Brexit means getting the hell out asap.

Churchill was raised in the Remain campaign. They used the same line you have.
Essentially remainers are traitors and they don't like to be thought of this way. It's not a good look. But traitors they are. Siding with foriegners against domestics.
So they raised the spectre of Churchill to drape themselves in the flag of nationalism.
Thy chose a totemic patriot to associate themselves and the EU with.

Only they failed. Because, well being a traitor to your own people, is being a traitor to your own people.
No loyalty to us.

 

Most, possibly all, Remainers have their agendas. Either they have family members or other contacts in Brussels, and have ambitions to join them at the end of their domestic political lives, or are embittered at losing but too dumb to understand that the entire ill-conceived and misbegotten project is doomed to implode. And there was a small cohort of tiny-minded Brits who thought the main advantage for remaining was because they wouldn't need to convert their euro currencies back into Sterling on return from their European holidays!

 

I have quite a lot of sympathy for those with split loyalties on family ties.

While for me loyalty is the key issue of the debate, I don't honestly expect national loyalty to override personal loyalty.
If you are in love with a Euro=girl, I don't expect your loyalty to random strangers to be a stronger priority to you than this.

Outside of that it just seems to me to be a battle for political control of the country.
Those who would condescend me, expect me to reward that condescension with my subservience.
Socially inadequate.

 

I wonder what Brenda thinks about it all?

 

No, he's been employed by the Brexiteers, reflecting inane patriotism (as arguably reflected in this thread)

This is churlish, nothing more.

Most sensible folk would ignore Churchill. The left wouldn't find much common ground with him, given his imperialist nature.

I voted 'out', with stance similar to Tony Benn. I did know, however, that I would find little common ground with other Brexiteers. The lack of rational comment is spectacular.

 

Well, you have a different recollection of history to me.
And for a man who thinks it sensible to ignore Churchill, it is worth recognising that you brought him up, not we. So I am smiling at you now.

Like you, I knew Brexit would earn me some strange bedfellows.
The respondents in this thread for example, with the exception of Rhetoric, are well beyond my comfort zone. We are not well matched ideologically.

But I am a live and let live kind of guy.
If you want socialism to take over, then you are just another Hitler in my eyes. You must kill me before your dreams can come true.
If however you wish to live a free life of socialism without enforcing your dreams and aspirations on those who don't share them, you will be welcomed under my flag in battle.
I will stand with you.

It takes all sorts to make a world.

 

I didn't. I laughed at his mention by Brexiteer. Try not to put your foot in it!

I doubt that. You've suggested a blanket "remainers are traitors". That doesn't suggest to me fine-tuned understanding of the heterogeneity in opinion.

I don't stand with anyone with blinkered understanding. It doesn't matter if its right wing 'inappropriate' celebration of Churchill or 'confused' comment over socialism

 

Remainers are traitors.

This is you discussing Churchill. I stand corrected Cerberus started it. But I am still smiling at you.
Using big words doesn't make you sound any smarter.

Stand with who you like, I offer you peace, protection and the mutual respect of equals but if you insist on war I will give it you.

 

Quoting Churchill is using big words? Wowsers, that's a new one on me. You could have just apologised for being wrong.

No, you offer class limitation and empty platitudes.

 

I did acknowledge being wrong, a pity you weren't man enough to acknowledge for your own mistake in the misquoting of Churchill or the use of it in the leave campaign.
I don't feel any apology is required,I feel the comedic irony/hypocracy of your comments remains true despite my mistake. I don't really want to distract from that point since it is a funny one.


I don't give a **** what you think class limitation is. Like everyone else I have my own ideas and experiences on the subject and don't have to bow to yours.

My platitudes however are not empty. Much as you may wish them to be.

 

I don't expect honesty, so no problem! The idea I misquoted is funny though. God bless!

And that's the reality! You're happy that we continue with high child poverty and low social mobility. It doesn't really matter. You can still come out with the empty platitudes!

I don't think keyboard warrioring will help you much. Made me laugh mind you.

 

The reality is you wouldn't know child poverty if it jumped up and bit you.
You have never even starved. Never even seen starvation and have in fact lived a soft and comfortable life safe in the arms of mummy and the welfare state.
Never seen a women rent her children out to passing lorry drivers even.

You have never been poor, never been rich and never gone from poor to rich and back to poor and then back to rich again. Talk to me of class limitations, ROFL.


So as smart as you think you are, as superior as you think you are, I feel I am too.
And everyone else will also.
Not one of us needs bow before your superiority, because you have none that we recognise,

Happy to get a laugh. My favourite response.
Keyboard war is all you will ever require. If you require more you will get more.
I expect that is all you've got to be quite honest. Which is why I don't have to take you seriously either.
And indeed no one does, which is lucky for you really. Because I don't think yo'd like the response you'd get very much if they did.

The conceit of equality, saving your arse from your mouth. And mine too.

 

Well gosh I didn't know you knew my background. And, by golly, I didn't realise you had decided I knew nothing about our food banks or our amenable mortality rates engineered by poverty. Perhaps you thought Adam Smith was a retard when he saw poverty as a relative concept and didn't go by some right wing grunt understanding of what poverty has to mean?

Lots of keyboard use, zero content. I blame the tabloids!

 

I don't need to know your background.I know mine,

Your background is reading the Guardian mate. Talking in the big words you learned in your very expensive education.
Trying to peck your way up the social ladder by putting others down.

Had all the breaks required in life to get as rich as the next man, but haven't.
Easier to blame society than face up to your own short comings.

Restricted by nothing more in life than your own poor attitude.

For you poverty is just a statistic. Words in books you haven't read.
Food from charities you neither use nor donate to.

What possible use could I have for your judgement. None whatsoever.
Go back to reading your luxury newspaper.

 

Lots of comments about me and its about you? Yep, logical!

Hate the Guardian with a passion. Can you get anything right?

And finish with an attempt at insult (while trying to justify our crass inequalities no less). Well golly, aren't you a predictable one!

Is this more "I don't need to know your background. I know mine"? Weird!

 

Yours is quite obvious. You live in the land of milk and honey.
The land of unrivalled opportunity and yet still moan about the lack of it.

That you take yourself so seriously makes you a joke to me.

 

So you know my background now? Make your mind up! Perhaps you're pretending to be an Auntie Mildred?

Interesting how, when questioned, the hate begins to seep out. But isn't that true of most right wing mentalities? Of course the reality isn't fun. We have high poverty and low social mobility. Despite that, you think sitting on your hands is fine. Despite that, you want to make it worse with your sub-Daily Mail attitudes over Europe...

 

High poverty?
WTF?

Not in this country we don't mate.
Time for you to broaden your horizons, you seem quite without perspective. Go travelling. See a bit more of the world.

Social mobility here is excellent, hence poor people from around the world flock here in their millions to take advantage of it.

 

Reality. See, Smeeding's analysis. He fixed poverty according tot he US definition and showed that no developed nation could compete with British poverty. That problem reduced under New Labour. Its since gone through the roof.

The "yeah but, yeah but, developing countries are poorer" is also post-truth. As I previously said to you, we've known poverty is relative since the days of Adam Smith.

This is a lie. We have low social mobility and a documented underclass. Immigration reflects world income divides, it doesn't reflect domestic opportunities. Do you get all your comments from the Daily Mail? If not, why pretend that you do?

 

No developed nation can compete with British poverty.
UG.
Developed nations are where the poverty isn't.

Post truth? This is babble speak for what exactly?

Social mobility is very high. So high in fact that most people are now middle class.
In my life time i have gone from the smallest house in the village to the biggest house in the village. I've lived on the street and in a mansion.
I teach in the university. I work in a factory. My father was a binman, he sent me to private school.
Some of my friends live in caravans, others palaces.

There is high employment. Super low interest rate bank loans. The lottery.
Education is abundent, Investment is abundent. Free health care, free food.
A gazillion government schemes and charitable loans.
What opportunities do you feel you are missing?

Did Alan Sugar not make you his partner?

Sorry but I'm not crying for you, You will not do well in life with your attitude. I think.
Immigration does reflect domestic opportunities. I work with immigrants. If there is a job for them there is a job for me.
Might be too working class a job for some of course, But hey, I'm not stuck up.

 

Nonsensical. Poverty differs according to type of economy (e.g. liberal democracies generally have higher poverty than social democracies). None can compete with the UK. The Americans have less effective welfare state provisions (though I'm sure that has narrowed considerably, given the ideological harm generated by the Tories), but we start with greater inequalities.

My apologies if it isn't the Daily Mail and you haven't caught up. I should take into account your reading.

Refer to one empirical study that finds Britain's social mobility is high. Good luck!

This is blubbering. Sorry, try evidence and not tabloidism.

I loved this comment. You're clearly ignorant of the type of jobs generated. You're clearly ignorant that interest rates are low because of low economic activity. You're clearly ignorant that the lottery is effectively a tax on the poor. Each to our own mind you!

Can you spell abundant correctly? Its not important to me, but you're pretending to be knowledgeable! Education doesn't necessarily increase mobility. Indeed, given inequalities at further education level (which are then inflamed by fees), the evidence suggests that the growth in tertiary education has actually reduced mobility.

Its not about me. Your lies about my background are irrelevant too.

He's an enemy of equality of opportunity though isn't he? He's a supporter of New Labour after all, which maintained the inefficiency of Thatcherism

 

Spelling is one of things I am supposed to be good at. Oh well.
Don't tell my agent please. I do proof reading!

Sugar is a self made man. He is the embodiment of social mobility. From zero to multi millionaire in one lifetime.
If you are looking at him and see a lack of social mobility, you have lost the plot entirely.
Under Thatcher my families fortunes changed dramatically. As indeed did the nations in aggregate.

Under Blair many of my friends fortunes changed dramatically.
Social mobility of course is not a one way street and under Blair my own fortunes went into reverse.

Interest rates are low. This is an opportunity for people without capital to get cheap capital.
If you are looking at low interest rates and see a lack of opportunity, you have lost the plot entirely.

Make as many excuses for yourself as you like. You are an educated man in one of the richest societies on earth and people are bending over backwards to offer you a head start.

If you are determined to feel a victim of repression, carry on. But I see no need at all to take you seriously in any way. You wish to fail, so you will fail.

 

Fascinating.

I'm falling asleep now!

Why do you think he supported New Labour who actually, despite their good record in reducing child poverty, also inflamed inequalities?

You don't have to answer. I don't think you will say anything interesting...

 

Night mate, it is getting late.

Honestly, you haven't said anything interesting yet.
Just a load of twaddle.

Non existent problems seem to obsess you.

 

Yes, a good sleep for you will be good. I look forward to more logical comment tomorrow.

Its a shame that a lowly working class fellow like me is using language that is too much for you. I'll read up on Etonian tonight to help me tone it down for your class preference.

Please refer to any study that concludes Britain has high social mobility. That you don't accept the bleedin obvious perhaps describes the problem with our right wing media...