Don't get me wrong , I think there's a place for both, com-gov,
it's just the long term vision thing , or lack thereof.
We have become Behemoth. Must be careful how we tread.
Printable View
Don't get me wrong , I think there's a place for both, com-gov,
it's just the long term vision thing , or lack thereof.
We have become Behemoth. Must be careful how we tread.
......"Switzerland would be a congenial place in which to live, as I like mountains and cheese."
Your' killing me
- :tongue:
To all I apologize,
by the looks of this website ,I've been reading for just the past 10 pages,
and it's downed on me, it seems you all are talking about everything.
I admit I don't read this forum often. I was re -reading my posts and i wish I could rewrite them. It's rude of me to think of this place as a magazine rather than a bar /club. Next time , I think I'll drink before and read ahead .
You could start by rewriting this one. Are your sure you haven't been drinking already?Quote:
Originally Posted by nitron
You're the one adding personal insults to your postings. We know you despise the great unwashed but wind your neck in & stop behaving like a troll or face a possible ban! And please; go and see your GP to get some treatment/medication for that huge superiority complex you have! Big headed twat.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
What's happening in Poland now, it's 14 years since you lot stupidly voted for a dose of Thatcherism by joining the EU? I went in 2007 but since then I know train fares have quadrupled for tourists and I remembered paying 8 ZL for a coffee on Poznan station, OUCH!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Sounds like you suffered from oppression Vex?
Governments must not intervene in economy, period. When they do, you get countries or vicinities, areas of market ran by mafias. E.g. one that gets legal privilege to use parts of publicly funded roads, or one that gets legal privilege and benefits to fight global warming; etc. Mafia is basically a company & a bunch of politicians who push laws to support the company's business. Trade unions are also mafias as they want their businesses to be supported and ultimately live of public money. Mafias are legal here, unfortunately. Poland is also ran pretty much either by those thieves, or by a bunch of idiots.
I haven't suffered from much oppression myself. Like I said, I was born in times that allowed me to grow up in a relatively normal environment. What I see happening around me now is alarming though. At the moment, whole Europe is dying under occupation of the European Union. Poland, probably relatively not much so, if you compare it to France or the UK. I thought brexit would change that for the UK but it seems that Farage was right to have said that the whole thing would be "kicked into the high grass".
Coming back to Thacher's politics, I think it is worth noting that she would oppose projects like Exchange Rate Mechanism, and to "proposals from the European Community (EC), forerunner of the European Union, for a federal structure and increased centralisation of decision making". She was basically against the European Union! Poland's joining the EU was not a dose of Thatcherism. It was totally the opposite!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2koyUc-4MQ0
Don't forget about our legalised Maffia Vex; It's called the Establishment! Only recently £20bn as gone missing from the treasury! Course; the BBC & SKY news have been trying to keep a lid on it but we have social media now! If £20bn had gone missing in Russia or Sicily, you wouldn't ask questions about it either!
These bastards make the Russians look like Mother Teresa! That's why they(UK) are always having a "pop" at them.
[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1800584]
Governments must not intervene in economy, period.
--Who, then, decides what the currency of the state shall be? Are you saying that there should be no state regulation of currency, of banks indeed, of money in all its forms?
--Why, in the 'golden age' of American capitalism, an age that resounds with the names of Rockefeller and Mellon, Carnegie and Vanderbilt and JP Morgan did the US Goverment in 1890, in Congress pass An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies [the 'Sherman Act']?
--because unrestrained, unregulated capitalism, far from expanding free markets, led to the creation of monopolies and cartels that stranglied them. Without state regulation, could Rockefeller have owned in one corporation the whole of the USA's oil and gas resources? Yes, had he bought out the others. And was it a good thing for capitalism and free markets that the Bell Telephone Co was broken up, not once but twice between 1877 and 1982? Or should the market have been free to give one corporation control of all telecommunications in the USA? Because without anti-trust law, there is no free market.
Your attachment to free markets seems to sit somewhere between unrequited love and delusion. They may even be the same thing.
Coming back to Thacher's politics, I think it is worth noting that she would oppose projects like Exchange Rate Mechanism, and to "proposals from the European Community (EC), forerunner of the European Union, for a federal structure and increased centralisation of decision making". She was basically against the European Union! Poland's joining the EU was not a dose of Thatcherism. It was totally the opposite!
--Mrs Thatcher as a Minister in the government of Edward Heath campaigned for the UK to join the EEC in 1970 and supported the negotiations that led to the UK becoming a full member in 1973; and it was Mrs Thatcher who took the UK into the European Exchange Mechanism in 1990 -against her instincts she said after the fact-from which it crashed out in 1992, why? Because of the underling weakness of the UK economy 13 years after she became Prime Minister. It was the same Margaret Thatcher who took the UK into the Single Market in 1986, as significant a move in the integration of Europe as you can think of, but something which, as a believer in free markets she did not oppose for that reason so we can agree with this assessment, that
Thatcher was never an enthusiast of a political union, let alone a federation, on the European level; rather, her priorities for the European Community mirrored her priorities at home – economic growth and tight budgetary discipline.
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/margaret-thatch...n-integration/
The problem is that Thatcher, along with every other British Prime Minister from the moment the European Iron and Steel Community was formed in 1951, knew where it was going because Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman were well known for their aspiration to unite a once divided Europe through economic and political federation. Because the UK decided not to be part of the 'European Project' some in Europe turned against the UK -notably Charles de Gaulle- while the British looked on in envy at the progress of the 'Community' and thus created an alternative in 1960, the European Free Trade Area, a precursor to the UK joining the EEC in 1973.
Thus it can be said that the UK always wanted to be part of the economic union, but did not want the political change that brought with it. The nostalgic movement based on the idea Britain is Great when the Great is in Britain sits in denial at the reality of economic decline outside the EU as the Empire faded away, just as the claim Britain can be Great outside the EU is yet to be proven.
I guess the fact is the British have never really thought of themselves as European, and that may be where Thatcher's limits with the EU lay, in an ever-widening ditch into which the UK has now tumbled not knowing where or how hard it will fall.
There is nothing wrong with Russia. It is much more liberal a country nowadays. It may also be worth mentioning that it was one of the first countries to break out of the Soviet Union.
- Money can be anything that can be reused as money later on. Since it is capitalists that actually produces something, e.g. a shoemaker, who need money as tools to produce their shoes (because he needs to buy leather, shoelaces, threads, etc and other capitalists who produce those may already have shoes and be unwilling to trade for shoes), it is up to those capitalists to decide what money they are going to use. Giving government the monopoly to decide and for make money leads to bad things, as Alexis de Tocqueville would say "There is no atrocity a liberal and gentle government would refrain from committing when it runs out of money".
- because communists want to control everything and they want to have monopoly for everything. There is only place for one monopoly, usually.
- Mafias would not be possible in a normal country where markets are free from government intervention. If a company does a good job rendering its services then I cannot see why it shouldn't be the main provider of those services. It then does not need any laws who protect it from competition, which is not the case when it decides to lower it's services' quality.
- There are only two types of communists 1) Smart, lying bastards, who know they are lying; 2) Complete idiots, who actually believe in those lies. I can only assume that you belong to the latter.
- I never said Thatcher was either good or bad. She was a politician after all, and she found herself living in an abnormal country. She did bring the UK out of a crisis caused by the communists.
- That is why government should not intervene in economy.
- That is why government should not intervene in economy.
- That is why government should not intervene in economy...
Lol, Russia is a dictatorship run by a crony capitalist kleptocracy, and nothing like a free market. If there is any country that resembles a mafia state it is Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
The Soviet Union broke up because the other republics broke away, starting with the Baltic states - Russia was one of the last. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissol...e_Soviet_Union
Your definition of money is a tautology. A stable economy requires some monetary standard - it can't be just left to the market. Even advocates of free banking, where banks could issue their own notes, have in mind a rule that would set either the price of currency (eg in terms of gold) or the supply of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking
If you had studied any financial history, rather than talking off the top of your head, you also would know that the period before modern central banking was characterised by frequent financial crises, mainly due to banking panics. If there was no central bank we would face the risk that we could lose all of our savings simply because some rumour caused a run on the bank.
[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1800650]
Money can be anything that can be reused as money later on. Since it is capitalists that actually produces something, e.g. a shoemaker...
--A shoemaker is an artisan not a capitalist. Capitalists provide the 'capital' -could be cash, could be a loan, could be an asset like a factory building- that can be used to make shoes. Where an artisan may make two or three pairs of shoes a day (ad charge a high price for his or her craft), a factory can make 10,000 or more, and get this, the capitalist doesn't even need to take his coat off when the working day begins or show up at the factory gate at 6am, because it is the machines and the workers minding the machines who make the shoes. This distinction, between the artisan and the worker is so basic one wonders why you think an example from the 13th century is still applicable in the 21st.
And, if you did read accounts of the medieval world as it left feudalism behind, be it Marc Bloch or Fernand Braudel you would be able to trace the emergence of money out of barter, and accept that the need for a state controlled currency followed endless crises and small wars fought over the contested validity and quality and availability of specie in the emerging mercantile capitalist world of them days.
because communists want to control everything and they want to have monopoly for everything. There is only place for one monopoly, usually.
- Mafias would not be possible in a normal country where markets are free from government intervention. If a company does a good job rendering its services then I cannot see why it shouldn't be the main provider of those services. It then does not need any laws who protect it from competition, which is not the case when it decides to lower it's services' quality.
--You have completely ignored the point that I was making about the fact, and it is a fact, that in the relatively unregulated US economy of the late 19th century 'free markets' -not Communism!- enabled monopolies to emerge, precisely because the capitalists crushed their competition or bought them out. Rockefeller was the master of this, and if you think about it, he was approaching every small entrepreneur who wanted to open a retail gas station or drill for oil and 'made them an offer they can't refuse' -but offering money rather than a 'Corleone'. It is not about the quality of the company, but the operation of the market and bear in mind it was the politicians who believed in competition who passed the law that was eventually used to break up Rockefeller's empire (in 1911).
As for the Mafia, it emerged in Sicily because of a lack of government, in the absence of responsible rule by local nobles in the 18th century and particularly following the demise of the Kingdom of Napes and Sicily when 'Italy' was 're-unified or more accurately created in the 19th century. So when you write Mafias would not be possible in a normal country where markets are free from government intervention in fact it is precisely in countries where 'markets are free from government intervention' that organized crime flourishes. And if you describe the USSR as not a 'normal country' you find that the distribution of commodities entering the market from inside or outside were controlled by 'the party' which money could easily corrupt so that the Russian mafia could get its hands on desirable goods -eg Belgian chocolate- buy it cheap and sell it dear to someone organizing a wedding or a birthday party -another example of how markets can support crime when crime and the markets are not properly regulated.
- I never said Thatcher was either good or bad. She was a politician after all, and she found herself living in an abnormal country. She did bring the UK out of a crisis caused by the communists.
--If I understood this incoherent garbage I could respond, but I don't, so I can't.
Money is a tool that is meant to facilitate exchange of goods. Just like no sane shoemaker is going to collect hammers to ensure he can feed his family in case of a crisis, they are not going to collect money in order do do that either, as during crises lack of money is usually not the problem. - Lack of goods is. There was times in Poland when everybody had literally shit-loads of money. The only problem was that it would be worth nothing and you were unable to buy anything as nobody was willing to trade for it. Financial crises are not real crises for the nation. They are only crises for communist states.
A shoemaker does not make shoes only because he likes it. He makes them to get make a living. In civilised countries that means getting money.
The Russians hated the Soviets just like everybody else. Learn history. (Only not from Stavros's red books)
Artisan still exist and I used a shoemaker as example but I could have just as well used an independent prostitute or baker... The problem with factories as they grow bigger is that apart from money they require other tools than those required in on their production floors. If the said shoe-shop grows into a factory, the shoemaker who established it indeed no longer earns his wage by physically making shoes. He now has agreed with others who are working for the factory and only provides the assets you mention, namely tools, the factory building, materials, etc... It is still up to him to decide, however, what sort of currency he uses in the whole process. He may be using gold, shiny stones, bitcoin, pieces of plastic with a face and a number drawn fancily on them, or all of them at once, and because it is his factory, he knows which currency he ought to be using much better than the central banker communist.
In a normal country Rockefeller would not be able to make offers one wouldn't be able to refuse. He would be hanged. If I am to believe your words, Rockefeller was one of the first greedy communists who wanted to control everything. Which explains why shortly afterwards, in 1913, financial punishment for work a.k.a "Federal Income Tax" was legalised.
Mafia is symbiosis where a business gets legal protection from government in exchange for something else. In a normal country, where police does their job and enforce laws, such symbioses would simply not exist. The King is King, pretty much irremovable, it has all the wealth he may want so bribery is very unlikely, and all he has to do is make he is running a country of law and order rather than a democratic one - where "the bigger bunch tells everybody else what to do and what not to do".
Only about 10% of population is capable of abstract thinking. Apparently you are not in those 10%. You also seem to see everything either as "black or white" and the world is usually "of one of the shades of grey". Don't worry if you cannot understand everything you read. In a normal country, you would probably be able to do something that suits you and still make a decent living out of it.
So, it appears you don't know the difference between an artisan and a capitalist. It appears you don't understand how money replaced barter, and how only government has been able to create the stable currency that everyone -producers and consumers- wants, accepting that a strong currency is dependent on the performance of the economy.
You don't seem to understand how the Mafia originated in Sicily owing to the absence of government, and regard John D. Rockefeller as a 'Communist' which undermines any credibility you think you have when it comes to discussing economics. You keep talking about this (mythical?) 'normal country' without defining what it means, but I guess that is what 'abstract thinking' produces. If you really think I see everything in 'black or white' then you have not been reading my posts.
More to the point, the President, earlier this year, lifted regulations on coal companies in the US that had prevented them from dumping slurry from excavations into local rivers and streams. The regulation was there because people wanted the environment protected, the regulation was lifted to reduce costs to coal companies, but why are the companies so uninterested in being good 'corporate citizens' and indifferent to any damage it might do to their reputation? Because they don't care. How can you explain the difference between your wonderful capitalists who 'do the right thing' and therefore do not need regulating, and those who, in the real, as opposed to the abstract world, do not?
Coal mines are built to mine coal, not to care about their reputation or environment. If someone is concerned about the slurry they produce then they sould invent technology of mining coal that does not pollute the environment. If use of the new and cleaner technology is economically justified, mines will employ it without any government intervention. Again, let miners do their jobs. They know much more about mining than any federal officials. If the mines' customers disagree with their ways, they can always refrain from buying coal. Apparently the US president knows much more about how economy works than you do and prefers that miners do their jobs and inventors of new technologies do theirs rather than discouraging them from doing anything at all with silly restrictions. I am not sure which one but there was another US president who would say that government cannot solve any problems. It can only create them.
There are millions of tons of coal under the ground in the UK & it's some of the best in the world, it as a high sulphur content.
The company I used to work for operated trains conveying coal from Kellingley Colliery to Drax Power Station, trains departed every two hours 24 hours per day conveying about 1,520 tons per train. Total distance was 9 miles, journey time with an eco friendly locomotive was about 23 minutes! Costs to the environment were negligible!
Now Drax mainly burn wood chippings, known as bio-mass, imported from Scandinavia & the US. it takes 3 trains of bio-mass to every one train of coal to generate the same amount of power!
This, of course, was mainly down to our friends in Brussels & fucking ECO-warriors! You can't save the world unless you start using monopoly money!
Funny how it's always outsiders slagging the Russians off?
Never hear many Russians slagging their own country off? Most of the programmes I've watched show Russians are staunchly proud of their origins. As I befriended one for over seven years & met many others only confirms my thoughts.
Some cunts been watching the BBC news too often.
Who then, was responsible for Aberfan? According to Enquiry in 1967-Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
Blame for the disaster rests upon the NCB [National Coal Board]. "This blame is shared (though in varying degrees) among the NCB headquarters, the South Western Divisional Board, and certain individuals.
“There was a total absence of tipping policy and this was the basic cause of the disaster."
It criticised the lack of legislation regulating the safety of tips or guidance from the Inspectorate of Mines (my emphasis)
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...aster-12025544
Politicians from the statutory NCB, of course, who clearly did not know about mining. Had there been no NCB, the disaster would not have happened. Miners had seen it coming 3 years before the tragedy struck, but of course, the commies from the NCB knew better where to dump the waste, didn't they? - Yet another argument against state-owned companies...
Of course, if politicians were keeping out of economy, miners would have had jobs for as long as private companies wanted to mine UK's coal. The problem was, the other state owned business would not be able to operate their trains with coal and wood from abroad would it...? Add global warming and more communists from Brussels to it and it turns out that UK's coal and miners are baaaad.
Don't blame everything you don't like on communists RedVex! You've left most of them behind in Poland, there aren't many here & none working for the EU!
When I argued that lifting regulations protecting the environment from pollution caused by coal mining in the USA was damaging, you responded by saying it was not the business of the coal mining companies to protect the environment. Now you claim that it was the business of the NCB to do precisely that in Wales. The argument that the 'politicians' from the 'statutory NCB' did not know about mining has been plucked out of the air without reason, let alone evidence, just as you continue to deny that regulations imposed by government on industry intend to protect people from any potential accident whatever its cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX
For someone besotted with 'free markets' you should know that coal declined in Britain precisely because the markets decided oil and gas were cheaper, more efficient, and cleaner sources of fuel -which they are. It never was about political decisions, otherwise the State could have maintained an inefficient coal industry for decades. It appears you are defending jobs lost in the mines when it was markets that took them away. Surely you should be celebrating market forces?
Your other comments could be dismissed but it is evident you know next to nothing about the political affiliations of coal miners, many of whom were not only life-long members of the Communist Party of Great Britain, but elected a Party member a senior official of their union, the National Union of Mineworkers.
We therefore find you arguing against state regulation that protects safety and the environment while at the same time defending the Communists who argued for it. You cannot be right and wrong at the same time, can you?
You WHAT! NEVER about political decisions? The Tories dismantling of the coal industry NOT political? YOU know better than that, letting your own personal views get the better of you, I think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
And for your information; The price of gas & coal as fluctuated over the last 10 years, the Power stations used to buy gas when it dropped in price then order coal again when it became cheaper & so on. Our business(ex employer) fluctuated too because of it!
The decline of coal actually began in the 1920s when the industry was privately owned. To the extent that it was the NCB that closed mines between nationalization in 1945 and the 1970s these were still commercial decisions even if the NCB was state owned. The political intervention which I described in the 1980s was intended to break the National Union of Mineworkers, with the longer term aim to return coal mining to the private sector. To the extent that coal remains a part of the UK's energy profile it is because it has been able to retain a commercial presence in the market. However political the management of the industry might have been, the decisions on pit closures were commercial.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
humans will be the means to the extinction of our species
i'll also leave it to the dickhead that has made it his life to google facts to: this
go for it asshole. write us a fucking essay with your facts about 1920s elephants being poached against today elephants and all that crap because that's a fucking great thing you're there buddy. you're really making a change with your wonderful esssays on hungangels like a dipshit
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3f...phy-awards.jpg
Finally, someone who makes RedVex look reasonable. Maybe it's time to abandon this thread to the loonies, Stavros.
Wait, what are you doing? He finds you civil and polite, qualities he admires in others!Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...the-Day/page41
Yeah, we had quite a civil exchange, but he's gone right over the top recently for some reason.
Bluesoul it is about evidence that others can look up to decide for themselves if my argument is right or wrong. If I make an assertion I offer a reference so another poster cannot say I just made it up. I read your opinions on a lot of things but never know their source -personal experience? Something a friend told you, something overheard in a bar or a party? But that is your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesoul
Google is a search engine and a portal to a global library of books, articles, web-sites/blogs that offer you more insight and evidence than I can provide on my own.
The dilemma of humans-vs-elephant on the one hand illustrates today the extent to which human settlement is invading the natural habitat of elephants -it could just as well be gorillas and other primates in Africa, or bears in north America- but on the other hand is not new, as the famous essay by George Orwell 'Shooting an Elephant' was first published in 1936.
thanks. will be sure to check that amazing book. can i get it on amazon? it's right up there on my reading list. (shakes head as useless information)
don't worry bro. i ain't mad at'cha for giving me a check. what is redvex though? is that some kind of insult?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
bronco: good detective work. do you also collect my various poetry coz i have one that can be very valuable to your collection. i'll give you a hint: i wrote it in 2012. have fun
I would give you a thumbs up but I don't want you to think I'm trying to curry favor. I just remember the interaction and thought that was a nice interaction, very cordial etc. Now I see him giving you a little check and you're like "no problem sir whatever you say sir". Very interesting:).Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesoul
Alright, now back to the climate.
Still going strong then, ed?Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesoul
and here's me thinkin' you was dead...
anyone lived in a pretty how town
(with up so floating many bells down)
spring summer autumn winter
he sang his didn’t he danced his did
(no references this time as I am sure you know it)
I really like your quote, to be reading about Political history in so much depth on a T-girl forum is strange to say the least! I've said before Politics is about today tomorrow & the future, not 100 years ago although these cunts in charge today are trying to take us back to Victorian times. Only thing I'd like to see is his particular Politics become history! As for his "sidekick", he's just a troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesoul
But Peejaye this is the Politics and Religion section, and you cannot avoid history in either. I am also puzzled by your claim you want my 'politics' to become 'history', as it is not so far from your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
I have, I hope, made it clear I don't think commercial firms should be allowed to pollute the environment, and government regulation is one way of achieving this -I don't think you disagree on this, I think it is something we both want.
I argued that the Thatcher government was eager to confront the National Union of Mineworkers in order to smash the union in revenge for what happened in 1973 and because they wanted to make unions irrelevant in collective bargaining -do you agree or disagree? We may not agree on Scargill, but it was his reckless and foolish behaviour that broke the back of the Union movement in this country, with the result that they failed to prevent the widening gap between rich and poor through militant or any kind of action to protect wages and conditions which, if I am not mistaken, had a direct impact on you personally. We can agree on the outcome even if we don't agree on the means by which it was achieved.
'The left' opposed the UK's membership of the 'capitalist club' the EU (boring old history but Corbyn can't escape his consistent attacks on the EU as they are on record) before they caved in to Jacques Delors in 1986 over the Single Market Act and cannot now escape responsibility for their own role in one of the most stupid and damaging decision in British history in modern times.
I have to say it, but if you had a better appreciation of the history of the UK and why we joined the European Economic Community in 1973 having been a founder member of the European Free Trade Area in 1960, you might understand why I voted Remain.
It was on the basis of what had happened in the previous 100 years that I voted Remain to secure the UK's position in the global economy for the 100 years to come, along with the collective agreements on security and intelligence, and of course environmental protection and climate change action that we owe to the next generation. For the warning signs are there, as noted in today's Independent-
Crops in Cornwall are said to be 'rotting in the fields' due to a lack of migrant workers to harvest them in the wake of Britain's decision to leave the European Union.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8049391.html
I meant no offence Stavros, I got the impression you were more right of centre or very middle, what my dad used to call "Middle class" & I appreciate it's the Politics section.
I do agree Thatcher wanted revenge for what happened under Ted Heaths Government & believe she got it but I was right in the heart of the miners dispute, the only mistake Scargill made was not negotiating with Thatcher to close the uneconomical pits, she wanted to close them all!
As for JC, I believe personally he is a staunch br-exiteer despite the views of the Labour Party at the last election, much like the Tories; split down the middle?
It's funny that you should accuse me of trolling when your response to me doing no more than point out you were wrong on something a few days ago has been to:Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
(a) respond with personal abuse (posts 1387 and 1405);
(b) go out of your way to make further derogatory comments like the above; and
(c) give the thumbs down on every post I've made since then.
It's true that I've criticised you a few times, but these were all criticisms of things you actually said. Taking issue with people in a way that addresses the substance of what they are saying is not trolling.
You go in too hard on people who have a different view from yourself. A bit "high & mighty" & I don't bother wasting my time like you marking thumbs up or thumbs down as it's totally irrelevant! I know who the other person is doing it like the one to your remark above. He's also a bit of a troll whose had his nose put out of joint. Making comments like "sounding off" & accusing people of not doing research is unnecessary?
This is a bit of fun after all!
I've been trolled a few times having been around a long time, it doesn't bother me, those that do it disappear after a while!
Me, well I'm still here.
Ok, if it wasn't you doing the thumbs down I take it back. It did start at exactly the same time though, which is why I assumed it was you. I'm guessing it's someone not involved in this thread who I may have crossed swords with elsewhere.
I only give thumbs down when someone crosses the line in being abusive. I will resolve to avoid unnecessary comments if you do the same. Attributing motives to people who disagree with you is also unnecessary. Calling someone a "big headed twat" is certainly not necessary.
However, I'm not going to apologise for putting my view robustly when I think people are wrong-headed. That is part of the fun, too. We can't all be professorial like Stavros.
I am not offended Peejaye more frustrated with some of your views.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
The key thing in the miners dispute was that the Thatcher government used 'trade union reform' -particularly independent ballots for strike action to make it harder for unions to go on strike and mount picket lines outside plants. Scargill, by not holding a ballot played right into Thatcher's court, and it was the moment they relished -think of it, a strike at a time of declining demand for coal from a depleted industrial sector, and in the middle of summer!
The Trotskyists in my local party were convinced this was the turning point and they were right, but on the wrong side of victory, and as for pointing out supporting coal was a contradiction to the party's environmental policy, as usual it was all going to be sorted out when the Tories were thrown out of office and new Labour government in power.
And here we are 30 years later and you would think nothing has changed. And also it was impossible to even debate gender issues in those days other than standard women's issues like equal pay and abortion. Mention anything gay let alone transgendered and they would start giggling like schoolboys or shake their heads in dismay.
We have come a long way since those days, yet a lot has not changed on the left, if anything they are convinced their time has come again. If you wanted my view of Corbyn, McDonnell and Momentum on Brexit, it is a version of Socialism in One Country, but as this was Stalin's remedy for the USSR's isolation it is a touchy tagline these days. Anyway, they supported the Social Chapter of the Single Market and may be able to play games with the Tories when the Commons debates the terms of exit, but the main aim will be to bring down the government and force another general election, which I think Labour will win, albeit with a small majority. Then they will be lumbered with Brexit.
Let's all cool down & try and get along. I admit to sometimes being a bit brazen but as Stavros as often said, it's just frustration. Patience, unfortunately, isn't my strong point.