Tony Polson wrote in
:

Pyromancer wrote:

It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and
shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and
external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories.


It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic
and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external,
soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate,
privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist
incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the
purposes of getting elected.

That analysis simultaneously flatters Brown now in comparison with Major in
1997 and Blair then compared with Cameron now.

This surely cannot be coincidental.

James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote in
:

Pyromancer wrote:

It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and
shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and
external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories.


It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic
and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external,
soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate,
privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist
incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the
purposes of getting elected.

That analysis simultaneously flatters Brown now in comparison with Major in
1997 and Blair then compared with Cameron now.

This surely cannot be coincidental.


That most certainly was *not* my intention.

On 30 May, 13:44, James Farrar wrote:
MIG wrote in news:b38214db-b68f-4b51-bbda-
:

Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do any
work.

Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour.

With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses.

With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses.

I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems to
think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a
better situation. *I really doubt it.

Defeating the odious bully Crow != defeating "the workers".

(Not that I recognise the man from that description but ...) I was
referring proposals for legislation to ban strikes etc, rather than an
individual.

On May 30, 2:57*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Pyromancer wrote:

It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and
shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and
external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories.

It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic
and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external,
soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate,
privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist
incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the
purposes of getting elected.

Haha, win!

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On May 30, 4:42*pm, James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote :

Pyromancer wrote:

It's beginning to feel like 1979 all over again, with a chaotic and
shambling Labour administration, beset by problems internal and
external, soon to be swept into history by resurgent Tories.

It's beginning to feel like 1997 all over again, with a corrupt, chaotic
and shambling administration, beset by problems internal and external,
soon to be swept into history by a party led by a young, articulate,
privately educated slick PR man leading a party of traditionalist
incompetence that is briefly hidden under a fresh coat of paint for the
purposes of getting elected.

That analysis simultaneously flatters Brown now in comparison with Major in
1997 and Blair then compared with Cameron now.

Please explain how?

I'll accept "Because I'm a Tory, and hence am incapable of rational
thought", if you can't come up with anything else.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Fri, 29 May 2009 22:27:25 +0100
Tony Polson wrote:
or even better it goes broke and is dissolved.


I asked how it could be done now, in the 21st century. I'm really not
interested in your fantasies about Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, as
she is no longer relevant.

So you ask how it could be done, I present a perfectly workable answer and
caught on the hop thats the best response you can come up with? Oh dear,
C- I'm afraid, do try a bit harder.

B2003

wrote in news:db41e5eb-5f5c-4923-b399-4cd201636f44
@z5g2000vba.googlegroups.com:

Please explain how?

I'll accept "Because I'm a Tory, and hence am incapable of rational
thought", if you can't come up with anything else.

Given that second sentence, it's not worth the hassle.

(BTW, I'm not a Tory.)

MIG wrote in news:3729ffc2-18f8-4f56-9b25-
:

On 30 May, 13:44, James Farrar wrote:
MIG wrote in news:b38214db-b68f-4b51-
bbda-
:

Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do
any
work.

Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour.

With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses.

With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses.

I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems
to
think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a
better situation. *I really doubt it.

Defeating the odious bully Crow != defeating "the workers".

(Not that I recognise the man from that description but ...) I was
referring proposals for legislation to ban strikes etc, rather than an
individual.

OK then, defeating the trades unions != defeating the workers.

"James Farrar" wrote in message
. 4...

(BTW, I'm not a Tory.)

Well, you should be!

Ian

On 3 June, 07:38, James Farrar wrote:
MIG wrote in news:3729ffc2-18f8-4f56-9b25-
:







On 30 May, 13:44, James Farrar wrote:
MIG wrote in news:b38214db-b68f-4b51-
bbda-
:

Extreme 1: "workers" get paid loads of money and don't have to do
any
work.

Extreme 2: businesses pocket the proceeds of slave labour.

With 1, there's nothing to sell, and it collapses.

With 2, there's no one to buy anything, and it collapses.

I'm all in favour of cooperation, but on this group everyone seems
to
think that defeating one group and its interests will result in a
better situation. *I really doubt it.

Defeating the odious bully Crow != defeating "the workers".

(Not that I recognise the man from that description but ...) I was
referring proposals for legislation to ban strikes etc, rather than an
individual.

OK then, defeating the trades unions != defeating the workers.-

It's sadly true that more and more union officials are going for a
kind of subscription model, where "the union" is a separate body from
the workers and simply takes their money to donate to New Labour. A
bit like a bank or insurance company that never pays out.

However, that kind of union doesn't need to be defeated, because it
isn't fighting.

They way it should work is that the union IS the workers*, coming
together for their common interests, as a balance to the business old-
boys' networks that are working for a different bunch of common
interests.

Believe it or not, the RMT is far closer to the latter sort of model
than the majority of unions these days. It may not be perfect, but
it's still much much better. At least it does something other than
give its members' money to a government that it working against their
interests.

*The number of people who say "... and the union did nothing" and I
say "but you ARE the union".