BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 07:19 AM

That'll be me then.

No excuse other than my lack of education and forgetting that a professional Yorkshireman would of course spell his name Thackray. Never met the distinguished C19 novelist, but booked the late C20 singer songwriter a couple of times and he always put bums on seats.

Got me thinking now, I wonder if my spelling was any better on the posters? Might have to commit hari kari, or however you spell it.

That's twice my spelling and grammar has been pulled up in recent days on Mudcat. The first time I can dismiss, or at least dismiss the businessman who pointed it out, but this? Must try harder Ian, must try harder, (or is that more hard?)

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:29 AM

{This post small and entirely in brackets because it is a drift based on my "legendary pedantry". But a couple of posts some way back confused the names of the distinguished C19 novelist William Makepeace Thackeray & the distinguished late C20 singer-songwriter Jake Thackray ~~ the latter having, please note, no 'e' in his surname.

Apologies for the interruption ~~ but "accuracy matters" shall ever be my watchword.

~Michael~}

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 03:22 AM

I too have a great deal of trouble with the issue of 'constant growth'. It seems to me that that concept reflects greed more than need.

Juneau, Alaska, is a long, narrow town of 30,000 situated on the American mainland west of Canada and north of the contiguous 48 states. There is limited land mass so unless we build double-decker highways there is not a whole lot of room for more people, even if we built high rises that could theortically house a gazillion people.

We don't have much industry as such but we have a brewery which has grown too successful to any longer be called 'micro', we have a great many artists of all sorts from world class musicians to internationally known painters and writers, a high proportion of college graduates, even major basketball players: Carlos Boozer is a Juneau boy :), a viable fishing industry, a bustling tourist destination, and lots of government on three levels. Oh, and stunningly spectacular beauty all around us.

Some people think we have to grow, that if we don't, we will stagnate.

In my view, when one has an optimum number of people and a sustainable financial base, one needn't think in terms of bigger but better.

I would love Juneau to be a model for problem solving. I would love us to address - and solve - the issue of homelessness (A great many people from 'down south' come up here and promptly fall through cracks they didn't even know were there), I would love us to address - and resolve - alcohol and drug addictions, I would love us to address with finality and fluidity the issue of cultural differences where each bloc would feel fully equal and accepting of all others.

Why should we get bigger?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 02:52 PM

A minimal or even a zero growth economy and society can work pretty well. After all, one way and another, that is the kind of model we've generally had for most of the time humanity has been around.

It's got its problems, but nothing insuperable. And it is longterm viable, in a way that systems built round the expectation of sustained growth can never be. Here's a website with some interesting stuff about this kind of thing - Zero Growth Economy Conference.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 10:51 AM

Its a fact Don, yes.

But like all facts involving statistics, it can be subjective.

Yes, it is good, and yes, it brings money in. However...

Picture this; I joined a company in the '80s which had a machine shop and employed 28 people as turners, machine setters etc. Within six years, we were turning out and selling over ten times the amount of product and our reject rate meant we went from 84% of raw material turned into product up to 98% through better machining and analysis of billet. We did it by investing in CNC machining. Whilst we luckily never had to make anybody redundant, we managed through retirement, moving on and not replacing, to get that down to seven men from the original 28.

Now.. we would have done our bit to influence the statistic you quote, but I just wonder how much that is good news if we weren't employing more people as we grew? A moot point, but what good is growth if jobs don't follow?

When I started work, a job, just about any full time job was enough money to get a house and raise a family. I recall feeling rather angry when a local politician pointed out that the site of the pit I used to work on, with its B&Q distribution centre and two or three other lorry depots employed more people than the pit had. Aye, and 99% of those job numbers don't bring in enough money to live on as a single person as a monk let alone get a house, car, raise a family and spend Saturday night getting pissed.

A rich country can afford a good welfare program but to try and sustain it, we need more contributors than recipients, and that means decently paid jobs stemming from the statistics you mention.

You point out a good news aspect of this discussion, and I certainly don't want to dismiss it, but the industrial picture Th*tcher inherited was one of output equating to people contributing to society. I may have had what I called a successful business life and sold up happy, but the ratio of turnover to families supported by it fell as output grew. There is a part of me that is an unreformed socialist, (no stronger than the bastard capitalist I seem to be according to one businessman on this thread) and I do regret that the survival need for automation and reducing overheads leads to less jobs. So.. is the success of my old company (doing great still, by the way with its new owners) good because of the taxes it pays, or bad because of the reduction in workforce?

Me? I still don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 08:53 AM

""Don was right in that the Unions had way too much power and were fucking up our manufacturing base, but then Thatcher use their recalcitrance as an excuse to put thousands of viable business on the scrapheap and destroy the manufacturing base remaining.""

Interestingly, a small amount of research on the internet turns up the FACT that the UK is currently the seventh largest manufacturing nation on the planet, which, given the size of our population is pretty good.

It seems that, while the Chinese are selling us cheap mass produced consumer goods, we have the bulk of the market for the high end goods which we now manufacture and sell to the Chinese and almost everyone else.

Surprised the hell out of me.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:00 AM

Hence I mentioned the planet...

Adam Smith had what he considered the answers for his time. Of course, capitalism does require constant growth, and the boom bust effects are natures way of telling us this. If the resource was infinite, capitalism could sustain society. As there is a finite resource, every winner needs a loser, hence the fluctuations.

Mind you, the alternative to capitalism does require a form of capitalism, albeit a stage managed one. That is unsustainable too. Me? Until somebody writes a different blueprint that is accepted through democratic means, I'll take my chances on taxes funding a social program. Taxes from profits and income. Profit and income from capitalism.

These days, I am straddling both public and private sector. Interestingly, I note my tax on my private sector income just about matches the top of the ticket on the small bit of work I do for a government body in the public sector. I consider myself neither an asset nor a liability. As I appear not to be a professional either, it's a good job I can down a pint faster than anybody who challenges me, otherwise I really would be worthless....

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:17 AM

Agreed. Constant growth is a capitalists wet dream based on unsustainability and exploitation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 02:30 PM

"Constant growth" = "inevitable disaster".

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 12:04 PM

Aye, my shiny new Mac says "designed in California" in larger print than the bit about being made in China. Mind you, it may be designed in California, but by a Geordie, but I digress....

Perhaps I should have quantified short term better? I don't have a crystal ball sadly but if I did, I would say that China has to turn its own people into consumers and not just the city slickers. For that, a democracy of free thinking empowered individuals is needed. Why? Because the rest of the world spent so long being amazed that China was waking up and joining the international throng that we all overlooked that we were being fucked over by them. There is no such thing as free trade and before long, there will have to be a quid quo pro of trade in both directions if China is to carry on manufacturing for the rest of the world. If they lose export trade, they then need to address a potentially huge domestic market, but poor peasants don't make good consumers.

Already in the Western world, luxury goods are down long term and China is slowly suffering. Yes, their economy grows still, but not at the exponential rate it was doing pre 2008.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that although democracy and capitalism are different things, (and sorry about my rather flippant example) there is a serendipity which can lead to the third pillar, a sustainable social program.

Mind you, the key to all that is constant growth, and then we bring the planet resource into play..........

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:54 AM

"In fact, although short term capitalism can exist in any political environment, sustained capitalism requires free will and choice by consumers"

I don't agree. China is building a very successful capitalist economy because it can exploit the mass of cheap labour at it's disposal whose work conditions are unregulated, it has an emerging economic middle and upper class that can buy the goods as well as a huge and very aggressive export market. With western compliance the Chinese Communist Party look as strong as ever and are still torturing, imprisoning and killing their citizens at will and with utter impunity. The west is complicit in this abominable free-for-all and demonstrates the sort of rank hypocrisy that leaves many stuck for words as our countries en-masse suck up onto the arse of China. For instance, there have been several days of riots in Guangdong Province (and in Mongolia on a separate issue) over police interaction with a migrant worker; this has not been reported in the mainstream British media except for tiny on-at-3-in-the-morning reports (where I saw it). Why? Because at this point in time a major political upheaval in China is going to balls up everyone's cashfest. Turning China's citizens into consumers won't result in some 'Asian Spring'; it could be happening now and no-one gives a fuck. Keep producing those cheapo goods and shut up!*

Of course democracy and capitalism are different 'things' and that was my point (albeit badly made on a re-reading of my original post. One's a political system and one an economic one), but here in the civilised west our governments use capitalism as the only economic system of choice, and this idea is to be exported throughout the world under the guise of spreading democracy. This is about opening new markets and competing for resources, not the freedom of individuals; Iraq is now home to christ knows how many US companies intent on exploiting the aftermath of war. That was was never fought for democracy, it was fought for capitalism.

One of Thatcher's aims was to turn us into consumers rather than citizens, and we fell for it hook, line and sinker. Don was right in that the Unions had way too much power and were fucking up our manufacturing base, but then Thatcher use their recalcitrance as an excuse to put thousands of viable business on the scrapheap and destroy the manufacturing base remaining. We need to become citizens again, to make our voices heard and not be cowed by the promise of limitless growth and endless consumer choice; that is the capitalist lie and only via a responsible, citizen-centric socially democratic political system can the excesses of recent years be avoided.

*Of course, this rank hypocrisy comes down to personal level too, as the computer I'm typing this on was made in China, as was my phone, perhaps my telly (components certainly will be) and pretty much everything else. These computers used to be made in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 03:51 AM

Comparing us to the Arab spring?

Bridge notes that it is his "suggestion" we are near that point. Methinks it may be his desire instead. We have a free society where you can whinge to your heart's content and call people with an opposite view "the enemy." Yet in reality, the loudest noise in suburbia is the sound of butter being scraped onto crumpets.

On a serious note, we seem to laud the Arab spring because it is their desire to have a system closer to our own. The system you make a living out of whilst pointing out its failings, both real and sometimes contrived.

I agree that capitalism and democracy don't necessarily sit together, but there again neither do a bowl of custard and an iPad. They are different things but both are in my kitchen and both attracted my attention last night. Sorry, but democracy and capitalism are not different philosophies, they are two very different "things" that can coexist in the same way my iPad will carry on working regardless of whether I have finished the custard.

In fact, although short term capitalism can exist in any political environment, sustained capitalism requires free will and choice by consumers, and that exists in a democracy rather than in a dictatorship where you are told what to think. China tries with varying degrees of success to float capitalism without democracy, but if you can't trust your people politically, is is also difficult to trust them as customers.

Th*tcher felt capitalism will form its own society. But there again, her society was doing ok. Her husband was breaking sanctions in South Africa during the '70s and '80s, and her son was feeding dictators arms in other African states.

Luckily, for us, democracy existed even in her own party. There again, I look for the public service aspect in politicians rather than the wish to thrust their views on you. Hence my concern over Bridge pointing out you are an enemy if you disagree with him. Stand for office then mate. Losing your deposit isn't earth shattering and as a businessman, your own bit of capitalism will soon mend things for you afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 03:06 AM

No, I don't get that. It sounds as if it might be interesting. Where does it come from and how and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 03:05 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 02:26 AM

"Capitalism is not democracy and it is not a political system for democracy; unregulated and unconstrained it's as undemocratic as any political system yet devised by humankind. It needs to be made to conform to the ideals of our society and not exploit people here or overseas and it needs to be socially and environmentally responsible."

"Oh thats all right in theory, but it will NEVER work in practice"

Remind you of anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 10:06 PM

People are contacting their MPs, and raising for example facebook groups and online petitions to protest permitting Rupert Murdoch an even greater concentration of media power - and getting inane evasions if any reply. I could post you some gibberish I have had from the little conservative turd Mark Reckless.

At the end of the day when the limited democracy we have gets bypassed by stitch-ups by cabals of politicians who all went to the same schools there is what black swan theory posits as systemic fragility because there is no effective safety valve for pressure - leading to black swan events such as "the arab spring".

In events like that the riot replaces teh ballot box as the only available means of democratic change. Mostly we laud the arab spring. It is my suggestion that our own society is close to that point.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 04:16 PM

...if the Darling / Brown policies weren't followed, we could easily be, say, Greece. Of course, he fails to mention the 100% backing of the approach by Cameron & Osborne, but that's another matter.

That "backed 100 per cent" is not actually true - and insofar as there was partial backing for that approach, it is now overshadowed by a sustained assertion that the primary cause of the financial disaster here was bad economic management by Gordon Brown, and spendthrift policies by Labour.

And Cameron and Osborned know perfectly well that that is a lie, and also that such policies as can be called mismanagement were backed 100 per cent by the Tory Opposition (and of course their LibDem sidekicks).

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 12:31 PM

"Etonian millionaires don't understand people first. Ok. A bit of a sweeping statement I suppose but I tend to largely agree with it. But I can't see how it is different to Cameron and Osborne getting together over a pint and saying "people" don't understand what pays for their social needs."

Good point, but the problem here is that Cameron and Osbourne claim to understand the needs of people from vastly different backgrounds to theirs, people who have not had the good fortune they have had in their lives and they can't understand that because they have not been there.

I agree people often don't understand what pays for their social needs, but this is a result of the demise of social responsibility and the promotion of the 'self' culture which Thatcher so loved. This is a re-education issue to a degree; people need to understand the welfare state is not about turning a profit but looking after people. Of course it's pretty unpalatable when some bizzball fiddles the system to their own advantage but that occurs in all walks of life (i.e. Phillip 'dodger' Green and a fair wodge of our elected representatives etc etc). Making thievery off the state in all it's forms should be socially unacceptable, and to a large degree I think it is (the tories are always trotting out that tired old trope that the welfare state is beset on all sides by fiddlers and diddlers, which it isn't).

Capitalism is not democracy and it is not a political system for democracy; unregulated and unconstrained it's as undemocratic as any political system yet devised by humankind. It needs to be made to conform to the ideals of our society and not exploit people here or overseas and it needs to be socially and environmentally responsible. If it isn't, it needs to be made to be by the people we elect to do the job. Some things such as welfare, infrastructure, the NHS, defence and education are too important to be opened up to market forces which are designed to generate dividends for shareholders.

Accountability is a cornerstone of a democratic society and Cameron, Osbourne and the Blue Labour wonks need to be made to realise that. Social democracy is the only way forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 11:35 AM

No offence Jack, but just been thinking about your last point;

Etonian millionaires don't understand people first. Ok. A bit of a sweeping statement I suppose but I tend to largely agree with it. But I can't see how it is different to Cameron and Osborne getting together over a pint and saying "people" don't understand what pays for their social needs.

In fact, if we all judge understanding by our background, who at all could be considered fit to govern? According to Bridge, I'm not even a professional, so that's me out for starters.

Talking of which, I largely agree with him that if the Darling / Brown policies weren't followed, we could easily be, say, Greece. Of course, he fails to mention the 100% backing of the approach by Cameron & Osborne, but that's another matter.

Mind you, if if if... As an old mate never said, if my Aunty had balls, she'd be my Uncle.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 07:03 AM

"There are people out there who are smart enough to be making waves, not by rioting, but by doorstepping their MPs..."

That's great Don, but my Tory MP won't even reply to my emails, complaining in the press he's got too many to reply to. So much for the progressive politics he was blathering on about during the election campaign. In fact, his predecessor who 'resigned' due to the fact he'd been lining the nest of his offspring with taxpayers money was a far better MP in some ways, as he often replied or sent queries through to the relevant government department who then did contact me directly. Shame he was a robbing, amoral bastard really.

I am in frequent contact with councillors, council officers and other representatives of my local authority, I take part in community-building projects free of charge (playing music mainly) and always try to get involved in issues which effect the town where I live.

The thing is, this isn't 'left-wing' activity, it's not politically motivated and has no political allegiance, so I reject utterly any labels that might be attached to my views. I believe in compassion to fellow humans and other living beings, environmental responsibility and sustainability, I believe in our society looking after our old, our most vulnerable citizens and the ill and infirm. I believe in fairness and honesty in life including business (which is probably why I'm crap at it), in providing value for money to my clients along with quality and an approach to my work that encompasses integrity and reliability.

Most of all I believe that people are important regardless of their creed, colour, wealth or any other criteria which implies judgement or prejudice; after my experience as a young conservative in the early 80's I saw a side to many of the members of that party which runs contrary to my core beliefs. One evening we invited a socialist speaker to a debate at our branch and he spoke so much sense I realised there were other ways of looking at the world. I don't hold any political allegiance now as they all seem to be wannabe Tories as the past few years have proved.

People first, one ideal Thatcher, Cameron and his Etonian and millionaire buddies will never, ever understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 04:53 AM

Indeed it goes further than that. If the Brown-Darling policies had not been followed after the banking crisis, we would right now be in a full scale depression - and the welfare state and social housing that enable Don to survive would not exist. That's a major reason why I cannot understand his support of those who would destroy those things and indeed are even now seeking to destroy them.

Of course, if he wants to suffer for his doctrinaire beliefs that's his call - but pursuit of them will cause suffering to all other workers and unwaged (or non-earners) apart from a few fat cats at the top of the pile. That's unacceptable.

In the meantime (to revert to what I started this thread about) I see no sign of a rapprochement between the young pretenders of US right wing ideology and the remaining fans here of Thatcherwasm, and it does warm my heart to see the US idealogues so snubbed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 04:12 PM

What "brought us to this state" was the greed and incompetence of financiers in the UK and elsewhere.

This was made worse than it would otherwise have been in the UK because the Labour government had adopted Tory policies on deregulation, the Tories who felt that deregulation should have gone even further.

Arguably if Labour had spent less money on a range of things (such as hospitals and schools) this might have marginally reduced the impact of the bank-led crisis. Of course if they had done this they would have been attacked by the Tories who were fully in support of this spending.

Pretending that Labour spending was the primary cause of the crisis is nonsense, and when the Tories and Lib Dems pretend that they opposed it is straightforward lying - about the only straightforward thing about this Coalition.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 03:32 PM

Don - but do you honestly believe that Cameron and Osborne, if they'd been in government, would have imposed tighter regulation on the banks and successfully avoided the fallout from the American sub-prime fiasco?

Kitty

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 11:29 AM

""You want to line up with Thatcher, do it Don. But do it in the letters page of the daily mail. You'll feel more at home there.""

I don't line up with Thatcher, Scargill, Blair, Brown, or Richard Bridge.

I simply feel that they are all facets of the same blind allegiance to a concept that is past and done, that any person or organisation is intrinsically either all good or all bad.

You, Al, have the mental capacity to understand that fact.

Richard Bridge, obviously does not.

I'll say it one more time, just in case it might penetrate some of the thicker skulls around here.

CAMERON IS NOT THATCHER! None of us, myself included, know what kind of fist he will make of getting us out of the mess which Blair/Brown left behind.

Some of us (naming no names) would prefer a bankrupt England to a Tory success.

One thing I do know for sure. We would have been much worse off had we re-elected the bunch of incompetents who brought us to this state.

There are people out there who are smart enough to be making waves, not by rioting, but by doorstepping their MPs, and making this government sit up and take notice (witness the prevention of sale of forests).

They do not spend their time pissing and moaning about past events, because they are busy influencing future events and it is with them that I line up.

They neither need nor want hatemongers like our learned friend, but people who will work to keep this coalition focussed on one basic fact.

With modern communications we can motivate huge numbers of voters, and if they don't listen, they are down the road at the next election.

That's my lot for this thread, so those who want can go back to cuddling old injuries and fighting long gone foes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 10:35 AM

The complication with identifying a political divide in England is that both the Labour party and the Lib Dems have effectively gone over to the other side. Their disagreements with each other are largely cosmetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 10:04 AM

A couple of mates of mine taught there too, at Portland and Hartland. Me? I was a product of the "other" 'comp on the right side of the tracks... (Worksop is one of those towns that genuinely used the railway line as the divider for which school you went to!)

Like I said, all ancient history now, and best left forgotten. I've moved on and so has just about everybody else.

In fact, it is difficult to look at political divides now and see where somebody sits. In a way, that isn't a bad thing. I am a floating voter, mainly because a) I cannot blindly follow a political philosophy on the basis of "it is what we stand for", the "we" being all the members and b) a vote can be powerful and nobody should expect your vote based on your heritage. (Pillocks take note.)

On that subject, (see above) I note that I am working in the public sector and appear to be the enemy of the working class. The person accusing me owns his own business. See? The political divides no longer exist! zzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 04:42 AM

Well Richard, you reckon Arthur was cleverly out manouvred. I think the general consensus was that he should have been a bit cleverer. His tactics were a bit 'Battle of the Somme'-ish. They were obviosly not working quite early on. A wiser general would have re-thought the campaign.

You were at Manton Ian! Small world! I used to supply teach at those two comps.

Weird place Manton - wasn't it there, the people demonstrated to get a kid excluded from the nursery school for violent behaviour!

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 03:35 AM

History or roots?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 03:09 AM

We live in a capitalist society, ruler by capitalist
governments.....red and blue.

Dont look so surprised if people like Mrs Thatcher work in the interests of the capitalist system, Blair and brown did the same.
Crumbs from the rich mans table.....or trickle down economics is their mantra for the poor.Actually we are all to blame for being in thrall to consumerism, and being so afraid to lose our little store of money and possesions.

God!   can you please send us someone to explain to these pillocks what is really important in this life?

But wait!

The people is a beast of muddy brain.
Its own are all things between earth and heaven;
But this it knows not; and if one arise
To tell this truth, it kills him unforgiven! T C.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: GUEST,Ian Mather
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 02:56 AM

All ancient history. Although for the record, Manton Pit where I worked voted not to strike and the union delegate was sent to the conference accordingly. ken Capstick and Arthur Scargill came out to face the cameras after the meeting and told the world the pithead ballot was unanimous in favour of a strike.

Then Scargill wondered when a couple of Manton lads set about having NUM funds sequestrated.

Perhaps an example of solicitors acting for workers?

No political philosophy is valid without democracy. Scargill was dangerous and the last person we needed to ensure the future of mining. His legacy? 20,000 members when he took over his grace and favour London pad. Almost bugger all members when he refused to hand it back.

I have said elsewhere in Mudcat that I keep two bottles of champagne on hand. Not good ones but cheap plonk One is called Margaret and the other Arthur. Just in case I need two on the same day....

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 11:58 PM

Actually, Don, my view is based morality and equity. Yours, as far as I can see, is based in the desire to give the rich the chance to boss you around and exploit you and the poor and disempowered generally. Oh, and swallowing the propaganda from those above you in the oligarchy that only they can create wealth and wellbeing and that trickle-down theory works. It makes no sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 08:37 PM

Best will in the world Don. You are talking tripe. there would have been a strike if there had been a ballot - that's one of the tragedies. previously though our trade union leaders had had the mandate to call a strike without a ballot. scargil was challenging the dubious legality of Thatcher's new law on that very subject, for all trade unions not just the miners. The anti-strike legislation meant that our negotiators were robbed of a major negotiating tactic.

I remember with the horror the Sue Lawley/Scargill interview when he was asked repeatedly if he condoned the death of that taxi driver. Finally he said that of course he didn't. thatcher never expressed any sadness over the many people killed on picket lines by cops (were they cops or soldiers dressed up as cops)and scab lorries driving over them. None of Thatchers cohorts were badgered on camers in a similar fashion. In fact it was the BBC line that it was the miners damn silly fault for getting in the way.

There was a lot of needle between Yorkshire and Notts/derby miners before the strike. The Notts lot felt that the Yorkshire men hadn't backed them with strike action when Robens was merrily closing pits in the 60's. there was still bitterness around from that - sort of what goes around comes around, when the big strike started.

However no one - not even Scargil I believe saw what was ahead - the end of the entire industry. Very late on the strike Tebbit came on telly and was lying his head off -saying that the miners should go back to work - and not a single miners job would be lost. I think if they knew what was at stake at the start - there would have been a ballot in favour of strike action.

You want to line up with Thatcher, do it Don. But do it in the letters page of the daily mail. You'll feel more at home there.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 07:25 PM

""Mither, open your eyes - who destroyed English mining? (Clue, it wasn't Scargill, he got caught in an artfully laid trap, manoevred into starting a strike when coal stocks were at an all-time high).""

IN YOUR OPINION. Which, outside of a court of law is worth no more than mine.


""Who gave the police carte blanche to frame peaceful protesters as if they were violent (yes there were some violent, but may peaceful ones framed) and even to frame non-participating observers and wielders of cameras?""

Why don't you try peddling that to the family of the cab driver whose reward for delivering a passenger was a block of concrete dropped through his windscreen from a bridge?

Come to that, why not try listening to those miners who didn't want anything to do with mad Arthur's militancy. If that had been a secret ballot, as it would be today, there would never have been a strike.

There was (as always) wrong on both sides, and to try to paint one as the ultimate evil, and the other as some kind of saintly, altruistic benevolent society does no more than prove how biased and bigotted some people can be.

I'll make my own decisions thank you Mr Bridge, and leave others to do the same.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:54 PM

If you think that Cameron is moving the conservatives left you need your eyes and brains tested. Some conservatives would like to go even further right, is all.

Mither, open your eyes - who destroyed English mining? (Clue, it wasn't Scargill, he got caught in an artfully laid trap, manoevred into starting a strike when coal stocks were at an all-time high). Who gave the police carte blanche to frame peaceful protesters as if they were violent (yes there were some violent, but may peaceful ones framed) and even to frame non-participating observers and wielders of cameras?

Don, don't be stupid. You need the welfare state. Who is dismantling it? Why have they the power to do so?   Thatcher declared war on the British working class and underclass and welfare recipients - all to make more money for the rich. That war is carried on today. While B.Liar and the willowy Mandelbaum thereby profited, it was not their war. It was hers and she is still its prophet (or should I say profit?).

Ake, is two more than one?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 10:31 AM

You have to remember that it was a golden age of uninterrupted electoral success for the Conservative party. There are many who look back on that golden age with deep regret that it is no more.

This is what lies at the back of all the inhouse beastliness to other tory leaders.

Its forgiveable really for people from every political corner to want to debunk the 'golden age of Thatcherism' myth.

There was a time when Portillo was viewed as the Thatcherite 'prince over the water' - ready to assume his old bosses mantle, when the 'B' team (as blessed Margaret called them) ran out of steam and options.

I think after the visiting the North of England and Scotland - places where no one had ever voted for her, and the brunt of the recession had happened - Portillo realised himself that 'Thatcherism' was a busted flush, and made other career plans.

Southerners used to say to us - recession.....what recession?

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 07:08 AM

If we live long enough we all get a bit frail and old. That's something we all share, and it's something to temper how we treat each other. But it doesn't clean the record of the harm we have done to other people who also grow old and frail, and the amount if harm Thatcher did can hardly be measured. The blame lies with the people who backed her and voted for her (which was always a minority, we should remember.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 07:01 AM

Perhaps if the LibDems would grow a pair and operate as they ought, we might see that happen.

Maybe there is still a glimmer of hope then but I fear too many of those who feel let down by them (and I feel let down by them) will have reverted to straight Labour v Tory thinking...

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 06:16 AM

I don't know if I qualify to answer your question Don, but the old frail woman left a legacy.

It may not have been an original idea, she may not have been the first national leader to encourage it, but when she she said there is no such thing as society, she gave the green light for not taking communities into account. She gave the green light for knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Her legacy, not the frail old woman is the issue here. Diatribe it may be, but by highlighting the issues civilisation has with her, it is a small start in ensuring such social experiments are not allowed to build such momentum again.

Sorry, but just to humour the bugger; That's right Bridge, I am the enemy of the working class. I don't know what working class means of course. But by knowing the answer is not failed Stalinist collective cooperatives, I must be the enemy of the working classes. The difference between you and being that I was once a classic example of what we call working class. Another difference is that I don't go around patronising people and telling them what to think.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:19 AM

Perhaps if the LibDems would grow a pair and operate as they ought, we might see that happen.

Whenever the voters decide not to elect a government, the LibDems have the opportunity to say " Let's leave things as they are. The party with the most votes forms a government, and then we will support the best initiatives from both sides, in the public interest".

One wonders why nobody in that party has ever had the intelligence, or the guts (I'm not sure which), to go that route.

Instead they form coalitions,this time with the Tories, but mostly with Labour, which always end in watered down policies.

And would somebody (not RB, somebody less biased) tell me why it is that all political discussions are immediately turned into diatribes about an old, frail woman who hasn't had any political clout for nineteen years.

Cameron is not a Thatcherite, and in point of fact has angered those in the Tory party who were, because he is thought to have taken the party too far to the left (one of his good points as far as I'm concerned).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:49 AM

I think the Labour/Tory system was terminally broken with Tony Blair and New Labour. One may be further to the right than the other but Tory and Labour are on the same side of the see-saw and Labour are unlikely to return to a "balancing" position.

Personally, I'd like to see the (effectively) two party system broken but I don't hold much hope for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 02:34 AM

Richard....What could be more "conservative" than New Labour? Please try for once, all you "liberals" to look at the bigger picture.

Things must change....Socially, politically and economically....the old fixes will no longer suffice, like the Labour/Tory....Republican/Democrat seesaw.

As I've said before a Solialist revolution in UK or USA is the stuff of fantasy......WE need a leader who can appeal to folks on other levels than the old "liberal democratic" confidence trick.

Someone, who can make us see that there are other things in life more fulfilling than the aquisition of huge quantities of MONEY.

Of course, to be in a position to run a campaign under the PRESENT system, money gathering is a necessity.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 09:52 PM

Thatcher = Reagan = Palin???

They are all nuts!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 09:39 PM

Re Palin, I've never heard such a load of crap in my life.

The ability to talk a load of soppy tripe about someone she hasn't even met. That makes her a good person! She's talking about someone who hasn't even been born. As someone who has been a carer most of my adult life, I can tell you - you don't need spirituality or idealism - you need help. The kind of help that the Republican party in America has traditionally labelled as funds for the undeserving - cruelly depriving multi millionaires of tax breaks.

What about the millions of people in America struggling with no medical cover. What about the thousands of people in America whose lives are devastated every year by 'gun related incidents'. Sarah has a message for these people. She poses in a bikini with an automatic rifle.

Run Sarah....! By gum! you can be twit Ake, you really can. This is someone who doesn't give a micro-turd for the her fellow humans.

Pretty much the same as Thatcher, Don.

Why is the people who care about the unborn, kind of lose interest with the problems that people have once they're born? I suppose its obvious. Screwing peoples lives up with unwanted children and filling the capacity of social services to cope with them, is sound social engineering sense for hard hearted right wingers. Also they've got other uses for the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 09:08 PM

""Anyone from the working class who supports conservatives is a nutter.""

And anyone who can't debate without proving my point about name calling should perhaps STFU.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 06:41 PM

Anyone who thinks they are God is a nutter.

Anyone who thinks Thatcher was right is a nutter.

Anyone from the working class who supports conservatives is a nutter. You are simply feedstock to them, don't you get it?

The trade unions sought to defend the working class and to stop capitalists screwing them. That was right. If you don't like that then you are the enemy of the working class. If you are working class and don't recognise the harm done to you by sycophancy to capitalism, then you are not just a nutter but a suicidal nutter.

If you support conservatives and want a welfare state, or a decent pension then I suggest you train as a chemist and produce new psychotropic drugs. You don't need them, but it may help the rest of the world to catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: goatfell
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 02:38 PM

it takes a nutter to calol someone else a nutter.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 02:34 PM

I'm wholly in agreement with the position that all children have a right to be born, and I think Sarah Palin might well be a good egg in many ways, and might make an excellent neighbour, or even an up-to-average MP. (That's not high...)

But as a President she would be a disaster, in the same way that Maggie Thatcher was a disaster, but far more dangerous, because far more powerful. Thatcher's damage was largely limited to these islands, Palin's would be likely to be global.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:36 PM

Wilson was an economist, and for that matter, the first of the spin opportunists. (Being photographed with The Beatles and the '66 squad.) It is as an economist that he is most understood and misunderstood.

The old joke that an economist is somebody who sees something working in practice and wonders if it will work in theory sums old Harold up. An economist can lend a professional aspect to financial policy, so he wasn't very good at listening to his advisors, nor indeed his chancellor, (although Callaghan admitted he didn't truly understand his brief.)

However, both felt that manufacturing was at the heart of the economy and had to walk the tightrope of both extremes who set out to destroy it, through either philosophy or ignorance.

To add to Silas's point regarding Vietnam (and therefore our independence at a time when The Marshall Plan could have been written off completely if we had waded in) Harold needs recognition for his balls. I would add that the one thing he wanted to be remembered for is the one I would note most. The setting up of The Open university.

Th*tcher did some professional research into making ice cream and then used her dairy knowledge to stop school milk. Not a clever link, but I don't tend to look for clever ones where she is involved.

Sorry Don, I see where you are coming from but I still can't let her off the hook or feel she was in a position she didn't want to be in. She knew exactly what she wanted and used Keith Joseph and the other dangerous individuals in order to see through her vision.   myopic one at best.

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:35 PM

Mr McGrath...The reason I posted the article, was that Mrs Palin is portrayed by most on this forum as an "airhead" or hard,ego driven politician.

That article in my view showed a different side to the lady, and perhaps now the juvenile personal comments will cease.

A spiritual belief is not a crime, nor is her opinion on the right of a child to be born. A sense of personal responsibility and a desire to free oneself from the ever more intrusive hands of government is certainly a positive in my book.

Run Sarah.....and good luck to you!

Subject: RE: BS: Nasty Thatcher rightly calls Palin nuts?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 11:52 AM

As a mother she's fine, so far as I can am aware. But that's a different job. (And I can't see the relevance of Ebbie's post there.)

Having a child with a disability is something that can bring out the best in people. It doesn't mean we acquire the skills needed to be president.