It's a sad fact that the places that voted the EU were, by and large, the places that needed the EU the most.
The wage and employability divide between rural and city widening is partly to blame as well. A lot of the areas voting against were rural, who are losing their younger population to cities since starting any sort of career while living in the country is becoming more and more of a joke. They're not just voting against the EU, they're voting against globalisation and its effects.
It's a sad fact that the places that voted the EU were, by and large, the places that needed the EU the most.
The wage and employability divide between rural and city widening is partly to blame as well. A lot of the areas voting against were rural, who are losing their younger population to cities since starting any sort of career while living in the country is becoming more and more of a joke. They're not just voting against the EU, they're voting against globalisation and its effects.
Agreed. It just pained me on a near physical level because rural development is one of the EU's biggest areas of spending. Like I mentioned in a previous thread, it used to be a five hour drive from Dublin to Waterford. Now I can be there in a little over two hours, thanks to motorways the EU helped build, and I see the EU flag in all sorts of places while I'm down there; farms that receive EU subsidies, the wind energy windmills I pass, redeveloped tourist traps, local business parks, local technical colleges. It's crazy the breadth of stuff the EU invests in.
It's a sad fact that the places that voted the EU were, by and large, the places that needed the EU the most.
The wage and employability divide between rural and city widening is partly to blame as well. A lot of the areas voting against were rural, who are losing their younger population to cities since starting any sort of career while living in the country is becoming more and more of a joke. They're not just voting against the EU, they're voting against globalisation and its effects.
It's not really "globalisation and its effects" either. It's not like a lack of international trade will suddenly make jobs pop up all over the place in rural areas.
shryke on
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
It's not really "globalisation and its effects" either. It's not like a lack of international trade will suddenly make jobs pop up all over the place in rural areas.
This is a difficult one to answer.
It's true that we wouldn't move back to internal rural jobs unless we were actually totally cut off from trade; our wages are too high compared to where we're importing from. Or if we did, it would be at the cost of many other jobs.
For the same reason, our farm, steel, gas, coal, milling and lumber industries - all of which are rural - are non-competitive. Rural industries seem to be dying or dead, since we can import from the global economy, so I would say that yes, globalisation is a root cause here, even while being good for the country as a whole.
It's not really "globalisation and its effects" either. It's not like a lack of international trade will suddenly make jobs pop up all over the place in rural areas.
This is a difficult one to answer.
It's true that we wouldn't move back to internal rural jobs unless we were actually totally cut off from trade; our wages are too high compared to where we're importing from. Or if we did, it would be at the cost of many other jobs.
For the same reason, our farm, steel, gas, coal, milling and lumber industries - all of which are rural - are non-competitive. Rural industries seem to be dying or dead, since we can import from the global economy, so I would say that yes, globalisation is a root cause here, even while being good for the country as a whole.
Except alot of job losses in those industries is due to mechanisation. Especially, you know, farm. And you are trying to stretch the term "globalization" to include all trade period, which is ridiculous.
Rural industries are dead because at the end of the day it's all farming and resource extraction these days. Other kinds of industry, that make up the bulk of modern economies when it comes to workers, have become alot more urbanised for various reasons, many relating to logistics and mechanisation and the like. And those same things have taken a toll on farming and resource extraction too.
@ronya could probably cover this better and fix the parts I'm screwing up here, but blaming this on globalization is missing alot of what's going on.
Like, the simplest way to think about this is what jobs do you think these kids would be doing in rural areas and why do you think they'd even want to do them anyway? Countries have been urbanising since at least the industrial revolution.
+3
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
"I went to the shops yesterday. There was just one security guard. He didn't have a gun. Inside there were 50 shoppers, women and children among them. I could have. .."
I have a feeling this is going to be the next social media craze. Selfies of "places Martin Brunt could have killed me."
Good. It is very important we mock this.
I'm 100% serious, if media outlets start thinking they can legitimately keep us scared with this they'll never stop. Making it abundantly clear they're making tits of themselves is the only weapon we have.
+11
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I have a feeling this is going to be the next social media craze. Selfies of "places Martin Brunt could have killed me."
Good. It is very important we mock this.
I'm 100% serious, if media outlets start thinking they can legitimately keep us scared with this they'll never stop. Making it abundantly clear they're making tits of themselves is the only weapon we have.
And you are trying to stretch the term "globalization" to include all trade period, which is ridiculous.
It is?
Yes. I mean, if you wanna argue the extreme position on it then "globalization" is older then the written word. And doesn't really match the use of the term by the vast majority of people.
But I mean, I guess Brexit could be about people angry at the first guy to wander over the hill and swap some goods with the next village over.
shryke on
+1
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
And you are trying to stretch the term "globalization" to include all trade period, which is ridiculous.
It is?
Yes. I mean, if you wanna argue the extreme position on it then "globalization" is older then the written word. And doesn't really match the use of the term by the vast majority of people.
But I mean, I guess Brexit could be about people angry at the first guy to wander over the hill and swap some goods with the next village over.
I mean
Both of these things are true
Globalization is a massive long term trend, not a recent phenomenon.
The steel market is dying swiftly because in the past decade the Chinese used most of their steel domestically in their ridiculous housing bubble, but that has halted, and now the low labor cost, subsidised steel is flooding the global market.
There is a huge amount of overcapacity at the moment and China has basically gone all in one supporting their sector, betting Europe won't do the same and let our side wither.
I have a feeling this is going to be the next social media craze. Selfies of "places Martin Brunt could have killed me."
Good. It is very important we mock this.
I'm 100% serious, if media outlets start thinking they can legitimately keep us scared with this they'll never stop. Making it abundantly clear they're making tits of themselves is the only weapon we have.
I've started a #PlacesMartinBruntCouldKillMe hashtag on Twitter. Let's see if it takes off.
I have a feeling this is going to be the next social media craze. Selfies of "places Martin Brunt could have killed me."
Good. It is very important we mock this.
I'm 100% serious, if media outlets start thinking they can legitimately keep us scared with this they'll never stop. Making it abundantly clear they're making tits of themselves is the only weapon we have.
I've started a #PlacesMartinBruntCouldKillMe hashtag on Twitter. Let's see if it takes off.
In other news, my best friend was watching Dr. Strangelove the other day and kept DMing me while he freaked out about how relevant it was all of a sudden.
"It's got a sane president and a crazy general! You just need to reverse those!"
"Two groups of US troops shooting each other with a giant 'PEACE IS OUR PROFESSION!' sign on screen!"
"OMG The general kicks off Armageddon because he believes fluoridation is a conspiracy! They should make this movie mandatory viewing before anyone votes for anything!"
+2
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
And you are trying to stretch the term "globalization" to include all trade period, which is ridiculous.
It is?
Yes. I mean, if you wanna argue the extreme position on it then "globalization" is older then the written word. And doesn't really match the use of the term by the vast majority of people.
But I mean, I guess Brexit could be about people angry at the first guy to wander over the hill and swap some goods with the next village over.
Globalisation includes the current capacity for global trade. The first guy wandering over the hill couldn't get fresh strawberries from Argentina in October, if we're going to play silly buggers about this.
But now, with improvements in international travel infrastructure, in freight, in storage, and preservation, the need for homegrown fruits, cereals, vegetables, meat and livestock is minimal. The same is true for resources; coal, gas, steel. These are all industries that were rural British jobs, but cannot compete with other countries, most of them equally mechanised, who have lower wages when exchanged to the pound.
So now we have a whole lot of countryside, and nothing to do with it.
I couldn't possibly sum up any of those things as simply good or ill.
You probably could, if you were forced to pick between two options and it was phrased more like - obviously complications, but do you think ultimately the benefits may slightly outweigh the costs.
Strongly agrees, partially agrees and reluctantly agree all combined together.
Do you honestly think that multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism, environmental awareness, a global economy and the internet are net negatives in the world?
How well do YM and YPM hold up? Some of the individual scenes I've seen still seem relevant, but the political scene has changed since then, so does it still come across as pertinent or are you more likely to come away nostalgic for a less dreadful time?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The performances remain superb, the scripts very sharp indeed and the observations about political life keen and insightful. The political dynamic has changed, I think, since those days, so the clash of the civil service vs the government doesn't seem as relevant (though accounts by recent ministers suggest the tendency to subversively block policy the civil service doesn't want is still present).
It's also one of the few sitcoms that maintained its high quality, or actually improved, as it went on.
How well do YM and YPM hold up? Some of the individual scenes I've seen still seem relevant, but the political scene has changed since then, so does it still come across as pertinent or are you more likely to come away nostalgic for a less dreadful time?
From a historical perspective it's interesting watching the series talk about stuff like the precursor to the Data Protection Act and negotiations over the Channel Tunnel.
There are some things that are unquestionably no longer relevant, but you still laugh at how the characters deal with it.
My favourite moment is the silent (except for audience laughter) five second passage of time when Paul Eddington finds out his predecessor, who was writing a memoir that would have skewered him, has died unexpectedly. His face passes from untrammeled joy to appropriately respectful grief and hits about five different emotions in between.
One historical artifact that interested me is that the Guardian is treated as the paper of the granola-hippies who disproportionately care about minor environmental things, when I think its reputation is much more respectable these days.
One historical artifact that interested me is that the Guardian is treated as the paper of the granola-hippies who disproportionately care about minor environmental things, when I think its reputation is much more respectable these days.
I want to say that The Guardian is the only paper that seems to do (or is interested in) investigative journalism nowadays. The Times has been rubbish for a long time now, and The Telegraph is in a sorry state (they seemed more honest as a paper, when they were run by a crook).
The layout of The Guardian's site, seems to be a cut above the competition as well.
That said, you still get some very "Guardian" stories / opinion pieces.
To be fair, the Mail does investigative journalism as well, and breaks a lot of SHOCKING STATE OF CARE HOMES type stuff. It's still an abysmal garbage fire of a paper, but it's rich, so it can still afford the expensive outlay investigative journalism requires. It also steals content and publishes press releases as though they were stories, so.
The Guardian also recently announced some eye-watering losses, so something is going to have to give there.
Posts
It was an X-men Comic Reference because GIS failed me
Agreed. It just pained me on a near physical level because rural development is one of the EU's biggest areas of spending. Like I mentioned in a previous thread, it used to be a five hour drive from Dublin to Waterford. Now I can be there in a little over two hours, thanks to motorways the EU helped build, and I see the EU flag in all sorts of places while I'm down there; farms that receive EU subsidies, the wind energy windmills I pass, redeveloped tourist traps, local business parks, local technical colleges. It's crazy the breadth of stuff the EU invests in.
It's not really "globalisation and its effects" either. It's not like a lack of international trade will suddenly make jobs pop up all over the place in rural areas.
It's true that we wouldn't move back to internal rural jobs unless we were actually totally cut off from trade; our wages are too high compared to where we're importing from. Or if we did, it would be at the cost of many other jobs.
For the same reason, our farm, steel, gas, coal, milling and lumber industries - all of which are rural - are non-competitive. Rural industries seem to be dying or dead, since we can import from the global economy, so I would say that yes, globalisation is a root cause here, even while being good for the country as a whole.
Except alot of job losses in those industries is due to mechanisation. Especially, you know, farm. And you are trying to stretch the term "globalization" to include all trade period, which is ridiculous.
Rural industries are dead because at the end of the day it's all farming and resource extraction these days. Other kinds of industry, that make up the bulk of modern economies when it comes to workers, have become alot more urbanised for various reasons, many relating to logistics and mechanisation and the like. And those same things have taken a toll on farming and resource extraction too.
@ronya could probably cover this better and fix the parts I'm screwing up here, but blaming this on globalization is missing alot of what's going on.
Like, the simplest way to think about this is what jobs do you think these kids would be doing in rural areas and why do you think they'd even want to do them anyway? Countries have been urbanising since at least the industrial revolution.
I have a feeling this is going to be the next social media craze. Selfies of "places Martin Brunt could have killed me."
Good. It is very important we mock this.
I'm 100% serious, if media outlets start thinking they can legitimately keep us scared with this they'll never stop. Making it abundantly clear they're making tits of themselves is the only weapon we have.
Plus the results are hilarious
Yes. I mean, if you wanna argue the extreme position on it then "globalization" is older then the written word. And doesn't really match the use of the term by the vast majority of people.
But I mean, I guess Brexit could be about people angry at the first guy to wander over the hill and swap some goods with the next village over.
I mean
Both of these things are true
Globalization is a massive long term trend, not a recent phenomenon.
There is a huge amount of overcapacity at the moment and China has basically gone all in one supporting their sector, betting Europe won't do the same and let our side wither.
I've started a #PlacesMartinBruntCouldKillMe hashtag on Twitter. Let's see if it takes off.
You're fighting the good fight, ma'am.
"It's got a sane president and a crazy general! You just need to reverse those!"
"Two groups of US troops shooting each other with a giant 'PEACE IS OUR PROFESSION!' sign on screen!"
"OMG The general kicks off Armageddon because he believes fluoridation is a conspiracy! They should make this movie mandatory viewing before anyone votes for anything!"
But now, with improvements in international travel infrastructure, in freight, in storage, and preservation, the need for homegrown fruits, cereals, vegetables, meat and livestock is minimal. The same is true for resources; coal, gas, steel. These are all industries that were rural British jobs, but cannot compete with other countries, most of them equally mechanised, who have lower wages when exchanged to the pound.
So now we have a whole lot of countryside, and nothing to do with it.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
That, as I understand it, is a grossly misleading presentation of the question.
When it says 74% of leave voters see feminism as a force for ill what it means is
"Of the people who stated that feminism was a force for ill 74% of them were Leavers and 26% were Remain voters"
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
You probably could, if you were forced to pick between two options and it was phrased more like - obviously complications, but do you think ultimately the benefits may slightly outweigh the costs.
Strongly agrees, partially agrees and reluctantly agree all combined together.
Do you honestly think that multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism, environmental awareness, a global economy and the internet are net negatives in the world?
And then the Thick of It. Finish off with In the Loop
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It's also one of the few sitcoms that maintained its high quality, or actually improved, as it went on.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
From a historical perspective it's interesting watching the series talk about stuff like the precursor to the Data Protection Act and negotiations over the Channel Tunnel.
There are some things that are unquestionably no longer relevant, but you still laugh at how the characters deal with it.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I want to say that The Guardian is the only paper that seems to do (or is interested in) investigative journalism nowadays. The Times has been rubbish for a long time now, and The Telegraph is in a sorry state (they seemed more honest as a paper, when they were run by a crook).
The layout of The Guardian's site, seems to be a cut above the competition as well.
That said, you still get some very "Guardian" stories / opinion pieces.
The Guardian also recently announced some eye-watering losses, so something is going to have to give there.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
BWAHAHAHAHA! BWAHAHAHAHA! AAHAHAHAHAHA!
*cough*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
They can go fuck themselves if they start complaining.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!