I just get the feeling that David and Sam Cam are safe hands and let's just hope that they can sort out the mess that decades of ill-conceived Thatcherite 'policies' (even under 'New' Labour), based on selfishness, have caused.
Sunday, 29 August 2010
A Safe Pair of Hands
I just get the feeling that David and Sam Cam are safe hands and let's just hope that they can sort out the mess that decades of ill-conceived Thatcherite 'policies' (even under 'New' Labour), based on selfishness, have caused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Careful now, a detour into politics, what shall we discuss next, religion? lol HGB
ReplyDeleteTrue; that's it. I'll keep it clean from here on!
ReplyDeleteCareful, or politically correct? LOL!!!
ReplyDeleteThere is some degree of over-compensation to disguise their backgrounds and natural tastes (ties off whenever possible etc., etc.) but I suppose that this is (as they see it), to secure popular support in the age of the common man. I think that they miss the point that there are many people who will welcome government by people who know what's what and behave with credit and credibility on the international scene. There is some hypocrisy mixed in there too - the refusal to join the Carlton Club (because it was then men only for full membership) but the probable membership of White's, which, presumably, will continue to exclude women (as well as most of the adult male population!). However, overall, as I say, to see toffs back in Number 10, after the years from the 14th Mr Wilson right through to Garden Broom, is a breath of fresh air. Snob? In a certain way - you bet. But only because I think that a type of snobbery goes hand in hand with seeking out the best and the aspirations which Britain desperately needs to find again and I am sure will.
ReplyDeleteTrue Britannia's is not dead; She has merely been slumbering.
Delete that "'s" in 'Britannia' in the last sentence there, would you please, Victor, and then pour me another glass?
ReplyDeleteI fail to understand this American disease of women insisting on gaining entrance and even membership to men's clubs. I should think that it would be much better for all concerned if they went off and founded women's clubs instead. That is essentially what John P Morgan did in founding the Metropolitan Club in New York, after finding that no respectable club in New York was interested in his candidacy. To this day, the Metropolitan has a membership that is different from the older clubs; they were one of the first, if not the first, NY clubs to grant access and then membership to women.
ReplyDeleteThe shortest post, like the shortest questions, provoke the most comment. I think that I understand women invading men's spaces and it is as much Australian as American in origin(remember Germaine Greer). The phenomenon is called 'having your cake and eating it': there are 'women only' clubs and places, eg: The University Women's Club and places like The Sanctaury beauty spa in Covent Garden. I am sure that these places are definitely not open to men and they are constituted and named in such a way that no man would dream of trying to get in anyway! Despite this, the Carlton Club (which previously had associate membership for women) has been bullied into granting women full membership but it does not end there because the idiots have gone even further and granted the women full membership on more favourable terms than the men; no one seems to raise the point that this is reverse discrimination gone stark, staring, raving mad -because that would not be PC. Meanwhile the laws against sex discrimination seem to be such that clubs which deny opposite sex membership outright (such as White's) are allowed to continue the practice. If this doesn't show that the lunatics are in in charge of the asylum, I don't know what does.
ReplyDeleteIf it were simply about access to the premise, then single-sex schools would need to reconsider their admissions policies. I believe that the basis for the discrimination argument has not been about access to a premise or membership. Rather, I believe that it was about being denied access to conversations, private conversations about business and political opportunities. By not having access to the premises, they are allegedly denied access to privileged information and opportunities, putting them at a professional, not social, disadvantage whilst the 'old boys' network supposedly continue to thrive at their expense. That is why one is now required to leave at the cloakroom one's briefcase or other things that may contain business documents. I still find this compromise solution rather ticklish, but what would life be without a bit of fun, eh.
ReplyDeleteI know that in some clubs, business talk is officially proscibed but I hadn't appreciated the reason until you said it. This official policy is an expression of English hypocrisy at its very high level - virtually an art form.
ReplyDeleteVictor, take that redundant 's' and stick it to the end of 'premise' in my previous post. And, yes, give me whatever Nicholas is having.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, Victor, just bring another glass and leave the bottle.
ReplyDeleteI am a member of one of the oldest Gentleman's clubs in London. Business papers and conversations are never allowed. It is seen as poor form and never done. It is your home away from home, not ones office.
ReplyDeleteI can see that business papers can be regulated but conversations are less easily controlled; moreover, some clubs, such as the Reform and the Carlton were founded for essentially political purposes and, although politics (while, in some repects, a much dirtier game than mere trade), is not really 'business', it must constitute unhomely discussion!
ReplyDeleteAffairs of state are a common and often discussed subject, frequently by those making the decisions. This is thought of as ones duty not at all like the somewhat base topic of money.
ReplyDeleteAs I give it some thought, it is not a matter of controlling conversation, it is a matter of a gentleman not speaking inappropriately in a unique setting. It is important for all members to be on the same social level so all are comfortable. The Carlton, Whites, Brooksies, Boodles, and The Reform were all founded on a specific political agenda.
ReplyDeleteWell, the origin of the great London clubs is fairly complex. White's grew out of a chocolate shop because the 'regulars' discovered that they were, sometimes, consorting with highwaymen. Its members are more likely to be discussing swine 'flu and agricultural tenant problems than the state of the glove-making industry but it is probably wholly unrealistic to think that they never mention anything to do with money; after all if they had no money, their clubs would soon cease to exist. Moreover, they used not to be above gambling fortunes away in there as in Brooks's. The stock exchange grew out of city chocolate shop trade of stocks and the City Livery companies came into being to provide representative bodies for artisans. Some clubs may still have few tradesmen as members but, again, it is probably unrealistic to suppose that professional men never discuss their professions in their clubs: St Stephen's Club has always been a mix of Tory poilitcians and engineers: the fact that it attracts engineers specifically suggests that they talk to each other about their work. The Garrick Club is a place of resort for actors, lawyers and journalists and it would be strange if they never spoke about an important part of their lives.
ReplyDeleteI can see that express business meetings with clients might be frowned upon in some clubs but I expect that the Institute of Directors might well hire rooms for the purpose! Some people might wrinkle their noses at such practices but they are all a real part of 'modern Britain'.
And a further thought is that, if those in charge of the economy had guarded it a bit better, the country would not have gone to the dogs in such a devastating way. Didn't even the Queen say something about why hadn't the experts anticipated the recession?
ReplyDeleteOf course Her Majesty is correct. The politicians have made a mess of things. The purpose of my correspondence was originally, simply to agree with you about the upper class. From my perspective the only real gentleman's clubs left are on St James, not Pall Mall. The Carlton while allowing women members now sadly, still expressly forbids their entry into the mens bar. Allowing women members was only done in order to protect the special relationship of the club with the Tory party. As for the liveries and the likes of the I.O.D. they are not proper clubs at all. Of course the topics of wealth and money are not forbidden to discuss it is just that a gentleman knows not to cross the line into active commerce with his fellow clubmen. Commercial pursuits at ones club are not done simply because it is in poor form. I must also report gladly, that mens somewhat traditional pastimes of gambling and drinking are still observed quite regularly. The "toffs" as you say are those who have been largely responsible for Britain's greatness for centuries. The great thing about the class system in the last few decades is that one may become a member of the upper class with aspiration, education, style, and grace. No longer just by birth. I apologize for having you at somewhat of a disadvantage, I have read your writings. I just don't know how to use the profile selection. Perhaps you could help in the future. I am new to computer correspondence.
ReplyDeleteWasn't the Carlton (regardless of political pressure) obliged to allow women to join on the same terms as men because they already had associate lady members, whereas wholly single-sex clubs are not obliged to admit women on any basis? Having let women in, it does seem petty to restrict their movements. On which institutions are proper clubs - I think that the members of each will have their own views! I certainly agree that one is not likely to start touting for business or selling secondhand watches in any decent club! On the profile, it is there on the front page.
ReplyDeletebest,
NJS
An era has passed. The Carlton will now admit women into the mens bar...
ReplyDeletePeople who communicate anonymously in order to disparage should not be printed.