Do you think that Attlee, Bevin, Bevan et al were motivated purely by a desire to quell rebellion? I'm not that cynical. I think they were motivated at least in part by a desire to create a better world. Why not?yeah but that was effect, not cause.
Do you think that Attlee, Bevin, Bevan et al were motivated purely by a desire to quell rebellion? I'm not that cynical. I think they were motivated at least in part by a desire to create a better world. Why not?
I agree with that, but it's not just a question of being allowed. Concessions are not just given. They first need to be demanded. And in the UK, post-WW2, concessions were both demanded and given through the mechanism of democracy.I think its a mistake to look at politics as the product of a small number of individuals like that. In the grand scheme of things what they personally wanted is probably not that important, the question was why they were allowed to be there doing what they did, and that's the result of forces acting on a larger scale than individual politicians.
Send MI6 to take the greedy cock out.
Something that struck me the other day, looking at the previous generation of politicians – Healey, Jenkins, Foot, even Heath ffs: Where are the intellectuals in today's politics? Robin Cook was probably the last one.Well their kind is long gone from mainstream politics now, and the cuntsocks who are currently in charge are doing their level best to undo all the good things that were achieved way back when
The word for what? The welfare state was imposed?Imposed is the word.
Peter Hain was probably a thinking man once. I doubt he even recognises a human being when he looks in the mirror now.Darling is as thick as two short planks.
Yep.The word for what? The welfare state was imposed?
The US Federal Reserve, Mr Rogers thinks, is also on the road to bankruptcy, and he points out that the US has already had three central banks in its history. Instead, the Singapore-based billionaire urges the UK authorities to take the radical step of allowing the commercial banks to fail.
<snip>
In the overwhelmingly likely event of Mervyn King and Gordon Brown ignoring Mr Rogers' advice, the "crushing" burden of debt and of taxation to service that debt will bankrupt the UK, "technically or de facto", with a "terrible" inflation to follow.
By whom?Yep.
Something that struck me the other day, looking at the previous generation of politicians – Healey, Jenkins, Foot, even Heath ffs: Where are the intellectuals in today's politics? Robin Cook was probably the last one.
By the working class. Through every means going.By whom?
With the consent of sections of other classes, though, with fresh memories of a depression followed by war. A large constituency existed for the message of 'from cradle to grave'.By the working class. Through every means going.
I don't agree that the only alternative to democracy is jackbooted authoritarian dictatorship. We need to get the bullshit and corruption out of politics. Probably a good way to do that is to devolve most of the decision making to the community and make democracy the participatory privilege it was intended to be. Central government should be apolitical; a competent and professional provider of services and guardian of Quality of Life within the national network of autonomous communities. Or summat like that. You get the basic idea anyway...@ Dr Jon,
There's a lot of truth to the Zappa quote, but there are also examples from the not-so-distant past of real progress through democratic means. The post-WW2 settlement in the UK is an example.
And what limited democracy we do have is vastly preferable to truly authoritarian dictatorships. It's easy to spout off about democracy being a sham, but when you see what the alternative is, you see that democracy is not nothing. Tell a Spaniard that things are no different from Franco's time. Tell a black South African that the vote doesn't matter. Tell a Cuban that freedom of speech is overrated.
Neither do I (although, rereading what I wrote, I can see how it looks that way), but it overstates the case to claim that the limited democracy that we do have is a total sham.I don't agree that the only alternative to democracy is jackbooted authoritarian dictatorship.
I think it does change the point. Labour were elected in 1945, not the Tories, despite the fact that the leader of the Tories was the 'great' Churchill. This could not have happened if only the working classes had voted Labour.That doesn't (if true - what else where they going to do? The doctors and other professionals opposed it, so it was in the teeth of thir oppostion rather than consent) change the point.
Neither do I (although, rereading what I wrote, I can see how it looks that way), but it overstates the case to claim that the limited democracy that we do have is a total sham.
What point dies it change though? Compare votes to behaviour. Anyway, i'm off to curry club. Might meet brassciattack.I think it does change the point. Labour were elected in 1945, not the Tories, despite the fact that the leader of the Tories was the 'great' Churchill. This could not have happened if only the working classes had voted Labour.
Compare and contrast with Italy, where the working masses voted strongly for the communists, but not quite enough for the communists to win power (and of course the US did its best to stop the communists from winning). Concessions were granted in Italy like everywhere else – it was widely recognised that it was good for business to grant workers some concessions. But nothing as comprehensive as the UK's settlement was reached. It has been eroded away in the last 30 years, but it was a real achievement imo.
linkIndustrial society, meet wall; wall, meet industrial society
The posts on these sorts of threads are getting really good lately - nice job everyone