Are Tories welcome at Glastonbury

[Quark]

4 minutes ago, glastolover19 said:

My point is if you can flip burgers or clean toilets and they are the only jobs out there at that time then you take that to tide you over until something more suitable comes along

Not really an answer though

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Quark said:

Very true.

sadly you factored it in as important for the things that favour you, and dismissed it as unimportant for the things which didn't.

[hfuhruhurr]

If you have a skill then you need to use it - i.e. find a job that will pay you more because of that skill. To become an unskilled commodity (a human resource), a min wage number if you have a skill is a mistake. It ultimately doesn't put food on the table, it grinds you down and lowers your self worth until you feel that's all you're good for. I know loads of graduates that have gone into the machine to earn some money and are still in the machine. Self confidence gone.

[glastolover19]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

Which I why said that if you're out for too long of course you look at other options.  How long that is varied from person to person.  What are your savings like?  Have you got a joint income? What cutbacks can you make?

And as for an excuse, sure some people can use it as an excuse. Am I using it as an excuse? Absolutely not.  Everything comes down to individual cases.

Saying you can make time is again a very black and white way of looking at it.  I have no doubt that you've known and worked with people who are in roles that they're massively overqualified for.  My point is that you aren't able to put the ideal amount of time and effort into jobseeking in those cases.  How flexible are employers where the roles have a quick turnaround time and a short notice period when someone keeps taking time for interviews?

It's not difficult to make time unless you work 24/7, we all have things we have to make time for its just a case of priorities. I work average 60+ hrs a week yet I still find time for my kids,find time for friends and occasionally find time to post on here,you can make time if you really want. If you worried about time off for interviews etc then seek employment through an agency which will allow you more flexibility to keep hunting whilst still being in employment.

[glastolover19]

8 minutes ago, Quark said:

Not really an answer though

Sorry but I didn't really understand your question

[Quark]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

sadly you factored it in as important for the things that favour you, and dismissed it as unimportant for the things which didn't.

How so Neil?  That's not how I read what I said, but then I wrote it so of course I don't!  Yep, the nature of the way the world works pretty much means that if I get something then someone else doesn't of course.

[glastolover19]

3 minutes ago, hfuhruhurr said:

If you have a skill then you need to use it - i.e. find a job that will pay you more because of that skill. To become an unskilled commodity (a human resource), a min wage number if you have a skill is a mistake. It ultimately doesn't put food on the table, it grinds you down and lowers your self worth until you feel that's all you're good for. I know loads of graduates that have gone into the machine to earn some money and are still in the machine. Self confidence gone.

But surely sitting on the dole hoping that something comes alone is just as bad for the self esteem?

[Quark]

Right @eFestivals and @glastolover19 I'm backing out of this one.  Not a strop but, on the subject of work, I really need to do some.  These topics take far more thought to argue than just writing quick quips about bands I do / don't like! Plus, anything this contentious has waaay too much scope to misunderstood online, which just means more discussion

Pint at the meet

[glastolover19]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

Right @eFestivals and @glastolover19 I'm backing out of this one.  Not a strop but, on the subject of work, I really need to do some.  These topics take far more thought to argue than just writing quick quips about bands I do / don't like! Plus, anything this contentious has waaay too much scope to misunderstood online, which just means more discussion

Pint at the meet

Totally agree with this. As I said before I'm sure if we were in a boozer having this chat it would be a lot less misconstrued and probably with a lot more banter and laughter(hopefully)

I will happily buy you that pint sir,I have no beef its just difference of opinion.

See ya in June

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, Quark said:

How so Neil?  That's not how I read what I said, but then I wrote it so of course I don't!  Yep, the nature of the way the world works pretty much means that if I get something then someone else doesn't of course.

I just saw it as inconsistent use of that background factor, that slanted what you said to how you wanted things to work in your favour - when other more balanced takes are available. It jumped out at me and made me laugh. 

Not a biggie, which is why I included a  

 

[clarkete]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

PPS: can't believe I'm sticking up for Thatcher

I can't believe it either.  What happened to you man, you used to be beautiful  

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, clarkete said:

I can't believe it either.  What happened to you man, you used to be beautiful  

the world is not made a better place by the spread of fallacies, or by the idea that anyone who disagrees with 'me' can only be motivated by evil.

IMO, the tories were wrong in their actions towards apartheid South Africa, but our difference of opinion about that doesn't automatically translate into them glorying in the suppression of apartheid (which is how today's normal anti-tory narrative goes).

And who knows - none of us do - perhaps their angle was actually the right one in the end? I (and most others, i'd say) expected SA to eventually have a very bloody transition from apartheid and that didn't happen, and that might have been because the black population weren't forced into an even worse economic situation via sanctions, where everything might have blown up badly. Things certainly turned out better than in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe where there were strong sanctions.

One of today's big 'leftist' narratives is about how interference in foreign lands ends up making things worse for that place. I'm constantly amused by how quickly that can get binned if the convo turns to apartheid SA, or Saudi, or Israel, etc.  

Edited October 18, 2018 by eFestivals

[Ommadawn]

3 hours ago, glastolover19 said:

My point is if you can flip burgers or clean toilets and they are the only jobs out there at that time then you take that to tide you over until something more suitable comes along

Or not claim benefits.

[clarkete]

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the world is not made a better place by the spread of fallacies, or by the idea that anyone who disagrees with 'me' can only be motivated by evil.

IMO, the tories were wrong in their actions towards apartheid South Africa, but our difference of opinion about that doesn't automatically translate into them glorying in the suppression of apartheid (which is how today's normal anti-tory narrative goes).

And who knows - none of us do - perhaps their angle was actually the right one in the end? I (and most others, i'd say) expected SA to eventually have a very bloody transition from apartheid and that didn't happen, and that might have been because the black population weren't forced into an even worse economic situation via sanctions, where everything might have blown up badly. Things certainly turned out better than in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe where there were strong sanctions.

One of today's big 'leftist' narratives is about how interference in foreign lands ends up making things worse for that place. I'm constantly amused by how quickly that can get binned if the convo turns to apartheid SA, or Saudi, or Israel, etc.  

Now you're the one rewriting history. 

Plenty of them said disgraceful things during that time and long after.  And those views of the FCS in this link were certainly repeated by other young tories too, as I heard them say it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/from-terrorist-to-tea-with-the-queen-1327902.html   

[Nimrod]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

One of today's big 'leftist' narratives is about how interference in foreign lands ends up making things worse for that place. I'm constantly amused by how quickly that can get binned if the convo turns to apartheid SA, or Saudi, or Israel, etc.  

An Israeli leftist who attends to Glasto Thanks you for this sentence.   (but I guess that's an issue for a completely different thread)

[Scott129]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

One of today's big 'leftist' narratives is about how interference in foreign lands ends up making things worse for that place. I'm constantly amused by how quickly that can get binned if the convo turns to apartheid SA, or Saudi, or Israel, etc.  

The 'leftist' narrative is that you shouldn't go in and simply overthrow a regime without a plan for what replaces it or by replacing it with a despot simply because they support the US, like in the case of Iraq, Iran, Libya etc. 

I really don't think you can equate that with peacefully showing solidarity with an oppressed people in apartheid states by not propping up/supporting the regime that oppresse. Or in the case of Saudi Arabia selling weapons which will be used on Yemeni schoolbuses 

[pehaw]

I'm thinking Cultseeker would have enjoyed this thread.

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, clarkete said:

Now you're the one rewriting history. 

really? With what?? How??

I didn't give any history.

I simply pointed out that the 80s Tory govt had one view of the best actions towards SA, and others had different ideas - and none of us know which was actually the better.

 

16 hours ago, clarkete said:

Plenty of them said disgraceful things

w*nkers are always w*nkers.

That's a different thing to what govt policy was at the time. 

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, Scott129 said:

The 'leftist' narrative is that you shouldn't go in and simply overthrow a regime without a plan for what replaces it or by replacing it with a despot simply because they support the US, like in the case of Iraq, Iran, Libya etc. 

I really don't think you can equate that with peacefully showing solidarity with an oppressed people in apartheid states by not propping up/supporting the regime that oppresse. Or in the case of Saudi Arabia selling weapons which will be used on Yemeni schoolbuses 

Yep, you can.

Any action - military, or economic - impacts into what happens next. 

The UK might have implemented strong economic sanctions onto SA (and that was my own view), but if they had there would have been a detrimental economic effect on the very people it would have been 'in solidarity' with.

Maybe those people I'd have claimed to have been supporting wouldn't have appreciated my support that impoverished them?  

(Maybe that would have tipped those people from wanting apartheid overturned into wanting to murder all whites? there were certainly deaths in Rhodesia as a consequence of sanctions).

We can do anything we want with the best of intentions. What really happens is something out of our own control.

Edited October 19, 2018 by eFestivals

[Scott129]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, you can.

Any action - military, or economic - impacts into what happens next. 

The UK might have implemented strong economic sanctions onto SA (and that was my own view), but if they had there would have been a detrimental economic effect on the very people it would have been 'in solidarity' with.

Maybe those people I'd have claimed to have been supporting wouldn't have appreciated my support that impoverished them?  

(Maybe that would have tipped those people from wanting apartheid overturned into wanting to murder all whites? there were certainly deaths in Rhodesia as a consequence of sanctions).

We can do anything we want with the best of intentions. What really happens is something out of our own control.

I think I may have explained that badly. I was just pointing out that the 'leftist narrative' is an anti-imperialist one, i.e. We shouldn't go in and overthrow a government simply because it has fallen out of the US's sphere of influence. The lefitist narrative isn't against sanctions per se. 

I agree that sanctions are a blunt weapon and can harm innocent people and should therefore be used with hesistance.

I do however think theres a difference between explicit sanctions and withdrawing political support for a regime. E.g. Apartheid SA was only able to last so long because it had the economic and political support of the US ( and to a lesser extent UK) and the credibility that flows from that. As soon as that support was withdrawn the whole thing collapsed. I think the same is true of Israel at present. 

With regards to Saudi Arabia its not imposing sanctions on them, it's just saying we do not agree with the genocide you are causing in Yemen and therefore refuse to grant your regime credibility or sell you weapons 

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

The lefitist narrative isn't against sanctions per se. 

if it was about leftish-righteousness it would have been happy to see despotic regimes overthrown.

31 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I do however think theres a difference between explicit sanctions and withdrawing political support for a regime. E.g. Apartheid SA was only able to last so long because it had the economic and political support of the US ( and to a lesser extent UK) and the credibility that flows from that. As soon as that support was withdrawn the whole thing collapsed.

I hope clarkette is going to jump in about your own re-writing of history.  

The UK govt's approach towards SA remained just about consistent from Sharpsville (1960) until Mandela walked free.
(and it's worth noting that was under both Labour and tory govts).

There was no withdrawal of support at the point of collapse to make it collapse. Nothing changed from the USA or UK, who (rightly or wrongly) decided to remain engaged with the SA govt to try to influence it away from apartheid.

 

31 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

With regards to Saudi Arabia its not imposing sanctions on them, it's just saying we do not agree with the genocide you are causing in Yemen and therefore refuse to grant your regime credibility or sell you weapons 

Yes, I know. But a withdrawal of weapons has its own consequences, which is never part of the arguments that get made.

All I'm saying is that different conclusions on the best way forwards doesn't make those of a different view inherently evil.

Edited October 19, 2018 by eFestivals

[Scott129]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

There was no withdrawal of support at the point of collapse to make it collapse. Nothing changed from the USA or UK, who (rightly or wrongly) decided to remain engaged with the SA govt to try to influence it away from apartheid.

I don't agree sorry. The US put sanctions on SA in 1986(?). And when the collapse of communism became apparent the US's justification for supporting SA due to the fight against communism fell apart and it was evident the large scale support would be withdrawn. 

I'm no history buff so may be wrong but that is my understanding. I don't think its controversial to state a) the huge affect the fall of communism had in ending apartheid and b) the role UK and US support played in allowing it to go on so long

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I don't agree sorry. The US put sanctions on SA in 1986(?). And when the collapse of communism became apparent the US's justification for supporting SA due to the fight against communism fell apart and it was evident the large scale support would be withdrawn. 

the '86 sanctions were a trade-off. New sanctions from the UK and USA - tho minorish - but were also a lessening of sanctions by many other countries.

The effects of those sanctions on business in SA were (from the outside at least) very minimal.

They did perhaps help shift attitudes within SA towards apartheid not being sustainable - but shifts in attitudes were happening anyway.

 

20 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I'm no history buff so may be wrong but that is my understanding. I don't think its controversial to state a) the huge affect the fall of communism had in ending apartheid

The fall of communism helped take a bogeyman out of the room - although it's worth noting that the USSR didn't collapse until *AFTER* Mandela was released.

Also happening was a worldwide change in attitudes towards race as modern ideas took hold. There was little kick-back within SA from whites, who'd mostly stopped supporting apartheid.

 

20 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

and b) the role UK and US support played in allowing it to go on so long

It's a view, that's all. We don't have the alternative to measure against.

What we can measure are the crippling and mostly-enforceable (compared to how it would have been in SA with a huge coastline) sanctions on Rhodesia (where the UK had greater reason for a different line) which took over 15 years and thousands and thousands of deaths to bring about change, and then brought about a far-from-ideal replacement govt which failed to take the country forwards.

I was all for sanctions at the time, and I would be again. I'm simply pointing out that the UK govt not supporting sanctions on SA does not equal support for apartheid. It's 100% clear that the UK govt was leaning on the SA govt to try and get them to change their ways.

[Blisterpack]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 the UK govt not supporting sanctions on SA does not equal support for apartheid. It's 100% clear that the UK govt was leaning on the SA govt to try and get them to change their ways.

The changing worldwide view that you mentioned regarding race was driven exclusively by the left in Europe and the US. Thatcher, as a consummate politician if nothing else, knew when the times were a changin’ and May have adapted her approach. My point from a few days ago about core values remains though. The left opposed apartheid on principle, the right for political (and ultimately economic) purposes. We got there in the end as a world but I certainly wouldn’t want to have been on Thatcher’s  side in getting there. I value my sleep too much. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Blisterpack said:

I certainly wouldn’t want to have been on Thatcher’s  side in getting there. I value my sleep too much. 

me, I prefer to be on the side of the best overall outcome, and not a side where prejudice decides my stance. That would just make me the same.