The Left: Moribund.

[ahinton]

just to add to add to the response in post #177

presumably whoever posted this had not heard about sky high house prices, business rates, University tuition fees, ludicrous rent reviews,competition, VAT regulations, checks and accountants bills, huge rises in fuel prices etc etc to bottom of page.

We should all be grateful to the self employed for being one less person chasing the decent jobs, and make sure that for their two kinds of NIC's they get a half decent pension in their old age.
That is all.

I think that you mean #178. Anyway, there's no shortage of good sense there.

For the two classes of NIC for which most self-employed people under state retirement age are liable, even the government doesn't regard one of them (4) as "counting" towards qualification for any kind of state "pension" and the other one (2) only "counts" towards qualification for the most basic state pension; it's pretty obvious, therefore, that many self-employed people will have to work for the rest of their lives if they're to be able to manage and the few that won;t have to do this will have had - and been able to afford - to save for decent proper pensions.

[scottycelt]

I think triumphalism went out with Mrs Thatcher.

Talking about the Lady ... if ever-so slightly off-topic!

I have to confess some surprise at Ken Livingstone saying on the Marr Show a week or two ago that he 'respected' Thatcher because she 'believed in something' and undeniably changed the course of British history, at great risk to her own political career. He did of course go on to say that 'her' policies were a disaster for the nation!

Personally, I found Livingstone's attitude and comments very refreshing for a man firmly on the Left of the political spectrum.

A 'maverick' indeed!

[Serial_Apologist]

Talking about the Lady ... if ever-so slightly off-topic!

I have to confess some surprise at Ken Livingstone saying on the Marr Show a week or two ago that he 'respected' Thatcher because she 'believed in something' and undeniably changed the course of British history, at great risk to her own political career. He did of course go on to say that 'her' policies were a disaster for the nation!

Personally, I found Livingstone's attitude and comments very refreshing for a man firmly on the Left of the political spectrum.

A 'maverick' indeed!

Well I really do hope you're being ironic, scotty. I well remember Bliar saying similar about the Self-righteously Irreversible One and thought Ken must be losing his marbles for the above remark. Respect???!!! Hitler also "believed in something" and very nearly turned the course of history - worldwide. As did Stalin. OK, the parallel may be OTT; but before we are too dismissive, all three figures had the benefits of wealth, power and privilege right behind them; and all three were set on courses to reverse all the gains in terms of employment rights etc made by working class people over the preceding century for all time.

S-A

[Mandryka]

Twenty-two days of strikes in 2010 at a cost to BA of £150m 'a little local difficulty' - yeah right

Small potatoes to BA.

Anyway, most of those who struck will be foregoing their little gains in the next fews when they lose their jobs, as austerity really starts to bite.

The pattern of temporary gain (heralded as 'a stunning victory for socialism') followed by major defeat (the depression of the 30s following the failed General Strike of 1926; the Thatcher revolution of the 80s following the so-called Social Contract of the 70s). You should remember the latter as you are old enough to have lived through it.

[ahinton]

Talking about the Lady ... if ever-so slightly off-topic!

I have to confess some surprise at Ken Livingstone saying on the Marr Show a week or two ago that he 'respected' Thatcher because she 'believed in something' and undeniably changed the course of British history, at great risk to her own political career. He did of course go on to say that 'her' policies were a disaster for the nation!

Personally, I found Livingstone's attitude and comments very refreshing for a man firmly on the Left of the political spectrum.

A 'maverick' indeed!

Long before this Tony Benn, that noted Right-winger, testified to the honesty and integrity of Margaret Thatcher, add that one always knew exactly where one was with her; OK, he then went on to say that all of her policies were anathema to him, but the subtext of his remark was clearly that one could never be sure where one was with certain of the more oleaginous, mealy-mouthed, weasel-wordy among his own party's more senior figures.

[Mandryka]

All to pay for Osborne's completely ineffectual 'plans'.



at this rate mandryka will be posting to no one soon! she'll be the only one left ...presumably! though social chaos has a nasty habit of being uncontrollable - so there's no protection, not even for the most devout tories, or fans of free market economies...... chaos doesn't select its victims on this basis, is random. she'll have to play with an injured mouse, sing it frightening songs, instead of particpating in web discussion. so, i guess that's a prospect some might well look forward to!!!

Yes, I am a he, have been one all my life and intend to remain so.

Not sure what you mean about my posting to no one: this thread is now 20 pages long and counting. :)

[handsomefortune]

I'm pretty sure Mandryka is a man, from the general tone of writing. I could be mistaken... I sometimes am, these days...

Your comment, HSF, about the Greens reminds us there is a reformist alternative to the Virtually Indistinguishable Three; but where are they in all of this? Never mentioned in reportage of the St Pauls peace encampment; never called on to comment on "the Greenest government", or asked, "OK, what would be your solution?".

While one shouldn't I suppose be surprised at the Greens' sidelining, it would be *nice* for an "impartial* bbc commentator to find out their line on, eg, steering pressure on bank lending towards underfunded alternative energy r & d, with tax breaks for same, given that "we" seem to be quite good at being ahead in this field.

precisely. but if you read the 170 link, the greens might not have long before accusations of 'terrorfication' will apparently be perceived 'justifiable' IF greens ever did get the chance to even voice their concern, as regards any problematic aspects of integrity in uk politics.

personally, i'm not that fussed as to who mandryka actually is.... it doesn't seem all that relevant somehow. she nevertheless is ayn rand .... an odd one, because you'd think she'd want to be alan greenspan, who's successfully kept the horror alive in her fiction, and now in reality! but then alan's incredibly myopic, frightening and ugly, as greedy old codgers go ....so perhaps she's done us all a big favour in choosing to be the young ayn? but pre objectivism, when she was busy writing unsucessful sci fi and crappy movie plots. in the bigger scheme, there's plenty of other pretentions that worry me considerably more tbh! the beeb allowing jeremy clarkson to express his violent and sociopathic views for instance on r4 wao ... is worth a big fuss. i only wish clarkson was pretending! is this why the beeb've extended the wao show....to make extra time for imbeciles to shout any old rubbish they fancy?

[Mandryka]

I didn't like Thatcher at the time and I think a lot of her policies were misguided.

However, I think she proved a basic rule of politics: if a leader can convince the electorate that he/she has a vision and is determined to carry it through and places the maintenance of public order at the centre of their agenda, they will be re-elected, no matter how equivocal people feel about their policies.

I'm sure we all know plenty of people who voted for Thatcher, despite claiming to loathe (although I never voted for her): when faced the alternatives of the bumbling Callaghan, the only-half-there Foot and (worst of all) the flailing windbag Kinnock, there really was not much of an alteranative.

And there is no alternative now: in response to Flosshilde's post earlier, I really don't think there is such a thing as a Tory policy or a Labour policy to tackle the present crisis. There is only one practicable solution which, sadly, involves massive cuts to public spending, pensions and increased unemployment. Who is to blame? Everyone and no-one, though I don't think anyone would dispute that the banks wanted us to believe that anyone could live the high life and the politicians cosied up to them.

[Serial_Apologist]

Long before this Tony Benn, that noted Right-winger, testified to the honesty and integrity of Margaret Thatcher, add that one always knew exactly where one was with her; OK, he then went on to say that all of her policies were anathema to him, but the subtext of his remark was clearly that one could never be sure where one was with certain of the more oleaginous, mealy-mouthed, weasel-wordy among his own party's more senior figures.

Even the greatest have been known to make idiotic remarks. However, faced with the alternatives of "knowing where I stood" with, let's just say, the pit bull terrier that lives down the road from me and always waylays passers-by, and the nice golden retriever of a good friend of mine, I would be hard put to chose my preferences between expectations and not being too sure. Probably I would go for being sure not to be too sure for as long as it took.

[ahinton]

Small potatoes to BA.

I hardly think that some £150m is particularly "small potatoes" even for a firm the size of BA.

Anyway, most of those who struck will be foregoing their little gains in the next fews when they lose their jobs, as austerity really starts to bite.

Are you suggesting that those particular public sector employees who struck will be treated differently to those who didn't? If so, on what grounds and how do you suppose that this will be done? If not, please explainwhat you do mean.

The pattern of temporary gain (heralded as 'a stunning victory for socialism') followed by major defeat (the depression of the 30s following the failed General Strike of 1926; the Thatcher revolution of the 80s following the so-called Social Contract of the 70s). You should remember the latter as you are old enough to have lived through it.

But no one has "gained" anything yet; the matter is, as even you surely know, still on the table and only when it has been completed - with or without further srikes but clearly not without further discussion and negotiation - will it be possible to see who may or may not have gained what; at present, therefore, yesterday's action cannot yet realistically be described by anyone as a victory for anything or a defeat.

It has, of course, already been threatened that some 750,000 public sector employees will lose their jobs before long, yet even this was not the principal thrust of the strike. A more balanced view of the entire situation that now surrounds the public sector pensions problem can really only be gained from sanguine examination of the facts and recent history followed by careful comparison with the parallel situation with private sector pensions where earlier and different government interference on a grand scale had already caused the irreparable damage that does indeed make some public sector pensions look like a better deal in comparison at present, for all that this is hardly the point.

For you, however, everything seems to have to be en blanc et noir (pardonnez-moi, Claude!) and no one is really seriously affected (or likely to become so) by any of this; I can only hope that the ivory in your tower is legal...

[scottycelt]

Well I really do hope you're being ironic, scotty. I well remember Bliar saying similar about the Self-righteously Irreversible One and thought Ken must be losing his marbles for the above remark. Respect???!!! Hitler also "believed in something" and very nearly turned the course of history - worldwide. As did Stalin. OK, the parallel may be OTT; but before we are too dismissive, all three figures had the benefits of wealth, power and privilege right behind them; and all three were set on courses to reverse all the gains in terms of employment rights etc made by working class people over the preceding century for all time.

S-A

Well, that's exactly what one expects to hear from someone on the Left, S-A! You are perfectly entitled to that view.

However, I still think Livingstone's comments were refreshing. In my humble opinion, Thatcher has been 'demonised' by the Left in much the same way as Livingstone was (still is) by the Right?

Maybe they simply have that single thing in common ... ?

Anyway, we're both way off topic, and it's my fault!

[ahinton]

Even the greatest have been known to make idiotic remarks. However, faced with the alternatives of "knowing where I stood" with, let's just say, the pit bull terrier that lives down the road from me and always waylays passers-by, and the nice golden retriever of a good friend of mine, I would be hard put to chose my preferences between expectations and not being too sure. Probably I would go for being sure not to be too sure for as long as it took.

I think that you missed my point here, which was that Mr Benn was trying to pont out that we deserve that our politicians be honest, otherwise we could be sure what we'd be voting for or against.

[Flosshilde]

As to bringing down this or any other government, there's an instrument called a General Election for that purpose, so there would be no need for riots to achieve that end

Oh lucky us - allowed to vote every 5 years or so, when the government carefully manages things so that things miraculously get better & they are re-elected by people with very short memories.

Except it looks like Osborne's ineptitude will cause the bad times to extend well beyond the next General Election.

Exactly. God forbid that full scale riots would mean another Labour government (it was them who got us into the financial mess, the present government really have no idea, neither do Labour, neither does anyone else, to be honest) So what do you suggest Flossie, assuming the Government can be brought down? Some sort of collective people power?

No, it wasn't Labour who got us into this mess - it was the banks, primarily. Admittedly Labour didn't help, but the ConDems are busy digging the hole deeper.
Why not collective people power? The 'Occupy' movement demonstrates how people can work together to come up with ideas - what's needed is imagination & creativity, not whinging about how 'they're all the same'.

[ahinton]

I didn't like Thatcher at the time and I think a lot of her policies were misguided.

However, I think she proved a basic rule of politics: if a leader can convince the electorate that he/she has a vision and is determined to carry it through and places the maintenance of public order at the centre of their agenda, they will be re-elected, no matter how equivocal people feel about their policies.

I'm sure we all know plenty of people who voted for Thatcher, despite claiming to loathe (although I never voted for her): when faced the alternatives of the bumbling Callaghan, the only-half-there Foot and (worst of all) the flailing windbag Kinnock, there really was not much of an alteranative.

And there is no alternative now: in response to Flosshilde's post earlier, I really don't think there is such a thing as a Tory policy or a Labour policy to tackle the present crisis. There is only one practicable solution which, sadly, involves massive cuts to public spending, pensions and increased unemployment. Who is to blame? Everyone and no-one, though I don't think anyone would dispute that the banks wanted us to believe that anyone could live the high life and the politicians cosied up to them.

I can broadly accept most of what you write here except the last part. Just how much cutting of public spending (and where) and pensions and just how great an increase in unemployment do you suppose would bring about a "practicable solution" and on what basis can you prove that it would do so? The higher the levels of unemployment and te lower the levels of pensions in payment, the less tax revenues and the more state benefit entitlements will be generated, the less Britain will be able to depend upon revenues from exports and the more dependent it will become on imports that it will inceasingly struggle to borrow in order to be able to afford them; never mind who might or might not be to blame for any or all of the present woes (which, incidentally, I note that even you do not describe as a "little local difficulty") - how would these measures, if implemented, "solve" anything?

[ahinton]

Oh lucky us - allowed to vote every 5 years or so, when the government carefully manages things so that things miraculously get better & they are re-elected by people with very short memories.

And the alternative is?...

Except it looks like Osborne's ineptitude will cause the bad times to extend well beyond the next General Election.

And the next five - or considerably more if the Eurozone collapses.

Why not collective people power? The 'Occupy' movement demonstrates how people can work together to come up with ideas - what's needed is imagination & creativity, not whinging about how 'they're all the same'.

Where is this "power"? The power to develop ideas and to get things done with the mandate of the electorate, that is? The "Occupy" movement has its place, without doubt, but I don't quite see how it's going to bring about the sea-changes necessary to get not just Britain but US, Europe and now possibly also China out of the respective messes into which each is getting ever deeper day by day.