Welcome to Fortress Brighton

Steven -

Seeing as you have no sense of humour I'll have to engage your argument. Or what passes for one.

Blair, whatever else one thinks of him, is not particularly interested in 'absolute power'. Of course the state is more active - to degrees of varying effectiveness and value - than it was, because in a sense that's what people voted for in 1997.

But this is very far from anything like 'absolute power', and it's also a long, long way away from 'socialism' as anyone understood it two decades ago.

It's especially far from "Stalinism", which you also accuse him of. I can't see any evidence for this, so assume it's just regurgitation of Daily Mail editorials and Countryside Alliance agitprop. Even on a conservative definition, "Stalinism" involves mass collectivisation, state ownership of the means of production, assassination of political opponents and at least an attempt to crush the market price-mechanism.

If anything what Blair represents is a kind of crossover between a last-gasp limited social democracy which tries to reign in the worst excesses of the market (supporting state eduction and health, some redistribution, etc), but which also wants to take over the language of choice and (awful word alert) 'empowerment' that have largely been the province of the new right.

Most Governments in the West are elected on the basis of a compromise which eventually derails them by becoming a contradiction. In Thatcher's case this was between the right wing establishment on one hand and the need for radicalism at the end of the 70s consensus on the other. In Blair's case it was between traditional Labour tax and spenders on one hand, and middle England tax-payers on the other.

Like all Governments, our current one is far from perfect. But the language of "Stalinism" and "absolute power" is either naive or lazy.

Tim

"Seeing as you have no sense of humour I'll have to engage your argument. Or what passes for one."

You are quite correct. I should have been tickled with mirth and merriment at the prospect of considering myself being an eejit unfit to participate in this discussion.

Ok, so maybe not all union barons had (crypto-)communist tendencies, but many did. How many delegations went on all-expenses-paid trips out to Moscow and Leningrad "to see how it was done?"

I don't read the Daily Mail, btw.



Regards,

Steve.

"Like all Governments, our current one is far from perfect. But the language of "Stalinism" and "absolute power" is either naive or lazy."

Blair is very much a watered down version of Stalin, displaying just some of his dictatorial tendencies. The end justifying the means being one of them. I suppose his use of honorable deception is another.

As for absolute power, he rules the labour party with an iron rod, and either completely bypasses or manipulates Parliament as he sees fit.



Regards,

Steve.

Ok, so maybe not _ all _ union barons had (crypto-)communist tendencies, but many did. How many delegations went on all-expenses-paid trips out to Moscow and Leningrad "to see how it was done?"

STEVE,
iirc Very few if any,
if you were to stick to corroborated facts in stead of myths and fiction your arguments may have held water, But as you keep including them you tend to lose all the credibilty you have gained.
On the other hand Blairs circus is about to move on leaving Brighton to get back to normal
Rasher will now be able to get to his office and start to work again.
There will be no more police video vans on every road, road blocks, Machine guns poking round every corner, and a final good bye to the thousand odd coppers makeing the Streets extremely threatning and untidy.
The Black uniforms are completely out of place with the soft pink image we have.
My condolences to inhabitants of Bornemouth the next poor bu--ers to suffer the indignity of this time the Tory Circus,but at least there will be no pretensions about this one not being stage managed
oldie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
My condolences to inhabitants of Bornemouth the next poor bu--ers to suffer the indignity of this time the Tory Circus,but at least there will be no pretensions about this one not being stage managed

---

They're all stage managed. A party would have to be pretty amateur not to stage manage its conference. The whole point of them is to score as many 'sound bite points' on TV as possible, while the television crews try to unearth as much of the 'real story' and gossip as possible.

As a matter of fact I think that television is now the cornerstone of our democracy - for good or for bad. The people get most of their information via television and television reflects the views of the populace. Television journalists are now the people posing questions to politicians, a role previously played by parliament.

Well, I thought I'd throw that one in as it's been on my mind recently.

Yours to avoid confusion,
"Stevie 7"

quote:

---

Blair is very much a watered down version of Stalin, displaying just some of his dictatorial tendencies. _ The end justifying the means _ being one of them. I suppose his use of _ honorable deception _ is another.

As for absolute power, he rules the labour party with an iron rod, and either completely bypasses or manipulates Parliament as he sees fit.



Regards,

Steve.

---

You could say that just about any politician is a "watered down version of Stalin". You could certainly have said it of Mrs Thatcher. Being a politician involves using power, with varying degrees of legitimacy.

As far as the Labour Party goes, the idea that Blair exercises an 'iron grip' over it is laughable. "And joining us now is Robin Cook/Peter Kilfoyle/Clare Short..." the list of senior Labour figures who Blair can not control goes on. And of course the one person he really can't control lives at no.11.

Ironically, Howard is much better at controlling his own party at the moment (it's about time a Conservative leader was...). Their recent bloody reshuffle went off very, very smoothly.

There are lots of real reasons to criticise this Government, but the more you say, the more it becomes clear that your 'arguments' really just come down to presumption and cliche.

Tim

"Stevie 7"
I know Mick has stated that I'm as dead as A DODO [ I'm still not sure if it was a referance to my age or my politics] but in the past I've attended conferance as a guest of a delegate and raised questions and put a proposal which was discused by conferance voted on and carried, but as you say things have changed, and now it's not just theatre but a means of attempting usually successfully of reining in any one thats out of line with Blairs thoughts,witness the debacle over the Iraq vote, Democracy! dont make me laugh, no chance when he's surrounded by todies,somthings never change, our Union Leaders are still after Knighthoods. What was that old saying? Ahhhhh yes All Mouth and No Trousers, fits nicely don't it
oldie.

Oldie

Your lot will be powerless and ineffective, no matter who wins the election.

Blair, Howard and kennedy just treat old labour as a joke, which frankly is what it is.

Enjoy the memories because you got precious little else.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Most importantly, they are not fixiated by the jobs for life dogma, so losing their job is seen as a new start and hardly worth fighting over.

I feel with your lot out of the way, we are entering a new era of wealth and prosperity for all.

Regards

Mick

---

Fried gold!

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
... but in the past I've attended conferance as a guest of a delegate and raised questions and put a proposal which was discused by conferance voted on and carried, but as you say things have changed, and now it's not just theatre but a means of attempting usually successfully of reining in any one thats out of line with Blairs thoughts,witness the debacle over the Iraq vote, Democracy! dont make me laugh, no chance when he's surrounded by todies,somthings never change, our Union Leaders are still after Knighthoods.

---

To have a proposal carried is impressive. Of course there is some substance behind the conferences, it's just that their prime function is a PR one.

I think that love him or hate him, and most here tend towards the latter, Tony Blair is a strong leader. Without him Labour may still be chasing power. Personally, if I was a PM, and would surround myself with Todies too. As a speaker designer, there is less obvious benefit - maybe one day we'll have our own forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
... Your lot will be powerless and ineffective, no matter who wins the election.

Blair, Howard and kennedy just treat old labour as a joke, which frankly is what it is.

Enjoy the memories because you got precious little else.

---

I think you may be missing the point here, Mick.

I'm not a leftie (although alongside Genghis and you ... ). Like you, I believe that much of the doctrine put forward by the left is flawed. Nonetheless, one shouldn't underestimate the achievements that the left have made in giving us a more just (and pleasant) society.

I'm not a historian but I believe the Chartists put forward a whole list of demands which were considered very radical and totally out of order by the establishment of the time. I believe that just about all of them have been adopted now. Didn't Marx have a similar list and haven't most of the points he made also been adopted by modern Western societies?

Society has been tilted to the left and we're better for it.

Stevie 7

Steve

History is basically worthless. You need to look forward. Worry about your grandchildren rather than your grandparents.

Socialism in the old labour sense is well and truely dead. It is never going to rear its ugly head again.

Maggie turned this country around and basically Blair is a Thatcherite. A bit more taxation yes but basically he is right wing.

He is going to win the next election for the same reason as Maggie did........a totally useless opposition.

More markets will be derugulated and competition will keep prices down. Those who use their head to exploit these opportunities will do well but the deadbeats will languish and frankly, who cares. Society is pulled forward by the efforts of the fast movers backed up by middle England.

I think exciting times are coming up.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
but the deadbeats will languish and frankly, who cares.

---

There is a large degree of truth, in my opinion, in this statement.

A benefits system has been created which disincentivises the lardy arse brigade from getting off their asses to work.

Mike

Tom
Hear hear!

Don't get me wrong. I am not tarring the whole of society with the same brush. OK it can be said that I am, in a somewhat tabloid style of commentary, trying to make a point that there are a number of people out there who are clearly taking advantage of the system.

Tom, you state yourself that 1% of those signing on twenty or so years ago were disinclined to work. And there clearly remains a core of people like that today. These are the people I have a problem with.

There are an awful lot of good people out there, who work hard to earn only a modest living. I applaud them. It's the spongers who get me going.

Mike

Tom,
I'm surprised at you,if I can take the full force of the Parry wind bag tour de force without recompense to retaliation, why can't you. But I must admit I would love to meet Mick face to face, as a perfect examaple of someone with a pronounced infereiority complex hence the, I am the best, I have the best,I only etc etc etc I think Mekon could provide the rest of us with some very intersting theories into this kind of behaviour, but thinking about it I suppose Mekon is restricted by professional etiquette. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh well we could only hope
Mick
just remember " my lot" is actually the people of this once great nation, and they have a habit of turning round and biteing back so be very careful about what you say
But on a more important front we have just returned from the other end of Brighton[ SHOREHAM BY THE SEA ] and they have all gone not a machine gun, video van, road block etc to be seen, also on a better note I have also been informed to day that because of problems in the past that Central Goverment will now pick up the tab for the security aspect of the circus, this will remain to be seen.
oldie.

MichaelC said "It's the spongers who get me going"

The *entire* amount of money spent on paying benefits to both the "desevring" and "non-deserving" poor is almost certinaly less than the amount that rich people cheat the country out of via tax avoidance.

Tax avoidance by the very rich is estimated at between £25 and £85 BILLION a year.

£25bn is the projected Public Sector Borrowing Requirement this year.

£85bn is 74% of the total income tax recieved this year and would pay for the NHS.

The poorest fifth of the population pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than the richest fifth.

So really the people you should be getting angry at are Rupert Murdoch, the Duke of Westminster, Fayed, various senior excutives, etc, etc.

"A benefits system has been created which disincentivises the lardy arse brigade from getting off their asses to work"

This is of the course that wonderful Thatcher/Reagan idea that the best way to motivate poor people is to take what little money they have off them. You can then give it to rich people via tax cuts as apparently to achieve the same motivating effect you have to give them more money.

Matthew

Surveillance and Stalinism

Blair is fond of surveillance techniques to keep tabs on his subjects, i/e: all of us. This is another reason why I consider him to be a Stalinist. Ok he doesn't have opponents (or potential opponents due to paranoia on his part) executed, but he is a control freak.

Today I went to change some sterling in cash for Euros. This is a simple transaction where I say,

"€400 please."

The woman behind the counter is supposed to reply,

"That will be £285.31 please."

I'm then supposed to hand over the £285.31 in return for a mixture of different colured Euro banknotes adding up to the sum of €400 wrapped in a nice little paper wallet with a receipt enclosed that offers me a buy-back deal as well as showing the rate and amount exchanged.

Then I'm supposed to say "thankyou, bye-bye," and fuck off.

Oh no, not any more...

Now upon asking for my €400 the woman asks me for my name, address, telephone number and proof of identity including proof of address before she'll let me anywhere near any Euros.

(She also got a bit confused because I asked for €400 rather than saying, "I'd like to change £300 for Euros please?" but that is another matter...)

Apparently it is to do with terrorists laundering money

So what happens if/when the UK actually joins the Euro?

Then we have the issue of road pricing. The simplest and fairest way of implementing a pay-as-you go tax structure for road use would be just to tax the fuel*. That way the more miles you do the more tax you pay. If your car is good on juice you pay less. If it is a thirsty 4 x 4 gas-guzzler you pay more.

Unless you are prepared to run the gauntlet with red diesel from a local farmer, this method is fair, simple and the payment of tax cannot be avoided.

The road pricing scheme will not only enable the government to charge rediculously high fees for travelling to work by car if your place of work happens to be in or near the centre of a large conurbation (but not near enough to the centre for catching the train to be a viable alternative) but also they will be able to track the wherebouts of every vehicle in the land, and know exactly how fast you is travelling at any given time.

At the end of each month you'll then get this huge bill that could also include speeding fines and points.

When a few people have received their bills and are unable to pay them they'll be offered a pay-as-you-drive option that will cost roughly double the pay-monthly option, and this will consist of a swipe card that you put in a slot on your dashboard.

When you run out of "credit" your engine will be immobilised.

If you think the above is a little far-fetched just remember, Blair wants road pricing.

Q: Why do you really think he wants it?

A: To control, monitor and restrict our movements.

It's got fuck-all to do with global warming.



Regards,

Steve.

*I'm not in favour of doing away with Road Tax and putting more tax on fuel. We pay more than enough tax as it is. It is unfair to tax people who make their living from using the roads more than those who don't, irrespective of what they earn and their ability to pay.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Fri 01 October 2004 at 5:34.]

Steve - if you don't want to be monitored, it's simple. Get a bike. Ask Mick, he'll tell you about it.

Towns are for people not cars. I am very much in favour of penalising people who drive into towns. Traffic is a blight on the lives of the residents. If a commuter can't find a way to get to work without polluting the local environment, I suggest they move nearer, or find a job elsewhere.

Yes but in my opinion, it's the school run that does the real damage.

jon

I was about to write a short note debating whether Steven was a paranoid delusional fantasist or merely just an idiot. Then I remembered that film where Mel Gibson was a crazy conspiracist with all sort of bizarre notions about the world and he turned out not only to be right but to be some kind of highly trained assassin.

Film scholars also will recall that in that film Mel Gibson's character's cover profession was ... TAXI DRIVER!

So I have decided to abandon the use of money and organise my existence entirely through a traditional system of barter.

Matthew

PS If someone would nip to Tescos for me this weekend I'll write you a computer program.

Well, I can't be arsed to go to tescos, but I do want an .exe file that emails me when someone opens it, so I can do that 'don't open attachments' study I mentioned.

If someone will go to Tescos for Matthew on my behalf, I will design them a psychological intervention that will change their diet and exercise behaviour.

"I can't be arsed to go to tescos"

It's very common these days.

"a psychological intervention that will change their diet and exercise behaviour"

This is like a loudspeaker that broadcasts "JEFF SMITH IS A FAT LAZY BASTARD" to the neighbours if the average speed of the running machine drops below 6mph?

Mekon,
I'll go, if you in return will do that in depth analysis I mentioned a couple of posts ago, and of course published the results, it wouldn't as much fun if you kept them to yourself.
oldie.

:[/QUOTE]My Halo slipped, after all I'm only human

Tom[/QUOTE]
Not acording to Micks life chart, anyone that may be slightly to the left of him only ranks just above an amoeba or a flightles dead bird from the 17/18th century
oldie

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:

This is like a loudspeaker that broadcasts "JEFF SMITH IS A FAT LAZY BASTARD" to the neighbours if the average speed of the running machine drops below 6mph?

---

Not far off. More of an intrusive memory that reminds you that you are a disgusting blob whose hand will start rejecting requests for intimacy if exercise isn't immediately performed. You self-esteem will be through the floor, but you'll be skinny. It's like an internal womans magazine.