@John Scully
Well as a small part of the £12bn in cuts, presumably our Winter Fuel Allowance is gone to be followed by another disagreement with the EU about whether it's legitimate to discriminate against us in France.
Well that's a turnip for the book.
Well it is the sabbath, lettuce pray...
Sticks of celery are a pretty good substitute.
I would offer the rhubarb BUT cropped the lot and presented it in the form of crumble at dinner last night (with portions frozen for future reference) but avoid the cold shower at your age, I remember them when I was as young as you...
Bob you offer your political ideology on a plate to those who wish to attack. Be very careful in using sarcasm to accuse others of sarcasm, it escalates. There is to much commonly denied truth in what she says which does not oblige anybody to subscribe to her way of seeing it but it is there. Increasing poverty is very real and has been exacerbated over the last five years. However, Thatcher and Blair sowed very efficacious seeds of that poverty that Brown and Cameron have in turn nurtured. History shows that societies have breaking points and whilst I do not advocate or like in anyway violent revolution, which I think very unlikely at present or the immediate future, it is building up in the direction of the societal dichotomy which breeds revolution. There are too many truths in her words to deny, but it is far too easy to do so and turn ones head away from them.
So yes, an an angry woman but with justification more than vitriol. To compare with the Clarkson polemic is disingenuous because they are not comparable. Yes, she did a hatchet job on him but to compare with a lay analysis of UK society pointing out social and economic contrasts is not as you are saying dismissively. It is largely because you are political poles apart and display that, especially in the use of a particular vernacular language in your thread asking whether it is bad to be a Tory, a position. If I say it, then I will always make it clear that I howl with laughter when I read Red Ed, the Labour Party are communists and such trite statements because I am a self-acknowledging socialist who sees those people as more like Tories of yesteryear when there was at least real grassroots in parties. I knew many Tory working class people, indeed avid trade unionists among them. The reality is that far too many politicians and especially, particularly Tories, but the rest as well, are entirely divorced from the realities of life. A £12bn welfare cut will be met by the usual howls of 'why should we pay the scroungers to do nothing?' as a justification. Sure, they exist, but area very tiny minority as too foreign wives with 12 children and other such exaggerated examples to Tory supporting press present. The problem is that there is no counterbalance in the media really, just a couple of 'liberal-ish' papers with relatively small (and to an extent elite) readerships. So we hear the 'scum' stories and the majority who are increasingly being treated very badly and going from bad to worse are somehow pasted over on the wall behind the vivid 'wallpaper' of negative reporting.
You apparently dislike democracy. Your recent comment on people demonstrating says that very clearly. The UK is a country that has always welcomed free speech and freedom of expression and opinion. Sure, the election is done and dusted, a majority party in office but why should people not protest anyway if they do not like it? Must they just accept and remain mute? But there we go, the European country on track to be the only one of the 47 members of the Council of Europe without a 'human rights act' that will be replaced by a bill of rights tailored by government lawyers. Why? To draw the UK away from the European Court of Human Rights and also the European Court of Justice because the government feels decisions they reach interfere with governance. In Europe it will put the UK in line with Belarus only, not a CoE member, and may require the UK to leave the CoE under certain circumstances. Then people will be at risk of the ability to go to the streets to express themselves being outlawed without legal redress. Is that democracy? I wonder where the UK is going but I do not blame a single party, they are all essentially part of it. Lumped diminishing freedoms together with poverty and Claire Wilsher's words become potentially an illegality blowing in the wind. I do not think most of us actually want that, so let her words be since they are just part of that democratic freedom that remains.
In truth, there is nothing wrong with either being a Tory or having an opinion. What is wrong is being entirely dismissive of all other positions and often well stated presentations of the unsavoury facts. No more wrong is being a so-called leftie (real ones being a rare species, but OK that is all in people's minds too) and wishing to speak out openly about society as it is and one sees it. It is sometimes the choice of language and presentation. I do not think Claire is doing that so ideally, but that is all the cockier the way you provocatively and actually rudely begin your comment then move on to inflammatory expression. So which of the two of you is right? If your intent is to have conflict with people then you are in the wrong place but if it is to have fair debate then accept others' points of view without throwing in things like the Clarkson link as a put down and debate rather than mudsling. Here James asked only about the implications of the election results for UK citizens living in France (not excluding the views of others) rather than wishing to attract a political polemic. However, if that is what you wish there are people who will take you on. I will debate until the cows come home but other people get frustrated and angry by sarcasm, rudeness and being effectively told they are wrong out of which some nasty disagreements develop. Yes, debate by all means, but forget the rest of it.
Yep, "oh for the days of Empire..."
..where everyone knew their place eh Sahib ?
They also own large parts of the UK. Tata owns Rover/Landrover/Jaguar for instance. If the UK was so idiotic as to leave the EU, Tata have said Landrover would go to India and Rover/Jaguar to Europe. Various other large concerns are Indian owned or part owned. The Hinduja brothers are amongst the richest people in the world and own large chunks beginning with Ashok Leyland (once British Leyland) among them.
Whereas people with wealth form 10% of the richest with 850 times the income of the lowest 10% in the UK, that proportion is 1:1,300,000 billionaires to people on the lowest incomes in India. Britain's five wealthiest individuals hold a collective worth of £28.2bn, whereby the total held by the bottom 20% in British society is £100m less at £28.1bn. The comparison in India is not worth bearing out.
The tax burden shared in either country by the wealthy elites is only comparable to that of around an accumulated 5% of the entire population in the UK and around 0.002% in India. The morality of these economic and financial injustices is not good in either place where the rich are getting richer and the poor proportionately poorer to the point that in some places standards compare with the late 19 century in relative terms. Oh for the days of Empire and all the good it did everybody! Well, the elites anyway.
To add to it some. Class is not an indicator of intelligence but can be a very direct means of access to high places, for instance power. Part of that is the means by which to be accepted at elite universities without the school leaving qualifications 'ordinary' people require and where far too many do the 'easy' option of modern history in order to a degree and usually achieve a result of no particular distinction (Osborne 2:1 or Charles Windsor 2:2 are two very typical examples). They then have 'guided' career paths and often reach high places in their chosen or re-chosen professions.
I have taught a fair few, some are actually very bright but the privilege does help whereas less fortunate souls who have intelligence, intellect and creative talents do not do so well because they have no pre-prepared foot in the door. Some of both stand out. A former bearer of a high political office who is still an MP was in a year I taught in the mid 1980s. Despite being one of around 20 he stood out and I did not take to him, not that I got to know him really, and wonder how he got as far as he did? However, with his average degree and a good break he opportunistically moved from one party to another and into what he has done since. People without such backgrounds, accents and the complete set of a particular way of conducting themselves, accent, manners, manner of dressing and contacts do not tend to make it in politics. Those who do are exceptional and should be the leaders.
Anyway, it particularly applies to men. Take a look at last week's newspapers and full length shots of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. They all appear to be wearing the same suit, which is because they wear what is expected of them for their position. Then look at the CVs and see that there is hardly a hair's breadth between them. They are of and have the class to do as they do, ideology is not always the guiding principle as to which party they join and eventually climb high in but a kind of pre-set opportunism based on who one knows. So, Cameron could have become Labour leader and Miliband (despite the famous 'Marxist' academic father) could as easily have been the same in the Conservative party.
That is just an insight into it to explain the class and education dichotomy of UK politics for those who are not of British origin or simply wonder why and how these people get where they are. Myself: working class background, passed exams, worked hard but never had the right accent, manners and so on, so I guess I was more tolerated than included although I was one offered a set in parliament. Oh yes, I was neither a party member nor would I have had a constituency, that would all have been put in place favourably for me. I declined, have no regret at having done so and would never have been happy had I done so. I am far too actively political, which is one of the things the people from those places who go into and climb high in politics are expected NOT to be or become.
Figure it out if you can. It is why I dislike UK politics as much as I do and see none of the people worthy of representing the majority of the population for who they care little and about whom they know less.
So many ideas here that a few people should grasp the nettle and get involved and stand for the next parliament
Kent, With all due respect all politicians are charlatans, it’s only the degree that’s debatable.
[1] Even if we're here permanently, and many aren't, I think we're entitled to be concerned for our friends and family in the UK.
[2] Half a million people is hardly a little protest. I won't call it a riot - yet.
May I respectfully remind folk that this is a forum for people living in France. That’s why it’s called Survive France not Survive Gulford nor Survive Anglesey, for example. I thought James’ original post was to tease out the implications of the recent Tory win for British expats in France (correct me if I’m wrong James) not to facilitate British residents having a political go at one another, amusing as that might be 
I’m much more interested in Brexit scenarios, Scottish independence etc. that little riots in London.
Yes, David it is sickening how rich folk behave while others suffer. India or Britain hey?
Elizabeth: class is something that pervades British society at all levels and that foreigners don't generally grasp completely. It is based on all sorts of things, many of them intangible.
Accent is usually a reliable class indicator and indeed one that British people use all the time. It isn't at all passé although many people pretend it is.
A public school is what you in the US would probably call a prep school ie a private boarding institution eg Winchester Eton, Rugby etc (google them), there are also other independent schools which aren't what we call public schools.
Grammar schools were/are state or charitably funded selective schools for clever children of all backgrounds, they were abolished in many parts of the country and some became independent schools.
If you don't understand why this is important in any discussion of British politics, have a look at the educational background of the Cameron administration, then do the same thing for previous Conservative governments.
Gotta share: Claire Wilsher's blog.
An open letter to everyone who voted Conservative yesterday and why you should hesitate before you pat yourself on the back.
may 8, 2015 claire wilsher. conservative, election, food banks, politics
To everyone who voted conservative yesterday,
I hope you’re happy. Actually that’s a lie, I really don’t. But before you sit smugly down and give yourself a big pat on the back I’d like to ask you a few questions.
Do you think you haven’t benefitted from the system you are currently trying to break down? As a child, did you ever go to hospital? Have you had an education? Did you ever use a library? Have you ever been on a bus? If so, you have benefited from a system which subsidises facilities with taxes. And now you have, you are willing to take it away from everyone after you. Correct me if I’m wrong but that doesn’t seem very fair. You cannot have socialism and a support system when you need it but then be unwilling to support it for other people.
Now if you are someone who has used the private sector more than public services then I also want to know a few things. If you went to private school, or used private medical care as a child, did you pay for it yourself? Now I’m not asking if your parents paid for it, but you personally. I’m guessing the answer is no. So can you genuinely say you worked hard to get these privileges? No baby earns the right to an education. No child works hard to be born into a particular family who can afford healthcare. So why do you think one person is more deserving than another? If you value working hard and getting on how can you see this as fair? Do you really want to live in a world where children are deemed more worthy of education and healthcare based on what family they come from?
If you are someone who uses a lot of private, who are you? Are you one of the 1% who are currently getting richer? If so, are you ok with the fact that your benefit is someone else’s misery, someone’s poverty, someone’s lack of care? Are you ok with the fact that while you got a pay rise 900,000 people had to go to food banks because they literally didn’t have enough money to feed themselves to survive? Do you really believe that you work harder than these people?
If you aren’t one of these few people benefitting from this system then why have you voted for it? Conservatives use rhetoric of working hard and fairness but this is simply not the reality. If you start life without a lot, to get out of that is hard. “Success” stories are pinned up to show that if you work hard you get somewhere. But they are stories because they are anomalies. To come from a background of little education or money and to get a career you want is not the common way, and you can’t do it without a benefit system. We do not live in a system where if you work hard you get somewhere, the system the conservatives are creating means that if you start off well off you stay that way. Because someone who goes to a private school with tiny class sizes and one on one help does not have to work as hard as someone at an underachieving state school with over worked underpaid staff and huge classes. They just don’t.
Now if you are either one of these types of people you have to question whether you really do believe in what you have voted for. Because in voting conservative you are saying you are happy with the last 5 years. You are endorsing food banks. You are endorsing cutting care for the elderly and the mentally ill. You are endorsing a party where over half the MPs voted against gay marriage. You are saying yes to the NHS being privatised. You are saying you are happy with people being put off education based not on ability or passion but by money. You are saying yes to victimising the poor and disabled and scapegoating people based on where they come from. You are saying that you are ok with the incredible inequality in our country today and you are saying you want more of it.
I do not wish poverty on anyone. It is a cruel and harsh life. But what I do wish for you is that you at least experience it. If not first hand, that you witness the harsh trapping reality that is poverty. The gruelling cycle that doesn’t allow a parent to feed their children. That doesn’t allow for parents to feed themselves. And that you see that this is people who are working. People with jobs. And if they aren’t I hope you see that a life on benefits is not the picnic people make it out to be. Nobody wants to be on benefits. Maybe if you see this you will see what you have voted for.
And if you are ok with all of this then you make me sick. I can’t put it any other way. I am so ashamed to come from a country where this is apparently what the majority think. That the majority of people are too selfish to accept any form of tax rise to support those in our society who need help makes me so incredibly sad. Truly you should be ashamed of yourself that you can so heartlessly put yourself first and not see the consequences. I hope that in the next 5 years you fully appreciate what you did yesterday. I hope you know what you have supported and I hope one day you feel guilty. Because I am scared of what the next 5 years will bring and you should be too.
@ Margaret Schooling, Thank you.
@ Brian Milne, agreed.
@ Kent Shelley - Excellent comment and not far from the truth in any part of it, the simplest answer to tactical voting though is to BAN political parties. Let's have MP's elected from a short list, with the qualifications including 1. Living in the area they stand to represent 2. Full disclosure of their work and education experience and any connections with business, unions, shareholdings, other existing MP's or candidates at that election. 3. A fixed salary. 4. No expenses. 5. Hotel 3* accommodation provided whilst they attend parliament. 4. No family expenses. 5. No 2nd homes. 6. Parliament to relocate to an existing commercial premises in one of the following cities Manchester, Middlesbrough, Bradford, Exeter, Norwich, Leicester, Bristol. 7. No ceremonies, no Right Honourable (seriously !) no entertaining on public property, no "talking out" papers. 8. A 48 week working year; including say 8 weeks working in their constituency office. 9. A 40 hour working week, with clocking in and out. 10. Biennial elections to vote them back in (if they have done a good job for their (local) electorate or to vote them out (sack them) if they have not. 11. No campaigning, just a summary of their record provided to anyone who can vote or who wants to see it. Finally ..... 12. Pension (unless they opt out) for which they will contribute, employers contributions added. And that is ............ a job, given this governments penchant for everyone getting employment I see nothing wrong in that. They can elect or sack their own specialists to lead committees or departments in the same way we will have elected them.
I see political preferences are seeping through and becoming arguments rather than discussions and name calling of leaders (and ex-leaders) of parties. Such prejudices are exactly what the now entirely professionalised career politicians who mainly have zero real life experience use and their Lynton Crosby and David Axelrod 'advisers' feed on. It is all pushed through the media which in the UK is very right wing leaning and centrist with no left wing counterbalance (if people say the Grauniad or Indy are lefties I shall burst a vein, neither is any such thing). So the days of real vote winning balancing the partisan alignment of people who support parties over generations is over and thus genuine democracy swallowed by a big slick machine. It has got worse each election and I dread to imagine what 2020 will present. All integrity is gone, politicians are a social set aside who know nothing of 'ordinary' people's lives and the future looks full of that in great store. Not only do I wish to vote in the country I live in but I now feel (for myself) that I find that UK politics is becoming like the USA's version and I want no part in it. It is through and through dirty, all parties and all who enter politics, a lost cause.