Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
GERMANY is very proud,that we got THE VOICES of IRELAND,knowing
about THE GREAT HISTORY of IRELAND and hers POPULATION in Past and
BELFAST LEVINA DUBLIN
TUESDAY,16th of May,2017
NOWADAYS unfortunately the question will be who will
lead England to Russia 2018.
After they got enough , they built boats, vessels, cars, planes-
THEY SAID GOODBYE TO GOD a make they own buiseness.
THERE IS ONLY ONE, TO COME BACK.
FIRST GOD CREATED MAN.
AFTER THAT, GOD CREATED WOMAN BY A MAN.
THEN THEY WERE THREE
TAORMINA, ITALY, 27th off MAY,
I DO UNDERSTAND DONALD TRUMP NOT TO AGREE TO THE PARISIENNE CONTRACT-
CONSIDERING THE EUROPEANS OF HIS GROUP IN BEAUTIFUL TAORMINA-
A WONDERFUL PLACE WITHIN OR WITHOUT!
MAY 17th 2017
All of them will be found in PORTUGAL 2018.
Very interesting article.
Pity the "recommend" button has been abandoned by the Economist.
We "old" people were making the world safe for democracy and spreading multinational companies around the world for decades before you "young folks" were born. Do you think you're the first generation that's ever traveled more than 100 miles from home? Your grandfathers fought a World War that took them across Europe and Asia. After the war they remade most of world in the image of American and British civilization. They created the great multinational corporations that spread peace and prosperity to primitive and violent parts of the world. They served in the military for decades of Cold War to outlast the Commies and bring down the Iron Curtain.
You had nothing at all to do with that great work, which you deride as "old mining village." You, like every other generation, rides the coattails of the world your grandparents and parents built through "blood, sweat, toil, and tears."
Your children and grandchildren will likewise inherit the world you build. Of course they will also think of you as an "old dinosaur who lived in a village." You wait and see! :-)
Correction: Maggie fell in 1990 not 1987
so 'Globalisation and technological disruption have created a demand for community'. Really? Surely this is just a natural human instinct, but the rise of global travel, communications and movement (emigration/immigration) have just spread these communities more widely? What May actually be happening is that the older, less educated and more conservative are trying to re-create the past as they imagine it to have been - like all those twee old mining villages full of nostalgic older people - what about the young?
Another excellent piece by the new Bagehot. Thank you. One small niggle. Jeremy Corbyn's "rebranding" efforts are not so much hard-left as 70s retro nostalgic. Mr. Corbyn seems to be a very nice man, but he's not very bright. In some respects he is an accidental leader. It was simply "Buggin's turn" among the handful of parliamentary die-hards associated with the Labour Representation Committee. It also appears that in so far as he picked up anything about politics and economics he learned it from Tony Benn and the effusions of Chomsky and Pilger about the evils of the Amercian Empire. The thought processes, if they could be dignified as such, and the slogans are straight from the '70s - even if the latter have been tweaked a bit via social media. The whole approach aches for a resurrection of some of the lost collectivism and social solidarity of that era - and it is clear that some voters also mourn their loss, but the current leadership of the party is pathologically incapable of rejuvenating these ideas and practices in the modern era. However, these ideas and practices will have to be rejuvenated to address the nativist revolt of those who feel marginalised and excluded and which contibuted to the Brexit result.
What a poor article by the Economist's standards: a history lesson followed by questionable assertions that aren't backed up in the main body of the article by any evidence whatsoever.
The citing of Jean-Claude Juncker's alleged remarks as representative of EU attitudes is like saying Nigel Farage's excesses speak for the UK (something the Daily Mail might claim but surely not The Economist?) Where is the evidence that "all but the most die-hard remainers" will equate the UK's national interests with those of the newly Europhobe Conservative party?
And if the line of argument is so poor then at least get the details right: Cameron's risible popularity stunts were termed "hug a hoodie" (which was about countering stereotypes of deprivation rather than sexual minorities), not "hug a husky" (something that could possibly be more associated with his Bullingdon Club adventures).
Mrs May has more of a chance of making a reality of the “one nation” slogan than any of her recent predecessors. This is partly because of who she is. Margaret Thatcher was an embodiment of Southern English triumphalism.
It's interesting that the Wall Street Journal echoed this exact same theme on its editorial page today. The WSJ op ed piece is annoyed that May might be prone to regulating the banks and financial markets in order to make them slightly less prone to extracting wealth from the masses and siphoning it off to the Fatcats. From afar, she seems like a savvy PM who will try to be fair with all interests f the poor, wealthy, and middle class. Best wishes to her and all of Britain.
I noted that too, was about to comment.
In a presidential style popularity? campaign, even a charmless Mrs "two-sound-bite" May can defeat someone whom is regarded by even his enemies as "a nice fellow" in Mr Corbyn.
Conservative HQ has figured out that:
1. Most people won't notice anything at all and vote Conservative regardless. Even those (particularly the poorer 75%) who are hurt the most by Conservative policy (to be fair Tories have said almost nothing on policy)
2. Of those that do notice, because news in general is far less objective than it used to be and tend to focus only on the right or left view, most won't notice or will ignore Mrs May's contradictions
This undermines the representative parliamentary democracy that the UK is based on, and all for a media show of "Conservative electability".
The husky photoshoot slipped my memory (and probably almost everyone else's by now). It was wordplay on the "hug a hoodie" label. However, in the context of the article, the hugging is more relevant in a social policy context than environmental.
In short, and using the melody accompanying the last two lines of a well known song.....
She will build Theresalem,
In England's strong and stable land
Type "Hug a Husky" into google and you will find it is a term used when David Cameron went to the Artic and drove a sled pulled by huskies to promote his "green" street cred.
I assume, there are many voters in the UK who'll vote Tory because they want a unified front in the upcoming Brexit negotiations but otherwise hold believes, that are much closer to Labour.
Labour should try to win voters who want closed ranks in the negotiations AND more money for the NHS.
To achieve that, Labour could declare, that it's MPs will support everything Brexit related coming from the Government. (And maybe ask the Tories to do likewise in the event of a Labour win.)
Don't let the Tories turn the election into a referendum on closed ranks during the Brexit talks!
Make it clear, that a Tory mega-majority is worse for the country, than having a strong Labour faction in parliament supporting the government when it comes to Brexit related issues, but fighting fiercly for the interests of the common man on other important issues..
(My humble 5 cents. But what do I know. I'm not even British.)