|
Alecto posted:It is important to remember John Smith because it damages the Blairite line of 'my way or unelectability'. It doesn't kill it, but it definitely damages it; if it can't be said that Smith would definitely win (it can't), then it also can't be said that he definitely would have lost. Therefore, it can't be said the Blair was definitely the only leader who could win in '97. ronya posted:The degree of micromanagement of PPPs in the UK indicates that the governments (Tory then New Labour both) were not really pursuing a surrender of control in order to obtain credibility to creditors, inasmuch as pushing debt off the common fisc and onto specific PFIs in order to use the debt to discipline the PFI public partner and its choice of agents. The NHS and the LEAs can't keep demanding funding for specific projects (which would make it easier for them to summon a political coalition in favour, even if that particular project is not sensible), rather they are given a lump sum and have to maximize its use over the next 30 years.
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
ronya posted:well, hence my question as to what, exactly, the difference were supposed to be. Blair's chief sin seems to be not so much the rejection of Clause IV aspirations, but rubbing New Labour's victory in the faces of the losers. Further right than most? Compared to what? Compared to the Danish Social Democrats outsourcing the fire service to Falck? The Swedish Social Democrats outsourcing the Stockholm metro to a French contractor? Well, if you want me to essentially just make poo poo up then I'm game. I would've imagined a more-left-than-Blair-but-right-of-New-Labour government to have reintroduced a lot more financial regulation than Blair did, to have raised upper income and wealth taxes more than Blair did, to have increased funding for public services more directly, rather than largely via PFI, to not have privatised prisons and parts of the NHS, maybe even, if we're really hopeful, to re-nationalise the railways and/or utilities, but 97-02 was probably a bit early for that. Oh, and not gone to war in Iraq, always forget that one. The reason of course that this is me wildly speculating is that most of Europe didn't get heaved to the right in one big yank like Thatcher did to us, but, for example in France, they went through a series of small concessions by both major parties, inching further to the right. Thus the left parties of Europe, for the most part, had the job of holding ground and not changing anything too drastically (plus financial crises cleanup), whereas the job of any non-Conservative government in '97 was to repair the country after Thatcherism. And of course, unfortunately, John Smith didn't live till anywhere near the start of a general election season. The sum total of what's known on the matter is little more than 'the right of the Labour party were concerned Smith was trying a one last heave approach'. Make of that what you will. You also seem to be treating political ideologies as if they're all or nothing. The fact that the governments you mentioned also engaged in privatisation does not necessarily mean they are the same as New Labour. The Danish government of 93-02 engaged in something far closer to old-school tax and spend than anything New Labour did. Scandinavian politics are also too different to make reliable comparisons in that they have parties to the right, left and in between the biggest parties that actually get elected. The centre-left party needn't be as radical if the radicals are voting for the socialist party anyway. e: LemonDrizzle posted:Well, it's true that we can't definitively say whether Smith would have won or lost, or whether he'd have basically done what Blair did in government or tried to chart a different course. We also can't say whether or not cannibal lesbians from outer space would have descended on the planet if Smith had lived. I'm still not sure what's to be gained by debating might-have-beens, though. All I'm saying is that given Labour's serial failure between 1979 and 1996, it was pretty clear that big changes were needed if the party was to have any chance of assembling a workable majority, and that most of New Labour's decisions are understandable and justifiable given the context in which they were made. Yes, you're right, saying polling data and hugely successful local elections suggested Smith stood a very good change of a majority without going as far to the right as Blair is the same as saying cannibal lesbians would've descended from outer space if a politician hadn't died. I think the Smith leadership calls the Blairite narrative into question and potentially shows that pre-Blair's leadership run the right of the then Labour party (who became the centrist Blairites), were at least very slightly to the right of political centre, in that they seemed to have concerns that Smith was too far left to win, a concern not shared by a significant enough proportion of the population that Smith seemed likely to gain a majority. And now that I've said that about as many ways as I can think of I'll stop wasting everyone's time with history and stop using that precious resource that is internet forum posts on something that has undetermined potential gain. Alecto fucked around with this message at 22:45 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
The only way I can see a predominantly Old Labour government surviving into the 21st century is if a Smith-led Labour won in 1997 and held the 2001 election towards the end of September. Blair's popularity soared after 9/11, after all, so Smith and his government would most likely would be held in the same kind of light regardless of the polls beforehand. They'd still be quite vulnerable to the Tories otherwise, and it'd show in a vastly reduced majority, if that.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Onion Vanguard posted:Hey guys, please tell me if I am posting this in the wrong section or whatever but I just need a little advice in regards to some benefits I'm about to start claiming.. Some great advice has already been given, from my own experience I will just add that as soon as you have figured out what you want to try and claim, start the claims ASAP, and send every loving bit of mail through the post office counter so you have proof of posting, and a copy of everything to your MP if there is even a hint of a problem. Involve everyone you can think of, and where appropriate, include copies of letters. A few months ago I posted about helping a close friend get her ESA reinstated (she went from 20+ points, never failed an assessment, to 0 points). Wrote a lot of letters, including one that was pretty much her lifetime medical history, and why the 0 point assessment was a sham, point by point. Over 2 months later, we get a response from the DWP, saying the appeal was rejected. Had to spend quite literally a day on the phone, or next to it, waiting for a callback, just to find out they didn't get any of my letters, nor did they get anything the MP forwarded on- and then she couldn't tell me how I even had an appeal, given they didn't receive anything from me. Apparently.. Both addresses I had been given to send evidence were apparently wrong (all three are a DWP mail handling site in Wolverhampton), I can't email it, I can't contact the decision makers directly. We have resent everything, including sending it to pretty much every relevant complaints body via recorded delivery, and we are hoping to catch it before it has to go to tribunal. Burn everything. We also complained to ATOS (it was before they lost the contract) and they managed to send a letter asking my friend to confirm I can deal with this: one we have filled out twice before. Still nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:We also complained to ATOS (it was before they lost the contract) and they managed to send a letter asking my friend to confirm I can deal with this: one we have filled out twice before. Still nothing. [Not that it makes much difference - whoever takes over (be it Serco, Capita or G4S) only the people at the top will change. The plan is that the admin and medical infrastructure already in place will just be under new management. So, were you to contact them this time next year, the chances are it will be the same person at the other end not reading your letters.]
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
General China posted:No, its a last resort of an independence movement to gain political status for its prisoners. To gain the maximum effect you delay each prisoner starting to go on hunger strike so they die one at a time for maximum effect. Bobby Sands and his hunger strike buddies were sectarian thugs who starved themselves to death because the UK government did not consider murderers of women and children to be soldiers. They are not to be lionised.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
 bloo bloo bloo  Why won't they tolerate our intolerance?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Jedit posted:[…] the UK government did not consider murderers of women and children to be soldiers. Unless they happen to be soldiers in the British Army, in which case at absolute worst they will be called "a few bad apples".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:
Well at least they're finally being open about their desire to see anyone that disagrees with them arrested.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:
Don't worry, I'm sure the paytreeuts of ReActor posted:Just a FYI: Although Atos have bailed early, they are still running the contract and will be till the end of the year, I think (?). I had already grasped that the system would pretty much stay the same, but staff too? gently caress. "ATOS were terrible, so we are replacing them with XXXX! now, of course, the staff are the same, the system is the same and the procedures are the same, all that really changes is XXXX is now on the letterheads the disabled live in fear of rather than ATOS! FIXED!"
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
Is it a hate crime to call some one a fascist?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Is it a hate crime to call some one a fascist? Only if they are in fact a fascist!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:
Note the "Taxpayer funded, Labour/Trade union backed" bit there... Firage repeated those claims in Sunday Politics a while back. This is complete nonsense, and is, in fact, an old EDL talking point. (Usually doubled up on with the fact that Dave Cameron is a UAF founding signatory.) Through EDL eyes everyone who is opposed to them is UAF, left-wing and a the real fascists. The only time HnH have received a government grant was back in 2012 when they received a grant from the Department for Communities and Local Government for anti-racist community work in a few set areas. UKIP have been pushing this for quite a while and even proscribed HnH/UAF during their conference in September last year. So if you're a member of one of the premier anti-racist campaign groups in the world, you are not allowed to join UKIP. Also see this HuffPost drivel from Janice Atkinson that I stumbled across finding these links) KayTee fucked around with this message at 11:35 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
frontlineKHAAAN! posted:Unless they happen to be soldiers in the British Army, in which case at absolute worst they will be called "a few bad apples". Which, given that most British soldiers stationed in Ireland didn't commit any atrocities, they were. So take your straw man and gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Which, given that most British soldiers stationed in Ireland didn't commit any atrocities, they were. So take your straw man and gently caress off. Haha nope, that one remains the fault of the British government, and always will be.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Which, given that most British soldiers stationed in Ireland didn't commit any atrocities, they were. So take your straw man and gently caress off. A lot of posters itt realy love the IRA. Bit weird really.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Haha nope, that one remains the fault of the British government, and always will be. Who mentioned fault? The straw man is the argument that because some soldiers committed crimes, the IRA can be considered soldiers because they committed crimes too. Just because someone wasn't punished as much as they should have been doesn't mean that someone who is being justly punished should be punished less.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Jedit posted:doesn't mean that someone who is being justly punished should be punished less. The IRA were not justly punished. Justice requires things like courts. That's the actual argument. You called out a strawman and then responded with your own strawman.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:The IRA were not justly punished. Justice requires things like courts. Cool it pussy.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
SuperHunBastard1690 posted:Cool it pussy. You... mad?? Seriously though try to up your posting game you're making yourself look bad (you are bad).
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread actually likes the IRA as much as thinks it's a bit rich for the British government to incite violence and then refuse basic human rights to the people they intern when they retaliate. Or I hope so, anyway. The IRA weren't nice people.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Basic human rights like...not being able to wear their own jeans?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Basic human rights like...not being able to wear their own jeans? Fair trial was the one I was thinking of, flappy. The right to a fair trial. The jeans thing was the argument of "you're not giving us a trial so stop treating us like prisoners".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
The entire point was that they were no longer classified as having SCS in an effort to criminalise them, but weren't actually afforded the rights and privileges of either state. They didn't have a fair trial, which any criminal is entitled to, and they weren't treated with Special Category Status, they were in limbo between the two. Much like prisoners can be interred indefinitely without a trial by being classified in a special manner as they did in Gitmo. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 13:59 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Hey thread, I seem to spend a large amount of my time in the pub discussing how workers being organised is a good thing. I've realised I really should put my money where my mouth is and actually join a union. I work as a chef for a chain of pubs at the moment, and as far as I know the company doesn't recognise any unions, so which should I join? Would it be better to opt for the Bakers Food and Allied Workers union, seeing as I work with food and all, or would it be better to join one of the general unions like Unite or Unison?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:
I love how their argument is basically "protesting UKIP is racism against white people" but they're too cowardly to say it
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
BNP Youth - Fight Back these videos can get worse.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oczj6thd4CY whites are being oppressed
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
holy poo poo, so it's all the gay, marxist, capitalist, zionist, islamic, bankster's fault. "Join us for a mere £5 a year - help us prevent the genocide of the indigenous peoples of Britain!" loving hell.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
I miss the days when kids just got facial tattoos when they wanted to make themselves unemployable.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
I'm genuinely shocked that even exists. Its like someones incompetent attempt at doing a modern day parody of Nazi propaganda. Its the music, the rhetoric, the fact that its literally called the BNP Youth.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
I just spilled my pint in a bar in St Petersburg. Embarrassed doesn't even begin to cover it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
"Who is responsible for the ongoing attempt to eradicate the British culture and British identity through assimilation?" The British Empire? The Act of Union 1707? EDIT: Och, I've missed the deadline for proxy voting. I didn't realise it was six working days :/ QuantumCrayons fucked around with this message at 18:36 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Fair trial was the one I was thinking of, flappy. The right to a fair trial. Except the hunger strikers weren't campaigning for a fair trial. They were campaigning to be treated as political prisoners.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
The Tories have come up with their response to Miliband's plans to increase security of tenure for renters and ban lettings agency fees: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fees-transparency-to-ensure-a-fair-deal-for-landlords-and-tenantsquote:Letting agents will be required to publish full details of the fees they charge under plans announced by government ministers today (13 May 2014). The move ensures a fair deal for landlords and tenants, closing off the opportunity for a small minority of rogue agents to impose unreasonable, hidden charges. The common sense approach avoids excessive state regulation which would push up rents for tenants. Choices taken away by excessive regulation: do you want this badly maintained overpriced shitbox or that one?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Except the hunger strikers weren't campaigning for a fair trial. They were campaigning to be treated as political prisoners. If you want to treat them like criminals then treat them like criminals the whole way by charging them for crimes instead of just holding them under internment and then giving them a trial. The IRA were treated as enemy combatants in a war with things like shoot to kill and internment until the point they were held at which point they were treated like prisoners. This discrepancy was the problem and what the hunger strikes were about. This is in no way supporting the provos either, the way the provos were terrible with what they did in regard to murdering civilians and in how they treated the people in the communities they were supposedly defending. However the loyalist groups, the RUC and the army were just as bad.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
The IRA were fuckers, sure, but they still deserved proper treatment. If they were criminals, treat them as such and give them a fair trial, or if they're not and actually are political prisoners then treat them as such. The hunger strikes were entirely about human rights, and it's loving disgusting the way the entire situation was handled. For what it's worth, I was also in favour of extending the ECHR to Abu Hamza because human rights apply to everyone or they apply to nobody. This is really an all or nothing situation. One standard will work just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Every group in Norn Iron was pretty much a pack of massive shits. At best each had a few members actually fighting for something and the rest were corrupt fuckers who were there for their own aggrandizement and/or profit. There were terrible, terrible crimes committed by all parties. However, any government which seeks to proclaim itself a legitimate and representative one has to adhere to the rule of law, and you do not get to break the rule of law when in danger or under pressure. You keep going, you endure, you pull through or you are destroyed, but it's better to be destroyed than to destroy yourselves by losing all credibility. That's far more pernicious than the fall of a government or even a system. The treatment of Sands et al was a disgusting breach of human rights (and I say that as a man who lost family members to an IRA bombing) and it was utterly unconscionable that in the latter half of the 20th century a supposedly very developed and advanced society would treat anyone that way. I don't care if it's an IRA terrorist, Osama bin Laden, or Hitler himself, if they're actually in custody they're under your jurisdiction and must be treated with all the rights accorded any accused or convicted. Of course, plenty of people don't think petty thieves deserve rights, nevermind full-blown terrorists, so I'm probably pissing into the wind here 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:If you want to treat them like criminals then treat them like criminals the whole way by charging them for crimes instead of just holding them under internment and then giving them a trial. The IRA were treated as enemy combatants in a war with things like shoot to kill and internment until the point they were held at which point they were treated like prisoners. This discrepancy was the problem and what the hunger strikes were about. Jury trials for terrorism-related offences were suspended after both Protestant and Catholic groups began issuing death threats to jurors, so they made their own bed there. And they were charged with crimes; Sands was convicted for possession of a handgun, which was all they could pin on him despite him being caught fleeing a gun battle with the RUC. You don't need to tell me how hosed up the whole mess is, because my family have been hit by both sides. One of my grandmothers had a cousin murdered by the IRA during World War II; the other was a Catholic who fled Ireland in the 1930s in fear of sectarian violence and spent seventy years too scared to go home. So yeah, I do get pissed off when clueless idiots like General China start talking about how wonderful it is that someone has invoked Saint Bobby Sands, Glorious Hero of the Revolution, in order to "stick it to the Man".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The Tories have come up with their response to Miliband's plans to increase security of tenure for renters and ban lettings agency fees: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fees-transparency-to-ensure-a-fair-deal-for-landlords-and-tenants How does this actually change anything or make it a 'fair deal'? OK it's good that agencies will have to publish their fees, but they are still charging ridiculous fees for things that they shouldn't and publishing them won't change that. If they had shame or people had more choice, maybe, but they don't.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
twoot posted:BNP Youth - Fight Back It somehow passed me by (or I'd gladly forgotten) that Nick Griffin was an elected MEP until I saw this in the suggested videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6u9OCPK1Y How the hell did that happen? 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:18
|
|