See you next week
Thanks for getting involved today in a broad discussion involving Donald Trump, Brexit and a northern “brain drain” in the UK. We’ll be back next week with another opportunity to discuss the week’s news and features with our journalists below the line, but in the meantime you can get in touch with any feedback. Email sarah.marsh@theguardian.com or matthew.holmes@theguardian.com with suggestions, or continue the conversation below, where we’ll also be checking in. Have a great weekend.
Lastly from us today, we’ll leave you with this: random hugs all round!
Thanks Norman.
Conversation of the week: should the government define 'unconventional' sex?
Each week we ask our team of moderators to highlight a conversation they enjoyed reading or felt was particularly constructive or interesting.
First today was the discussion below a news article after it was announced that the UK was to censor online videos of “non-conventional” sex acts. Many readers disagreed with the plan.
‘No place in a free and open society’
This sort of censorship has no place in a free and open society.
Adults should be free to consume whatever material they want, regardless of how distasteful others may find it, provided all subjects involved are performing with consent.
End of story.
‘Stunningly, hilariously naive’
The only thing more astonishing than the fact this ban is happening at all, is the fact it appears the people enforcing it think it'll be possible to enforce.
Stunningly, hilariously naive.
‘Who was even pushing for this to happen?’
Right so it's now illegal to show female ejaculation which in itself is not only legal but perfectly natural. But films can still show terrorism, violence, drug use and murder.
Or how about sports like UFC, it's not really conventional to beat someone until they pass out.
It's completely illogical, and furthermore who was even pushing for this to happen ?
“Government should not be regulating what is moral ... just what is consenting’
What the hell kind of a category is "unconventional acts"? Who gets to define that? When it comes to sex, government should not be in the business of regulating what is moral, normal, decent, or conventional; just what is CONSENTING.
What do you think? Click on the comments to explore the conversation further or share your views below the line here.
London for one reader wasn’t paved with gold
My experience in living in "London" for short periods in Lewisham, Golders Green and Selsdon was that most people lived in their own enclave . The idea of "living in London" seemed far from the truth. I did have a stepson who gave up his job as a supervisor in Tescos in Northants where he could have afforded a nice flat to go to London so he could go to the top clubs like Ministry of Sound. For that he lived in a room no bigger than a coffin. he had to put his bedside table on the bed to open or close the door. how many in London like him?
Updated
Fabric makes a comeback, but what does it mean for London nightlife?
In September, Fabric had its licence revoked following the deaths of two 18-year-olds who took ecstasy while at the venue. Three months later, after an impressive campaign from the nightlife community, the club is set to reopen.
A deal was struck between Fabric, the Met and Islington council. It’s not plain sailing though; Fabric has agreed to 32 conditions that include new ID scanning systems, enhanced searching, covert surveillance within the club, lifetime bans for anyone found in possession of drugs and no entry for anyone under 19. The licensing conditions are evidence that the council and police still prioritise a “zero-tolerance” approach to drugs in clubs (which, let’s be honest, is probably impossible to ever achieve) over anything else, such as pragmatically improving the safety of those inside.
Whether clubbers will care to enter a venue that has to enforce a draconian level of security simply to listen to music and dance will be the biggest worry for Fabric’s management.
On a more positive note, London (and the UK’s) nightlife community has never seemed more focused and active; Fabric’s closure provoked real action. But while the club may be set to reopen, do you feel that London’s nightlife has been saved?
Readers on the UK 'northern braindrain' – is London the only way?
Leaving the north of England for London is, for some, the only way to find work – that is according to a new study that says there is a “brain drain” from the north, with 310,000 graduates moving south in the last decade.
Readers shared their experiences above the line in this article commissioned to further tell the story, and there was lively debate after it was published – many of you also telling stories of moving the other way.
‘London’s great for the weekend, up north is better for an asthmatic’
Lived in London (well, one of the suburbs at the end of the Met line) most of my life. Loved the city, the food, the nightlife, the culture etc.
Moved up north, miss the things that make London great. Don't miss the traffic, the pollution, the crush of people on the tube. Love the walks in the countryside up here, love the accent.
London's great for the weekend, up north is better for a middle aged wheezing asthmatic with an energetic hound.
‘Organizations need to get their HQs out of London’
Organizations need to get their HQs OUT of London. All those charities REALLY don't need to be there. They can have a small media/advocacy office that they share with other orgs and move the entire rest of their staff somewhere cheaper. In the meantime they are wasting their supporters' money on London wages and rents, and doing nothing to support a better economic balance in this country. Drives me crazy.
‘I’d love to move back to Manchester’
I'd love to move back to Manchester. The reminder that our mayor is a former "Mr Gay UK" just made me well up with pride. An affordable, liberal city with character. Problem is - I've looked for jobs in my specialist field ever since I graduated, and haven't seen a thing. Stuck down here in my overpriced 5 person house share in the south.
‘The Guardian can help the north and save itself financially by moving back there’
The Guardian can help the North and save itself financially by moving back north. With modern communication technlogy there is no good reason to be in London. Sell the Guardian London building and rent inexpensive offices up north.
Surely the survival of the Manchester Guardian is more important than the desire of Guardian writers to live in London?
And one more – presumably from the West Midlands?
the other week there was a piece about the number of Londoners moving out to Birmingham. It wasn't labelled a brain drain though, so presumably they were all thicko's going in that direction;)
What do you think – have you made the move? Would you? If you aren’t from the UK, have you noticed a similar debate about so-called “brain drain” to or from the capital?
And on that “no publicity is bad publicity” point raised by another reader below:
Is there no such thing as bad publicity for Trump?
During the election campaign, because of the huge animosity to Hillary (and Obama) it was probably true that all publicity was good publicity for Trump. That's not going to be the case once he takes office. Unfortunately I think he knows it, and already he is moderating his tone and output.
There is no such thing as bad publicity in many ways... look at all the sleb careers built on it... Trump obviously thinks being Prez is a bit like being a Kardashian or Paris Hilton...
A couple of your comments on Trump vs the media, now:
Whatever he's selling, the media are buying.
Corruption within the Trump foundation? Nah, let's report on Pence getting booed at Hamilton instead, because, you know, clicks.
Trump's long history of corruption and dodgy dealing? Nah, let's report disproportionately on Hillary's non-scandal and treat Trump like a joke.
The media did as much as anybody to elect Trump during this election.
Until people who voted remain at least try to acknowledge that some of the British population may have a valid reason for voting to leave the EU, we're never going to get back to more progressive politics
With regard to this quoted passage above the line, it mirrors similar claims made about many of those who voted Brexit or Trump. The thing is that I still haven't heard an explanation of those reasons that makes sense beyond the obvious ones.
Seeking to excuse or explain away the fact that millions of people have used their democratic choices in what by all ordinary measures are illogical and inexplicable ways may simply be ignoring a plain truth that those people decided that giving vent to their racism and xenophobia was worth the economic/social risk.
Trump vs the 'mainstream media': is fairness and truth at risk?
The headline on my piece on the relationship between Donald Trump and the “mainstream media” crystalised everything I had been trying to say.
Overnight, the president-elect had released a two-minute video direct to camera on YouTube setting out his plans for his first 100 days. It was classic Trump – using the power of social media to bypass TV news and press outlets entirely and speak directly to the American people. What he’s doing is to cut out the role of the media as a filter that stands between a president and the public, and by doing so he is raising a serious threat to many of the values that media outlets hold dear: truth, fact and fairness to name but three.
Is there no such thing as bad publicity for Trump?
Regarding Trump, I think his entire philosophy is based on the old saw "There is no such thing as bad publicity."
He does not mind upsetting people, in fact by this point he seems to be doing it deliberately. Because when everyone's talking about the latest thing he came out with, or the latest group he offended, they are still talking about Donald Trump.
How the election of Trump can kick off a new global feminist movement
A view from Anna Leach, who works on the Guardian’s Global Development network.
After the shocking (and some might say foolish) results of election this year in the US and UK, can developed nations continue to take a superior view over the political injustices of the world?
Electing a self-evident misogynist as leader of the “free” world shows that sexism is alive and well all over. And although the contexts are different, we can find strength from working together.
How can feminist activists in China inspire women in Germany? What can Russian women teach us about fighting the state for human rights? How can college students in Bangladesh and the US support each other to stop sexual harassment?
In times of crisis, solidarity between those who face discrimination can help us fight back against the forces we don’t agree with. We’ll be covering the global struggle on our women and girls series.
A few of you have been responding to our colleague Martn Belam’s thoughts below on Donald Trump’s “dead cat strategy”.
Is Trump's tweeting part of a dead cat strategy. Do you mean the one he wears on his head?
I think that trumps mo is pretty clear now: make any process appear as chaotic as possible and leak names that are wildly inappropriate then when the picks are merely terrible people will think it's not as bad as it could of been.
We saw it play out constantly in the campaign but most clearly in the debates where objectively trump performed awfully but the expectations were so low that it was considered a win for him to even turn up.
Government on those terms will wear thin very quickly
I like the dead cat analogy. Perhaps that was why people voted for him... to hide something even more sinister.
Updated
Before we move on to talk a bit more about some of the other stories that have got you talking this week, a couple more views on the Brexit questions raised by Anne Perkins (see 12:05).
Until people who voted remain at least try to acknowledge that some of the British population may have a valid reason for voting to leave the EU, we're never going to get back to more progressive politics. The people who may have voted Labour in the past, and therefore, the ones who offer the number of votes you need, feel that globalisation has not worked for them or their communities. Now, either try to understand this and move forward, and be ready for when the opportunity - inevitably - arises, or you can just carry on blaming Brexit for everything, calling people stupid rascists and never regain political power. "It's simple, stupid."
I think because the level of debate before the referendum was so poor and full of lies and emotion, that people have been left quite bitter. We didn't even come closer to the question "Would Britain be better off outside the EU?" We had a vote on it but our understanding is no better than a year a go.
Updated
Is Donald Trump's tweeting part of a dead cat strategy?
I feel like every day I am waking up, and finding myself working out how I am going to explain to people in our morning @GuardianNews round-up what Donald Trump was tweeting about last night.
2️⃣ We regret to inform you that the president-elect of the US has been tweeting again https://t.co/LsxUfLwojl pic.twitter.com/trdT6sdqWh
— Guardian news (@guardiannews) November 22, 2016
It seems completely unprecedented to have the president-elect of the US telling us that the cast of a play have been rude to his VP-to-be, or that the New York Times is failing, or that he’s thinking about appointing this person or that person to a role.
It also gives us a question as journalists. Does he do it as part of a “dead cat strategy” - where you throw a dead cat on the table to distract from something else?
Another thought from a reader on that Brexit question:
Yes - primarily because we haven't Brexited yet!Are we too quick to blame Brexit for everything?
US readers: how was the Thanksgiving dinner table?
Colleagues in our US office invite you to share your thoughts after what many feared would be a fraught atmosphere at the dinner table on Thanksgiving – in this open thread
Whatever your opinion, Brexit is not going away (or perhaps even coming) any time soon – and, in line with that picture of former prime minister David Cameron, the most commented piece on the Guardian today is this on John Major’s recent comments:
Updated
Readers are sharing their views in response to Anne Perkins’ question below – share yours in the comments or click the links to get involved in the conversation
Are we too quick to blame Brexit for everything
It may be true that reasoned and nuance discussions are few and far between these days, and that people will lash out at a target that best suits whatever opinions they already hold. I think there's been a surge of this kind of reciprocal shouting because of the recent furore and hyperbole around the referendum campaign, which politicised a large group of people who previously had little interest in the system. In other words I blame Brexit.
"Are we too quick to blame Brexit for everything?"
"We"?
Five months on, there's no evidence of great popular opposition to leaving the EU. The Lib Dems are the only major party in Eng and Wales opposing Brexit and their poll ratings are stuck in single figures.
It seems to me that Cameron, Osborne, May et al are to blame. There was no need for a referendum. It was reckless, it was political vanity, it was irresponsible and without a contingency plan they are negligent. And Labour are to blame for (still) not providing a credible opposition and alternative narrative. Brexit voters are to blame for being gullible and fantasists.
Are we too quick to blame Brexit for everything?
Yes. In fairness it's not a new trend - newspapers are always keen to blame long term economic trends on the most recent event.
The same bad news stories which are currently all being blamed on Brexit, would have all been blamed on Conservative government policies before the referendum, and before 2010 they would have all been blamed on the global financial crisis. Simple narratives are seductive, but usually wrong.
An astonishing autumn statement
The autumn statement was astonishing. Nothing for the so-called Jams, the families who are just managing. And, maybe even more shocking, nothing at all for the NHS or, more specifically, for councils so they can afford to provide social care for older and vulnerable people – even though it is the biggest single cause of the NHS crisis.
But just when it seemed things couldn’t be worse, along came the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ analysis of what the numbers mean for real people. The single most striking conclusion was that by 2021, for most families pay would only just be back at pre-2008 levels.
Meanwhile the same crew that rubbished the judges for doing their job of adjudicating on a legal row – also known as judging – was back on the airwaves yesterday heaping scorn on the IFS for doing its job of studying budgets and mapping their consequences. There are some senior politicians who are beginning to sound like the Tories’ Breitbart wing.
Or do you think they have a point? Are those of us who voted remain too quick to blame Brexit for everything (after all, the other EU economies are not exactly booming)? And is it legitimate for the 48% to keep fighting for what we believe in, or does there come a point when we have to get on and live with it?
Welcome
Hello everyone. We’re looking forward to starting our weekly social, where we gather with readers to discuss the week’s top stories. We will have lots of expert comment and views from journalists above the line. If you want to talk about anything specific, however, let us know in the comments or by emailing: sarah.marsh@theguardian.com
.png?w=600)
If you ever feel like you're have the joy of being alive suffocated out of you by nihilistic journalism and opinion pieces, one thing that's worth hanging on to: I've met a lot of middle class liberal Guardian reading types recently, they're alright if you know how to take them, can be a bit weird and intense about some things, but they are not that much different from everyone else. My advice , if you're coming home from work and you spot a MCLG-type, give them a random hug. It doesn't matter how sweaty or work-dirty you are, just do it!