GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Aegis:
<STRONG>Actually, it's the attitude, and the fact that Canada is the only "colony" as their government refers to us, that they won't let go, for good... Come on, I mean, they let go of the Aussies! Why not us!</STRONG>

Hey, if you had the Aussies, would you want to keep them?

Hmm.... You have a point....

Another thing I hate about the British id their teeth...



(Yeah, I know, cheap shot)

I wasn't aware that British teeth were all that bad... that's what orthodontists are for!

Heathrow airport and the warm beer...

@Georgi, pubs closing at 11pm isn't so bad when the public transport system closes at 12am. Both have to change

@Aegis - I think its more a case of Canada refusing to let go of momma's apron strings...

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>Perhaps one of my biggest gripes is despite what the middle/upper classes say there IS a division. They may, too, have debts - it is all relative. The more you earn the more you spend. But they will never know what it is like not to be able to afford a newspaper, or fresh bread and milk for their kids </STRONG>

That's a very thoughtful post. I'd say it's true about the UK and the US, two nations that pride themselves about being egalitarian: both have very clear, strong class distinctions, in which money, going to the proper schools, and being "brought up" in the appropriate firms are essential. The only difference, as I see it, is that in the US the upper class is generally smart enough to rule by owning everything except the government. (And there are exceptions to this--Pierre Dupont III, or "Pete" Dupont, as he likes to call himself whenever he's running for President, is a good example.)

But in the UK, the upper class is addicted to meddling in politics, which attracts all kinds of unfortunate attention to their lifestyles, sexual pecadillos, and general unimaginativeness. Lady Thatcher is a modern instance of this phenomenon: money first, then devolution to the peerage so she could diseminate her remarkably medieval political factoids to the largest possible public.

One other point: why is it that so many lowerclass Brits--and not just English, for that matter--automatically side with the party that wishes to give money to their hereditary enemies? My brother-in-law is of second-generation impoverished Irish descent. He, like his parents, is a staunch Republican (in the American sense of the word), quite conservative, even though he's never gained a thing from the party he supports. I've heard that in the 19th century, many dirt-poor heckled those lower class politicians who were seeking their votes, because they got some vicarious sense of control out of intellectually siding with the Master of the Estate. Other than my brother-in-law, does this still hold true?

I think it holds true in some cases - Essex for example is not an affluent area but can be a true blue Conservative stronghold.

But in the main, you could put a monkey up to run for Labour in most working class constituencies and they'd still vote for them.

Take the North East. We've had Labour local governments for decades and they've done naff-all to lift the area out of *poverty*. To say that this is the fault of national government is to admit that local government is powerless.

Posted by Fable -

Lady Thatcher is a modern instance of this phenomenon: money first, then devolution to the peerage so she could diseminate her remarkably medieval political factoids to the largest possible public.

Margaret Thatcher was born in Grantham. Her father was a greengrocer - I think they may have been comfortable (in her words working middle class) but I do not believe she 'came from money' as such. She received her peerage following her record term in Government (more so than any real achievements, other than crushing any left wing activity such as workforce strikes )

Posted by Fable -

One other point: why is it that so many lowerclass Brits--and not just English, for that matter--automatically side with the party that wishes to give money to their hereditary enemies? My brother-in-law is of second-generation impoverished Irish descent. He, like his parents, is a staunch Republican (in the American sense of the word), quite conservative, even though he's never gained a thing from the party he supports. I've heard that in the 19th century, many dirt-poor heckled those lower class politicians who were seeking their votes, because they got some vicarious sense of control out of intellectually siding with the Master of the Estate. Other than my brother-in-law, does this still hold true?

I think so. I grew up in a mining village during the miners strike. The Labour party had a field day, convincing the working class population that the Tories (always considered pro-crown and upper class) were out to destroy the working class ideals.

To this day you have spots in this country that will always be pro one party - mainly because their families 'have always voted labour'. Go to Rotherham and vote Tory - a wasted vote. But you have said your bit.

Unfortunately in the UK, the parties are much of a muchness. Labour slated the Tories when they brought in 'Poll Tax' to replace rates. The Tories eventually amended this tax to 'Council Tax' which is means tested on property value, whereas Poll Tax was a tax on each individual over the age of 18 in a house. We have not seen the Labour party revert to the old rating system.

Until recently I considered the UK to be a two party government. I was criticsized this year for choosing not to vote.

My reasoning was I do not like the current party and have no faith at all in the opposition. I believe they should redesign the voting card to provide an 'abstination' box to cross and I would happily cross it. Then we would see the REAL balance...

Besides, since the tragic death of Screaming Lord Such (who lived quite close to me incidentally ) I have started to lose interest!

What better use could we make of butter mountains than ski-slopes?, and what better idea to cut pension costs and heating bills/TV licencing subsidies than funding all our over sixties to emigrate to Barbados

Yshania writes:
Margaret Thatcher was born in Grantham. Her father was a greengrocer - I think they may have been comfortable (in her words working middle class) but I do not believe she 'came from money' as such. She received her peerage following her record term in Government (more so than any real achievements, other than crushing any left wing activity such as workforce strikes.

Yes, but she came into money through her husband. Even before entering politics, they were already in the well-upholstered class. Of course, they aren't throwing it around like second- or third-generation wealth, but the Thatchers still had it before she joined the Peerage Club.

Posted by Fable -

well-upholstered class

I like that No plastic covered chairs with metal legs or lino in their home

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>
Gruntboy's list of pet hates about Britain
Manchester ( )
</STRONG>

*Tips her bottle of brown ale over Grunt*

Manchester is pretty sound- apart from the Gallagher brothers.

What I hate (especially after spending the summer in hot places) is the weather. I know this is an age old pet hate, but its so bloody miserable all the time. And its meant to be summer.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>But in the main, you could put a monkey up to run for Labour in most working class constituencies and they'd still vote for them.</STRONG>

I would vote for a monkey before Tony Blair anyday, and i am serious.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>I would vote for a monkey before Tony Blair anyday, and i am serious.</STRONG>

Any particular breed?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Any particular breed?</STRONG>

Chipmunk, they are sort of similar already so i suppose it wouldn't be that much of a change for the people of the UK

Originally posted by vixen:
<STRONG>Manchester is pretty sound- apart from the Gallagher brothers.
</STRONG>

And, Manchester Utd. The only thing I can say good about the Gallagher brothers is they support Man City, not United.

Originally posted by Georgi:
<STRONG>Hey, if you had the Aussies, would you want to keep them? </STRONG>

*thinks, without hurting herself* I could be wrong, but isn't that a bit hypocritical of you, Georgi?

*gets hit by the aftereffect of thinking and goes off to find some Excedrin*

Originally posted by Minerva:
<STRONG>And, Manchester Utd. The only thing I can say good about the Gallagher brothers is they support Man City, not United. </STRONG>

I thought you were only allowed to support Man Utd if you didn't live in Manchester and had no connection to it whatsoever?

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>*thinks, without hurting herself* I could be wrong, but isn't that a bit hypocritical of you, Georgi?

*gets hit by the aftereffect of thinking and goes off to find some Excedrin*</STRONG>

No, I imagine if you just had one of them, it could be housetrained I wouldn't want all of them

Hmmm, what don’t I like about Britain? That’s a hard one. Being an average American I know next to nothing about foreign nations, nor do I have any desire to learn more about them.

God bless the U.S.