Blair's Book

[ballaughbiker]

 I would be glad when the old bitch pops her clogs

You meet the nicest people on here. Anyone would think she was like Stalin having read your assessment.

 

I will never forgive her for what she did to the industry many of my pals worked in. The vast majority were decent hard working people who didn't deserve what they eventually got. If we are honest it has to be said they had, under Joe Gormley, demanded a 40% pay rise and would happily see the country collapse to get it. They were hell bent on a change in society through undemocratic means. The workers were fed a lot of bull and taken like lambs to the slaughter for politic ends.

 

I was then and still am a comitted trade unionist, but I could not go along with what was happening. That behaviour spawned the Thatcher government and her subsequent fight with Scargill, who was also trying to bring down a government by undemocratic means, caused a lot of misery in an area I love. Don't just take her reign of power in isolation. Look at what happened in the previous decade and it was just a reaction. An over-reaction as it turned out. No matter what, wishing someone dead, even her, is despicable.

 

Do you remember this period of history LDV or have you just read about it in Anarchist Weekly?

[P.K.]

PK I've got to imagine acting as a self appointed mouth piece for TB must be a kinda lonely furrow to plough. You've got to imagine that carrying on a tradition of one of the most barbaric countries on earth weighs heavily on the shoulders of any leader across the way. Puts Arkwright's shortcomings into perspective though doesn't it?

 

Actually I just thought I would have some amusement with the BBB's and all the stupid "Maggie saved the universe" brigade who always crawl out from under their stones whenever Blair or Brown get a mention on here.

 

I posted this:

 

Well, to date I've found "A Journey" to be a very interesting read indeed.

 

So jimbms, LDV, spook, Chinahand, Lonan3, Terse, thesultanofsheight, macmannin, manshimajin, Albert Tatlock, Addie, TING, censorship, slinkydevil, ballaughbiker, pongo, Blitzbrione, Mr Sausages, mæŋksmən, the mo beats experience, MDO, Amadeus, Alias, gingerbiscuit, oldmanxfella, credente, Evil Goblin and Pierrot Lunaire has the book given you any insights into Blair himself? There's a lot in there I hadn't even considered before. Fascinating stuff. What's your opinion on what you have read in "A Journey" to date?

 

to actually name all those who have been pontificating on here who clearly haven't read "A Journey" and yet they still feel their opinion is somehow worth posting on the subject in hand.

 

It isn't.

[spook]

Oh no, not back to this again. I already explained myself and disagree with your assessment of why the economy had gone tits up and where the problem was.

So why do you think the country was in the mess that it was?

Importantly, although the industries needed sorting out or shutting down, the manner in which it was undertaken was awful.

Is there an easy way to do a nasty thing that must be done very quickly?

She deserves no praise for leaving many thousands out of work.

That was not her objective,. It was the consequence of her having to do what had to be done and if it hadnt been for Labour keeping subsidies going for jobs not worth doing those people put out of work would have moved on years back.

Nothing commonsesne about just closing the industries and leaving people to suffer wuth no job.

What about when the industries was costing more to run than what they made could be sold for and when the cost to the country was higher than laying people off? LDV, people are resources. They are there to be used.

If they cost more than they produce then somethings wrong and has to be fixed. The real problem comes down to being caused by people being kept in jobs when the jobs wernt real jobs at all or at least wernt worth doing and cost more than they turned out.

Nor did her government sort out finances - in respect of the long term, her government only further liberalised the financial markets. And look where liberalisation of capital gets us.

 

It wasn’t the liberalisation by Thatcher that screwed us up, that saved the couintry by letting private money get into what had become state owned monstrosities that were self serving and not customer serving. It was the actions of Brown and his mismanageent of the economy that did for us.

 

She also had a disdain for the working class and their attempts to have some control over their work.

Why should a worker have control over anything associated with his work? He’s a resource, a tool. At best he should be allowed to give feedback on how he is being used bit that should be the limit of it.

Understandably, she was the enemy who were aware of their status as working class people.

 

Thatcher saved the working class from themselves after years of being deceived by the unions about their value, their worth, and their status.

 

And certainly for me, Section 38 doesn't make me much of a fan. I would be glad when the old bitch pops her clogs.

Section 38? WTF has the Highways act got to do with the price of fish?

I suppose you mean Section 28, the Puffs Charter thing. That was a HUGE red herring (oh that’s the connection! You were trying to be clever!) Section 28 did NOT stop the teaching about the Gay Gordon’s being more than a country dance, it only stopped the promoting of it.

[Evil Goblin]

BB - that is one of the best short summaries of the period I have read in a long time. I fear LDVs views come from reading too much left wing theory and not having very much ezperience.

[Evil Goblin]

PK - you might ponder a couple of things. One - you seem to be all alone in your worship of all things NuZanuLab - why might that be? Two - no-one else seems to be arsed to buy and then waste their time reading a copy - why is this?

[P.K.]

PK - you might ponder a couple of things. One - you seem to be all alone in your worship of all things NuZanuLab - why might that be?

 

I'm actually a wish-washy, Grauniad reading, sandal-wearing Lib-Dem although I hate lentils. It's always a lot easier to be negative than positive in that the BBB's throw around their personal insults about Blair and Brown and to their shallow, bigoted little minds that's enough to condemn them. But because they haven't actually put anything up that you can refute with facts they think they're winning the "argument." They're spouting pure bollocks of course but that's what makes them shallow and bigoted.

 

 

PK - you might ponder a couple of things. Two - no-one else seems to be arsed to buy and then waste their time reading a copy - why is this?

 

I have found reading it is a long, long way from wasting my time. Fascinating stuff. I can only assume that unlike me most on here couldn't be arsed to actually add to their understanding of the modern political world. Face it, it comes across very obviously in the drivel they post that they don't know what they're talking about.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So why do you think the country was in the mess that it was?

Uncompetitiveness of British industry, largely from short-termist planning by private companies and little emphasis on research and development. Too much emphasis previously given on fostering colonial trade at the detriment of hammering out trade agreements with Europe. Oil crises. Liberalisation of financial markets throughout the world and in Britain from 1973. The effects of this on workers was to lead them to rely more on the unions to try and hold on to what they had.

 

Is there an easy way to do a nasty thing that must be done very quickly?

The government could have made efforts to financial support those who were unemployed and actually made some effort to find them new jobs. But mine workers were left to fend for themselves. In terms of other industries, there was no desire to make the public industries more efficient without placing them in private hands, in the belief that they would become more efficient.

 

 

That was not her objective,. It was the consequence of her having to do what had to be done and if it hadnt been for Labour keeping subsidies going for jobs not worth doing those people put out of work would have moved on years back.

Moved on? To where?

 

What about when the industries was costing more to run than what they made could be sold for and when the cost to the country was higher than laying people off? LDV, people are resources. They are there to be used.

We have been over this. I am not a capitalist. The most important issue is that people have an ability to survive.

 

If they cost more than they produce then somethings wrong and has to be fixed.

And I would agree, but your perspective is one that would cares little for what happens to such people.

 

It wasn’t the liberalisation by Thatcher that screwed us up, that saved the couintry by letting private money get into what had become state owned monstrosities that were self serving and not customer serving. It was the actions of Brown and his mismanageent of the economy that did for us.

No, the problem goes all the way back to the 70s. She helped liberalise the financial markets and was thus one of the first politicians to put Britain on the road to disaster. The same happened across the world though. The recent economic crisis was not just Brown's work.

 

Why should a worker have control over anything associated with his work? He’s a resource, a tool. At best he should be allowed to give feedback on how he is being used bit that should be the limit of it.

We have been over this. I believe in democracy and a democratic society. You don't get that when workers are subject to tyrannies. It renders the workers as little more than slaves.

 

Thatcher saved the working class from themselves after years of being deceived by the unions about their value, their worth, and their status.

And in a sense I agree that something should have been done. On the spectrum between pure capitalism and state socialism there is no happy place. But if the economy of the country was to slide over to less socialist principles and practices then it has to be done with the workers welfare foremost.

 

Section 38? WTF has the Highways act got to do with the price of fish?

I suppose you mean Section 28, the Puffs Charter thing. That was a HUGE red herring (oh that’s the connection! You were trying to be clever!) Section 28 did NOT stop the teaching about the Gay Gordon’s being more than a country dance, it only stopped the promoting of it.

It was Section 38 on the Island, that's why I am getting mixed up. The impact of Section 28 was to prevent to discussion of homosexuality in schools and was based on foolish idea that homosexuality could be promoted (in the sense of protecting children from homosexuality).

[Evil Goblin]

All well and good, PK, but it is certainly a fact that under Blair and Brown's watch the state of Government finances and the expansion of the non-wealth-creating Government bureaucracy both got wildly out of hand. The number of new criminal offences created and the expansion of the State in interference in people's lives also ballooned. The end result, precipitated before it might otherwise have been by the Global Financial Crisis (in which practically all of us had a hand) was a nation where, as in 1979, drastic surgery is needed with a lot of pain in a short period of time.

 

I think it is touching that you think you will learn much of value from Blair's book - it is likely, as with most politicians, to be full of half-truths, obfuscation and downright lies. You should bear in mind the old adage - do not pay attention to what a politician says, look at what he actually does. The results of the doings of Blair and Brown are all too obvious.

[P.K.]

I think it is touching that you think you will learn much of value from Blair's book - it is likely, as with most politicians, to be full of half-truths, obfuscation and downright lies.

 

You're talking bollocks until you read it n'est-ce pas?

 

The reason I'm not Labour is simply that I believe their idea of an all-encompassing state is wrong. However unlike the tories I do believe in social responsibility and having a duty of care to ALL of our citizens. That's why I'm so angry at Cleggy giving my vote to Cameron as we have far more in common with Labour values than Conservatives just looking after their voters. I very much doubt I will vote Lib-Dem again and I suspect at least 50% of the membership feel similarly.

[Terse]

 

I posted this:

 

to actually name all those who have been pontificating on here who clearly haven't read "A Journey" and yet they still feel their opinion is somehow worth posting on the subject in hand.

 

It isn't.

 

I read a fair amount of fiction and a small amount of 'factual' books. Anything written as the latter by a compulsive liar would be of no interest.

My opinion, I freely admit, is soured by my opinion that Blair is a prize shit.

[spook]

So why do you think the country was in the mess that it was?

Uncompetitiveness of British industry, largely from short-termist planning by private companies and little emphasis on research and development. Too much emphasis previously given on fostering colonial trade at the detriment of hammering out trade agreements with Europe. Oil crises. Liberalisation of financial markets throughout the world and in Britain from 1973. The effects of this on workers was to lead them to rely more on the unions to try and hold on to what they had.

 

Is there an easy way to do a nasty thing that must be done very quickly?

The government could have made efforts to financial support those who were unemployed and actually made some effort to find them new jobs. But mine workers were left to fend for themselves. In terms of other industries, there was no desire to make the public industries more efficient without placing them in private hands, in the belief that they would become more efficient.

 

 

That was not her objective,. It was the consequence of her having to do what had to be done and if it hadnt been for Labour keeping subsidies going for jobs not worth doing those people put out of work would have moved on years back.

Moved on? To where?

 

What about when the industries was costing more to run than what they made could be sold for and when the cost to the country was higher than laying people off? LDV, people are resources. They are there to be used.

We have been over this. I am not a capitalist. The most important issue is that people have an ability to survive.

 

If they cost more than they produce then somethings wrong and has to be fixed.

And I would agree, but your perspective is one that would cares little for what happens to such people.

 

It wasn’t the liberalisation by Thatcher that screwed us up, that saved the couintry by letting private money get into what had become state owned monstrosities that were self serving and not customer serving. It was the actions of Brown and his mismanageent of the economy that did for us.

No, the problem goes all the way back to the 70s. She helped liberalise the financial markets and was thus one of the first politicians to put Britain on the road to disaster. The same happened across the world though. The recent economic crisis was not just Brown's work.

 

Why should a worker have control over anything associated with his work? He’s a resource, a tool. At best he should be allowed to give feedback on how he is being used bit that should be the limit of it.

We have been over this. I believe in democracy and a democratic society. You don't get that when workers are subject to tyrannies. It renders the workers as little more than slaves.

 

Thatcher saved the working class from themselves after years of being deceived by the unions about their value, their worth, and their status.

And in a sense I agree that something should have been done. On the spectrum between pure capitalism and state socialism there is no happy place. But if the economy of the country was to slide over to less socialist principles and practices then it has to be done with the workers welfare foremost.

 

Section 38? WTF has the Highways act got to do with the price of fish?

I suppose you mean Section 28, the Puffs Charter thing. That was a HUGE red herring (oh that’s the connection! You were trying to be clever!) Section 28 did NOT stop the teaching about the Gay Gordon’s being more than a country dance, it only stopped the promoting of it.

It was Section 38 on the Island, that's why I am getting mixed up. The impact of Section 28 was to prevent to discussion of homosexuality in schools and was based on foolish idea that homosexuality could be promoted (in the sense of protecting children from homosexuality).

 

What a strange and disconected from reality view of life you have. do you find this hinders you in everyday life and relationships?

[Evil Goblin]

You're talking bollocks until you read it n'est-ce pas?

Non! Je ne parlez pas la anerie! It is a reasonable supposition given the history of politicians' "memoirs".

 

As for your LibDem proclivities, you are all having severe problems now that you are having to put your money where your mouths are, aren't you? At least some of your MPs have come to terms with the realities of being in power - pity about the rest of you.

[P.K.]

I read a fair amount of fiction and a small amount of 'factual' books. Anything written as the latter by a compulsive liar would be of no interest.

My opinion, I freely admit, is soured by my opinion that Blair is a prize shit.

 

It's always a lot easier to be negative than positive in that the BBB's throw around their personal insults about Blair and Brown and to their shallow, bigoted little minds that's enough to condemn them. But because they haven't actually put anything up that you can refute with facts they think they're winning the "argument." They're spouting pure bollocks of course but that's what makes them shallow and bigoted.

[Terse]

It's always a lot easier to be negative than positive in that the BBB's throw around their personal insults and to their shallow, bigoted little minds that's enough to condemn them. But because they haven't actually put anything up that you can refute with facts they think they're winning the "argument." They're spouting pure bollocks of course but that's what makes them shallow and bigoted.

 

I think its very magnanimous of you to admit your faults in that way.

[P.K.]

As for your LibDem proclivities, you are all having severe problems now that you are having to put your money where your mouths are, aren't you? At least some of your MPs have come to terms with the realities of being in power - pity about the rest of you.

 

I disagree. Not all of us are having problems. As I posted previously from the inside it looks like a 50/50 split.

 

I also think you mean the realities of NOT being in power. For example the manifesto I voted for pledged no increase in VAT. What a laugh that turned out to be. The only hope I had from being in this coalition was that Cleggy and Cable would prevent Osborne doing the tory usual of looking out for their tory voters and the rest could go hang. As per Maggie's doctrine they don't vote tory anyway so fuck 'em.

 

Unfortunately for the coalition the Institute For Fiscal Studies have analysed the budget and come to this conclusion:

 

"IFS research makes use of analysis published by the Department for Work and Pensions since the Budget, and attempts to reflect the impact of all the benefit cuts announced in the Budget. It shows that, once all of the benefit cuts are considered, the tax and benefit changes announced in the emergency Budget are clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper-middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms." The full IFS research is on their site here.

 

So Osborne has looked out for their (better off) tory voters only - as per usual. Clegg and Cable should hang their heads in shame...