Feeling shocked and sad. She was loved by everyone.

I think the UK is feeling quite fragile right now.

Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.

Incredible trooper. RIP

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 12:02:12 PM UTC-7, Herman wrote:
> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
>
> Incredible trooper. RIP

- Our modern world places such heavy demands on our time and attention that the need to remember our responsibilities to others is greater than ever.

Queen Elizabeth II: 1926 - 2022

On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
>
> Incredible trooper. RIP

She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same
dedication.

Bob Harper

On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
>>
>> Incredible trooper. RIP
>
> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
>
> Bob Harper

Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> >> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
> >>
> >> Incredible trooper. RIP
> >
> > She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time.. Go out with a winner.

I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"

On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
>>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
>>>>
>>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
>>>
>>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
>
>
> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"

Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
curious.

Bob Harper

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 8:52:06 PM UTC-7, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be
> over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground;
> Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any
> way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years),
> and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the
> monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make
> it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the
> dynamite!"

Wait ..... he could be replaced by a corgi! He already looks like one,
and he isn't any smarter.

dk

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> >>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
> >>>>
> >>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
> >>>
> >>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
> >>>
> >>> Bob Harper
> >> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
> >
> >
> > I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
> Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
> curious.
>
> Bob Harper

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> > >>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
> > >>>
> > >>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
> > >>>
> > >>> Bob Harper
> > >> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
> > Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
> > curious.
> >
> > Bob Harper

See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 5:52:06 AM UTC+2, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
>r
> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years.

He'll do just fine.

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-7, Herman wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 5:52:06 AM UTC+2, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > I'll bet that with Charles III in
> > Buckingham Palace the monarchy
> > will be over in less than five years.
>
> He'll do just fine.

"Just fine" in the Amrican sense?
Or "just fine" in the British sense?

dk

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 4:14:20 AM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-7, Herman wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 5:52:06 AM UTC+2, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll bet that with Charles III in
> > > Buckingham Palace the monarchy
> > > will be over in less than five years.
> >
> > He'll do just fine.
>
> "Just fine" in the Amrican sense?
> Or "just fine" in the British sense?
>
> dk
Deek, there is no "British sense" of "just fine" except in your imagination. In British English, which I speak fluently, 'fine' means good, and given the celebrated British tendency to understatement, it can often mean 'very good indeed'.

I think King Charles will be just fine too. And given the popularity of William and Catherine, Prince and Princess of Wales, I think the monarchy is in safe hands.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+10, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > >>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> > > >>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
> > > >>>
> > > >>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Bob Harper
> > > >> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
> > > Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
> > > curious.
> > >
> > > Bob Harper
> See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.

I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I gather that it is a sort of Archie comic for intellectuals.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:48:32 AM UTC-7, andrewc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 4:14:20 AM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-7, Herman wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 5:52:06 AM UTC+2, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll bet that with Charles III in
> > > > Buckingham Palace the monarchy
> > > > will be over in less than five years.
> > >
> > > He'll do just fine.
> >
> > "Just fine" in the Amrican sense?
> > Or "just fine" in the British sense?
>
> Deek, there is no "British sense" of
> "just fine" except in your imagination.
> In British English, which I speak fluently,
> 'fine' means good, and given the celebrated
> British tendency to understatement, it can
> often mean 'very good indeed'.

Many people speak English without
understanding it -- sometimes even
native speakers. We see this often
in Silicon Valley ;-)

I've lost count of how many times I
and other immigrant engineers had
to correct marketing documents
penned by native English speakers
graduated from top US and British
universities.

dk

Dan Koren a exprimé avec précision :
> "Just fine" in the Amrican sense?
> Or "just fine" in the British sense?

"Fine" in french sense...
Fine = cognac...

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 2:04:37 PM UTC-7, MELMOTH wrote:
> Dan Koren a exprimé avec précision :
> > "Just fine" in the Amrican sense?
> > Or "just fine" in the British sense?
> "Fine" in french sense...
> Fine = cognac...

d'Ussé, Frapin, ou Pierre
Ferrand, mon ami! ;-)

dk

On 9/10/22 11:50 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+10, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>> On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
>>>> Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
>>>> curious.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Harper
>> See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.
>
> I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I gather that it is a sort of Archie comic for intellectuals.
>
> Andrew Clarke
> Canberra

Great comment! :-)

Bob Harper

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 9/10/22 11:50 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+10, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>> On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>>> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
> >>>> Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
> >>>> curious.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Harper
> >> See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.
> >
> > I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I gather that it is a sort of Archie comic for intellectuals.
> >
> > Andrew Clarke
> > Canberra
> Great comment! :-)
>
> Bob Harper

Here is that NY Times op-ed piece about PM Truss that I referred to above. Make of it what you will:

LONDON — “Do we confront this moment with honesty,” asked Rishi Sunak, one of the two candidates running to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister of Britain, “or do we tell ourselves comforting fairy tales?”
The answer, from the Conservative Party membership, at least, is fairy tales. On Monday the members elected Liz Truss as their new leader and the next prime minister. In a campaign built around a belief in the miraculous power of tax cuts, Ms. Truss presented herself as the economic savior of a country heading into a winter of crisis. In the face of sky-high inflation and widespread economic misery, it’s a fantastical proposition.
But fairy tales don’t come out of nowhere. For her zealous commitment to privatization, deregulation and tax-cutting, many see Ms. Truss as a would-be second coming of Margaret Thatcher. Sealed by sartorial mimicry, there’s something in the comparison. Yet Ms. Truss’s most apt antecedent, in fact, is someone who had already left the Conservative Party under a cloud of controversy by the time Ms. Thatcher came to lead it: Enoch Powell.
Largely known for his bitterly racist denunciation of immigration, Mr. Powell has a claim to being Britain’s most influential postwar politician. That’s chiefly because, in an era of decolonization, he sketched out a route for Britain to maintain its global dominance. Fashioned in the dying of the imperial light, that roster of policies — preferential terms of global trade achieved through hard-line anti-migrant policies, shrinking the state, undermining organized labor and fostering finance — forms the basis of Ms. Truss’s politics today. The British Empire may have all but ended 60 years ago, but the country’s next prime minister is still in thrall to its legacy.

While Ms. Truss has been happy to court association with Ms. Thatcher — boasting that “we did great things in the 1980s” — she’s likely to be more wary of openly celebrating Mr. Powell. His name, after all, is synonymous with racism and xenophobia. Chiefly that’s because of an infamous speech he gave in 1968: Addressing a room full of Conservatives, he warned that immigration from the colonies would lead to a race war, resulting in the rivers of Britain “foaming with much blood.” Indulging in the language of bizarre colonial revenge fantasies, he spoke fearfully of how “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the Black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
The speech, incendiary and unrepentant, forever sealed his reputation as Britain’s most famous nativist politician. But his notorious racism has overshadowed the extent to which he was also, in the words of the academic Robbie Shilliam, Britain’s first neoliberal politician. In this view, Mr. Powell was the first major conservative voice to break with the postwar consensus of social democracy and call for tax cuts, privatization and the free movement of money.
The evidence is clear enough. Just months after he delivered his “rivers of blood” speech, he spoke at a meeting of the influential Mont Pelerin Society, Friedrich Hayek’s international organization that spread the gospel of the free market, on the importance of freeing capital from the control of the state. He collaborated with and championed a free-market think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, at a time when its members were viewed as marginal eccentrics. In articles and speeches, Mr. Powell led the charge for turning Britain into the financialized economy it became in the later decades of the 20th century.
Behind his politics lay the empire — or, more accurately, its end. By the mid-1960s, the British Empire, once the proprietor of a quarter of the world, was winding down. As former colonies assumed independence, Britain faced a dwindling of its global dominance. To politicians like Mr. Powell, reared on British power, the dangers were paramount. How could Britain retain its imperial advantages, if not the empire itself? The answer he came to was simple: borders for the people of the empire but not for the wealth of the empire.

Ms. Truss is heir to this tradition of thinking. On immigration she has staked out a hard-line position, vowing to increase the border force by 20 percent and backing the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. On the world stage, too, she is notably bullish — whether in threatening to renege on Britain’s deal with the European Union over the Northern Ireland protocol or promising to call out Vladimir Putin to his face. But it is on the terrain of the economy where her absorption in zombie imperial thinking is most striking.

In 2012, Ms. Truss announced herself on the political scene as a co-author of a book, tellingly titled “Britannia Unchained,” that argued that Britain’s diminished position globally was the result of an overextended welfare state raising generations of mollycoddled workers, derided as “the worst idlers in the world.” While she likes to wrap herself in the Union Jack, her position a decade on appears to be the same. British workers, she said in a recent leaked recording, lacked the “skill and application” of their foreign counterparts and needed to work harder.
The state, by contrast, should do less. Any effort to help Britons facing ruinously high energy bills, Ms. Truss has said, would amount to “handouts,” deeply undesirable even if, under pressure, she may have to resort to them. The only panacea for the country’s economic woes is tax cuts — likely to predominantly benefit the wealthy and big business — free ports and special investment zones where international capital can enjoy free rein. The state is to be cut down, wages restrained, red tape reduced, the market set free. This is pure Powellism.
The problem is that none of these prescriptions are likely to work. The economic cycle begun by Ms. Thatcher has long exhausted itself, and tax cuts have been consistently shown to increase inequality while having a negligible effect on growth or unemployment. And yet a plausible solution to the country’s woes lies close at hand: a price cap on energy bills, increased taxation on profits and state investment to rebalance the economy.
Instead, under Ms. Truss, the broken mentality of empire rules. And it is everyday Britons who will pay the price.

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:52:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 9/10/22 11:50 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+10, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> > >> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before..
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Bob Harper
> > >>>>>> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
> > >>>> Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
> > >>>> curious.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Bob Harper
> > >> See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.
> > >
> > > I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I gather that it is a sort of Archie comic for intellectuals.
> > >
> > > Andrew Clarke
> > > Canberra
> > Great comment! :-)
> >
> > Bob Harper
> Here is that NY Times op-ed piece about PM Truss that I referred to above.. Make of it what you will:
>
> LONDON — “Do we confront this moment with honesty,” asked Rishi Sunak, one of the two candidates running to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister of Britain, “or do we tell ourselves comforting fairy tales?”
> The answer, from the Conservative Party membership, at least, is fairy tales. On Monday the members elected Liz Truss as their new leader and the next prime minister. In a campaign built around a belief in the miraculous power of tax cuts, Ms. Truss presented herself as the economic savior of a country heading into a winter of crisis. In the face of sky-high inflation and widespread economic misery, it’s a fantastical proposition.
> But fairy tales don’t come out of nowhere. For her zealous commitment to privatization, deregulation and tax-cutting, many see Ms. Truss as a would-be second coming of Margaret Thatcher. Sealed by sartorial mimicry, there’s something in the comparison. Yet Ms. Truss’s most apt antecedent, in fact, is someone who had already left the Conservative Party under a cloud of controversy by the time Ms. Thatcher came to lead it: Enoch Powell.
> Largely known for his bitterly racist denunciation of immigration, Mr. Powell has a claim to being Britain’s most influential postwar politician. That’s chiefly because, in an era of decolonization, he sketched out a route for Britain to maintain its global dominance. Fashioned in the dying of the imperial light, that roster of policies — preferential terms of global trade achieved through hard-line anti-migrant policies, shrinking the state, undermining organized labor and fostering finance — forms the basis of Ms. Truss’s politics today. The British Empire may have all but ended 60 years ago, but the country’s next prime minister is still in thrall to its legacy.
>
> While Ms. Truss has been happy to court association with Ms. Thatcher — boasting that “we did great things in the 1980s” — she’s likely to be more wary of openly celebrating Mr. Powell. His name, after all, is synonymous with racism and xenophobia. Chiefly that’s because of an infamous speech he gave in 1968: Addressing a room full of Conservatives, he warned that immigration from the colonies would lead to a race war, resulting in the rivers of Britain “foaming with much blood.” Indulging in the language of bizarre colonial revenge fantasies, he spoke fearfully of how “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the Black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
> The speech, incendiary and unrepentant, forever sealed his reputation as Britain’s most famous nativist politician. But his notorious racism has overshadowed the extent to which he was also, in the words of the academic Robbie Shilliam, Britain’s first neoliberal politician. In this view, Mr. Powell was the first major conservative voice to break with the postwar consensus of social democracy and call for tax cuts, privatization and the free movement of money.
> The evidence is clear enough. Just months after he delivered his “rivers of blood” speech, he spoke at a meeting of the influential Mont Pelerin Society, Friedrich Hayek’s international organization that spread the gospel of the free market, on the importance of freeing capital from the control of the state. He collaborated with and championed a free-market think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, at a time when its members were viewed as marginal eccentrics. In articles and speeches, Mr. Powell led the charge for turning Britain into the financialized economy it became in the later decades of the 20th century.
> Behind his politics lay the empire — or, more accurately, its end.. By the mid-1960s, the British Empire, once the proprietor of a quarter of the world, was winding down. As former colonies assumed independence, Britain faced a dwindling of its global dominance. To politicians like Mr. Powell, reared on British power, the dangers were paramount. How could Britain retain its imperial advantages, if not the empire itself? The answer he came to was simple: borders for the people of the empire but not for the wealth of the empire.
>
> Ms. Truss is heir to this tradition of thinking. On immigration she has staked out a hard-line position, vowing to increase the border force by 20 percent and backing the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. On the world stage, too, she is notably bullish — whether in threatening to renege on Britain’s deal with the European Union over the Northern Ireland protocol or promising to call out Vladimir Putin to his face. But it is on the terrain of the economy where her absorption in zombie imperial thinking is most striking.
>
> In 2012, Ms. Truss announced herself on the political scene as a co-author of a book, tellingly titled “Britannia Unchained,” that argued that Britain’s diminished position globally was the result of an overextended welfare state raising generations of mollycoddled workers, derided as “the worst idlers in the world.” While she likes to wrap herself in the Union Jack, her position a decade on appears to be the same. British workers, she said in a recent leaked recording, lacked the “skill and application” of their foreign counterparts and needed to work harder.
> The state, by contrast, should do less. Any effort to help Britons facing ruinously high energy bills, Ms. Truss has said, would amount to “handouts,” deeply undesirable even if, under pressure, she may have to resort to them. The only panacea for the country’s economic woes is tax cuts — likely to predominantly benefit the wealthy and big business — free ports and special investment zones where international capital can enjoy free rein. The state is to be cut down, wages restrained, red tape reduced, the market set free. This is pure Powellism.
> The problem is that none of these prescriptions are likely to work. The economic cycle begun by Ms. Thatcher has long exhausted itself, and tax cuts have been consistently shown to increase inequality while having a negligible effect on growth or unemployment. And yet a plausible solution to the country’s woes lies close at hand: a price cap on energy bills, increased taxation on profits and state investment to rebalance the economy.
> Instead, under Ms. Truss, the broken mentality of empire rules. And it is everyday Britons who will pay the price.

Author of the above piece is Dr Kojo Koram, a Lecturer in Law at Birkbeck School of Law, University of London.

On 9/10/2022 9:16 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:52:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> On 9/10/22 11:50 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+10, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>>>> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
>>>>>>> Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
>>>>>>> curious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>> See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.
>>>>
>>>> I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I gather that it is a sort of Archie comic for intellectuals.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Clarke
>>>> Canberra
>>> Great comment! :-)
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>> Here is that NY Times op-ed piece about PM Truss that I referred to above. Make of it what you will:
>>
>> LONDON — “Do we confront this moment with honesty,” asked Rishi Sunak, one of the two candidates running to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister of Britain, “or do we tell ourselves comforting fairy tales?”
>> The answer, from the Conservative Party membership, at least, is fairy tales. On Monday the members elected Liz Truss as their new leader and the next prime minister. In a campaign built around a belief in the miraculous power of tax cuts, Ms. Truss presented herself as the economic savior of a country heading into a winter of crisis. In the face of sky-high inflation and widespread economic misery, it’s a fantastical proposition.
>> But fairy tales don’t come out of nowhere. For her zealous commitment to privatization, deregulation and tax-cutting, many see Ms. Truss as a would-be second coming of Margaret Thatcher. Sealed by sartorial mimicry, there’s something in the comparison. Yet Ms. Truss’s most apt antecedent, in fact, is someone who had already left the Conservative Party under a cloud of controversy by the time Ms. Thatcher came to lead it: Enoch Powell.
>> Largely known for his bitterly racist denunciation of immigration, Mr. Powell has a claim to being Britain’s most influential postwar politician. That’s chiefly because, in an era of decolonization, he sketched out a route for Britain to maintain its global dominance. Fashioned in the dying of the imperial light, that roster of policies — preferential terms of global trade achieved through hard-line anti-migrant policies, shrinking the state, undermining organized labor and fostering finance — forms the basis of Ms. Truss’s politics today. The British Empire may have all but ended 60 years ago, but the country’s next prime minister is still in thrall to its legacy.
>>
>> While Ms. Truss has been happy to court association with Ms. Thatcher — boasting that “we did great things in the 1980s” — she’s likely to be more wary of openly celebrating Mr. Powell. His name, after all, is synonymous with racism and xenophobia. Chiefly that’s because of an infamous speech he gave in 1968: Addressing a room full of Conservatives, he warned that immigration from the colonies would lead to a race war, resulting in the rivers of Britain “foaming with much blood.” Indulging in the language of bizarre colonial revenge fantasies, he spoke fearfully of how “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the Black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
>> The speech, incendiary and unrepentant, forever sealed his reputation as Britain’s most famous nativist politician. But his notorious racism has overshadowed the extent to which he was also, in the words of the academic Robbie Shilliam, Britain’s first neoliberal politician. In this view, Mr. Powell was the first major conservative voice to break with the postwar consensus of social democracy and call for tax cuts, privatization and the free movement of money.
>> The evidence is clear enough. Just months after he delivered his “rivers of blood” speech, he spoke at a meeting of the influential Mont Pelerin Society, Friedrich Hayek’s international organization that spread the gospel of the free market, on the importance of freeing capital from the control of the state. He collaborated with and championed a free-market think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, at a time when its members were viewed as marginal eccentrics. In articles and speeches, Mr. Powell led the charge for turning Britain into the financialized economy it became in the later decades of the 20th century.
>> Behind his politics lay the empire — or, more accurately, its end. By the mid-1960s, the British Empire, once the proprietor of a quarter of the world, was winding down. As former colonies assumed independence, Britain faced a dwindling of its global dominance. To politicians like Mr. Powell, reared on British power, the dangers were paramount. How could Britain retain its imperial advantages, if not the empire itself? The answer he came to was simple: borders for the people of the empire but not for the wealth of the empire.
>>
>> Ms. Truss is heir to this tradition of thinking. On immigration she has staked out a hard-line position, vowing to increase the border force by 20 percent and backing the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. On the world stage, too, she is notably bullish — whether in threatening to renege on Britain’s deal with the European Union over the Northern Ireland protocol or promising to call out Vladimir Putin to his face. But it is on the terrain of the economy where her absorption in zombie imperial thinking is most striking.
>>
>> In 2012, Ms. Truss announced herself on the political scene as a co-author of a book, tellingly titled “Britannia Unchained,” that argued that Britain’s diminished position globally was the result of an overextended welfare state raising generations of mollycoddled workers, derided as “the worst idlers in the world.” While she likes to wrap herself in the Union Jack, her position a decade on appears to be the same. British workers, she said in a recent leaked recording, lacked the “skill and application” of their foreign counterparts and needed to work harder.
>> The state, by contrast, should do less. Any effort to help Britons facing ruinously high energy bills, Ms. Truss has said, would amount to “handouts,” deeply undesirable even if, under pressure, she may have to resort to them. The only panacea for the country’s economic woes is tax cuts — likely to predominantly benefit the wealthy and big business — free ports and special investment zones where international capital can enjoy free rein. The state is to be cut down, wages restrained, red tape reduced, the market set free. This is pure Powellism.
>> The problem is that none of these prescriptions are likely to work. The economic cycle begun by Ms. Thatcher has long exhausted itself, and tax cuts have been consistently shown to increase inequality while having a negligible effect on growth or unemployment. And yet a plausible solution to the country’s woes lies close at hand: a price cap on energy bills, increased taxation on profits and state investment to rebalance the economy.
>> Instead, under Ms. Truss, the broken mentality of empire rules. And it is everyday Britons who will pay the price.
>
> Author of the above piece is Dr Kojo Koram,

> a Lecturer in Law at Birkbeck School of Law, University of London.

And therefore an expert on economics.

On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 04:50:12 UTC+10, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+10, ljk...aol.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > > On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > > >> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > > >>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> > > > >>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before..
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Bob Harper
> > > > >> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
> > > > Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
> > > > curious.
> > > >
> > > > Bob Harper
> > See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.
> I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I gather that it is a sort of Archie comic for intellectuals.
>
> Andrew Clarke
> Canberra

The NY does tend to use longer words than 4 letter slogans, which makes it a sort of an intellectual comic. The crossword is good too.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 9/10/2022 10:21 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 04:50:12 UTC+10, andrewc...gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+10, ljk...aol.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>> On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
>>>>> Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
>>>>> curious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>> See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.
>> I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I gather that it is a sort of Archie comic for intellectuals.
>>
>> Andrew Clarke
>> Canberra
>
> The NY does tend to use longer words than 4 letter slogans, which makes it a sort of an intellectual comic. The crossword is good too.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

Some years ago, before I stopped reading the Times, I thought their editorials often seemed to be written by junior high school students.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 11:16:37 AM UTC+10, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 7:52:34 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 6:11:06 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > On 9/10/22 11:50 AM, Andrew Clarke wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+10, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 10:24:51 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:55:30 PM UTC-5, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > >>>> On 9/8/22 8:52 PM, Lawrence Kart wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:18:05 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 9/8/2022 9:55 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On 9/8/22 12:02 PM, Herman wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Imagine, she received Boris J. and Liz T. only two days before.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Incredible trooper. RIP
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> She took her duties seriously. The world could use more with the same dedication.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Bob Harper
> > > >>>>>> Not that there is overwhelming support for ending the monarchy (AFAIK), but it seems like if the monarchy was ever to end, this would be a good time. Go out with a winner.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'll bet that with Charles III in Buckingham Palace the monarchy will be over in less than five years. Truss will run the country into the ground; Charles, a Tory at heart -- will go out of his way to support her in any way he can (his mother was as non-partisan as possible for 70 years), and both Truss and Charles will be history. I know -- the PM and the monarch are not connected by law or otherwise, but Charles will make it seem to the British public that they are, and then "boom goes the dynamite!"
> > > >>>> Just how will PM Truss run the country into the ground? I'm genuinely
> > > >>>> curious.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Bob Harper
> > > >> See Koji Karam's op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times for details.
> > > >
> > > > I don't subscribe to the NYT, but I gather that it is a sort of Archie comic for intellectuals.
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Clarke
> > > > Canberra
> > > Great comment! :-)
> > >
> > > Bob Harper
> > Here is that NY Times op-ed piece about PM Truss that I referred to above. Make of it what you will:
> >
> > LONDON — “Do we confront this moment with honesty,” asked Rishi Sunak, one of the two candidates running to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister of Britain, “or do we tell ourselves comforting fairy tales?”
> > The answer, from the Conservative Party membership, at least, is fairy tales. On Monday the members elected Liz Truss as their new leader and the next prime minister. In a campaign built around a belief in the miraculous power of tax cuts, Ms. Truss presented herself as the economic savior of a country heading into a winter of crisis. In the face of sky-high inflation and widespread economic misery, it’s a fantastical proposition.
> > But fairy tales don’t come out of nowhere. For her zealous commitment to privatization, deregulation and tax-cutting, many see Ms. Truss as a would-be second coming of Margaret Thatcher. Sealed by sartorial mimicry, there’s something in the comparison. Yet Ms. Truss’s most apt antecedent, in fact, is someone who had already left the Conservative Party under a cloud of controversy by the time Ms. Thatcher came to lead it: Enoch Powell.
> > Largely known for his bitterly racist denunciation of immigration, Mr. Powell has a claim to being Britain’s most influential postwar politician. That’s chiefly because, in an era of decolonization, he sketched out a route for Britain to maintain its global dominance. Fashioned in the dying of the imperial light, that roster of policies — preferential terms of global trade achieved through hard-line anti-migrant policies, shrinking the state, undermining organized labor and fostering finance — forms the basis of Ms. Truss’s politics today. The British Empire may have all but ended 60 years ago, but the country’s next prime minister is still in thrall to its legacy.
> >
> > While Ms. Truss has been happy to court association with Ms. Thatcher — boasting that “we did great things in the 1980s” — she’s likely to be more wary of openly celebrating Mr. Powell. His name, after all, is synonymous with racism and xenophobia. Chiefly that’s because of an infamous speech he gave in 1968: Addressing a room full of Conservatives, he warned that immigration from the colonies would lead to a race war, resulting in the rivers of Britain “foaming with much blood.” Indulging in the language of bizarre colonial revenge fantasies, he spoke fearfully of how “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the Black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
> > The speech, incendiary and unrepentant, forever sealed his reputation as Britain’s most famous nativist politician. But his notorious racism has overshadowed the extent to which he was also, in the words of the academic Robbie Shilliam, Britain’s first neoliberal politician. In this view, Mr. Powell was the first major conservative voice to break with the postwar consensus of social democracy and call for tax cuts, privatization and the free movement of money.
> > The evidence is clear enough. Just months after he delivered his “rivers of blood” speech, he spoke at a meeting of the influential Mont Pelerin Society, Friedrich Hayek’s international organization that spread the gospel of the free market, on the importance of freeing capital from the control of the state. He collaborated with and championed a free-market think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, at a time when its members were viewed as marginal eccentrics. In articles and speeches, Mr. Powell led the charge for turning Britain into the financialized economy it became in the later decades of the 20th century.
> > Behind his politics lay the empire — or, more accurately, its end. By the mid-1960s, the British Empire, once the proprietor of a quarter of the world, was winding down. As former colonies assumed independence, Britain faced a dwindling of its global dominance. To politicians like Mr. Powell, reared on British power, the dangers were paramount. How could Britain retain its imperial advantages, if not the empire itself? The answer he came to was simple: borders for the people of the empire but not for the wealth of the empire.
> >
> > Ms. Truss is heir to this tradition of thinking. On immigration she has staked out a hard-line position, vowing to increase the border force by 20 percent and backing the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. On the world stage, too, she is notably bullish — whether in threatening to renege on Britain’s deal with the European Union over the Northern Ireland protocol or promising to call out Vladimir Putin to his face. But it is on the terrain of the economy where her absorption in zombie imperial thinking is most striking.
> >
> > In 2012, Ms. Truss announced herself on the political scene as a co-author of a book, tellingly titled “Britannia Unchained,” that argued that Britain’s diminished position globally was the result of an overextended welfare state raising generations of mollycoddled workers, derided as “the worst idlers in the world.” While she likes to wrap herself in the Union Jack, her position a decade on appears to be the same. British workers, she said in a recent leaked recording, lacked the “skill and application” of their foreign counterparts and needed to work harder.
> > The state, by contrast, should do less. Any effort to help Britons facing ruinously high energy bills, Ms. Truss has said, would amount to “handouts,” deeply undesirable even if, under pressure, she may have to resort to them. The only panacea for the country’s economic woes is tax cuts — likely to predominantly benefit the wealthy and big business — free ports and special investment zones where international capital can enjoy free rein. The state is to be cut down, wages restrained, red tape reduced, the market set free. This is pure Powellism.
> > The problem is that none of these prescriptions are likely to work. The economic cycle begun by Ms. Thatcher has long exhausted itself, and tax cuts have been consistently shown to increase inequality while having a negligible effect on growth or unemployment. And yet a plausible solution to the country’s woes lies close at hand: a price cap on energy bills, increased taxation on profits and state investment to rebalance the economy.
> > Instead, under Ms. Truss, the broken mentality of empire rules. And it is everyday Britons who will pay the price.
> Author of the above piece is Dr Kojo Koram, a Lecturer in Law at Birkbeck School of Law, University of London.

And a most bizarre piece of work it is, too. I'm not quite sure how he got from Lady Thatcher to Enoch Powell to Liz Truss, but there you are. I hope he doesn't give lectures like this at Birkbeck College. Perhaps he could put his mouth where his money is and get out of nasty, racist Britain and take up a position in a similar college in Harare, Zimbabwe, where he can tell the readers of the New York Times how Robert Mugabe and his cronies destroyed one of the most prosperous countries in Africa in order to line their own pockets. This might not be a very prudent thing to do, as people who are critical of Robert Mugabe and his pals tend to get thrown in jail or assassinated, especially if they vote for the wrong political party or were born into the wrong tribe. Or he could follow Zimbabwe's unemployed to Jo'burg ZA if he's happy to do without air conditioning, as the state electricity generators break down more and more frequently and for longer and longer periods, and as the unemployment rate continues to rise? That might not be prudent either, as economic refugees from Zim are being treated with increasing hostility, which often results in the locals welcoming their African brothers by beating them up and/or demolishing their houses.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 6:32:34 AM UTC+10, dan....@gmail.com wrote:

> I've lost count of how many times I
> and other immigrant engineers had
> to correct marketing documents
> penned by native English speakers
> graduated from top US and British
> universities.
>

Put it this way - if a British or Australian concert goer were to turn to you and say "Now *that* was a fine performance", he/she would be extremely perplexed if you were to reply, "Just fine, huh?".

Andrew Clarke
Canberra