IDS: Who would replace him?
James Hammerton
looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
leader yet again.
But the really worrying question the Tories must face is, if not IDS
then who?
Clarke would be anathema because of his pro-Euro beliefs. Heseltine
gave up the game. Portillo is busy denying he ever wants to do it
again but probably would offend a large chunk of the parliamentary
party.
This leaves an unknown, or someone like Widdecombe, Lilley or
Howard...
Do any of the candidates show any promise?
James
Robin Carmody
news:ac9b705c.02110...@posting.google.com...
David Willetts?
(wild guess)
--
Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Zer0
"James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>So the Tories are fighting each other again. IDS's leadership is
>looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
>leader yet again.
Even lifelong Conservatives like me admit the point although most, because
of 'loyalty' to the Party, are only prepared to do so privately. I do so
publicly because I believe that the Party is on the verge of death if his
leadership continues and I do not want to see this event occur.
Essentially, it's appraisal time: the man's been in the job for twelve
months and, on any measure, he isn't up to uniting the Party. It is far
better that he goes now rather than limp on as did both Major and Hague.
>But the really worrying question the Tories must face is, if not IDS
>then who?
>Clarke would be anathema because of his pro-Euro beliefs. Heseltine
>gave up the game. Portillo is busy denying he ever wants to do it
>again but probably would offend a large chunk of the parliamentary
>party.
The large chunk you refer to is part of the problem. Many constituency
party committees are also arguing amongst themselves about the strategy and
direction of the Party, local appointments and more. Young people are not
joining the Party and these old folk are dying like flies. They live in
their jam tart parties of the 1960s, have no view of a Conservative future,
provide little or no new ideas and receive no leadership from Conservative
Central Office.
The only person who has, thus far, shown any comprehension of the task in
hand is Michael Portillo. Clarke is liked and may be a vote winner.
Personally, I wouldn't vote for him - not because of his views on the Euro -
but because he's a medical liability. He doesn't have the energy to change
the Party and if he did, I can imagine him doing a John Smith on us. David
Davies is all puff. Dr Liam Fox has the intellectual ability, but not the
charisma. Theresa May is a has-been that never was.
If the Conservative Party is to survive, Portillo is the man. His problem
is that people are jealous of him.
>This leaves an unknown, or someone like Widdecombe, Lilley or
>Howard...
All three have their abilities and places, but none of them are leadership
material. Lilley is a latter day Keith Joseph (a backroom strategist),
Howard would make a good Party Chairman and Widdecombe should be Northern
Ireland Secretary and bang a few heads together. ;)
My money is on IDS resigning in time for the Sunday papers.....
Zer0
welsh witch
"Zer0" <ze...@bigwig.net> wrote in message
news:aq9131$7jqd6$1...@ID-19198.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip re telling off :-)
> My money is on IDS resigning in time for the Sunday papers.....
>
> Zer0
*****************************************
There's only one with enough fire in his belly to do the trick that is
Portillo. I've always thought ever since the fellows in Mexican hats
were jumping up and down with placards saying 'Portillo per il
presidente'.Is the problem his sexual proclivities really.
Clarke is about to explode with hypertension/high blood pressure.
Teresa May managed on this ng to cause nothing but comments about her
leopardskin shoes and other female assets.
I think IDS will go pretty smartly and if they don't take Portillo to
their hearts so will the Conservative party
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/piggy.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/costtoyou.htm
Zer0
"welsh witch" <webmi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>There's only one with enough fire in his belly to do the trick that is
>Portillo. I've always thought ever since the fellows in Mexican hats
>were jumping up and down with placards saying 'Portillo per il
>presidente'.Is the problem his sexual proclivities really.
No, absolutely not. Conservatives, traditionally, are very tolerant of
gays. I know that sounds condescending, but it's an accurate description of
most of how most of the old guard view homosexuality. Youngsters like me
(37) don't give a toss [if you'll pardon the expression. ;) ]
>I think IDS will go pretty smartly and if they don't take Portillo to
>their hearts so will the Conservative party
Every Conservative MP with a brain is saying so as I write. IDS has to
acknowledge - in the interests of the Party - that he's tried, but, after
twelve months, hasn't gained his Scholarship. He can stay on in school, but
can't be Head Boy.
I honestly think he'll quit and quickly too. He's pig-headed, but
fundamentally decent and knows he can't take the Party to Government.
If he doesn't go, I'm as sure as I can be that push will come to shove.....
Zer0
stuartkinnea...@hotmail.com
>
>"welsh witch" <webmi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>There's only one with enough fire in his belly to do the trick that is
>>Portillo. I've always thought ever since the fellows in Mexican hats
>>were jumping up and down with placards saying 'Portillo per il
>>presidente'.Is the problem his sexual proclivities really.
>
>No, absolutely not. Conservatives, traditionally, are very tolerant of
>gays.
And so they should be, when you consider the demographics of their
party.
Stu
abelard
typed:
>So the Tories are fighting each other again. IDS's leadership is
>looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
>leader yet again.
>
>But the really worrying question the Tories must face is, if not IDS
>then who?
it's become a one horse race...and anybody still warm knows
it....but some of the old farts will get apoplexy....
i have never been so ashamed of a tory leader...
a bunch of inane cliches allied to some idiotic imagining
that 'leadership' means giving order to a platoon of erks....
those running around apologising for him are just making things worse...
it is they who are turning the party into a laughing stock....and
i don't like it....
he seems to have learnt little of serious leadership outside
the army....
clarke is ded in the water....the idealistic young will not back
a tout for the tobacco industry....and the party won't follow
an emu-nut nor someone so closely bound up with the
major debacle....
his only option is to put his ego aside and back the spaniard....
it is the one and only scenario bliar won't be able to finesse......
no secondary runner can now hope to re-establish any authority
after this latest farce.....
the party would be better managing a transition in the old manner..
and forgetting another circus where they all start manoeuvering
for more months while the liar mocks them....
regards....
note...i can now see you!
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
politics, ethics, education, etc >500,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fenris Wolf
<ze...@bigwig.net> writes
>>I think IDS will go pretty smartly and if they don't take Portillo to
>>their hearts so will the Conservative party
>
>Every Conservative MP with a brain is saying so as I write. IDS has to
>acknowledge - in the interests of the Party - that he's tried, but, after
>twelve months, hasn't gained his Scholarship. He can stay on in school, but
>can't be Head Boy.
>
>I honestly think he'll quit and quickly too. He's pig-headed, but
>fundamentally decent and knows he can't take the Party to Government.
>
>If he doesn't go, I'm as sure as I can be that push will come to shove.....
Maybe, but if Portillo gets the leadership we will be seeing a rerun of
this scenario not so far down the line.
--
Fenris Wolf
AnyOneButDrP
<webmi...@nospam.com> writes
i think maybe portillo is a changed man - much less arrogant - but what
sort of team would be build, and how would the various splits be healed?
he might prefer to walk away from the job.
NotDrP
Steve Glynn
"James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ac9b705c.02110...@posting.google.com...
He's almost certainly bright enough not to want the job at the moment, but
Oliver Letwyn seems pretty impressive. I knew him vaguely at university,
and he's both formidably bright and a genuinely decent guy who's also very
hard-headed. Unless he's changed a lot recently he's got right-wing
economic instincts and liberal social ones. He'd certainly give Blair a
hard time.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 25/10/02
Joe Hutcheon
>So the Tories are fighting each other again. IDS's leadership is
>looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
>leader yet again.
>
>But the really worrying question the Tories must face is, if not IDS
>then who?
Oliver Letwin impresses me, but maybe he'd prefer to let someone else
lose the next election as Tory leader, then take over. He seems
bright enough.
Joe Hutcheon
<steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"James Hammerton" <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:ac9b705c.02110...@posting.google.com...
>> So the Tories are fighting each other again. IDS's leadership is
>> looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
>> leader yet again.
>>
>> But the really worrying question the Tories must face is, if not IDS
>> then who?
>
>He's almost certainly bright enough not to want the job at the moment, but
>Oliver Letwyn seems pretty impressive. I knew him vaguely at university,
>and he's both formidably bright and a genuinely decent guy who's also very
>hard-headed. Unless he's changed a lot recently he's got right-wing
>economic instincts and liberal social ones. He'd certainly give Blair a
>hard time.
With my backing and yours as next leader-but-one, Letwin's fate is
surely sealed ;)
Adrian Bailey
>
> >So the Tories are fighting each other again. IDS's leadership is
> >looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
> >leader yet again.
>
> Even lifelong Conservatives like me admit the point although most, because
> of 'loyalty' to the Party, are only prepared to do so privately. I do so
> publicly because I believe that the Party is on the verge of death if his
> leadership continues and I do not want to see this event occur.
What Tories have to face is that their current 165-seat status might
not be a blip. It's easy to think "ah, we're the natural party of
leadership" and expect the country to realise this again sooner or
later. The reality is that the political world has changed and if the
party doesn't modernise the Lib Dems will be only too happy to take
advantage. Their activists are younger and harder-working and
inexorably building up support. Never mind that their councils are
sometimes badly run; they talk to people, they do the casework, they
build up support. And unfortunately for the Tories as the Lib Dems
build up support it's the Tories who suffer. All in all it's much more
likely that the Lib Dems will catch up with Tories at the next
election than that the Tories will win it. That is unless the Tories
get their act together. This means eg. a good leader, an entirely
non-reactionary front bench and speeches/policies which don't sound
like New Labour. And even that might not be enough! I think it's time
for the Tories to call in someone to help them with strategy. The
Scientologists?
> My money is on IDS resigning in time for the Sunday papers.....
Wishful thinking? Is IDS so much of a manic-depressive? I suppose you
might be right: he can hardly be overwhelmed the response to his
speech.
Adrian
Tom May
> On 5 Nov 2002 09:19:48 -0800, ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
>
> typed:
>
> >So the Tories are fighting each other again. IDS's leadership is
> >looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
> >leader yet again.
> >
> >But the really worrying question the Tories must face is, if not IDS
> >then who?
>
> it's become a one horse race...and anybody still warm knows
> it....but some of the old farts will get apoplexy....
>
> i have never been so ashamed of a tory leader...
> a bunch of inane cliches allied to some idiotic imagining
> that 'leadership' means giving order to a platoon of erks....
Hear hear. He is a singularly uninspiring advent for "leadership". He
hadn't led the Tories in any meaningful direction so far; why should
his MPs just follow him; he is a weak, dull helmsman of an already
sunken ship.
> those running around apologising for him are just making things worse...
> it is they who are turning the party into a laughing stock....and
> i don't like it....
I can only agree again; this whole business is really damaging the
Party's standing; it is very amusing for those of us who oppose what
modern Right Wing Conservatism stands for. :-)
But... an effective opposition is needed. While the Lib Dems are more
effective than the Tories, they need to raise their game and ambition.
New Labour shows no sign of moving towards libertarian policies or
anything innovative. The Lib Dems need to try and court disenchanted
Labour supporters I'd say, and put the pressure on there. The Tories
are self-destructing anyway, and the longer IDS remains as leader the
more votes they will lose.
> he seems to have learnt little of serious leadership outside
> the army....
>
> clarke is ded in the water....the idealistic young will not back
> a tout for the tobacco industry....and the party won't follow
> an emu-nut nor someone so closely bound up with the
> major debacle....
> his only option is to put his ego aside and back the spaniard....
> it is the one and only scenario bliar won't be able to finesse......
> no secondary runner can now hope to re-establish any authority
> after this latest farce.....
>
> the party would be better managing a transition in the old manner..
> and forgetting another circus where they all start manoeuvering
> for more months while the liar mocks them....
That is truly bound to happen, i can see...
Regarding the Fireman's pay dispute, i heard that IDS had been made to
look a complete fool by Blair, when he asked (very much paraphrasing
here) "why isn't the fireman's equipment being given over now to the
Army?" Blair just went; "Because the firemen are using it
> regards....
> note...i can now see you!
The whole idea some have had here of a Right wing splinter party
forming from the Right of the Tories, the UKIP and the BNP (though who
would want them involved!?) is interesting. The Tories really have to
split, if they have any real integrity or policy difference. Figures
such as Bercow and Portillo, and other modernisers should really join
New Labour (or the Lib Dems more accurately, as they are a libertarian
party to some degree), as there seems scant difference in their
philosophies and tone.
There ought to be a political realignment in this country with three
groupings;
*A Right wing independant party (though i'd be deeply sceptical about
how successful they'd be; authoritarian? nationalistic, presumably
reflecting many measures touted by the likes of Henderson and Wotan.
They'd have to wise up though, and avoid mixing at all with the BNP.
Strong in certain areas of the countryside)
*New Labour (the new establishment, pro-European, Atlanticist, pro-Big
Business & globalisation)
&
*A left libertarian party (a broad church comprised of realistic left
wingers, much of Old Labour, Trade Union support, Lib Dems, Social
Democrats, Greens; would do rather well in the North and metropolitan
areas methinks).
It does seem to me that radically different policies and outlooks are
needed in our main parties. The political landscape and electoral
system however, very much holds back any chance of any of this
happening. Labour are so far ahead in the First Past the Post system
that they are simply not going to change it. It would be disingenuous
if they were to change the system to PR just because of political
expediency, mind you.
There'd be questions over whether either of the new left or rigth
parties could really take off, but i think many ideas on both sides
would appeal greatly to the public (turnout in 2001 was 59.4%, down
from 81% in 1992), and there'd be far more distinct choice as to how
one voted.
For the Right wing party to be valid in my view, they'd need to
denounce the contradictions in Thatcherism and develop an economic
alternative policy to protect their traditionalism; they'd hopefully
be against the whole Murdoch media axis as well - presumably Blair's
New Labour would still hold sway there, though the European issue
would remain important.
One has to remember in terms of the possible Left party, that New
Labour was only ever accepted with gritted teeth and resignation by
much of the Labour Party's stronghold northern support. A well led
party not subject to whipping etc., with an alliance of more generally
Southern liberalism and Northern labourism could be formidable. He he;
well it was, from before 1979 - it was called the Labour Party :-)
Tom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know you work in electronics, translated all my lyrics,
But you're still a mystery..."
Bruce Tober
Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes
>So the Tories are fighting each other again. IDS's leadership is
>looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
>leader yet again.
He's in excellent company with the schmucks in the whitehouse, number
ten and the kneset.
--
Please note the return of the star-dot-star domain.
| Bruce Tober, <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> , <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk> |
*.* *.* *.* *.*
| UK, EU +44-780-374-8255 (Mobile) |
sean
>
> >So the Tories are fighting each other again. IDS's leadership is
> >looking increasingly untenable. They seem to have an idiot for a
> >leader yet again.
>
> Even lifelong Conservatives like me admit the point although most, because
> of 'loyalty' to the Party, are only prepared to do so privately. I do so
> publicly because I believe that the Party is on the verge of death if his
> leadership continues and I do not want to see this event occur.
>
> Essentially, it's appraisal time: the man's been in the job for twelve
> months and, on any measure, he isn't up to uniting the Party. It is far
> better that he goes now rather than limp on as did both Major and Hague.
>
> >But the really worrying question the Tories must face is, if not IDS
> >then who?
>
> >Clarke would be anathema because of his pro-Euro beliefs. Heseltine
> >gave up the game. Portillo is busy denying he ever wants to do it
> >again but probably would offend a large chunk of the parliamentary
> >party.
>
> The large chunk you refer to is part of the problem. Many constituency
> party committees are also arguing amongst themselves about the strategy and
> direction of the Party, local appointments and more. Young people are not
> joining the Party and these old folk are dying like flies. They live in
> their jam tart parties of the 1960s, have no view of a Conservative future,
> provide little or no new ideas and receive no leadership from Conservative
> Central Office.
The problem with Portillo is:-
1. He never landed a punch on Labour when he was Shadow Chancellor.
Why should he do so if he became leader? and
2. He is actively disliked by the public in general and by
Conservative voters in particular.
>
> The only person who has, thus far, shown any comprehension of the task in
> hand is Michael Portillo. Clarke is liked and may be a vote winner.
> Personally, I wouldn't vote for him - not because of his views on the Euro -
> but because he's a medical liability. He doesn't have the energy to change
> the Party and if he did, I can imagine him doing a John Smith on us. David
> Davies is all puff. Dr Liam Fox has the intellectual ability, but not the
> charisma. Theresa May is a has-been that never was.
>
> If the Conservative Party is to survive, Portillo is the man. His problem
> is that people are jealous of him.
Unfortunately, nothing that he has done over the past few years has
convinced me that he is leadership material. He muffed the chance to
take the leadership in 1995 and again last year when most of the
Shadow Cabinet backed him.
>
> >This leaves an unknown, or someone like Widdecombe, Lilley or
> >Howard...
>
> All three have their abilities and places, but none of them are leadership
> material. Lilley is a latter day Keith Joseph (a backroom strategist),
> Howard would make a good Party Chairman and Widdecombe should be Northern
> Ireland Secretary and bang a few heads together. ;)
>
> My money is on IDS resigning in time for the Sunday papers.....
>
> Zer0
Maybe, but I can see forsee us arguing in twelve months time that
Clarke/Portillo/Davis is not the man for the job. At the moment,
leading the Parliamentary Conservative Party is like herding cats. The
MPs just piss on the activists, such as myself, who feel that all our
work at local level is continuously undermined by their behaviour.
It would help if they were to accept that there is not some
outstanding leader out there who will suddenly transform our poll
ratings. The sooner they accept that getting back into power will
take immense hard work and self-discipline the better.
Alternatively, let's deselect the majority of them.
abelard
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:<q1ggsusaa30e0j0ga...@4ax.com>...
>> those running around apologising for him are just making things worse...
>> it is they who are turning the party into a laughing stock....and
>> i don't like it....
>
>I can only agree again; this whole business is really damaging the
>Party's standing; it is very amusing for those of us who oppose what
>modern Right Wing Conservatism stands for. :-)
>But... an effective opposition is needed. While the Lib Dems are more
>effective than the Tories, they need to raise their game and ambition.
>New Labour shows no sign of moving towards libertarian policies or
>anything innovative. The Lib Dems need to try and court disenchanted
>Labour supporters I'd say, and put the pressure on there. The Tories
>are self-destructing anyway, and the longer IDS remains as leader the
>more votes they will lose.
as you are an obviously intelligent poster, it grieves me
that you can imagine that libertarianism and socialism
are not in direct and fundamental opposition.....
the natural home of any libertarian is either in the tory
party....or no-where......
>> the party would be better managing a transition in the old manner..
>> and forgetting another circus where they all start manoeuvering
>> for more months while the liar mocks them....
>
>That is truly bound to happen, i can see...
>Regarding the Fireman's pay dispute, i heard that IDS had been made to
>look a complete fool by Blair, when he asked (very much paraphrasing
>here) "why isn't the fireman's equipment being given over now to the
>Army?" Blair just went; "Because the firemen are using it
yes, he is clearly not up to the job...very sad.....
but we still have to move on.....
i have been intrigued to see the times mounting an almost
desperate campaign to keep him in place this last week.....
i wonder what is stirring their timorous breasts.....
>> note...i can now see you!
>
>The whole idea some have had here of a Right wing splinter party
>forming from the Right of the Tories, the UKIP and the BNP (though who
>would want them involved!?) is interesting. The Tories really have to
>split, if they have any real integrity or policy difference. Figures
>such as Bercow and Portillo, and other modernisers should really join
>New Labour (or the Lib Dems more accurately, as they are a libertarian
>party to some degree), as there seems scant difference in their
>philosophies and tone.
as above....the very idea is contradictory.....
in due course it is possible you will end up with the members of
the socialist coup....like clarke and haseletine.....
but no libertarian can possibly find enuf common ground with
the genetically programmed control freaks of labour of
the lib dems....
>There ought to be a political realignment in this country with three
>groupings;
>*A Right wing independant party (though i'd be deeply sceptical about
>how successful they'd be; authoritarian? nationalistic, presumably
>reflecting many measures touted by the likes of Henderson and Wotan.
>They'd have to wise up though, and avoid mixing at all with the BNP.
>Strong in certain areas of the countryside)
sure..our very own swp and militant.......
the only place to take down bliar is from the libertarian wing....
they are every bit as aversive to libertarian society as any other
socialist....national socialists instead of international socialists..
they are far more likely to be at home with bliar than with serious
liberals.....they do not even understand the word 'liberal'....as
hatstand constantly demonstrates......
liberalism is quite outside their experience or instincts......
>*New Labour (the new establishment, pro-European, Atlanticist, pro-Big
>Business & globalisation)
>&
>*A left libertarian party (a broad church comprised of realistic left
>wingers, much of Old Labour, Trade Union support, Lib Dems, Social
>Democrats, Greens; would do rather well in the North and metropolitan
>areas methinks).
>
>It does seem to me that radically different policies and outlooks are
>needed in our main parties. The political landscape and electoral
>system however, very much holds back any chance of any of this
>happening. Labour are so far ahead in the First Past the Post system
>that they are simply not going to change it. It would be disingenuous
>if they were to change the system to PR just because of political
>expediency, mind you.
some pr systems would give them (even) 'better' results atm.....
but they would then have to share power with the lib dems....
the lib dems are as far to the left in speech and 'thought' as
bliar and brown are in covert action.....
>There'd be questions over whether either of the new left or rigth
>parties could really take off, but i think many ideas on both sides
>would appeal greatly to the public (turnout in 2001 was 59.4%, down
>from 81% in 1992), and there'd be far more distinct choice as to how
>one voted.
the real problem for britain has been a socialist coup in the tory party..
the public are therefore at present being offered no useful choice
to the public liar.....
>For the Right wing party to be valid in my view, they'd need to
>denounce the contradictions in Thatcherism
which ones?
> and develop an economic
>alternative policy to protect their traditionalism; they'd hopefully
>be against the whole Murdoch media axis as well
exactly why?
> - presumably Blair's
>New Labour would still hold sway there, though the European issue
>would remain important.
why? in what manner?
>One has to remember in terms of the possible Left party, that New
>Labour was only ever accepted with gritted teeth and resignation by
>much of the Labour Party's stronghold northern support.
only because they refuse to worship in public.....
the old left have always believed that all they needed was
to 'explain right' their socialist 'policies'....and the british
public would rush to embrace them....
they really are that stupid....
bliar is doing the only thing possible to get labour into power....
lying through his teeth....continually and consistently.....
while introducing socialist policies as fast as he dares.....
he at least has the wit to know socialism would never be
accepted in britain while it told the truth......
he is a true believer....he (as marx taught) believes the end justifies
the means......
socialism is a crude simplistic puritanical christianist sect.......
most of its parishioners actually believe in it.....
they hate bliar for two reasons....
1)they cannot stand that he doesn't actually preach the true
religion......
2)they are so all fired stupid they cannot work out that he does
practice it!
> A well led
>party not subject to whipping etc., with an alliance of more generally
>Southern liberalism and Northern labourism could be formidable. He he;
>well it was, from before 1979 - it was called the Labour Party :-)
i think you should re-assess your understanding of socialism....
regards...
Tom May
> On 6 Nov 2002 07:39:07 -0800, joycea...@hotmail.com (Tom May)
>
> typed:
>
> >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:<q1ggsusaa30e0j0ga...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> those running around apologising for him are just making things worse...
> >> it is they who are turning the party into a laughing stock....and
> >> i don't like it....
> >
> >I can only agree again; this whole business is really damaging the
> >Party's standing; it is very amusing for those of us who oppose what
> >modern Right Wing Conservatism stands for. :-)
> >But... an effective opposition is needed. While the Lib Dems are more
> >effective than the Tories, they need to raise their game and ambition.
> >New Labour shows no sign of moving towards libertarian policies or
> >anything innovative. The Lib Dems need to try and court disenchanted
> >Labour supporters I'd say, and put the pressure on there. The Tories
> >are self-destructing anyway, and the longer IDS remains as leader the
> >more votes they will lose.
>
> as you are an obviously intelligent poster, it grieves me
> that you can imagine that libertarianism and socialism
> are not in direct and fundamental opposition.....
> the natural home of any libertarian is either in the tory
> party....or no-where......
It *may* used to have been, but you can't say the Party of Widdecombe,
Tebbit and Thatcher is libertarian. Certainly not in the sphere of
social policy.
Indeed, even prior to Thatcher's "Peasant's Revolt", when you had
libertarians like Iain Macleod in prominent Tory positions, it was
Labour who were leading the way with libertarian measures. In terms of
social policy i do mean, economic consensus of the time was for strong
state involvement. Though Healey and Callaghan laid a little
groundwork for monetarism, with their single-minded focus on reducing
inflation.
I don't think overall you would view the Conservatives or Labour as
reflecting Libertarian Parties. They have been in view of some
measures, but it's never been dominant in those Parties' thinking.
> >> the party would be better managing a transition in the old manner..
> >> and forgetting another circus where they all start manoeuvering
> >> for more months while the liar mocks them....
> >
> >That is truly bound to happen, i can see...
> >Regarding the Fireman's pay dispute, i heard that IDS had been made to
> >look a complete fool by Blair, when he asked (very much paraphrasing
> >here) "why isn't the fireman's equipment being given over now to the
> >Army?" Blair just went; "Because the firemen are using it
>
> yes, he is clearly not up to the job...very sad.....
> but we still have to move on.....
It is been clearly self-destructive as well; i doubt a serious
challenge is yet in the offing. He has certainly given his detractors
in the party much ammunition now though.
> i have been intrigued to see the times mounting an almost
> desperate campaign to keep him in place this last week.....
> i wonder what is stirring their timorous breasts.....
I really don't know :-)
> >> note...i can now see you!
> >
> >The whole idea some have had here of a Right wing splinter party
> >forming from the Right of the Tories, the UKIP and the BNP (though who
> >would want them involved!?) is interesting. The Tories really have to
> >split, if they have any real integrity or policy difference. Figures
> >such as Bercow and Portillo, and other modernisers should really join
> >New Labour (or the Lib Dems more accurately, as they are a libertarian
> >party to some degree), as there seems scant difference in their
> >philosophies and tone.
>
> as above....the very idea is contradictory.....
> in due course it is possible you will end up with the members of
> the socialist coup....like clarke and haseletine.....
Hardly Conservatives; Heseltine particularly is a partisan Tory,
albeit one with his ideas grounded in the One Nation Tory school,
which really is more popular with the country at large (see how John
Major in 1992 portrayed himself in this way and won an unpredicted
victory). The sense in which they are "socialist" is only that they
take a less than dogmatic view of Conservatism. Clarke was hardly
socialist, or hardline Thatcherite in his tenure as Chancellor. In
some earlier Cabinet posts he had been seen as a "Thatcherite".
> but no libertarian can possibly find enuf common ground with
> the genetically programmed control freaks of labour of
> the lib dems....
There *was* much libertarianism in the Labour Party, but not now, at
least not in the leadership. I think you overstate the case that
Labour is economically statist, though; how can they be completely
that if they so court Big Business and relentlessly favour it?
> >There ought to be a political realignment in this country with three
> >groupings;
> >*A Right wing independant party (though i'd be deeply sceptical about
> >how successful they'd be; authoritarian? nationalistic, presumably
> >reflecting many measures touted by the likes of Henderson and Wotan.
> >They'd have to wise up though, and avoid mixing at all with the BNP.
> >Strong in certain areas of the countryside)
>
> sure..our very own swp and militant.......
Yeah, one can see parallels.
What would be your vision of an ideal new Right party though?
> the only place to take down bliar is from the libertarian wing....
> they are every bit as aversive to libertarian society as any other
> socialist....
But would you make the leap and have truly libertarian social
policies? Like politicians not meddling in the judiciary, legalising
all drugs and controlling them, etc. Relaxing licensing laws is at
least one libertarian move on Blair's part... though it was really
obvious how antiquated these laws are, in comparison to the rest of
the world, and thus the move was hardly a political gamble. :-)
> national socialists instead of international socialists..
> they are far more likely to be at home with bliar than with serious
> liberals.....they do not even understand the word 'liberal'....as
> hatstand constantly demonstrates......
> liberalism is quite outside their experience or instincts......
Are you talking about the Tory "mods" here as i do suspect?
I don't think any evoking of National Socialism is relevant.
How do you define Liberal then, in a political sense?
> >*New Labour (the new establishment, pro-European, Atlanticist, pro-Big
> >Business & globalisation)
> >&
> >*A left libertarian party (a broad church comprised of realistic left
> >wingers, much of Old Labour, Trade Union support, Lib Dems, Social
> >Democrats, Greens; would do rather well in the North and metropolitan
> >areas methinks).
> >
> >It does seem to me that radically different policies and outlooks are
> >needed in our main parties. The political landscape and electoral
> >system however, very much holds back any chance of any of this
> >happening. Labour are so far ahead in the First Past the Post system
> >that they are simply not going to change it. It would be disingenuous
> >if they were to change the system to PR just because of political
> >expediency, mind you.
>
> some pr systems would give them (even) 'better' results atm.....
I doubt that. They hold 412 seats now, which is 62.5% of the Commons,
on a vote of 41% at the last election. The Conservatives and the Lib
Dems are under-represented; 25.2% of the seats for the Tories; 32% of
the vote; 8% of the seats for the LDs, 19% of the vote.
How would PR help Labour in any way, in view of these figures; they
would struggle to get a majority, let alone a landslide one. However,
the Tories, if in the Hague/Thatcher dead-end Right wing mode would
never again get into Government, as who would work with them in
coalition? The FPTP system is, and has always been weighted towards
the main two parties.
> but they would then have to share power with the lib dems....
> the lib dems are as far to the left in speech and 'thought' as
> bliar and brown are in covert action.....
The LDs are not a genuine left wing Party, but they are obviously
closer than the other main Parties; they gained in votes on this
platform at the last election; in Labour strongholds say, they held up
their vote, while Labour lost thousands of its 1997 supporters.
> >There'd be questions over whether either of the new left or rigth
> >parties could really take off, but i think many ideas on both sides
> >would appeal greatly to the public (turnout in 2001 was 59.4%, down
> >from 81% in 1992), and there'd be far more distinct choice as to how
> >one voted.
>
> the real problem for britain has been a socialist coup in the tory party..
I don't agree there... when was this "coup"? Surely you're not
referring to the current "modernising"?
You simply cannot equate 1990-97 Conservatism with socialism;
pragmatism at times perhaps, but certainly those Governments were of
the Right. I'd doubt you'd find *anyone* taking this view seriously,
say in the North, that the Tories were *socialist*, lol. Try telling
those with memories of the Tories standing by and letting communities
& industries collapse. If they were socialist we would have had (quite
rightfully in my view) Government support and at least plans for
alternative job creation in those areas.
> the public are therefore at present being offered no useful choice
> to the public liar.....
I would welcome credible choices to the "libertarian left" and
"authoritarian right" of Blair and New Labour. It would energise
political discourse in this country. It cannot happen unless certain
current politicians are brave in forming these new groups, or/and PR
is introduced.
> >For the Right wing party to be valid in my view, they'd need to
> >denounce the contradictions in Thatcherism
>
> which ones?
Well, the veneer of moral authority and righteousness Thatcher exuded
whilst pursuing dogmatic free market policies. So many traditional
aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism; old Labourism
yes, and *very much* the Old Right also.
> > and develop an economic
> >alternative policy to protect their traditionalism; they'd hopefully
> >be against the whole Murdoch media axis as well
>
> exactly why?
Because his influence is debasing to the British media, that's why...
If they can't see that, they have little hope. Would this
traditionalist Right Party really want to be associated with the
ephemeral, tacky, populism of the Sun et al?
To be credible, this Party would have to be independant of particular
media forces like that.
> > - presumably Blair's
> >New Labour would still hold sway there, though the European issue
> >would remain important.
>
> why? in what manner?
On Europe you'd have both the Left and Right parties i think against
the Euro, and Blair's Establishment for it...
I don't think political parties should be made up from one policy
area; that's why the UKIP and the RP were such a joke. It is an idea
that has left the Tories bereft of any effective leadership; c.f.
Hague, and the election and subsequent ineptitude of "IDS"... They are
far *over*-obsessed with Europe, while hypocritically being 150%
pro-US.
The U.S. influence to our politics and country, is *far* more than the
European one, and at the moment, with George W. Bush on the rampage,
many in Britain are really coming round to realising this.
Britain is a profoundly different culture to the USA, and it couldn't
take a GWB... Our political discourse is thnakfully more elevated than
it is there, where there is *intense*, blind partisanship, and a
gutless Democratic Party.
Just look at U.S. political newsgroups, rabid rantings all the way on
something like talk.politics.misc... UKPM seems a positively genial
environment in comparison, and while there are many loose cannons here
(lol), we do at least debate things in a way approaching intelligent.
:-) Sometimes. :-)
> >One has to remember in terms of the possible Left party, that New
> >Labour was only ever accepted with gritted teeth and resignation by
> >much of the Labour Party's stronghold northern support.
>
> only because they refuse to worship in public.....
> the old left have always believed that all they needed was
> to 'explain right' their socialist 'policies'....and the british
> public would rush to embrace them....
> they really are that stupid....
Well, maybe get a fair hearing perhaps, is what they meant, c.f. the
frankly disgusting pro-Conservative media bias in the 1983, 87 and 92
elections.
The British people have accepted some form of democratic socialism by
landslides in 1945 and 1966, though those are the exception, they show
something. Approaching 50% of the people in high turnouts returned
Labour MPs, albeit ones of very different schools; lol -
Gaitskellites, Croslandites, the old Left, the New Left, Jenkinsites,
just moderate Trade Union men... it was a broad church of many
disparate factions.
You cannot say Labour "socialism" ammounted to *one thing*. The
Crosland model, the one with which i most agree, never had
pre-eminance within the Party's leadership, which was represented
after Gaitskell by the tactical nous and moderate pragmatism of
Wilson.
> bliar is doing the only thing possible to get labour into power....
> lying through his teeth....continually and consistently.....
> while introducing socialist policies as fast as he dares.....
Examples? Examples please?
> he at least has the wit to know socialism would never be
> accepted in britain while it told the truth......
I think it would now, if it was stood (which of course it isn't in any
sense) against today's shambolic Tory Party...
> he is a true believer....he (as marx taught) believes the end justifies
> the means......
What do you mean here?
> socialism is a crude simplistic puritanical christianist sect.......
Maybe *one* faction within it was; it cannot apply to the whole range
of British socialism.
> most of its parishioners actually believe in it.....
Convictions and principles... at least they had these. Stuff which the
press is now going on about politicians not having; while it was
indeed the debasing press, and the Thatcher years, that saw political
careerism very much take over.
> they hate bliar for two reasons....
> 1)they cannot stand that he doesn't actually preach the true
> religion......
> 2)they are so all fired stupid they cannot work out that he does
> practice it!
Yes, but does he? Please explain in detail how he practises
socialism... 'Tis strange how he has the whole country, all
socialists, conservatives or whatever, "fooled", and yet not you.
> > A well led
> >party not subject to whipping etc., with an alliance of more generally
> >Southern liberalism and Northern labourism could be formidable. He he;
> >well it was, from before 1979 - it was called the Labour Party :-)
>
> i think you should re-assess your understanding of socialism....
I understand it is a complex thing, and not at all this simple Marxist
formula that the likes of Wotan claim it is (while claiming most
Tories are Marxist, lol). It can, and has, meant many things to many
people. You cannot view the Labour Party from 1945-94 say, as
exclusively a social democratic party, or a left wing party; it was a
coalition of ideologies and to some degree reflected the times. The
golden thread of Labour Socialism i would say, though, has to be the
defence and representation of ordinary working people. There is
nothing Marxist about that.
Tom.
Joe Hutcheon
wrote:
<abelard speaking>
>> they hate bliar for two reasons....
>> 1)they cannot stand that he doesn't actually preach the true
>> religion......
>> 2)they are so all fired stupid they cannot work out that he does
>> practice it!
>
>Yes, but does he? Please explain in detail how he practises
>socialism... 'Tis strange how he has the whole country, all
>socialists, conservatives or whatever, "fooled", and yet not you.
abelard and Wotan have cornered the market in tinfoil helmets. The
rest of us are so brainwashedwe cannot see the Marxism inherent in the
Tory party. <add boilerplate stuff about jews, freemasons, sheeple>
Zer0
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>i have been intrigued to see the times mounting an almost
> desperate campaign to keep him in place this last week.....
>i wonder what is stirring their timorous breasts.....
Under its new editor, The Times has become a socialist rag to the left of
The Independent, but more dangerous. The agenda is to keep IDS in office
which makes Blair continue to look like a statesman. Frankly, TB's
performance at PM'sQs yesterday was quite satisfactory. Had he been facing
Margaret Thatcher, it would have been a different story altogether.
However, word from the Avenue of the Americas is that Rupe is not best
pleased with his new editor and that a visit from his henchman (or should I
say hatchetman?), a chap called Ian Moore, is due fairly soon.....I hear
that falling circulation, increasing costs and headcounts might be
discussed.....
Zer0
Joe Hutcheon
>However, word from the Avenue of the Americas is that Rupe is not best
>pleased with his new editor and that a visit from his henchman (or should I
>say hatchetman?), a chap called Ian Moore, is due fairly soon.....I hear
>that falling circulation, increasing costs and headcounts might be
>discussed.....
Bring on Andrew Neil! He's just the chap to decrease circulation and
increase costs!
abelard
typed:
bluddy nora...one person i did not expect to see knee jerking...
i am almost gratified...but a little saddened...
regards....and sympathy...
abelard
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:<1amjsu8llv9lll7qt...@4ax.com>...
first having read down your post...welcome to an old time thoughtful
'socialist'.....we need you like around here......
not that i swallow much of your religious finesse.....:-)
the other side is the nuisance that you actually want to
make me work instead of swatting brainless socialist sheep....
ho hum....
>> as you are an obviously intelligent poster, it grieves me
>> that you can imagine that libertarianism and socialism
>> are not in direct and fundamental opposition.....
>> the natural home of any libertarian is either in the tory
>> party....or no-where......
>
>It *may* used to have been, but you can't say the Party of Widdecombe,
>Tebbit and Thatcher is libertarian. Certainly not in the sphere of
>social policy.
widdecombe has rightly been said to have sommat of the full
moon about her....on an intellectual level she is not worth
discussion....
tebbit could easily be called a libertarian....on yer bike......
shame he became embittered (with some excuse)
thatcher did a lot to free the markets but yes, an uptight
limited mind....
in china they are gradually freeing the markets...while supposedly hoping
they can hold the lid on society....
you can't free people economically...thus giving them power.....and
simultaneously hoping to control them so much.....
maggie's greatest failing was never to tackle the middle class unions....
but perhaps she did not have the political capital.....
maggie was common sense....not intellectual giantism.....
her judgement of men was also dire....
>Indeed, even prior to Thatcher's "Peasant's Revolt", when you had
>libertarians like Iain Macleod in prominent Tory positions, it was
>Labour who were leading the way with libertarian measures. In terms of
>social policy i do mean, economic consensus of the time was for strong
>state involvement. Though Healey and Callaghan laid a little
>groundwork for monetarism, with their single-minded focus on reducing
>inflation.
urghhh....28% inflation....where are you at?
you also seem to have a strange idea of libertarianism.....
you seem to apply it to wealth redistribution rather than freedom
to sink or swim....and freedom to profit....
i could see such a pov....while not using such a vocab........
you are using liberty in a very socialist mindset which i never
could believe had any realism or consistency......
that will give me problems following your meanings.....
but at least you clearly do thing....which is a relief.....
>I don't think overall you would view the Conservatives or Labour as
>reflecting Libertarian Parties. They have been in view of some
>measures, but it's never been dominant in those Parties' thinking.
1)not as parties...no....
2)there has always been a strong core/subset of libertarian thinking/
thinkers in the tory party.....i see nothing similar in labour....
(i am well versed in socialists who tell me they are libertarians....
but are not close to any such thing...socialism tend to get its
adherents turning somersaults to convince themselves that
black is white.....just like christianists)
3)i'd need to know what measures you refer to.....
>> yes, he is clearly not up to the job...very sad.....
>> but we still have to move on.....
>
>It is been clearly self-destructive as well; i doubt a serious
>challenge is yet in the offing. He has certainly given his detractors
>in the party much ammunition now though.
i see our socialist coup are just drooling to get back into the seat and
cause still more harm to the party....i'd rather put up with ids than
that.....
>> i have been intrigued to see the times mounting an almost
>> desperate campaign to keep him in place this last week.....
>> i wonder what is stirring their timorous breasts.....
>
>I really don't know :-)
i was hoping someone would explain it to me.....
>> as above....the very idea is contradictory.....
>> in due course it is possible you will end up with the members of
>> the socialist coup....like clarke and haseletine.....
>
>Hardly Conservatives; Heseltine particularly is a partisan Tory,
>albeit one with his ideas grounded in the One Nation Tory school,
>which really is more popular with the country at large (see how John
>Major in 1992 portrayed himself in this way and won an unpredicted
>victory).
he was damned near bound to win because of the poll tax....
and it was also necessary to finish of the confidence of the
old left and the poisonous pillock.....
and oh what a joy was the sheffield rally...you could just see all those
pensioners hackles rising.....'i'll vote against this idiot if i
have to crawl to the voting station'......
> The sense in which they are "socialist" is only that they
>take a less than dogmatic view of Conservatism. Clarke was hardly
>socialist, or hardline
you mean part of the old ratchet/'concensus'....but that was more
tory party cowardice and a dose of political realism.....
>Thatcherite in his tenure as Chancellor. In
>some earlier Cabinet posts he had been seen as a "Thatcherite".
i *think* i understand your intent....but i'm not betting.....
i'm far to the right of the one nation crowd....they believe in government
far more than myself.....they are socialists relative to myself......
but the are also far to the right of hatstand and wotan......
>> but no libertarian can possibly find enuf common ground with
>> the genetically programmed control freaks of labour of
>> the lib dems....
>
>There *was* much libertarianism in the Labour Party, but not now, at
>least not in the leadership. I think you overstate the case that
>Labour is economically statist, though; how can they be completely
>that if they so court Big Business and relentlessly favour it?
adolf courted big business and was heavily funded by it.....
big business is cartels....it pays its placemen to put in 'laws'
that make competition near impossible....it has the same
aim as all socialism....the control of the masses..........
cartelised business is not an enemy of socialism....
socialists are also mostly poor and thus usually venal when someone
starts offering to fill their pockets with penknives and calendars...
financial corruption is a bed partner of socialism....tories are more
interested in christine keeler.....or oranges.....
trouble is we now have the barrow boys in the party.....
>> >There ought to be a political realignment in this country with three
>> >groupings;
>> >*A Right wing independant party (though i'd be deeply sceptical about
>> >how successful they'd be; authoritarian? nationalistic, presumably
>> >reflecting many measures touted by the likes of Henderson and Wotan.
>> >They'd have to wise up though, and avoid mixing at all with the BNP.
>> >Strong in certain areas of the countryside)
>>
>> sure..our very own swp and militant.......
>
>Yeah, one can see parallels.
>What would be your vision of an ideal new Right party though?
social libertarianism and limitation of franchise to protect the feckless
from themselves....and to protect us from the feckless.....
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
i am a registered elitist.....most socialists are shallow academic
elitists who neither recognise that they are elitists...so get very
confused...and who have little real world experience so couldn't run
a whelk stall.....
i don't believe in 'equality'.....i regard a great deal of the political
difficulties to arise from the dogma of 'equality'...
the religion of 'equality' leads automatically to crazy attempt
to square circles....but the religion is so deeply embedded
that it is near impossible to get people to think clearly......
>> the only place to take down bliar is from the libertarian wing....
>> they are every bit as aversive to libertarian society as any other
>> socialist....
>
>But would you make the leap and have truly libertarian social
>policies?
not for the incompetent.....yes for those who can shift for
themselves...
> Like politicians not meddling in the judiciary, legalising
>all drugs and controlling them, etc.
yes, assuming details...
> Relaxing licensing laws is at
>least one libertarian move on Blair's part... though it was really
>obvious how antiquated these laws are, in comparison to the rest of
>the world, and thus the move was hardly a political gamble. :-)
sure...they were a complete disgrace...like so much....
>> national socialists instead of international socialists..
>> they are far more likely to be at home with bliar than with serious
>> liberals.....they do not even understand the word 'liberal'....as
>> hatstand constantly demonstrates......
>> liberalism is quite outside their experience or instincts......
>
>Are you talking about the Tory "mods" here as i do suspect?
your meaning is unclear....
>I don't think any evoking of National Socialism is relevant.
not entirely convinced...paris keeps attempting to mess with this....
even talks more sense than some if he could drop the associated fetish...
>How do you define Liberal then, in a political sense?
someone who minds their own business.....
>> some pr systems would give them (labour/left) (even) 'better' results atm.....
>
>I doubt that. They hold 412 seats now, which is 62.5% of the Commons,
>on a vote of 41% at the last election. The Conservatives and the Lib
>Dems are under-represented; 25.2% of the seats for the Tories; 32% of
>the vote; 8% of the seats for the LDs, 19% of the vote.
>How would PR help Labour in any way, in view of these figures; they
>would struggle to get a majority, let alone a landslide one.
them's the figures....but we have an extremely unsophisticated
electorate....ones who believe bliar is a tory...or the lib dems
are not socialists....
under such a system i expect the voters would gradually become more
awake...so the effects may not last....
> However,
>the Tories, if in the Hague/Thatcher dead-end Right wing mode would
>never again get into Government, as who would work with them in
>coalition?
one's an old fogey...and the other a young fogey....
they are staying still while the culture is slowly drifting away from
them.....thus is don't see them as particularly relevant even
as models....
who'd work with them? a few of the old men who wish to return
to the 'good old days'....but then they never had any other
security blanket...or viable political home in uk politics....
such people are both irrelevant and a block to removing bliar....
they allow mischievous persons like yourself to mock the party.....
but you must know they are politically quite irrelevant....
> The FPTP system is, and has always been weighted towards
>the main two parties.
indeed...and a good thing to at the present level of education.....
>> but they would then have to share power with the lib dems....
>> the lib dems are as far to the left in speech and 'thought' as
>> bliar and brown are in covert action.....
>
>The LDs are not a genuine left wing Party, but they are obviously
>closer than the other main Parties; they gained in votes on this
>platform at the last election; in Labour strongholds say, they held up
>their vote, while Labour lost thousands of its 1997 supporters.
sure...but those are not savvy voters or opinion formers....
the lds seem to be prepared to tell their target whatever
their targets will swallow....but they are not a serious political
party in britain.....
they would be under pr...which is the real reason bliar will never
allow it....and a good job too....
>> >There'd be questions over whether either of the new left or rigth
>> >parties could really take off, but i think many ideas on both sides
>> >would appeal greatly to the public (turnout in 2001 was 59.4%, down
>> >from 81% in 1992), and there'd be far more distinct choice as to how
>> >one voted.
>>
>> the real problem for britain has been a socialist coup in the tory party..
>
>I don't agree there... when was this "coup"? Surely you're not
>referring to the current "modernising"?
no...major's coup....
>You simply cannot equate 1990-97 Conservatism with socialism;
from 18 month's into the major administration...i most surely
can....and do.....
>pragmatism at times perhaps,
major wasn't pragmatic....major was a dogmatist....he had bliar
on toast....he lost the '97 election....there was absolutely no need..
had he done what was required it would have been him gaining
the landslide....i told him what to do...he thought he knew better...
as idiots usually do....
bliar did it instead.....only difference was it was obvious that no
socialist could mean it....but the public will always swallow lies
as long as faced with a big grin.....
>but certainly those Governments were of
>the Right.
total dissent...
> I'd doubt you'd find *anyone* taking this view seriously,
>say in the North, that the Tories were *socialist*, lol.
and there speaks the labourite religion...not careful analysis.....
> Try telling
>those with memories of the Tories standing by and letting communities
>& industries collapse.
not much serious choice available....
> If they were socialist we would have had (quite
>rightfully in my view) Government support and at least plans for
>alternative job creation in those areas.
you know as well as i do that vast sums were put in......
>> the public are therefore at present being offered no useful choice
>> to the public liar.....
>
>I would welcome credible choices to the "libertarian left" and
>"authoritarian right" of Blair and New Labour. It would energise
>political discourse in this country. It cannot happen unless certain
>current politicians are brave in forming these new groups, or/and PR
>is introduced.
there is no libertarian left....and pr would be a disaster.....
>> >For the Right wing party to be valid in my view, they'd need to
>> >denounce the contradictions in Thatcherism
>>
>> which ones?
>
>Well, the veneer of moral authority and righteousness Thatcher exuded
>whilst pursuing dogmatic free market policies.
accepted....
>So many traditional
>aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism;
precisely which?
>old Labourism
old labourism is just the shallow religion and sectional interests
>yes, and *very much* the Old Right also.
the old right is one nation and the aristocracy.....
you're losing me in the theology of the left....
>> > and develop an economic
>> >alternative policy to protect their traditionalism; they'd hopefully
>> >be against the whole Murdoch media axis as well
>>
>> exactly why?
>
>Because his influence is debasing to the British media, that's why...
he's tamed the house of windsor which is no small contribution
to britain...he has tamed a considerable part of the unions....
there are worse influences.....
the bbc pours out emotionalism in the soaps.....and more....
>If they can't see that, they have little hope. Would this
>traditionalist Right Party really want to be associated with the
>ephemeral, tacky, populism of the Sun et al?
i live in a society where the vote of the dole q addict
is equal to that of einstein....crap like the sun tells them how to
vote.....suggest an alternative.....
>To be credible, this Party would have to be independant of particular
>media forces like that.
you are close to dreaming.....how they gonna advertise their wares?
the labour battalions will only vote for the party daddy voted for.....
and the tory ones would vote for a wooden parrot as long as it was blue...
as usual...(as a socialist) your position assumes 'equality' and
as an academic socialist you project that jo sixpak is capable
of complex analysis.....
ie, you are no realist or pragmatist.....
the rich will continue to buy elections and there is not one damned
thing you can do about it....you have to sell them a package they
can support.....
these people are generally of good will....and many of them are none
to bright...this combined with a tory party lately captured by
socialists leaves no alternative to bliar....
the tory party is in shit because both the socialist coup...and the
jackboots both dream of controlling it.....they are both daft....
neither group can both dominate the party *and* get it elected.....
but such fools always tend to believe their own dreams....
just like militant and the swp....
the central core of the party is the one nationers....and the brains
are mostly libertarians with a very few jackboots.....
this last, our equivalent of head in the clouds benn.....
the core and dullards....and the libertarians will not stand for
either of the outriders dominating......
usually it is a one nationer....sometimes nearer to a libertarian
like thatcher...and probably churchill.....(they normally get in
when the party runs out of options....)
big changes in the tory party have been the rise of the barrow boys
(even thatcher) and the left wing coup.....
the party has always been about power....now we have some squabbling
shallow dogmatists....
this will continue until our versions of militant stop dreaming.....
and someone with some balls is allowed to lead the party.....
ids is showing he hasn't the necessary instincts or skill.....
no more time atm.....
hope this will suffice....
and hope to see more of your interesting posts...
if i've chopped sommat...please iterate and i'll attempt to respond....
if i get room!
Robin Carmody
> >the Tories, if in the Hague/Thatcher dead-end Right wing mode would
> >never again get into Government, as who would work with them in
> >coalition?
>
> one's an old fogey...and the other a young fogey....
> they are staying still while the culture is slowly drifting away from
> them.....thus is don't see them as particularly relevant even
> as models....
> who'd work with them? a few of the old men who wish to return
> to the 'good old days'....but then they never had any other
> security blanket...or viable political home in uk politics....
> such people are both irrelevant and a block to removing bliar....
This is as close as you come to making sense, Abelard.
But you're also capable of this absurdity:
> major wasn't pragmatic....major was a dogmatist....he had bliar
> on toast....he lost the '97 election....there was absolutely no need..
> had he done what was required it would have been him gaining
> the landslide....i told him what to do...he thought he knew better...
> as idiots usually do....
And this little gem:
> >So many traditional
> >aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism;
>
> precisely which?
If you don't know *that*, then you really are beyond telling. Do you
remember Britain as it was before 1979, incidentally?
abelard
typed:
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>>i have been intrigued to see the times mounting an almost
>> desperate campaign to keep him in place this last week.....
>>i wonder what is stirring their timorous breasts.....
>
>Under its new editor, The Times has become a socialist rag to the left of
>The Independent, but more dangerous.
if it is...it would be.....
> The agenda is to keep IDS in office
>which makes Blair continue to look like a statesman.
that was all that made sense to me.....
would that really suit murdoch atm? usually he shows more sense
than that...
>Frankly, TB's
>performance at PM'sQs yesterday was quite satisfactory. Had he been facing
>Margaret Thatcher, it would have been a different story altogether.
>
>However, word from the Avenue of the Americas is that Rupe is not best
>pleased with his new editor and that a visit from his henchman (or should I
>say hatchetman?), a chap called Ian Moore, is due fairly soon.....I hear
>that falling circulation, increasing costs and headcounts might be
>discussed.....
is this displeasure merely economic?
abelard
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:9p2lsuo15qvkrn2fb...@4ax.com...
>> On 7 Nov 2002 04:27:21 -0800, joycea...@hotmail.com (Tom May) >
>> typed:
>>
>> > However,
>> >the Tories, if in the Hague/Thatcher dead-end Right wing mode would
>> >never again get into Government, as who would work with them in
>> >coalition?
>>
>> one's an old fogey...and the other a young fogey....
>> they are staying still while the culture is slowly drifting away from
>> them.....thus is don't see them as particularly relevant even
>> as models....
>> who'd work with them? a few of the old men who wish to return
>> to the 'good old days'....but then they never had any other
>> security blanket...or viable political home in uk politics....
>> such people are both irrelevant and a block to removing bliar....
>
>This is as close as you come to making sense, Abelard.
unfortunately you make no sense at all.....
but that is only because you in fact say nothing....
you do not post content.....
>But you're also capable of this absurdity:
your posture is entirely transparent...
like so many socialists....you have no argument so you resort
to empty rhetoric....
>> major wasn't pragmatic....major was a dogmatist....he had bliar
>> on toast....he lost the '97 election....there was absolutely no need..
>> had he done what was required it would have been him gaining
>> the landslide....i told him what to do...he thought he knew better...
>> as idiots usually do....
>
>And this little gem:
more rhetoric....
>> >So many traditional
>> >aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism;
>>
>> precisely which?
>
>If you don't know *that*, then you really are beyond telling.
ie, you are retailing standard empty millbank mythology and crap.....
and you have on serious response.....
> Do you
>remember Britain as it was before 1979, incidentally?
more rhetoric....
as so often....you post is entirely bereft of content....
do you really imagine it is not noticed?
do you really imagine such flummery is a substitute for thought
or argument....
it may go down on the boob toob...it may suffice for bliar in 'interviews'
it may substitute for 'education' in a second rate university
in a soft 'subject'.....
but you don't really seriously believe you can get away with it here...
or perhaps....deep deep sigh...just perhaps you really do!
it is because you continually post such tiresome pap that i hardly ever
bother with your posts...
unless you post on pop 'stars' of whom you seem to have some knowledge....
why not give us an obit on linnee dinnergong....or some such...
and stop pretending you have any interest or knowledge of politics....
we have a wide variety of posters here.....
they don't have to be serious about politics.....
you will be just as welcome posting light commentary on culture
where you are simply out of your depth.....
such contributions give flavour and variety to the group.....
and such contributions will be of much more interest than you empty
rhetorical pap....
always better to do what you can do....rather than attempting
to compete for attention by trying to ape others who are very
much better informed than yourself.....
regards...because, despite your limitations, i do think you're a good chap
Jonathan Bratt
<ze...@bigwig.net> writes
>
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>>i have been intrigued to see the times mounting an almost
>> desperate campaign to keep him in place this last week.....
>>i wonder what is stirring their timorous breasts.....
>
>Under its new editor, The Times has become a socialist rag to the left of
>The Independent, but more dangerous. The agenda is to keep IDS in office
>which makes Blair continue to look like a statesman. Frankly, TB's
>performance at PM'sQs yesterday was quite satisfactory. Had he been facing
>Margaret Thatcher, it would have been a different story altogether.
Or Clark. Or Portillo. Or.....anyone?
>
--
Jonathan Bratt
Zer0
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>>Under its new editor, The Times has become a socialist rag to the left of
>>The Independent, but more dangerous.
>if it is...it would be.....
Don't you observe thus? Tom Baldwin, Peter Riddell and almost every
political journalist in the paper spend every weekday wanking-off with
Alastair Campbell! [Metaphorically, of course.....]
>>The agenda is to keep IDS in office
>>which makes Blair continue to look like a statesman.
>that was all that made sense to me.....
>would that really suit murdoch atm? usually he shows more sense
> than that...
He's got Sky News on the new £100 box, which was what he wanted from Blair.
See my post timed at 17:02 on 13-Jun-2002.
>>Frankly, TB's
>>performance at PM'sQs yesterday was quite satisfactory. Had he been
facing
>>Margaret Thatcher, it would have been a different story altogether.
>>However, word from the Avenue of the Americas is that Rupe is not best
>>pleased with his new editor and that a visit from his henchman (or should
I
>>say hatchetman?), a chap called Ian Moore, is due fairly soon.....I hear
>>that falling circulation, increasing costs and headcounts might be
>>discussed.....
>is this displeasure merely economic?
From Rupe's viewpoint, yes. He switches allegiances as fast as share prices
on a Monday morning following a bad curry. The new Aussie editor is trying
to make a political mark (with TB) and losing readers (and money) like they
were going out of style. The Times is in crisis.
Zer0
Zer0
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
<snip>
>regards...because, despite your limitations, i do think you're a good chap
Phew......that was heavy, old boy.....
Zer0
abelard
typed:
blah!
it was merited....
i do not appreciate wasting time opening posts and
discovering copious words and..........................no content.....
if they want to post...let them post argument........or even tales
about who their mother in law saw across a crowded room
in vladivostok buying a drink for the unknown soldier...
but please please...enuf of the empty dribble....
have you ever received a neatly addressed envelope....
a pretty commemorative stamp.....and no contents!
here i get the experience several times each day....
and i don't enjoy it!!!
regards...
Steve Glynn
"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aqef42$102$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> news:9p2lsuo15qvkrn2fb...@4ax.com...
> > On 7 Nov 2002 04:27:21 -0800, joycea...@hotmail.com (Tom May) >
> > typed:
> > >So many traditional
> > >aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism;
> >
> > precisely which?
>
> If you don't know *that*, then you really are beyond telling. Do you
> remember Britain as it was before 1979, incidentally?
>
>
>
I remember Britain as it was before 1979, Robin. I was born in 1955.
Remind us again how old you are -- 22, isn't it?
Hmm. Remarkable memory you must have.
John Bennett
> a pretty commemorative stamp.....and no contents!
> here i get the experience several times each day....
> and i don't enjoy it!!!
Been opening used French letters again have we??;-)
Robin Carmody
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:34:08 -0000, "Zer0" <ze...@bigwig.net>
>
> typed:
>
> >"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>regards...because, despite your limitations, i do think you're a good
chap
> >
> >Phew......that was heavy, old boy.....
>
> blah!
> it was merited....
You smell of the Eton common room, Abelard.
"Unspoilt peasants", anyone?
Robin Carmody
news:aqf0t1$91m5q$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aqef42$102$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> > news:9p2lsuo15qvkrn2fb...@4ax.com...
> > > On 7 Nov 2002 04:27:21 -0800, joycea...@hotmail.com (Tom May) >
> > > typed:
> <snip>
> > > >So many traditional
> > > >aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism;
> > >
> > > precisely which?
> >
> > If you don't know *that*, then you really are beyond telling. Do you
> > remember Britain as it was before 1979, incidentally?
> >
> > Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
> >
> >
>
> I remember Britain as it was before 1979, Robin. I was born in 1955.
> Remind us again how old you are -- 22, isn't it?
>
> Hmm. Remarkable memory you must have.
I was just testing Abelard, who strikes me as a fraud. He presents himself
as a wise old political sage; I suspect he is actually a highly egotistical
student who has dressed himself in bogus "knowledge" and "experiences". He
is so devoid of self-confidence that I wouldn't be surprised if he's even
younger than me :).
Or maybe he is a tiresome old crone anyway. He is certainly in a different
world from most of us.
abelard
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
ah....another empty post.....
abelard
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
typed:
>Steve Glynn <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:aqf0t1$91m5q$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> "Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:aqef42$102$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> > abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> > news:9p2lsuo15qvkrn2fb...@4ax.com...
>> > > On 7 Nov 2002 04:27:21 -0800, joycea...@hotmail.com (Tom May) >
>> > > typed:
>> <snip>
>> > > >So many traditional
>> > > >aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism;
>> > >
>> > > precisely which?
>> >
>> > If you don't know *that*, then you really are beyond telling. Do you
>> > remember Britain as it was before 1979, incidentally?
>> I remember Britain as it was before 1979, Robin. I was born in 1955.
>> Remind us again how old you are -- 22, isn't it?
>>
>> Hmm. Remarkable memory you must have.
>
>I was just testing Abelard,
of course you were.....
typical defensive statement of the unconfident fraud....
but of course you already said that......
> who strikes me as a fraud. He presents himself
>as a wise old political sage; I suspect he is actually a highly egotistical
>student who has dressed himself in bogus "knowledge" and "experiences". He
>is so devoid of self-confidence that I wouldn't be surprised if he's even
>younger than me :).
and still another empty post....
>Or maybe he is a tiresome old crone anyway. He is certainly in a different
>world from most of us.
and now you speak for 'most of us'....yes, more empty millbank pap.....
you are not in the world....you show no discernable signs of contact
with reality....
how do you manage to use so many words saying so little....
sorry....saying nothing at all....
Robin Carmody
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:21:47 -0000, "Robin Carmody"
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> >news:2lslsu0iojcriuled...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:34:08 -0000, "Zer0" <ze...@bigwig.net>
> >>
> >> typed:
> >>
> >> >"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >>regards...because, despite your limitations, i do think you're a good
> >chap
> >> >
> >> >Phew......that was heavy, old boy.....
> >>
> >> blah!
> >> it was merited....
> >
> >You smell of the Eton common room, Abelard.
> >
> >"Unspoilt peasants", anyone?
>
> ah....another empty post.....
So are you prepared to apologise for your reference to the "unspoilt
peasants" of Sussex earlier this year?
Robin Carmody
>
> and now you speak for 'most of us'....yes, more empty millbank pap.....
Why does everyone who disagrees with my politics *always* assume that I am a
Blairite?
Joe Hutcheon
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:32:04 GMT, j.hut...@hefce.ac.uk (Joe Hutcheon)
>
> typed:
>
>>On 7 Nov 2002 04:27:21 -0800, joycea...@hotmail.com (Tom May)
>>wrote:
>>
>><abelard speaking>
>>>> they hate bliar for two reasons....
>>>> 1)they cannot stand that he doesn't actually preach the true
>>>> religion......
>>>> 2)they are so all fired stupid they cannot work out that he does
>>>> practice it!
>>>
>>>Yes, but does he? Please explain in detail how he practises
>>>socialism... 'Tis strange how he has the whole country, all
>>>socialists, conservatives or whatever, "fooled", and yet not you.
>>
>>abelard and Wotan have cornered the market in tinfoil helmets. The
>>rest of us are so brainwashedwe cannot see the Marxism inherent in the
>>Tory party. <add boilerplate stuff about jews, freemasons, sheeple>
>
>bluddy nora...one person i did not expect to see knee jerking...
>i am almost gratified...but a little saddened...
S'alright. I just tire sometimes of your 'I told so-and-so this'; 'I
told so-and-so that' 'I was right all along' approach. Don't you ever
admit to a mistake, a misjudgement, even to yourself? If you do,
don't you think 'I was wrong then, I could be wrong again'?
>regards....and sympathy...
Thanks for the regards. To quote George Michael (in a Robin Carmody
stylee) 'I don't need your sympathy'.
Joe Hutcheon
<steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Robin Carmody" <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aqef42$102$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> news:9p2lsuo15qvkrn2fb...@4ax.com...
>> > On 7 Nov 2002 04:27:21 -0800, joycea...@hotmail.com (Tom May) >
>> > typed:
><snip>
>> > >So many traditional
>> > >aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism;
>> >
>> > precisely which?
Free school milk! Free Nelson Mandela!! Free model spaceship with
every packet!!!
>> If you don't know *that*, then you really are beyond telling. Do you
>> remember Britain as it was before 1979, incidentally?
>
>I remember Britain as it was before 1979, Robin.
Me too. I remember farthings and how you could only really use them to
buy blackjacks or those fruit sweets that were 4 a penny. Selwyn
Lloyd put taxes on sweets, the Tory swine!
>I was born in 1955.
1954 myself. Blimey! trapped between Michael Portillo and Steve Glynn.
I dont know which way to turn.
>Remind us again how old you are -- 22, isn't it?
22! 1976; the long hot summer, with the first stirrings of punk rock
just beginning to make themselves heard
Bruce Tober
<steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>I remember Britain as it was before 1979, Robin. I was born in
>1955.
>Remind us again how old you are -- 22, isn't it?
Er, try just this side of 100. Closer to a century than 22.
It could be age that's got him so fucked up, but I wouldn't count on it.
I chalk it up to inherited inbred insanity.
--
Please note the return of the star-dot-star domain.
| Bruce Tober, <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> , <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk> |
*.* *.* *.* *.*
| UK, EU +44-780-374-8255 (Mobile) |
Bruce Tober
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Or maybe he is a tiresome old crone anyway. He is certainly in a
>different
>world from most of us.
BINGO! On both counts.
Bruce Tober
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>You smell of the Eton common room, Abelard.
Wrong. he's just an ancient peasant with fantasies of a public school
nature.
Steve Glynn
>
>
Fair enough. But anyway, since we're on the topic, what do you think
'Britain as it was before 1979' was like? I'm always rather dubious about
such broad concepts, since there's no society I've ever heard of that's so
monolithic that you can make any sort of useful generalisation about it.
I'm also very dubious about assigning a single cause to any cultural or
political change of any significance, which is why I sometimes express a
degree of scepticism about what you seem to think was the cataclysmic
cultural shift wrought by 'Thatcherism'.
Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like. And before
the initials MTV pass your keyboard, please try to remember when satellite
TV actually started up in the UK -- you may find it was rather later than
1979 -- so less of the sweeping generalisations and more of the specfics,
please.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 24/10/02
Joe Hutcheon
<steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like. And before
>the initials MTV pass your keyboard, please try to remember when satellite
>TV actually started up in the UK -- you may find it was rather later than
>1979 -- so less of the sweeping generalisations and more of the specfics,
>please.
And also bear in mind that few, if any of us, could name our
constituency MP at age 22.
Mark Cyst
I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
everything!
Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
--
Mark Cyst
(Advisor to Messrs C Babel and HG Kart)
http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/
http://www.themanwhofellasleep.com/
Joe Hutcheon
wrote:
>Joe Hutcheon wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:16:36 -0000, "Steve Glynn"
>> <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like. And before
>>>the initials MTV pass your keyboard, please try to remember when satellite
>>>TV actually started up in the UK -- you may find it was rather later than
>>>1979 -- so less of the sweeping generalisations and more of the specfics,
>>>please.
>>
>> And also bear in mind that few, if any of us, could name our
>> constituency MP at age 22.
>
>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
>have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>everything!
Plus ca change there then!
Mark Cyst
But there's a much wider choice of crap these days!!! An improvement! ;-)
abelard
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:0u6msuksfro75bno2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 01:21:47 -0000, "Robin Carmody"
>> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>> >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> >news:2lslsu0iojcriuled...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:34:08 -0000, "Zer0" <ze...@bigwig.net>
>> >>
>> >> typed:
>> >>
>> >> >"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >>regards...because, despite your limitations, i do think you're a good
>> >chap
>> >> >
>> >> >Phew......that was heavy, old boy.....
>> >>
>> >> blah!
>> >> it was merited....
>> >
>> >You smell of the Eton common room, Abelard.
>> >
>> >"Unspoilt peasants", anyone?
>>
>> ah....another empty post.....
>
>So are you prepared to apologise for your reference to the "unspoilt
>peasants" of Sussex earlier this year?
i doubt you are unspoilt and i doubt that sussex would have you....
nor do i have your reference....nor would i 'apologise' had i been
so complimentary as to call a peasant 'unspoiled'......
abelard
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:qv6msu0ffm9ashbjl...@4ax.com...
>>
>> and now you speak for 'most of us'....yes, more empty millbank pap.....
>
>Why does everyone who disagrees with my politics *always* assume that I am a
>Blairite?
because you generate the self same style of empty pap.....
abelard
typed:
>Joe Hutcheon wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:16:36 -0000, "Steve Glynn"
>> <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like. And before
>>>the initials MTV pass your keyboard, please try to remember when satellite
>>>TV actually started up in the UK -- you may find it was rather later than
>>>1979 -- so less of the sweeping generalisations and more of the specfics,
>>>please.
>>
>> And also bear in mind that few, if any of us, could name our
>> constituency MP at age 22.
>
>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
>have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>everything!
>
>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
thatcher has ruined everything....bring back strikes, crap tv,
crap radio, crap everything...the legion of the brainded
bliarites and nostalgic for the 'good old days'.....
at last....at last....i now know the bliar 'policy'......
you have made a very important contribution to understanding
the whining old farts brigade......and the socialist five minute
plan.....
they are just homesick....
regards....
abelard
typed:
>1979 -- so less of the sweeping generalisations and more of the specfics,
>please.
optimist....
regards.
Zer0
"Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@hefce.ac.uk> wrote:
>1954 myself. Blimey! trapped between Michael Portillo and Steve Glynn.
>I dont know which way to turn.
I can think of a few television presenters with this problem. ;)
Zer0
G
> Joe Hutcheon wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:16:36 -0000, "Steve Glynn"
>> <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like.
>>> And before the initials MTV pass your keyboard, please try to
>>> remember when satellite TV actually started up in the UK -- you may
>>> find it was rather later than 1979 -- so less of the sweeping
>>> generalisations and more of the specfics, please.
>>
>> And also bear in mind that few, if any of us, could name our
>> constituency MP at age 22.
At the age of 22, I met my local MP for the first time, having never
exchanged words with him, he stormed past me and shouted 'fat tory bastard'
(i had just won the safest Labour council seat in the district), that was my
introduction to active politics.
> I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
> I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
> have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
> everything!
>
> Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
Thatcher has become a polarising figure, she was in power for eleven years
and in that time, upset a lot of people, got a lot of things right and a few
things wrong. However, in a post-thatcher society, we now are indoctrinated
to either beleive that everything she did was evil devilspawn etc, or
everything she did was wonderful.
A bit like Man. Utd, if you supported her she was wonderful, but if you
supported anybody else, she was public enemy no 1.
Gaz
G
No blackouts as a rule, only as a result of the biggest storms for half a
century, hardly any strikes, although now growing in militancy, secondary
action is illegal, makeing all out strikes unlikely, TV now is very diverse,
where then we had a choice of three, we now have a hundred, Commercial radio
is pretty good now, and not restricted to the large cities.
Gaz
Bruce Tober
<steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>what do you think 'Britain as it was before 1979' was like?
That's a "how long is a piece of string" question. The answer would
depend upon the neighbourhood and every other geographic entity up to
and including the commonwealth, if not the world.
> I'm always rather dubious about such broad concepts, since there's no
>society I've ever heard of that's so monolithic that you can make any
>sort of useful generalisation about it.
Not only that, but in the context in which the original comment
resulting in your question was asked, it neglects the realisation/truth,
that no nation/society is ever stagnant. They either change, moving with
the times, or they die. Granted sometimes the changes/modernising brings
a death of its own, but...
Snip of agreed comments.
Joe Hutcheon
>Joe Hutcheon wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:32:17 +0000, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Hutcheon wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:16:36 -0000, "Steve Glynn"
>>>> <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like.
>>>>> And before the initials MTV pass your keyboard, please try to
>>>>> remember when satellite TV actually started up in the UK -- you
>>>>> may find it was rather later than 1979 -- so less of the sweeping
>>>>> generalisations and more of the specfics, please.
>>>>
>>>> And also bear in mind that few, if any of us, could name our
>>>> constituency MP at age 22.
>>>
>>> I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>>> I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
>>> have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>>> everything!
>>
>> Plus ca change there then!
>
>No blackouts as a rule
Hmm. I'll have to cut down on the alcohol.
>only as a result of the biggest storms for half a
>century, hardly any strikes, although now growing in militancy, secondary
>action is illegal, makeing all out strikes unlikely, TV now is very diverse,
>where then we had a choice of three, we now have a hundred,
'More will mean worse'. Some geezer.
>Commercial radio
>is pretty good now, and not restricted to the large cities.
Pah! Test match special's all you need.
Bruce Tober
writes
>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim... I
>had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I have
>vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>everything!
Bear in mind that memory is not like a photographic image (back in the
days when they were truth personified, or at least thought to be so).
They are more like digital images, subject to the most subtle, as well
as the most extensive manipulations.
>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
Very possible
Joe Hutcheon
wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:32:17 +0000, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>Joe Hutcheon wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:16:36 -0000, "Steve Glynn"
>>> <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like. And before
>>>>the initials MTV pass your keyboard, please try to remember when satellite
>>>>TV actually started up in the UK -- you may find it was rather later than
>>>>1979 -- so less of the sweeping generalisations and more of the specfics,
>>>>please.
>>>
>>> And also bear in mind that few, if any of us, could name our
>>> constituency MP at age 22.
>>
>>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>>I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
>>have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>>everything!
>>
>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>
>thatcher has ruined everything....bring back strikes, crap tv,
> crap radio, crap everything...the legion of the brainded
> bliarites and nostalgic for the 'good old days'.....
>at last....at last....i now know the bliar 'policy'......
So go abelard, what do *you* remember of 1979?
Mark Cyst
> On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:32:17 +0000, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
>>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>>I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
>>have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>>everything!
>>
>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>
> thatcher has ruined everything....bring back strikes, crap tv,
> crap radio, crap everything...the legion of the brainded
> bliarites and nostalgic for the 'good old days'.....
> at last....at last....i now know the bliar 'policy'......
>
> you have made a very important contribution to understanding
> the whining old farts brigade......and the socialist five minute
> plan.....
> they are just homesick....
>
> regards....
Er... I think I agree. Kinda... :-)
Mark Cyst
> At the age of 22, I met my local MP for the first time, having never
> exchanged words with him, he stormed past me and shouted 'fat tory bastard'
> (i had just won the safest Labour council seat in the district), that was my
> introduction to active politics.
And it didn't put you off? :-)
>>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>>I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
>>have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>>everything!
>>
>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>
> Thatcher has become a polarising figure, she was in power for eleven years
> and in that time, upset a lot of people, got a lot of things right and a few
> things wrong. However, in a post-thatcher society, we now are indoctrinated
> to either beleive that everything she did was evil devilspawn etc, or
> everything she did was wonderful.
Whereas it's a mix of the two of course.
Mark Cyst
> In message <3DCBAED1...@lycos.com>, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
> writes
>
>>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim... I
>>had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I have
>>vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>>everything!
>
> Bear in mind that memory is not like a photographic image (back in the
> days when they were truth personified, or at least thought to be so).
> They are more like digital images, subject to the most subtle, as well
> as the most extensive manipulations.
Yes. And, of course, I was viewing it all through a very young
person's eyes.
>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>
> Very possible
Oh oh! I think I'm going to adjourn to the study with my revolver to
'do the decent thing'. :-)
Steve Glynn
"Mark Cyst" <mark...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:3DCBAED1...@lycos.com...
>
> I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
> I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
> have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
> everything!
>
> Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>
No, it makes you a typical stroppy teenager at the time. :)
Steve Glynn
"Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@hefce.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3dcbacb1...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Actually, I could, but that was more because of who he was rather than
because I was particularly interested. I lived in Archway, North London,
at the time, and thus had the pleasure of being represented by Michael
O'Halloran (or O'Hooligan, as Private Eye used to call him). He was one of
those MPs sometimes described as 'colourful', and was frequently, at least
according to the Eye and the Islington Gazette, as colourful as a newt.
His finest hour was probably when, in an uncharacteristic burst of honesty,
he replied to a question from the Gazette's reporter about whether there was
any truth in the story he'd taken a swing at one of his Labour colleagues
when they were on some junket in Italy: 'Categorically, er, no. Unless I
was drunk at the time'.
Steve Glynn
"G" <nos...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:aqgf4i$9oi58$1...@ID-49507.news.dfncis.de...
There weren't actually that many black outs in the 70's IIRC. There was
Ted Heath's Three Day Week in early 74 (can't remember if that involved
domestic power cuts). The previous miners' strike, led by Joe Gormley,
certainly involved power cuts, but I can't remember when that was -- late
60's, I think.
I know we seemed to have strikes all the time (usually in the car industry,
IIRC), but they never actually seemed to affect me very much. The bins
didn't get emptied during the 'Winter of Discontent', but if you lived in
Leeds (as I did at the time) that was pretty normal service from the City
Council.
TV -- Never been much of a TV fan (always preferred music and books if I'm
staying in) but the 70's gave us the Pythons, Rumpole, The Sweeney (well, I
was a teenager at the time), some good classic serials like I, Claudius and
Elizabeth R, Jacob Bronowski's Ascent of Man, and that's without having to
think about it. Can't remember if The Prisoner was originally made in the
60's, but I certainly remember watching it in the 70s.
Radio -- never been particularly interested in local radio, commercial or
otherwise. It never seems to play what I want to listen to at the time,
which is why tapes are such a good idea.
Bruce Tober
writes
>Bruce Tober wrote:
>> In message <3DCBAED1...@lycos.com>, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
>> writes
>>
>>>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>>>I
>>>had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I have
>>>vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>>>everything!
>> Bear in mind that memory is not like a photographic image (back in
>>the
>> days when they were truth personified, or at least thought to be so).
>> They are more like digital images, subject to the most subtle, as well
>> as the most extensive manipulations.
>
>Yes. And, of course, I was viewing it all through a very young person's
>eyes.
And are now viewing through the fog of 20+ years.
Ever seen pictures or movies or been to Altantic City? I spend the years
from age 5 to age 20 in and around that city. My strongest memories of
it are all black and white and very dismal. Does that mean it was, or
that it's only my memory of it through a 30-40 year mist and my hatred
of most of the kids I went to school with because of bullying and
religious bigotry they perpetrated on me?
>>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>> Very possible
>
>Oh oh! I think I'm going to adjourn to the study with my revolver to
>'do the decent thing'. :-)
Enjoy.
Mark Cyst
> "Mark Cyst" <mark...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:3DCBAED1...@lycos.com...
>
>>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>>I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
>>have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>>everything!
>>
>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>>
>
>
> No, it makes you a typical stroppy teenager at the time. :)
I haven't changed one bit! ;-)
Mark Holland
>
> 22! 1976; the long hot summer, with the first stirrings of punk rock
> just beginning to make themselves heard
er, just what year do you think it is now Joe?
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Joe Hutcheon
<cabell...@lycosmail.com> wrote:
>"Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@hefce.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:3dcb9aab...@news.cis.dfn.de
>
>>
>> 22! 1976; the long hot summer, with the first stirrings of punk rock
>> just beginning to make themselves heard
>
>er, just what year do you think it is now Joe?
1978?
Mark Holland
> >> 22! 1976; the long hot summer, with the first stirrings of punk rock
> >> just beginning to make themselves heard
> >
> >er, just what year do you think it is now Joe?
>
> 1978?
hey man, joe's like far out.
Mark Cyst
> In message <3DCBE7D6...@lycos.com>, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
> writes
>
>>Bruce Tober wrote:
>>
>>>In message <3DCBAED1...@lycos.com>, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
>>>writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
>>>>I
>>>>had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I have
>>>>vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>>>>everything!
>>>
>>> Bear in mind that memory is not like a photographic image (back in
>>>the
>>>days when they were truth personified, or at least thought to be so).
>>>They are more like digital images, subject to the most subtle, as well
>>>as the most extensive manipulations.
>>
>>Yes. And, of course, I was viewing it all through a very young person's
>>eyes.
>
> And are now viewing through the fog of 20+ years.
20+ very very long years. Especially the Thatcher years ironically
enough! I feel about 150 years old some days. :-)
> Ever seen pictures or movies or been to Altantic City?
I've seen the *film* "Atlantic City". It looks like it has a certain
faded glamour...
> I spend the years
> from age 5 to age 20 in and around that city. My strongest memories of
> it are all black and white and very dismal. Does that mean it was, or
> that it's only my memory of it through a 30-40 year mist and my hatred
> of most of the kids I went to school with because of bullying and
> religious bigotry they perpetrated on me?
Sorry to hear about it.. my gf grew up in Houston and she says there
was a LOT of bigotry there. She has nothing but bad things to say
about the place.
>>>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>>>
>>> Very possible
>>
>>Oh oh! I think I'm going to adjourn to the study with my revolver to
>>'do the decent thing'. :-)
>
> Enjoy.
I've changed my mind! There are worse things than being a
Thatcherite... trouble is, I'm damned if I can think of any of them
right now! ;-)
Jonathan Bratt
writes
>Joe Hutcheon wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:16:36 -0000, "Steve Glynn"
>> <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like. And
>>>before
>>>the initials MTV pass your keyboard, please try to remember when satellite
>>>TV actually started up in the UK -- you may find it was rather later than
>>>1979 -- so less of the sweeping generalisations and more of the specfics,
>>>please.
>> And also bear in mind that few, if any of us, could name our
>> constituency MP at age 22.
>
>had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I have
>vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
>everything!
>
>
with a large poster of herself in my room - took me years of therapy to
get over that. She was a bit like an enema that went on to long -
necessary to clean out the shit, but rather uncomfortable after too
long.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Mark Cyst
<snip>
>> Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>>
> Also 16 in 1979 - and the state of Britain made me a rabid Thatcherite,
> with a large poster of herself in my room - took me years of therapy to
> get over that. She was a bit like an enema that went on to long -
> necessary to clean out the shit, but rather uncomfortable after too long.
Very well put. Nasty tasting medicine, that basically did the job, but
left some very horrible chronic side effects. That's another way of
putting it. Not as good as yours though, it must be said! :-)
Robin Carmody
>
> i doubt you are unspoilt and i doubt that sussex would have you....
Wrong - Brighton is the only city I would consider moving to.
> nor do i have your reference....nor would i 'apologise' had i been
> so complimentary as to call a peasant 'unspoiled'......
Patronising git.
--
Robin Carmody, Portland, Dorset
Robin Carmody
news:16DTDJO$l6y9...@btinternet.com...
> In message <aqf3hb$mbb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Robin Carmody
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
> >You smell of the Eton common room, Abelard.
>
> Wrong. he's just an ancient peasant with fantasies of a public school
> nature.
I suspect that's probably nearer the mark.
Robin Carmody
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 05:21:05 -0000, "Robin Carmody"
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> typed:> >news:qv6msu0ffm9ashbjl...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> and now you speak for 'most of us'....yes, more empty millbank pap.....
> >
> >Why does everyone who disagrees with my politics *always* assume that I
am a
> >Blairite?
>
> because you generate the self same style of empty pap.....
Not a good enough reason. So did Hague, and nobody thought *he* was a
Blairite.
Paul Hyett
Carmody <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> typed this -
>
>I was just testing Abelard, who strikes me as a fraud. He presents himself
>as a wise old political sage; I suspect he is actually a highly egotistical
>student who has dressed himself in bogus "knowledge" and "experiences". He
>is so devoid of self-confidence that I wouldn't be surprised if he's even
>younger than me :).
>
>Or maybe he is a tiresome old crone anyway. He is certainly in a different
>world from most of us.
AFAIK, abelard isn't even a 'he'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Zer0
"Bruce Tober" <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
>>You smell of the Eton common room, Abelard.
>Wrong. he's just an ancient peasant with fantasies of a public school
>nature.
I'm pleased to report that my family has a history of farming and that I
attended public school, two activities I commend to the group.
Zer0
Zer0
"Mark Cyst" <mark...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>>Also 16 in 1979 - and the state of Britain made me a rabid Thatcherite,
>>with a large poster of herself in my room - took me years of therapy to
>>get over that. She was a bit like an enema that went on to long -
>>necessary to clean out the shit, but rather uncomfortable after too long.
>Very well put. Nasty tasting medicine, that basically did the job, but
>left some very horrible chronic side effects. That's another way of
>putting it. Not as good as yours though, it must be said! :-)
This vulgarity is breathtakingly unseemly.
I've just prepared poached wild salmon and a white wine and parsley dressing
for a dinner party and was about to enjoy a glass of Chablis before changing
and then I walk in here and read about enemas, nasty tasting medicine,
chronic side effects and putting it where I wouldn't dream of putting it.
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves!
Zer0
Zer0
"Mark Holland" <cabell...@lycosmail.com> wrote:
>hey man, joe's like far out.
That's just so sad. ;)
Zer0
abelard
typed:
>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:03:01 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:32:04 GMT, j.hut...@hefce.ac.uk (Joe Hutcheon)
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On 7 Nov 2002 04:27:21 -0800, joycea...@hotmail.com (Tom May)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><abelard speaking>
>>>>> they hate bliar for two reasons....
>>>>> 1)they cannot stand that he doesn't actually preach the true
>>>>> religion......
>>>>> 2)they are so all fired stupid they cannot work out that he does
>>>>> practice it!
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but does he? Please explain in detail how he practises
>>>>socialism... 'Tis strange how he has the whole country, all
>>>>socialists, conservatives or whatever, "fooled", and yet not you.
>>>
>>>abelard and Wotan have cornered the market in tinfoil helmets. The
>>>rest of us are so brainwashedwe cannot see the Marxism inherent in the
>>>Tory party. <add boilerplate stuff about jews, freemasons, sheeple>
>>
>>bluddy nora...one person i did not expect to see knee jerking...
>>i am almost gratified...but a little saddened...
>
>S'alright. I just tire sometimes of your 'I told so-and-so this'; 'I
>told so-and-so that' 'I was right all along' approach. Don't you ever
>admit to a mistake, a misjudgement, even to yourself? If you do,
>don't you think 'I was wrong then, I could be wrong again'?
you have no idea....i just wish i could be wrong more often....
it would make me feel more empathy with you humans....
>>regards....and sympathy...
>
>Thanks for the regards. To quote George Michael (in a Robin Carmody
>stylee) 'I don't need your sympathy'.
oh good.....that means you want it....crave it even....but are not
yet entirely addicted.....
i'll lard on some more then.....
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
politics, ethics, education, etc >500,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
typed:
>But there's a much wider choice of crap these days!!! An improvement! ;-)
a fellow with the right attitude...
regards..
abelard
typed:
>So go abelard, what do *you* remember of 1979?
i remember 1079....
and then there are all those black and white filums.....
and books with this guy wislon going on about
'to be perfectly frank and honest' in order to signal
his next lie.....
more to the point....can you remember what you were
doing at 15:14 last thursday...no...not look it up....
remember it.....
how do i know more about adolf than i know about
most of the members of the current labour front
bench...
or even more than i know about you?....
or more than i know about that fellow who sold me a
new retractor in the ship shop this morning......?
i know about and listen to several pop singers from the 30s....
and some fellow named bach.....
yet i could no more recognise the sex pistols than the
cicada king on altair 6.....
yet i do know several goths.....
ie, this sort of discussion tends to confuse me......
i can look up and find out about just anybody and anything
i wish to.....
i've met people who seem to know more about the battle of waterloo
than napoleon did.....
just what is the relevance of 'being there'?
i can watch films of valentino...and films of his funeral.....
i can listen to the rolling stones without being surrounded
by sweaty clumsy noisy peasants.....
please enlighten me....just what advantage would i obtain
by 'being there'......?
what advantage would i achieve by 'shaking the hand of'
'the' 'kween'....i can see that she is dim from her every
expression, from her unmodulated flat voice....from her clumsy
movements....when i see her doing a line up i still see
a dull housewife who lacks any taste.....what more is there to
learn.....
that she knows a bit about horses and corgis? that she has
been trained to perform?
why do you value 'experiences' which relinquish so little
data?
i can sit in my ger and reach out across the world for virtually any
information i want or regard as useful......
why travel in your filthy noisy cities....
why bother to meet people who clearly have very little of interest
to say.....
sometimes it is useful to meet and watch or speak with a person
who is more complex than usual....but name me one labour
party front bench hack at this time who is worth that much effort....
i might as well go pat a dog.....
i don't even like dogs!
i am really seriously confused by your society....
regards...
abelard
<ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
typed:
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:umcnsuk7uu5fqvioh...@4ax.com...
>>
>> i doubt you are unspoilt and i doubt that sussex would have you....
>
>Wrong - Brighton is the only city I would consider moving to.
naturally you would consider it....but can you get a visa.....
>> nor do i have your reference....nor would i 'apologise' had i been
>> so complimentary as to call a peasant 'unspoiled'......
>
>Patronising git.
i wonder that you imagine calling a peasant a peasant
is 'patronising'.....
what do you call your peasants......
abelard
typed:
>I've changed my mind! There are worse things than being a
>Thatcherite... trouble is, I'm damned if I can think of any of them
>right now! ;-)
think man....you could have been a socialist.....
but you'd need an nhs lobectomy first.....
regards....
abelard
typed:
>
>"Mark Cyst" <mark...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Does this make me a Thatcherite? ;-)
>
>>>Also 16 in 1979 - and the state of Britain made me a rabid Thatcherite,
>>>with a large poster of herself in my room - took me years of therapy to
>>>get over that. She was a bit like an enema that went on to long -
>>>necessary to clean out the shit, but rather uncomfortable after too long.
>
>>Very well put. Nasty tasting medicine, that basically did the job, but
>>left some very horrible chronic side effects. That's another way of
>>putting it. Not as good as yours though, it must be said! :-)
>
>This vulgarity is breathtakingly unseemly.
>
>I've just prepared poached wild salmon
i wondered who was poaching them....
> and a white wine and parsley dressing
>for a dinner party and was about to enjoy a glass of Chablis before changing
>and then I walk in here and read about enemas, nasty tasting medicine,
>chronic side effects and putting it where I wouldn't dream of putting it.
>
>You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves!
exactly what you deserve...if james's catches you i'll
see you get deported....
tho' you'd probably enjoy it after bliar's newoldbritain.....
regards...
abelard
typed:
>
>"Mark Holland" <cabell...@lycosmail.com> wrote:
>
>>hey man, joe's like far out.
>
>That's just so sad. ;)
nah...it's fab....
regards....
abelard
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk>
typed:
don't be mean....let them dream...
regards...
Tom May
>
> >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message news:<1amjsu8llv9lll7qt...@4ax.com>...
>
> first having read down your post...welcome to an old time thoughtful
> 'socialist'....
Hopefully thoughtful, yeah, but not really "old time", he he. ;-) I am
but 20 years old :-) I have much respect for old British socialism,
but it can't really be applied *that* much to today's politics. I'm a
pragmatic left-leaning libertarian, with some socialist vestiges... if
that makes any sort of sense ;-)
>we need you like around here......
> not that i swallow much of your religious finesse.....:-)
"Religious finesse"? What d'you mean there?
> the other side is the nuisance that you actually want to
> make me work instead of swatting brainless socialist sheep....
> ho hum....
I don't like to just post for the sake of it, yeah! :-)
> >> as you are an obviously intelligent poster, it grieves me
> >> that you can imagine that libertarianism and socialism
> >> are not in direct and fundamental opposition.....
> >> the natural home of any libertarian is either in the tory
> >> party....or no-where......
> >
> >It *may* used to have been, but you can't say the Party of Widdecombe,
> >Tebbit and Thatcher is libertarian. Certainly not in the sphere of
> >social policy.
>
> widdecombe has rightly been said to have sommat of the full
> moon about her....on an intellectual level she is not worth
> discussion....
Indeed.
> tebbit could easily be called a libertarian....on yer bike......
> shame he became embittered (with some excuse)
> thatcher did a lot to free the markets but yes, an uptight
> limited mind....
But are free markets always the way to go? I remain to be convinced...
> in china they are gradually freeing the markets...while supposedly hoping
> they can hold the lid on society....
> you can't free people economically...thus giving them power.....and
> simultaneously hoping to control them so much.....
You can try it, lol. China's a very interesting case in all sorts of
ways... Totalitarian capitalism almost now... is there anything
communist about it at all any longer?
> maggie's greatest failing was never to tackle the middle class unions....
> but perhaps she did not have the political capital.....
Which sort of unions do you mean?
> maggie was common sense....not intellectual giantism.....
> her judgement of men was also dire....
Can't disagree there! But do we mean this in a sense of attraction?
;-)
> >Indeed, even prior to Thatcher's "Peasant's Revolt", when you had
> >libertarians like Iain Macleod in prominent Tory positions, it was
> >Labour who were leading the way with libertarian measures. In terms of
> >social policy i do mean, economic consensus of the time was for strong
> >state involvement. Though Healey and Callaghan laid a little
> >groundwork for monetarism, with their single-minded focus on reducing
> >inflation.
>
> urghhh....28% inflation....where are you at?
That was under Heath and Wilson (1973 world oil crash was one major
cause). They got it down to around 7-10% for most of 1977-79, with an
economic policy that was stringently conservative; fiscal restraint,
cuts in departments' budgets, a 5% pay increase limit (which worked
for 3 winters, but then... ouch). I should know all this; for my
A-Level coursework i tackled the Winter of Discontent and its
causes... :-)
> you also seem to have a strange idea of libertarianism.....
> you seem to apply it to wealth redistribution rather than freedom
> to sink or swim....and freedom to profit....
I don't... or if it seems so, i didn't mean it to. In the economic
field wealth redistribution is certainly a socialistic measure, and
authoritarian in that sense. Socially, the policy would very much have
to go down as idealistic - about society and the people in it; giving
peopel who do good jobs but earn very little a bit fairer slice of the
cake... look at the sports and entertainment fields; what so many earn
there really is a disgrace.
> but at least you clearly do think....which is a relief.....
Thanks! :-) I'd like to think i didn't think *dogmatically*.
> >I don't think overall you would view the Conservatives or Labour as
> >reflecting Libertarian Parties. They have been in view of some
> >measures, but it's never been dominant in those Parties' thinking.
> 2)there has always been a strong core/subset of libertarian thinking/
> thinkers in the tory party.....i see nothing similar in labour....
Roy Jenkins and co. on the social side... Look at the stuff he
legislated as Home Secretary from 1964-67...
Economically, that lot were conservative *for the time*.
> (i am well versed in socialists who tell me they are libertarians....
> but are not close to any such thing...socialism tend to get its
> adherents turning somersaults to convince themselves that
> black is white.....just like christianists)
I cannot claim to be *wholly* socialist or *wholly* libertarian; my
political views don't just follow one set of influences.
> 3)i'd need to know what measures you refer to.....
Well, the social liberalism of Labour in the Wilson Governments... it
wasn't consistent... indeed Callaghan was a social authoritarian in
many things he did from 1967-70, but you had Jenkins enacting some
pretty important legislation to get the state out of people's private
lives. I would suspect (though i'm not sure on this) that there were
movements towards a realistic, liberal agenda on social affairs in the
Tory Government prior to 1964, and the Heath Government i suspect did.
> >> yes, he is clearly not up to the job...very sad.....
> >> but we still have to move on.....
> >
> >It is been clearly self-destructive as well; i doubt a serious
> >challenge is yet in the offing. He has certainly given his detractors
> >in the party much ammunition now though.
>
> i see our socialist coup are just drooling to get back into the seat and
> cause still more harm to the party....i'd rather put up with ids than
> that.....
It isn't "socialist"... Portillo is certainly not that! He's an
opportunist largely, though i am willing to admit maybe he has
genuinely mellowed into a more rounded political character since the
mid-1990s. It could all be just tactical talk though...
Clarke; i'm really not all that sure... he has *seemed* socially
liberal on certain issues to me, but who's to say... it's perhaps
particularly his affable, engaging style that lends this impression...
> >> as above....the very idea is contradictory.....
> >> in due course it is possible you will end up with the members of
> >> the socialist coup....like clarke and haseletine.....
> >
> >Hardly Conservatives; Heseltine particularly is a partisan Tory,
> >albeit one with his ideas grounded in the One Nation Tory school,
> >which really is more popular with the country at large (see how John
> >Major in 1992 portrayed himself in this way and won an unpredicted
> >victory).
>
> he was damned near bound to win because of the poll tax....
Because he got rid of it you mean, yes?
> and it was also necessary to finish of the confidence of the
> old left and the poisonous pillock.....
IDS is a much less imposing figure than Kinnock, and really it's
saying quite a lot. Kinnock seems, from all i know and have read, to
have been proto-Blair, but with his very strong Welsh Socialist roots.
John Smith it seems to me made their best leader, post-Wilson, though
he only had two years sadly...
> and oh what a joy was the sheffield rally...you could just see all those
> pensioners hackles rising.....'i'll vote against this idiot if i
> have to crawl to the voting station'......
Dear me, that was misguided... ;-) "Whoaah right! Whoaah right! Whoaah
right! he he, i think we'd better get serious here!" Though i have
well heard Labour's position was already ebbing a bit in the polls
before then, probably a point or two ahead. Of course, even after the
rally, exit polls predicted a hung parliament. It was a hapless
political move; made him seem like a tinpot evangelist.
> > The sense in which they are "socialist" is only that they
> >take a less than dogmatic view of Conservatism. Clarke was hardly
> >socialist, or hardline
>
> you mean part of the old ratchet/'concensus'....but that was more
> tory party cowardice and a dose of political realism.....
Certainly was; it's just a shame they couldn't have had a more
pragmatic leader in the 1980s who wouldn't have adopted dogmatic
policies that wrecked so much of the country's heart and soul. The
effect of monetarism on the lives of so many in urban areas, and the
neglect of the Tory Govts. of inner-city areas, created so many big
social problems.
> >Thatcherite in his tenure as Chancellor. In
> >some earlier Cabinet posts he had been seen as a "Thatcherite".
>
> i *think* i understand your intent....but i'm not betting.....
> i'm far to the right of the one nation crowd....they believe in government
> far more than myself.....they are socialists relative to myself......
> but they are also far to the right of hatstand and wotan......
Are they? And who's hatstand?
> >> but no libertarian can possibly find enuf common ground with
> >> the genetically programmed control freaks of labour of
> >> the lib dems....
> >
> >There *was* much libertarianism in the Labour Party, but not now, at
> >least not in the leadership. I think you overstate the case that
> >Labour is economically statist, though; how can they be completely
> >that if they so court Big Business and relentlessly favour it?
>
> adolf courted big business and was heavily funded by it.....
Well, certain elements of Big Business...
> big business is cartels....it pays its placemen to put in 'laws'
> that make competition near impossible....it has the same
> aim as all socialism....the control of the masses..........
> cartelised business is not an enemy of socialism....
I would disagree there. It may not be entirely "free market
competition", but it hardly equates to being socialistic; are they
really putting ordinary working people first rather than "fat cats"...
> socialists are also mostly poor and thus usually venal when someone
> starts offering to fill their pockets with penknives and calendars...
Penknives and calendars? Odd thing to say...
> financial corruption is a bed partner of socialism...
Not in terms of socialist ideology at least!
>Tories are more
> interested in christine keeler...
The whole country was in 1962 :-) That was one hell of a massive
story... signalling something of a shift in the times...
>r oranges.....
Oranges?
> trouble is we now have the barrow boys in the party.....
Yeah, the old Tory "class" and heritage is now pretty much lost.
> >> >There ought to be a political realignment in this country with three
> >> >groupings;
> >> >*A Right wing independant party (though i'd be deeply sceptical about
> >> >how successful they'd be; authoritarian? nationalistic, presumably
> >> >reflecting many measures touted by the likes of Henderson and Wotan.
> >> >They'd have to wise up though, and avoid mixing at all with the BNP.
> >> >Strong in certain areas of the countryside)
> >>
> >> sure..our very own swp and militant.......
> >
> >Yeah, one can see parallels.
> >What would be your vision of an ideal new Right party though?
>
> social libertarianism and limitation of franchise to protect the feckless
> from themselves...
I don't think you'd get that through. Yeah, some people just don't
bother to take any interest in our democracy, but to deny them (and
how exactly would you define who to exclude from the franchise? how
far would you go? it's a flawed idea) the vote would be something,
erm, of a backwards step for British politics.
>nd to protect us from the feckless.....
"Protect"? Well, i don't feel threatened by people in general.
> http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
> i am a registered elitist...
At least you are honest i suppose. New Labour is frankly the same with
their plans for education in essence, but they pretend it isn't so.
>ost socialists are shallow academic
> elitists who neither recognise that they are elitists...so get very
> confused...and who have little real world experience so couldn't run
> a whelk stall.....
That's all a big generalisation...
> i don't believe in 'equality'.....i regard a great deal of the political
> difficulties to arise from the dogma of 'equality'...
> the religion of 'equality' leads automatically to crazy attempt
> to square circles....but the religion is so deeply embedded
> that it is near impossible to get people to think clearly......
Well, i think for instance it is not fair that footballers get paid
£50k a week, when firemen get is it (?) £20k a *year*. I'm sorry but
that's morally unfair in my book.
I don't pretend we can ever have total equality; what i aspire to is
more fairness, and a helping hand for those lower down the ladder in
society. You would not get things ever being squared, but i seriously
think we need to revaluate how much certain types of profession are
paid.
> >> the only place to take down bliar is from the libertarian wing....
> >> they are every bit as aversive to libertarian society as any other
> >> socialist....
> >
> >But would you make the leap and have truly libertarian social
> >policies?
>
> not for the incompetent.....yes for those who can shift for
> themselves...
But how on earth would this all work in actual policy terms? First
massive problem is deciding who to exclude... I don't think it can
ever be the agenda to repeal civil liberties for whole swathes of
society now... though good old Mr Bush seems to be giving it a go on
the States... (sigh)
> > Like politicians not meddling in the judiciary, legalising
> >all drugs and controlling them, etc.
>
> yes, assuming details...
Fair enough.
> > Relaxing licensing laws is at
> >least one libertarian move on Blair's part... though it was really
> >obvious how antiquated these laws are, in comparison to the rest of
> >the world, and thus the move was hardly a political gamble. :-)
>
> sure...they were a complete disgrace...like so much....
I do feel a fair groundswell in terms of social libertarianism on the
way... Virtually no one i know, of the same age of me, is prescriptive
and authoritarian in how they see other people's affairs... It's just
a feeling i have; i think there really is a place for social
libertarianism in mainstream politics, and it's a shame IDS can't bear
to grasp the nettle, and Blair is just so much of a "populist" on
these issues...
> >> national socialists instead of international socialists..
> >> they are far more likely to be at home with bliar than with serious
> >> liberals.....they do not even understand the word 'liberal'....as
> >> hatstand constantly demonstrates......
> >> liberalism is quite outside their experience or instincts......
> >
> >Are you talking about the Tory "mods" here as i do suspect?
>
> your meaning is unclear....
I thought yours was; who's the "they" who are far more likely to "be
at home with blair" etc. etc.? That's what i meant.
> >How do you define Liberal then, in a political sense?
>
> someone who minds their own business.....
Are there any past or current politicians you think fit this label?
Surely some actual Liberal Party members down the line? ;-)
> >> some pr systems would give them (labour/left) (even) 'better' results atm.....
> >
> >I doubt that. They hold 412 seats now, which is 62.5% of the Commons,
> >on a vote of 41% at the last election. The Conservatives and the Lib
> >Dems are under-represented; 25.2% of the seats for the Tories; 32% of
> >the vote; 8% of the seats for the LDs, 19% of the vote.
> >How would PR help Labour in any way, in view of these figures; they
> >would struggle to get a majority, let alone a landslide one.
>
> them's the figures....but we have an extremely unsophisticated
> electorate...
Not compared to the U.S. you could perhaps say; farcically overblown
partisan politics there that a good few are obsessed about (like
supporting a team), yet the main two parties aren't that different
(well, Democrats are more moderate, yet not distinctive at all, nose
in the trough of big business likewise...). And 50% of the electorate
not voting at main elections regularly... The 2001 Election here was a
real low of 59.4%, for this country, but that's higher than IIRC any
U.S. Election turnout since the 1960s.
> ones who believe bliar is a tory...or the lib dems
> are not socialists....
Well, neither of those cases is strictly true... the LDs are
considering private involvement in public services; that is exactly
opposite to a socialist view.
Blair is a free market conservative; i have seen little evidence to
suggest otherwise! On the foreign policy scene he is bound by whatever
the U.S. does. He's not quite a "poodle", and indeed he may have
helped in tempering the bellicosity of Bush, yet there's a stark
contrast with other more sceptical world leaders...
> under such a system i expect the voters would gradually become more
> awake...so the effects may not last....
Which effects?
> > However,
> >the Tories, if in the Hague/Thatcher dead-end Right wing mode would
> >never again get into Government, as who would work with them in
> >coalition?
>
> one's an old fogey...and the other a young fogey....
True. :-)
> they are staying still while the culture is slowly drifting away from
> them.....thus is don't see them as particularly relevant even
> as models....
Of course they don't... and grey man IDS has even less effect on young
voters; in contrast to Hague or Thatcher who might just induce some
dislike, IDS is just seen as hapless, dull and ineffective, if they
even know who the man is!
;-)
> who'd work with them? a few of the old men who wish to return
> to the 'good old days'....but then they never had any other
> security blanket...or viable political home in uk politics....
> such people are both irrelevant and a block to removing bliar....
Sensible words here.
> they allow mischievous persons like yourself to mock the party.....
> but you must know they are politically quite irrelevant....
Yes, there are now thankfully... though in many areas New Labour seems
to have inherited "hard right" instincts; look at much of the
ridiclous tenure of David Blunkett at the Home Office, and the
disingenuous Straw before him... they are clutching at "populist"
straws... But it is the populism of the 1980s and early 1990s, and i
don't feel catches the public mood today so much. A rabidly social
authoritarian drum is only *truly* being banged today by the Mail,
which is surely seen as a joke paper by even most of its readers...
> > The FPTP system is, and has always been weighted towards
> >the main two parties.
>
> indeed...and a good thing to at the present level of education.....
Yes, in view of factors like the BNP... Though i doubt PR at a
*General Election* level would allow the BNP to gain any foothold;
they only stand in seats where there are "urban problems" and such,
and even then, sometimes they fail. Their vote in 2001 fell in the
London seats they stood in. It was only really Stoke (slightly, IIRC),
Oldham, Bradford and Burnley that saw them get above 0-2%. They stood
in my constituency (Sunderland South) and received about 1.5%, on a
low turnout. They wouldn't really pick up seats in most PR systems...
> >> but they would then have to share power with the lib dems....
> >> the lib dems are as far to the left in speech and 'thought' as
> >> bliar and brown are in covert action.....
> >
> >The LDs are not a genuine left wing Party, but they are obviously
> >closer than the other main Parties; they gained in votes on this
> >platform at the last election; in Labour strongholds say, they held up
> >their vote, while Labour lost thousands of its 1997 supporters.
>
> sure...but those are not savvy voters or opinion formers....
> the lds seem to be prepared to tell their target whatever
> their targets will swallow....but they are not a serious political
> party in britain.....
Well, they certainly are in terms of local Government; in many cases
it seems their councils are well reputed. More so than Labour anyway.
They have a tradition of having very active constituency MPs. It is
only in that they are in no position to be anywhere near governing
that they cannot said to be "serious". They have not been tested in
that way, obviously.
> they would be under pr...which is the real reason bliar will never
> allow it....and a good job too....
But the 15-25% (from 1983 on) of the public that regularly turn out
and vote Liberal (largely a middle class, moderate Southern vote)
really have never had any voice. It is a substantial number of people.
They've only really been "brokers" in the 1974-79 period.
> >> >There'd be questions over whether either of the new left or rigth
> >> >parties could really take off, but i think many ideas on both sides
> >> >would appeal greatly to the public (turnout in 2001 was 59.4%, down
> >> >from 81% in 1992), and there'd be far more distinct choice as to how
> >> >one voted.
> >>
> >> the real problem for britain has been a socialist coup in the tory party..
> >
> >I don't agree there... when was this "coup"? Surely you're not
> >referring to the current "modernising"?
>
> no...major's coup....
The Tories would be dead and buried by now if Thatcher had "went on
and on" as Party Leader (i say that as she *would* have lost in 1992).
You've got to realise the public took to Major's Tories in 1992 so
well, because they didn't like Kinnock and because Major *was* more
pragmatic and not as dogmatically rightist as Thatcher.
> >You simply cannot equate 1990-97 Conservatism with socialism;
>
> from 18 month's into the major administration...i most surely
> can....and do.....
But not 1990-92? What changed so much?
> >pragmatism at times perhaps,
>
> major wasn't pragmatic....major was a dogmatist....he had bliar
> on toast....he lost the '97 election....there was absolutely no need..
> had he done what was required it would have been him gaining
> the landslide...
No; couldn't have happened, the Tories were damaged goods from late
1992 onwards and it only got worse from there, with scandals, general
corruption, fatigue and political bankrputcy after 18 years...
> i told him what to do...he thought he knew better...
> as idiots usually do....
Did you personally tell him? he he.
> bliar did it instead.....only difference was it was obvious that no
> socialist could mean it....but the public will always swallow lies
> as long as faced with a big grin.....
The Tories couldn't have "done what Blair did"! They couldn't say it
was "time for a change", as they'd have been dismissing their own
18-year-record! Major was hardly the figure to be able to carry any of
this off, anyhow.
> >but certainly those Governments were of
> >the Right.
>
> total dissent...
Why weren't they then?
> > I'd doubt you'd find *anyone* taking this view seriously,
> >say in the North, that the Tories were *socialist*, lol.
>
> and there speaks the labourite religion...not careful analysis.....
Okay, let's look at it deeply; how were they?
> > Try telling
> >those with memories of the Tories standing by and letting communities
> >& industries collapse.
>
> not much serious choice available....
I'm not saying it was easy for the Govt., but they were hardly that
sensitive in tone and in action...
> > If they were socialist we would have had (quite
> >rightfully in my view) Government support and at least plans for
> >alternative job creation in those areas.
>
> you know as well as i do that vast sums were put in......
Sums certainly were; they always were going to be. But i do not know
of any Conservative initiatives to revalitalise such towns and
communities. They poured token aid in, but did nothing innovative to
tackle deep malaises.
> >> the public are therefore at present being offered no useful choice
> >> to the public liar.....
> >
> >I would welcome credible choices to the "libertarian left" and
> >"authoritarian right" of Blair and New Labour. It would energise
> >political discourse in this country. It cannot happen unless certain
> >current politicians are brave in forming these new groups, or/and PR
> >is introduced.
>
> there is no libertarian left....and pr would be a disaster.....
There is a libertarian left; it may not be "pure libertarianism" in
the sense that you see it, it is a combination of social
libertarianism and vestigal economic socialism.
PR; i remain to be convinced overall, but why would it be a disaster
pray?
> >So many traditional
> >aspects of British culture were crushed by Thatcherism;
>
> precisely which?
> >old Labourism
>
> old labourism is just the shallow religion and sectional interests
It's not a "religion" really... it is the representation of working
people; who really didn't have any political voice prior to the
widening of the franchise reforms and the formation of the Labour
Party. Surely such people deserve reputation in a country that has
historically tended to place political power in the hands of public
school educated elites, monarchy, industrialists and landowners...?
> >yes, and *very much* the Old Right also.
>
> the old right is one nation and the aristocracy.....
Not really... I see the old right as the belligerent, John Bull
patriots, resentful of the end of the Empire, likely to be
anti-immigrants etc. One Nation Tories were towards the centre of
their day; moderate centre-right.
> >> > and develop an economic
> >> >alternative policy to protect their traditionalism; they'd hopefully
> >> >be against the whole Murdoch media axis as well
> >>
> >> exactly why?
> >
> >Because his influence is debasing to the British media, that's why...
>
> he's tamed the house of windsor which is no small contribution
> to britain...
In a roundabout sort of way perhaps! His papers purport to support the
monarchy and such like, but yeah, their ubiquity in such rags and
well, their own sorry state has led to this, true...
> he has tamed a considerable part of the unions....
> there are worse influences.....
Trade Unions are necessary and largely moderate bodies. It is only in
the 1970s and 1980s that they have had significant militancy in
charge.
> the bbc pours out emotionalism in the soaps.....and more....
What's wrong with *genuine* emotionalism? Yeah, the soaps' cheap,
packaged emotionalism is a little sickening, for a lover of great
television like myself... but the BBC is hardly the only perpetrator
of soaps :-) ITV, C4 and C5 all do them; I suspect Sky does in its
derisory *original* programme output, but that is so insignificant i
am not aware of it.
> >If they can't see that, they have little hope. Would this
> >traditionalist Right Party really want to be associated with the
> >ephemeral, tacky, populism of the Sun et al?
>
> i live in a society where the vote of the dole q addict
> is equal to that of einstein....crap like the sun tells them how to
> vote.....suggest an alternative.....
Well, plural voting i think would be a disgrace. You can't have
different voting rights according to intelligence. It just is not
fair, and we ought to try and be fair to the whole population of these
Isles...
> >To be credible, this Party would have to be independant of particular
> >media forces like that.
>
> you are close to dreaming.....how they gonna advertise their wares?
I'm not saying not have business support, but to avoid the sterotyped
Murdoch chalice...
> the labour battalions will only vote for the party daddy voted for.....
> and the tory ones would vote for a wooden parrot as long as it was blue...
I suppose the St. Helens 2001 contest was an eg. of this; though LDs
and socialists got significant shares of the vote there. Certainly at
least 25% in total IIRC, where before it was a *massive* Labour
majority with Tories second.
> as usual...(as a socialist) your position assumes 'equality' and
> as an academic socialist you project that jo sixpak is capable
> of complex analysis.....
Well i don't presume "complex analysis" in the vast majority... but i
don't think you should just rubbish these people in such a general
way.
> ie, you are no realist or pragmatist.....
I am, i would say. But then all views are subjective.
> the rich will continue to buy elections and there is not one damned
> thing you can do about it....you have to sell them a package they
> can support...
> these people are generally of good will....and many of them are none
> to bright...
How do you know they're of good will, and indeed who are "they"? Any
specific people you are thinking of?
> this combined with a tory party lately captured by
> socialists leaves no alternative to bliar....
How would you vote then in a General Election, if one was held
tomorrow? Are the UKIP even still going? Indeed they are a one-issue
party at that. You've obviously rightfully scorned the fascist BNP
bully-boys... this Freedom Party sounds rather disingenuous to me...
> the tory party is in shit because both the socialist coup...and the
> jackboots both dream of controlling it.....they are both daft....
> neither group can both dominate the party *and* get it elected.....
The One-nationers have controlled it... from about 1945-75 largely...
Their time in the Tory Party is perhaps passed though, with the state
of the Party's old, prejudiced membership these days...
Could you perhaps define who you think are the "socialist coup"
perpetrators, and who the one nationers in the Tory Party today?
You've overall made it unclear on this, in your message.
> but such fools always tend to believe their own dreams....
> just like militant and the swp....
> the central core of the party is the one nationers....and the brains
> are mostly libertarians with a very few jackboots.....
Who are the actual Libertarians in the Party? Letwin perhaps...? On a
few measures he certainly seems so.
> usually it is a one nationer....sometimes nearer to a libertarian
> like thatcher...and probably churchill.....(they normally get in
> when the party runs out of options....)
Thatcher was no pure libertarian if we use your analysis; on the
social side she was hypocrtically a staunch conservative.
> big changes in the tory party have been the rise of the barrow boys
> (even thatcher) and the left wing coup.....
> the party has always been about power....now we have some squabbling
> shallow dogmatists....
It hasn't always exclusively been. MPs like Julian Critchley (his
memoirs are wonderfully enjoyable reading) and the older "gentlemanly"
generations went into the House for different reasons. That perhaps of
status and as an eccentricity, lol.
> this will continue until our versions of militant stop dreaming.....
> and someone with some balls is allowed to lead the party.....
> ids is showing he hasn't the necessary instincts or skill.....
Who's your main hope then?
IDS is of New Right instinctive social conservatism, but he knows it's
not tenable; he's thus in an almighty pickle as he tries to appease
all sides. His lack of any charisma, his dull demanour and tone... all
of his leadership deficiencies combine with the policy outlook
problems to produce a leader who is quite simply a disaster for his
Party. Though indeed the Party ain't too great itself ;-)
> and hope to see more of your interesting posts...
Time permitting, indeed...
Yours,
Tom.
Robin Carmody
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:51:22 -0000, "Robin Carmody"
> <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> >news:umcnsuk7uu5fqvioh...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> i doubt you are unspoilt and i doubt that sussex would have you....
> >
> >Wrong - Brighton is the only city I would consider moving to.
>
> naturally you would consider it....but can you get a visa.....
A *visa*?
> >> nor do i have your reference....nor would i 'apologise' had i been
> >> so complimentary as to call a peasant 'unspoiled'......
> >
> >Patronising git.
>
> i wonder that you imagine calling a peasant a peasant
> is 'patronising'.....
> what do you call your peasants......
I don't have any.
If you say "peasants" to mean "working-class people", then I suppose I'd fit
your definition of a peasant.
Robin Carmody
news:aqguvd$a1phk$1...@ID-19198.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I'm pleased to report that my family has a history of farming and that I
> attended public school, two activities I commend to the group.
a) what sort of farming? traditional or intensive?
b) major or minor public school?
Robin Carmody
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:59:33 +0000, Paul Hyett
> <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Robin
> >Carmody <ro...@elidor.freeserve.co.uk> typed this -
> >>
> >>I was just testing Abelard, who strikes me as a fraud. He presents
himself
> >>as a wise old political sage; I suspect he is actually a highly
egotistical
> >>student who has dressed himself in bogus "knowledge" and "experiences".
He
> >>is so devoid of self-confidence that I wouldn't be surprised if he's
even
> >>younger than me :).
> >>
> >>Or maybe he is a tiresome old crone anyway. He is certainly in a
different
> >>world from most of us.
> >
> >AFAIK, abelard isn't even a 'he'.
>
> don't be mean....let them dream...
So is your girlfriend of the lesbian kind, then?
Mark Cyst
I was going to use my draining an abscess analogy but thought better
of it... ;-)
Mark Cyst
> On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 12:41:20 +0000, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
>
> typed:
>
>
>>But there's a much wider choice of crap these days!!! An improvement! ;-)
>
> a fellow with the right attitude...
Yes. You can never have enough crap, that's what I say... why do you
think I'm on this group?! :-)
Mark Cyst
> On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:32:38 +0000, Mark Cyst <mark...@lycos.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>I've changed my mind! There are worse things than being a
>>Thatcherite... trouble is, I'm damned if I can think of any of them
>>right now! ;-)
>
> think man....you could have been a socialist.....
Well, that's *as bad* as being a Thatcherite. Don't know about being
worse... I find the best position is to be apolitical.
> but you'd need an nhs lobectomy first.....
I'd prefer a private lobotomy. How much do you think that would cost?
Robin Carmody
news:3DCBAED1...@lycos.com...
>
> I was 16 in 1979. I can remember pre-Thatcher Britain. It was grim...
> I had very little interest in politics (nothing's changed!), but I
> have vivid memories of blackouts, strikes, crap tv, crap radio, crap
> everything!
>
No, just a leftie who recognises that the free market has its good points
(Blairism itself being - at its best - a devastatingly effective combination
of Thatcherite venture capitalism and Wilsonian social democracy but,
crucially, never "conservative" in the literal sense, IMO).
Robin Carmody
news:3dcbacb1...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>
> And also bear in mind that few, if any of us, could name our
> constituency MP at age 22.
I always could.
Ages 1 to 14: Bob Dunn (Conservative, Dartford)
Ages 14 to 20 years 7 months: Ian Bruce (Conservative, South Dorset)
Age 20 years 7 months to date: Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)
I don't know who the MP was in the part of South London where I lived as a
baby, but it may well have been whichever Labour MP died or retired to bring
about the by-election in February 1983 which Simon Hughes won.
Robin Carmody
news:7296d5bbd047893114e...@mygate.mailgate.org...> news:3dcbef2d...@news.cis.dfn.de
>
>
> > >> 22! 1976; the long hot summer, with the first stirrings of punk rock
> > >> just beginning to make themselves heard
> > >
> > >er, just what year do you think it is now Joe?
> >
> > 1978?
>
> hey man, joe's like far out.
But at least he doesn't like the new model Red Hot Chili Peppers (I hope he
doesn't, anyway).
Robin Carmody
> In message <aqf0t1$91m5q$1...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de>, Steve Glynn
> <steve...@ntlworld.com> writes
> >I remember Britain as it was before 1979, Robin. I was born in
> >1955.
> >Remind us again how old you are -- 22, isn't it?
>
> Er, try just this side of 100. Closer to a century than 22.
>
> It could be age that's got him so fucked up, but I wouldn't count on it.
> I chalk it up to inherited inbred insanity.
In my case, it was something in my generation alone, and something I
couldn't control ...
Robin Carmody
news:aqga4l$9lrn5$2...@ID-139981.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Anyway, let's see what you think Britain pre-Thatcher was like.
relative to today:
more respectful of tradition
less inclined towards unregulated capitalism
less internationalist
more class-conscious