% of people under the age of 25 who I know voted for Brexit and blame immigration for most of their inadaquacies and I'm sure with the likes of the EDL and social media and not thinking for themselves they're easily swayed. Most of these have relatives who work at the local factory which pays a decent wage for an unskilled job but with no options for younger workers and Newcastle being 20 miles away, if you're not from a family who can afford to give you a hand to get to Newcastle daily or get a decent apprenticeship like a plumer or spark you're stuffed into pretty crappy jobs from when you leave school.
People on the Dole - people where I live detest anyone who hasn't worked for any period of time, it doesn't matter what job you do you've got to have a job, the under 25's believe this and have no time for it, there are quite a few families where I live like this but they're also near enough career criminals too so really are total scumbags.
The Justice System - most believe that the criminal system is crap, career criminals getting tapped on the wrist for crime after crime whilst sitting on the dole offering nothing to society whilst just robbing everyone around them
The Scottish - they get everything whilst the North East just gets shafted, there is a real dislike of Sturgeon and Salmond round here lately, probably more so than the London based MP's like Corby and Abbot who are absolutely hated.
1. What are the top 4 or 5 reasons people are divided in the UK. Please give specific descriptions of the groups of people.
The South / London / Liberal Left
People on the dole
The justice system
The Scottish
2. Why does the opposing group specifically dislike the other group?
The South / London / Liberal Left - they see Corbyn, Milliband, Abott, as all party of some stitch up on the North East, they believe no political party has any interest in what happens up here as long as minorities are looked after, though the people that live here have very little interest in the wider country than what happens in their little town whose biggest employer is an Austrian wood manufacturing plant.
There are quite a few Austrians, Germans and eastern Europeans in the town and they have fitted in great and there are no issues there, I never hear anyone complaining about migration but there are hardly any people from any other ethnicity who aren't white so I'm not sure what would happen if there was an influx of Syrian refugees but I'd imagine with it being a pretty wealthy town they'd fit in straight away with help from the older community in the town (i'll mention under 25's further on) even with the local UKIPers who I've found aren't really bothered about people's colour just they don't want mass immigration (even though it's very small here)
Younger people from working class backgrounds who have hardly left the area for any time are probably more resistant to immigration of people that aren't white, I reckon around 75% of people under the age of 25 who I know voted for Brexit and blame immigration for most of their inadaquacies and I'm sure with the likes of the EDL and social media and not thinking for themselves they're easily swayed. Most of these have relatives who work at the local factory which pays a decent wage for an unskilled job but with no options for younger workers and Newcastle being 20 miles away, if you're not from a family who can afford to give you a hand to get to Newcastle daily or get a decent apprenticeship like a plumer or spark you're stuffed into pretty crappy jobs from when you leave school.
People on the Dole - people where I live detest anyone who hasn't worked for any period of time, it doesn't matter what job you do you've got to have a job, the under 25's believe this and have no time for it, there are quite a few families where I live like this but they're also near enough career criminals too so really are total scumbags.
The Justice System - most believe that the criminal system is crap, career criminals getting tapped on the wrist for crime after crime whilst sitting on the dole offering nothing to society whilst just robbing everyone around them
The Scottish - they get everything whilst the North East just gets shafted, there is a real dislike of Sturgeon and Salmond round here lately, probably more so than the London based MP's like Corby and Abbot who are absolutely hated.
There's been a lot of ground covered already here, and by those with greater stories than i can bring to the table, however...
I would say that such events as Brexit did more to highlight the divisions among the native British population, than differences based upon race/faith. The latter had existed for some years already after all, thanks to the practices of successive governments. Those who live in many of our largest urban centres, be they newly arrived migrant or of long residence, were drawing upon different experiences of opportunity when compared to smaller towns or rural communities. Worse still, there was scant respect for these contrasting grievances. Londoners and Mancunians to name but two, are often more fortunate than they first suppose.
Even in the CE, throwaway remarks regarding age and class are not the rarity they once might have been. Given the geographical challenges involved, my suggestions would be for a virtual Get Together on Facebook or the like.
A sizeable proportion of the political class also struggles quite badly with notions of an overarching English or British identity, which has had an adverse effect IMO. Unlike our friends across the pond, that shared aspirational quality doesn't play a significant role when advancing multiculturalism in Britain. Sure, there is an element of this at the Olympics, however it's not an instinctive feeling from which unity stems.
More practically speaking, the thorny issue of housing is something on which much hinges (at least here in London). I don't only mean the extent of supply, but the failure to realise that swift changes to an area's demographics could be the source of resentment. Instead of managing the flow or mitigating the impacts, government left the matter in the hands of the market and walked away. One of the most worldly travelled people i know, with friends of various backgrounds, is also the person who might say the most questionable things about immigrants. Although much of this, i believe, is rooted in what i alluded to above. His family have lived in Newham going back 100 years, and is in some ways your archetypal east Londoner. However those things he would associate with the local area (his origins/identity if you will) have either moved or been replaced. Could a better planning policy on the part of the council have helped? Maybe.
Ultimately, the most lasting impression will be created by an individual's direct interactions. It might be the polish builder who you call upon time after time on account of their good work, or the Chinese doctor you see when attending hospital for a regular appointment (two examples from my life).
I would say that such events as Brexit did more to highlight the divisions among the native British population, than differences based upon race/faith. The latter had existed for some years already after all, thanks to the practices of successive governments. Those who live in many of our largest urban centres, be they newly arrived migrant or of long residence, were drawing upon different experiences of opportunity when compared to smaller towns or rural communities. Worse still, there was scant respect for these contrasting grievances. Londoners and Mancunians to name but two, are often more fortunate than they first suppose.
Even in the CE, throwaway remarks regarding age and class are not the rarity they once might have been. Given the geographical challenges involved, my suggestions would be for a virtual Get Together on Facebook or the like.
A sizeable proportion of the political class also struggles quite badly with notions of an overarching English or British identity, which has had an adverse effect IMO. Unlike our friends across the pond, that shared aspirational quality doesn't play a significant role when advancing multiculturalism in Britain. Sure, there is an element of this at the Olympics, however it's not an instinctive feeling from which unity stems.
More practically speaking, the thorny issue of housing is something on which much hinges (at least here in London). I don't only mean the extent of supply, but the failure to realise that swift changes to an area's demographics could be the source of resentment. Instead of managing the flow or mitigating the impacts, government left the matter in the hands of the market and walked away. One of the most worldly travelled people i know, with friends of various backgrounds, is also the person who might say the most questionable things about immigrants. Although much of this, i believe, is rooted in what i alluded to above. His family have lived in Newham going back 100 years, and is in some ways your archetypal east Londoner. However those things he would associate with the local area (his origins/identity if you will) have either moved or been replaced. Could a better planning policy on the part of the council have helped? Maybe.
Ultimately, the most lasting impression will be created by an individual's direct interactions. It might be the polish builder who you call upon time after time on account of their good work, or the Chinese doctor you see when attending hospital for a regular appointment (two examples from my life).
Last edited:
AncientDamn sultan, how old are you?
The answer is a mixture of culture and genetics. Genetics in the sense that we used to be Hobbsian primates some thousands of years ago. In an evolutionary sense, we're no different now than we were in the time of the Pharaohs. Perhaps with the exception of the immune system, but not much else has changed. Man is born free but is everywhere in chains... this is the old Hobbes/Rousseau argument. A very brief summary of that argument:
In The Leviathan, Hobbes relates his view pertaining to the “state of nature” as a sort of disorderly, violent, antediluvian condition in which man existed before social bonds and communal ties (which came about from a mutual ceding of rights to a sovereign -- flesh or institutional) afforded humans a sort of safety net. For Hobbes, human passions (which govern the natural conduct of every person) mean that a state prior to a commonwealth, or something resembling a commonwealth, will be chaotic and violent. It is for this reason, Hobbes asserts, that humans relinquish rights in order to find protection in artificial, institutional bodies – the body politic, or the Leviathan. In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau contends that something approaching the opposite of Hobbes' interpretation of man's primal state is true. Rousseau argues that the artificial state corrupts (and has corrupted) the naturally peaceful state of nature in which man would find himself had he not formed societal bonds. Rousseau's state of nature departs from that of Hobbes chiefly in the sense that he ascribes all of the passions (which Hobbes considers the underlying causes for a chaotic state of nature) as products of modern society – that such passions do not exist in isolation. Rousseau critiques the Hobbesian view of man as one which he understands as pessimistic and denoting inherent "wickedness" in man's nature. Yet this line of criticism seems misguided as Hobbes does not seek to impose morality upon man, or man in his so called state of nature. On the contrary, Hobbes' view presents itself as one imbued with moral relativism. Hobbes doesn't suggest that crimes such as theft or murder are inherently wrong – or "naturally wrong" – but that if they go against an established norm of a given societal order, they will be perceived as wrong. Hence, Hobbes' Leviathan essentially expounds the opinion that "truth" and "falseness" are creations of man, or as Hobbes notes, "attributes of speech". As such, it logically follows that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are also culturally dependent constructs. The result of this is that Rousseau's criticism of the Hobbesian state of nature appears overly simplified.
When you consider that humans are inherently tribal, and that tribes clash for a host of reasons (greed, necessity, etc), and if you accept Hobbes' argument that our passions require some artificial body politic to maintain peace, then I guess you accept that hatred is a way of life without any specific cause, it just needs to be controlled. If you accept Rousseau's argument, then you're more of the mind that man is inherently peaceful and society corrupts his nature. Hatred and all the rest are societal ills, not found in isolation, as they are in the view of Hobbes.
When you consider that humans are inherently tribal, and that tribes clash for a host of reasons (greed, necessity, etc), and if you accept Hobbes' argument that our passions require some artificial body politic to maintain peace, then I guess you accept that hatred is a way of life without any specific cause, it just needs to be controlled. If you accept Rousseau's argument, then you're more of the mind that man is inherently peaceful and society corrupts his nature. Hatred and all the rest are societal ills, not found in isolation, as they are in the view of Hobbes.
The point is, that if you ask sweeping questions such as why people are prejudiced, you're doomed to find yourself interpreting (and reinterpreting) semantics, ad infinitum. I like the Rousseau/Hobbes dialectic because it nicely captures the split between the two most prevalent worldviews. Are we inherently evil (in a sense that we understand, not in any true religious sense), or are we made evil via social interaction and environmental exposure. Not sure which one I agree with, but a synthesis of the two is probably worthwhile.
This is the challenge, isn't it? For me mixing is a way of life: my family comprises a mix of three races, I live in a pretty mixed area and I work in a university where not to mix is pretty much impossible. But until now, I have never asked myself why should I mix? I think it is case of what you miss out on by not mixing. If I hadn't mixed as much, socially, I would have missed out on a lot in terms the relationships and friendships I have had, the experiences I have had, what I have learnt; professionally I would not have been able to do my work properly. So although this will sound like grandiose, liberal waffle, I would say mixing opens your mind and your world, and literally increases your opportunities in life. I think, for example, people who mix freely with others are more likely to look further afield for employment opportunities; people who are blind to race have literally more opportunities to form friendships and relationships, and so on.
I couldn't agree more. Mixing with people from different backgrounds, countries, experiences opens literally another world.
Thanks for alerting me @sammsky1. I don't think I have anything especially insightful to contribute though, I'm not from the UK and despite spending a lot of time there these days the kind of issues raised in this thread by other posters are nothing I've ever really experienced growing up acceptably comfortable in Dublin in the 80s and 90s, and the time that I've spent travelling and living abroad (especially in Islamic countries) has been as a fairly privileged white/western visitor, in many ways shielded from the kind of tensions you're looking to explain.
Perhaps as a historian I can make a small contribution though...
What's interesting about this is that it wasn't always the case. When the British first conquered and then consolidated their power in Bengal in the second half of the 18th century, they generally adapted and assimilated quite well into local society, with many fascinated by Indian civilisation, wearing Indian dress, marrying Indian women, converting to Indian religions, etc. William Daleymple has written some popular histories on this (most notably 'White Mughals'), but a common theme in writing on the period has been the attempt to understand why the British changed their approach in the early 19th c. to that which you describe. Most cite a combination of a shift in the relations of power (which always tends to breed contempt for the weak from the strong), the evangelical revival of the period, and the triumph of a particular form of liberalism associated with JS Mill (his father wrote a history of British India who ch derided the earlier conquerors for their embrace of Indian culture).
Perhaps as a historian I can make a small contribution though...
What's interesting about this is that it wasn't always the case. When the British first conquered and then consolidated their power in Bengal in the second half of the 18th century, they generally adapted and assimilated quite well into local society, with many fascinated by Indian civilisation, wearing Indian dress, marrying Indian women, converting to Indian religions, etc. William Daleymple has written some popular histories on this (most notably 'White Mughals'), but a common theme in writing on the period has been the attempt to understand why the British changed their approach in the early 19th c. to that which you describe. Most cite a combination of a shift in the relations of power (which always tends to breed contempt for the weak from the strong), the evangelical revival of the period, and the triumph of a particular form of liberalism associated with JS Mill (his father wrote a history of British India who ch derided the earlier conquerors for their embrace of Indian culture).
Spivak said:
It was about empire building. The English sought to create a proxy Indian class; subservient to British interests, but with autonomy in the governance of ideological Indian affairs. This meant in a practical sense that the English had to segregate themselves from the Indians to pronounce the distinction, otherwise the notion of a ruling class (on which the empire lived) would have collapsed.
Such an amazing story, thank you so much for sharing. It was so inghtful and and intimate. And what a life you have led!!
I especially found these two bits really interesting
Do you (or anyone else) think the native English trait of people 'reserved' still exists? Surly those days are long gone. Especially in cities where social interaction is partly fuelled by 'tinder' type apps. Likewise, young Brits are known worldwide for their unique take on fashion, music etc, certainly in London.
Thanks, I think the reserved English trait still exists probably more so in older people, a fear of embarrassing themselves plus people keeping themselves to themselves which I find less evident in Europe and elsewhere.
One trait that I thought was typically English was to carry on, whatever problems arose, defy the odds, strength of character - I find that seems to have been replaced by blaming everyone and anyone for their hardships. People seem miserable and when I go there I feel miserable.
I get the impression that they don't want to be different to their fellow Brits and at the same time they don't like people different from them to close to them, maybe more so with people of middle-age or older.
The Uk is supposedly a multi-cultural tolerant society but I'm not convinced. There has always been something near the surface and current events have released it more in the open.
I feel there is always animosity against foreigners whether they are immigrants or not. Still an obsession about WW2 about the Germans, French, Italians in particular. I can speak from the French point of view, they tend to like Brits, like the Royal family and so on. Despite Germany invading them I've never come across the same anti-German feeling you get among the older generation in the UK . I would say that the anti-Islamic feeling is similar in France to the UK though.
On a lighter note, regarding fashion I remember soon after I met my wife in the 70s I was in her small town in the Alps dressed in yellow trousers , six inch platform shoes and long hair, being tall already and at the time thin as a beanpole an old woman came up to my wife and said , how old is that giant woman.
I think she thought I had landed from Mars
.
That article is fantastic. Thanks so much for sharing!!
On the one hand, the story of the 2 girls is how people from all spectrums first meet 'different' people. But I was also staggered by the Tajfel theory. Power mongers who understand such human behaviour regularly make hay.
.
It fits Nigel Farage strategy very well. By using common UK cultural symbols such as 'pub and pint' he quickly positioned himself as representative of many pub goers. With the categorisation cracked, so he filled pubs up and down the UK with his narrative.
Sign outside the Royal Simla Club, only for use of British Officers from the East India Company
On the subject of division, I often think that a lot of people don't tend to hate individuals from certain groups they malign, but it's more the wider idea of what a certain group represents. If that makes sense.
Obviously it's not wholly applicable (nothing often is) because there are plenty of people who are quite genuinely prejudiced when it comes to race/sex etc, but in many cases it's often more on a general basis. So, for example, someone may hold certain concerns about immigration and may view the effects of immigration in a particularly negative light...but they'll probably make an exception for a shopkeeper/restaurant owner they get on well with, or an extended family members foreign partner. Of course, the extent to which said person dislikes immigration can vary wildly...it could range from a simple desire to see immigration reduced, to something bordering on a more genuine prejudice. It's something that I remember reading about being quite prevalent in the US. Rural Americans who were kind of stereotypical anti-immigrant types often wouldn't hate black people living in their own community, because such people had integrated with them and become a part of their culture. What they were wary of, though, were the inner city communities with high crime levels/violence/unemployment/poverty etc.
Likewise, I think that can be expanded into various different groups. A working-class man who holds a bit of disdain for, say, the London elite types isn't likely to view his son in the same bracket if his son has advanced and is holding down a good job. He'll see his son as having worked hard and being clever to have gotten where he has. Likewise, someone like that may make a sexist comment or too, perhaps not with bad intentions but more out of humour, either genuine or misplaced, but he'd perhaps be outraged if someone said something similar to, say, his daughter.
I think the problem is that we too often generalise. Among the so-called elites, there's a variation between left-leaning Labour types and staunch Tories. Obviously certain groups will lean more in one direction than another, but there'll always be significant outliers. The biggest Jeremy Corbyn fan I know is a pro-immigration, Remain voter in their 80s. That's something which goes wildly against the normal trends. Being in Scotland, I've seen rare cases of parents who were voting Yes to independence against kids who were voting No. Again, that went against statistical trends. I've seen people who express views/ideas which would be vastly out of sync with the vast majority of what they believe.
One of the problems is that it can be hard to discuss opinions/change views online. In person you're often a lot less likely to be confrontational unless it's in your nature - if I call a good friend a dick tomorrow because I disagree with him, it effects our future relationship, unless it's in jest. If I do it on the comments page of a Guardian article, who gives a feck? I'm probably never going to interact with said person again...but it's still not a good method of discourse. Online communication is great; this thread is a perfect example. But it's often limited. Things that really tend to change your perspective/outlook happen in the real world, most of the time. Although that's not to say online communities can't have a massive effect.
I'll probably think of more at some point (might look more at the mention of Scotland) but that's some thoughts I've sort of spewed out.
Obviously it's not wholly applicable (nothing often is) because there are plenty of people who are quite genuinely prejudiced when it comes to race/sex etc, but in many cases it's often more on a general basis. So, for example, someone may hold certain concerns about immigration and may view the effects of immigration in a particularly negative light...but they'll probably make an exception for a shopkeeper/restaurant owner they get on well with, or an extended family members foreign partner. Of course, the extent to which said person dislikes immigration can vary wildly...it could range from a simple desire to see immigration reduced, to something bordering on a more genuine prejudice. It's something that I remember reading about being quite prevalent in the US. Rural Americans who were kind of stereotypical anti-immigrant types often wouldn't hate black people living in their own community, because such people had integrated with them and become a part of their culture. What they were wary of, though, were the inner city communities with high crime levels/violence/unemployment/poverty etc.
Likewise, I think that can be expanded into various different groups. A working-class man who holds a bit of disdain for, say, the London elite types isn't likely to view his son in the same bracket if his son has advanced and is holding down a good job. He'll see his son as having worked hard and being clever to have gotten where he has. Likewise, someone like that may make a sexist comment or too, perhaps not with bad intentions but more out of humour, either genuine or misplaced, but he'd perhaps be outraged if someone said something similar to, say, his daughter.
I think the problem is that we too often generalise. Among the so-called elites, there's a variation between left-leaning Labour types and staunch Tories. Obviously certain groups will lean more in one direction than another, but there'll always be significant outliers. The biggest Jeremy Corbyn fan I know is a pro-immigration, Remain voter in their 80s. That's something which goes wildly against the normal trends. Being in Scotland, I've seen rare cases of parents who were voting Yes to independence against kids who were voting No. Again, that went against statistical trends. I've seen people who express views/ideas which would be vastly out of sync with the vast majority of what they believe.
One of the problems is that it can be hard to discuss opinions/change views online. In person you're often a lot less likely to be confrontational unless it's in your nature - if I call a good friend a dick tomorrow because I disagree with him, it effects our future relationship, unless it's in jest. If I do it on the comments page of a Guardian article, who gives a feck? I'm probably never going to interact with said person again...but it's still not a good method of discourse. Online communication is great; this thread is a perfect example. But it's often limited. Things that really tend to change your perspective/outlook happen in the real world, most of the time. Although that's not to say online communities can't have a massive effect.
I'll probably think of more at some point (might look more at the mention of Scotland) but that's some thoughts I've sort of spewed out.
@sammsky1
Long-ish article, might be of interest.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/11/confessions-gentrification-race-rogers-park-chicago
Long-ish article, might be of interest.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/11/confessions-gentrification-race-rogers-park-chicago
If only there had been more English appointments like Sir Charles Bell (the Tibetologist).
JUST WANTED TO SAY
This afternoon I met Brenden Cox, Jo Cox MP's widower, some other senior Labour MPs and staff members of the Jo Cox Foundation.
We talked about my understanding on this subject, which was greatly improved by everybody's brilliant contribution on this thread (I showed him this thread and said I send him the link), and I shared with him some initial ideas that I had. They were all very happy with my empathy and understanding on the subject and even learned somethings with insights I shared from this thread!
So Ive been asked to write a brief and work with my creative colleagues and write some scripts. I will do that over the weekend, and will ask for your help again, to provide context and insights.
We all love the Danish example and so one route to consider is a British version of this film: ie gather different stereotypical segments of British people. (eg: Brexit, Remain, Tories, Labour, visibly Muslim, EDL, Christian, visibly Jews, footballers, actors, politicians etc, etc, etc. and then ask them all to rearrange themselves around different criteria. If this criteria can include 'very British cultural habits' like enjoying tea, tikka masala, fish and chips etc, that could have high relevance and impact and vitality.
But we will also develop some other ideas.
Anyways will get back to you, once I make some progress.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for your sharing some intimate stories about your experiences and opinions on this subject. Really, I'm very grateful and hope you will continue to help me!
This afternoon I met Brenden Cox, Jo Cox MP's widower, some other senior Labour MPs and staff members of the Jo Cox Foundation.
We talked about my understanding on this subject, which was greatly improved by everybody's brilliant contribution on this thread (I showed him this thread and said I send him the link), and I shared with him some initial ideas that I had. They were all very happy with my empathy and understanding on the subject and even learned somethings with insights I shared from this thread!
So Ive been asked to write a brief and work with my creative colleagues and write some scripts. I will do that over the weekend, and will ask for your help again, to provide context and insights.
We all love the Danish example and so one route to consider is a British version of this film: ie gather different stereotypical segments of British people. (eg: Brexit, Remain, Tories, Labour, visibly Muslim, EDL, Christian, visibly Jews, footballers, actors, politicians etc, etc, etc. and then ask them all to rearrange themselves around different criteria. If this criteria can include 'very British cultural habits' like enjoying tea, tikka masala, fish and chips etc, that could have high relevance and impact and vitality.
But we will also develop some other ideas.
Anyways will get back to you, once I make some progress.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for your sharing some intimate stories about your experiences and opinions on this subject. Really, I'm very grateful and hope you will continue to help me!
Last edited:
Good stuff @sammsky1
Come on guys, he's seeking inclusivity. Work will make you free.
Yep: some very strong divisions even among labour voters!!! Will also include that in the VDO!!
My point in that Election thread is that as a life long labour voter, I deeply resent Corbyn's aim to tax me even more for absolutely nothing in return. I do not like CorbynOmics and prefer Blairite (minus Iraq) thinking. Personally, I don't think socialist left wing thinking is very relevant in the UK anymore.
The debate in that thread is what is causing schisms in the Labour party right now. Leftists vs centrists.
I dont understand this statement. I don't have hereditary wealth in the UK so have no option to work hard. Because of that hard work, I enjoy a certain amount a freedom.
Sorry, it may have lost something in translation. It's from the German 'Arbeit macht frei'.
I thought you went to top schools, man? You don't know your history, it seems. It's a very infamous phrase.
I had a feeling this thread would eventually deliver the comedy.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Dont forget that cracker.
He's right to be fair, all these lazy poor people, scouring in the internet for free content rather doing the decent thing and paying people for it. Back in my day you had to work hard to succeed.
There's not enough time for education when you've exams to pass.