Turn on thread page Beta

The Commons Bar Mk VIII - MHoC Chat Thread watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Been a year since Baroness Thatcher died.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Do we not get a new thread for a new parliament?
    It's never worked like that- it's the 10k posts mark that gets it shut and a new thread started

    (Original post by meenu89)
    Been a year since Baroness Thatcher died.
    Well, that really rams home how late easter is - not broken up for easter yet this year where as last year easter holidays had come and gone


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Been a year since Baroness Thatcher died.
    We'll probably get a lecture on her and her great deeds from our Tory-worshipping head. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've always said: The explanation for the big difference in how Thatcher is remembered and how Tony Benn are remembered is that Thatcher had a tendency to succeed where Benn had a tendency to fail. Had Tony Benn somehow a) ended up in charge of the Labour party and b) this party had, somehow, miraculously got into power, he wouldn't be remembered anywhere near as fondly.

    Political failure is more-or-less the calling card of the left, sadly. They'd rather "struggle" and "fight" and all these other bizarrely misappropriated military synonyms than actually offer a proper, albeit less radical, alternative that gets votes. That's why the left hates Blair so much - because he compromised in order to win. Remember that, next time you see a massive protest organised by McCluskey where their demands are pay rises, pension improvements and the renationalisation of the railways - they know they won't get it, but they'd rather be seen fighting than actually get stuff done. It's the same with Bennites - it's all fun and games idolising him and thinking about this amazing alternate reality where he got his way. The rest of us will remember Thatcher, being glad that she did. There's no need for lectures or intellectualising; there are no what-if's to uncover.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I've always said: The explanation for the big difference in how Thatcher is remembered and how Tony Benn are remembered is that Thatcher had a tendency to succeed where Benn had a tendency to fail. Had Tony Benn somehow a) ended up in charge of the Labour party and b) this party had, somehow, miraculously got into power, he wouldn't be remembered anywhere near as fondly.

    Political failure is more-or-less the calling card of the left, sadly. They'd rather "struggle" and "fight" and all these other bizarrely misappropriated military synonyms than actually offer a proper, albeit less radical, alternative that gets votes. That's why the left hates Blair so much - because he compromised in order to win. Remember that, next time you see a massive protest organised by McCluskey where their demands are pay rises, pension improvements and the renationalisation of the railways - they know they won't get it, but they'd rather be seen fighting than actually get stuff done. It's the same with Bennites - it's all fun and games idolising him and thinking about this amazing alternate reality where he got his way. The rest of us will remember Thatcher, being glad that she did. There's no need for lectures or intellectualising; there are no what-if's to uncover.
    Brilliant post!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazzini)
    We'll probably get a lecture on her and her great deeds from our Tory-worshipping head. :rolleyes:
    Now you've bloody gone and done it! You set the rock off
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I've always said: The explanation for the big difference in how Thatcher is remembered and how Tony Benn are remembered is that Thatcher had a tendency to succeed where Benn had a tendency to fail. Had Tony Benn somehow a) ended up in charge of the Labour party and b) this party had, somehow, miraculously got into power, he wouldn't be remembered anywhere near as fondly.

    Political failure is more-or-less the calling card of the left, sadly. They'd rather "struggle" and "fight" and all these other bizarrely misappropriated military synonyms than actually offer a proper, albeit less radical, alternative that gets votes. That's why the left hates Blair so much - because he compromised in order to win. Remember that, next time you see a massive protest organised by McCluskey where their demands are pay rises, pension improvements and the renationalisation of the railways - they know they won't get it, but they'd rather be seen fighting than actually get stuff done. It's the same with Bennites - it's all fun and games idolising him and thinking about this amazing alternate reality where he got his way. The rest of us will remember Thatcher, being glad that she did. There's no need for lectures or intellectualising; there are no what-if's to uncover.
    Good to see you back. Brilliant post.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Been a year since Baroness Thatcher died.
    Next week will be 25 years since the deaths of 96 people at Hillsborough.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Now you've bloody gone and done it! You set the rock off
    Sorry! :ahhhhh: :hide:

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Next week will be 25 years since the deaths of 96 people at Hillsborough.
    20 years from the Rwandan Genocide this week if i'm not mistaken. God forbid something like this happens again.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    20 years from the Rwandan Genocide this week if i'm not mistaken. God forbid something like this happens again.
    Indeed. That being said i don't think it would be avoided even today, people are too unwilling to prevent violence in other countries. Apathy and appeasement disgust me when it comes to foreign affairs. We even have people being apologists for Putin.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Indeed. That being said i don't think it would be avoided even today, people are too unwilling to prevent violence in other countries. Apathy and appeasement disgust me when it comes to foreign affairs. We even have people being apologists for Putin.
    Aye, it's all well and good saying what a tragedy it was but nothing ever seems to change. Richer countries would sooner see these tragedies happen again before spending money to prevent them, appalling.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Superunknown17)
    Aye, it's all well and good saying what a tragedy it was but nothing ever seems to change. Richer countries would sooner see these tragedies happen again before spending money to prevent them, appalling.
    I don't really blame the rich countries themselves, we can't give unlimited economic aid at the expense of our own citizens. Rather though they should actively prevent atrocities like Rwanda however i'm a little surprised you'd agree with that given that socialists in general opposed western intervention in Syria.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Indeed. That being said i don't think it would be avoided even today, people are too unwilling to prevent violence in other countries. Apathy and appeasement disgust me when it comes to foreign affairs. We even have people being apologists for Putin.
    Pacifism for me more comes down to whether or not it would likely bring any benefit to the region or to it's allies.

    Take Crimea, considering Germany (so presumably the EU) will likely take a gentle approach to Russia considering their need for Russian gas, if we were to intervene on behalf of Europe, who would stand with us?

    Then we directly invade Crimea and spark a conflict that will compromise western relations for years. Unfortunately the only solution I can see is financial disincentives - which will likely be ineffective.

    As for Rwanda, and in general to the region, I can just imagine a similar problem to Iraq or Afghanistan, long drawn out conflicts without much headway. The genocide was unforgivable but aren't the Tutsi now in power? Does the West have a responsibility to look after the Hutu? Considering we stood back and let them massacre the Tutsis when they were in power?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I don't really blame the rich countries themselves, we can't give unlimited economic aid at the expense of our own citizens. Rather though they should actively prevent atrocities like Rwanda however i'm a little surprised you'd agree with that given that socialists in general opposed western intervention in Syria.
    The amount we give is less than 1% I believe, the last time I checked anyway, I think we have a duty to support countries that are struggling overseas, I doubt it has very much effect on our own citizens but makes a big difference to those countries.

    I'm not arguing for intervention here. (though not completely opposed it, I tend to lean away from intervention) .Intervention usually does more damage than good in my opinion and it opens up other obligations as TBM said.

    Also, just as a disclaimer, this is my view and not the party's, obviously.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I've always said: The explanation for the big difference in how Thatcher is remembered and how Tony Benn are remembered is that Thatcher had a tendency to succeed where Benn had a tendency to fail. Had Tony Benn somehow a) ended up in charge of the Labour party and b) this party had, somehow, miraculously got into power, he wouldn't be remembered anywhere near as fondly.

    Political failure is more-or-less the calling card of the left, sadly. They'd rather "struggle" and "fight" and all these other bizarrely misappropriated military synonyms than actually offer a proper, albeit less radical, alternative that gets votes. That's why the left hates Blair so much - because he compromised in order to win. Remember that, next time you see a massive protest organised by McCluskey where their demands are pay rises, pension improvements and the renationalisation of the railways - they know they won't get it, but they'd rather be seen fighting than actually get stuff done. It's the same with Bennites - it's all fun and games idolising him and thinking about this amazing alternate reality where he got his way. The rest of us will remember Thatcher, being glad that she did. There's no need for lectures or intellectualising; there are no what-if's to uncover.
    Interesting, I think this has something to do with the different attitudes between right wing and left wing. Right wing is all about personal success, your self-determination, thus it's no surprise Thatcher's attitude is more get up and go. Left wing is more about promoting equality in a society which (post-Thatcher) hasn't supported it 100%. Thus a struggle is more appropriate considering to succeed we have to promote something that is hated by many.

    No surprise that hardcore lefties detest Blair considering he took a powerful left-wing party into the centre, undermining some of the ideals the Labour Party was founded on.

    I don't understand your point about unions. How do they "get stuff done?" Their job is to negotiate better terms with their employers, thus to "struggle" is in their job description.

    But yes, the difference is that Thatcher's strength won her the voting majority. Benn wasn't prepared to enter the dirty side of politics, he didn't want to compromise his beliefs in an equal and fair society just to climb the ladder. That idea of not putting yourself before others is a key component of why I am a supporter of Benn, something different to the right wing attitude.

    Excellent points btw.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Pacifism for me more comes down to whether or not it would likely bring any benefit to the region or to it's allies.

    Take Crimea, considering Germany (so presumably the EU) will likely take a gentle approach to Russia considering their need for Russian gas, if we were to intervene on behalf of Europe, who would stand with us?

    Then we directly invade Crimea and spark a conflict that will compromise western relations for years. Unfortunately the only solution I can see is financial disincentives - which will likely be ineffective.

    As for Rwanda, and in general to the region, I can just imagine a similar problem to Iraq or Afghanistan, long drawn out conflicts without much headway. The genocide was unforgivable but aren't the Tutsi now in power? Does the West have a responsibility to look after the Hutu? Considering we stood back and let them massacre the Tutsis when they were in power?
    Crimea's not the best example of my support for military action given that it's a direct Russian annex versus their proxy influence in Syria. British strength lies in it's air and naval forces (i don't really agree with long ground campaigns after Iraq and Afghanistan - Libya is a better example of what we should do). As such in that instance i do agree with crippling them economically instead. Likely with that lack of political will, as seen in Iran though they can be highly effective if unleashed fully.

    In regards to not much headway i'd point out that we were victorious in regards to our primary aims within months, the problem was we dismantled their militaries and stuck around rather than hand the reigns to neighboring countries. I'm also not talking retrospectively so it does not matter who's in power, i'm simply asserting the pitfalls of such a pacifist attitude. Pacifism is great in a lovey, dovey world where nobody does more than posture or take minor regions in non-genocidal ways. For situations like Syria or Rwanda, pacifism condemns millions when the reality is that a quick, bloody intervention from the west would be far better in the long run so long as lessons from the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan were learnt.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)

    No surprise that hardcore lefties detest Blair considering he took a powerful left-wing party into the centre, undermining some of the ideals the Labour Party was founded on.

    Excellent points btw.
    Just on this point i'm interested in what you regard as powerful. The whole point of Blair (and Smith to a lesser degree) was that the left no longer had power by the time Thatcher had left office, the debate was over and the verdict from the electorate at large given. The only way the left could have regained office would be to wait the Tories out but as we saw with Cameron who lacked a real vision for the electorate to tap into himself, that may not have been enough to deliver Labour a majority in 1997 (albeit their self destruction guaranteed opposition).

    Also being on the left and growing up in a post-Thatcher world i suspect you underestimate just how hated the union links to Labour were even in the 90's. Rightly or wrongly (a firm rightly for me but that's another debate) the electorate at large despised the unions for what they did to the country in the 70's. This was no doubt something else that spurred Blair to weaken their influence somewhat.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Just on this point i'm interested in what you regard as powerful. The whole point of Blair (and Smith to a lesser degree) was that the left no longer had power by the time Thatcher had left office, the debate was over and the verdict from the electorate at large given. The only way the left could have regained office would be to wait the Tories out but as we saw with Cameron who lacked a real vision for the electorate to tap into himself, that may not have been enough to deliver Labour a majority in 1997 (albeit their self destruction guaranteed opposition).

    Also being on the left and growing up in a post-Thatcher world i suspect you underestimate just how hated the union links to Labour were even in the 90's. Rightly or wrongly (a firm rightly for me but that's another debate) the electorate at large despised the unions for what they did to the country in the 70's. This was no doubt something else that spurred Blair to weaken their influence somewhat.
    By powerful I simply mean that Labour was the key left party - a prime Labour Party soaks up the unions, the working class and has the backing of the middle class, who support high tax rates (including paying higher tax rates themselves) to justify better quality public services (common Scandinavian attitude now)

    The workers will always be the decisive voters. By pushing Labour central he was seemingly moving away from the union votes, I.e the workers votes.

    I grew up in a household where union members = workers, winter of discontent not really discussed but Thatchers destruction of the trade unions was highlighted. Her attitude towards the Irish hunger strikers nuked any chance of support amongst my family.

    And yes, you've hit a fair point there. The historic Labour fan base still (I imagine) supported unions. I don't see why Thatchers policies would have changed that. The WoD lost the middle ground to the Tories, however I did assume that Labour remained the employees party, rather than the employers party.

    And as I say, Blair's move makes political sense, probably not welcomed by the original fan base however (which I have assumed remained on during thatchers years, which you imply otherwise)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Interesting, I think this has something to do with the different attitudes between right wing and left wing. Right wing is all about personal success, your self-determination, thus it's no surprise Thatcher's attitude is more get up and go. Left wing is more about promoting equality in a society which (post-Thatcher) hasn't supported it 100%. Thus a struggle is more appropriate considering to succeed we have to promote something that is hated by many.

    No surprise that hardcore lefties detest Blair considering he took a powerful left-wing party into the centre, undermining some of the ideals the Labour Party was founded on.

    I don't understand your point about unions. How do they "get stuff done?" Their job is to negotiate better terms with their employers, thus to "struggle" is in their job description.

    But yes, the difference is that Thatcher's strength won her the voting majority. Benn wasn't prepared to enter the dirty side of politics, he didn't want to compromise his beliefs in an equal and fair society just to climb the ladder. That idea of not putting yourself before others is a key component of why I am a supporter of Benn, something different to the right wing attitude.

    Excellent points btw.
    Re: Unions, there's a reason, I think, that the news that Bob Crow died was met with such across-the-board condolences, in a way that basically no other Union leader would be. In fact, how many people in the street could even name another Union leader, other than maybe McCluskey? I think the reason for this is because Crow was outspoken, vocal but actually got his members better deals - he didn't waste time organising marches with demands he knew could never be met (Though I think he did turn up in Hyde Park at some point). He fought tooth and nail for his members' benefit and I think that's why people even on the right admired him - they might not think the cause he was fighting for was a legitimate one (ie, they might not agree with him that de-staffing ticket offices would lead to worse safety) but they acknowledged that he was very good at the job he had. There aren't any other union leaders like that, really. Not today, anyway. So what I Said re: the unions wasn't really that they're trying to get better circumstances for their staff - it's that they're not really trying, not really. Bob Crow tried, McClusky and the rest care more about the political side, about appearing to care. I think, anyway.

    I think compromise is, generally, a necessary component of any political movement that doesn't involve muskets and vanguards of the people. Even Thatcher wasn't nearly as radical in her first parliament - it wasn't til 1983 when she actually increased her majority by three and a half times - that she really kicked the slightly more radical stuff into gear. But she had that luxury, since she won an election. The similarity here, between Benn and the unions as I see them today, is that they both had the opportunity to achieve some result if they were willing to see it watered down somewhat (possibly a lot). The alternative is not seeing any result. This is, in fact, why I actually admire the Lib Dems (in real life - not the loons in here). They did stuff they knew would be unpopular because it allowed them a sniff at the legislative procedure and allowed them to get a few bits of legislation through (raising the tax threshold, paternity leave etc). People bemoaned Clegg for turning his back on his pre-election pledges, and of course I can understand that - but the reality is that Clegg has achieved more than any Liberal leader since the war. He's got more Liberal bills passed. Blair might not have re-opened mines and renationalised swathes of our infrastructure, but he did double spending on the NHS and education, he did introduce a minimum wage, he did raise the national pension etc. And he could only do these things because he won elections. Benn will forever go down as being remembered for his lofty ambitions and his lack of results. It's a sad fact that the left has to face - that Blair did more for people than Benn ever did, because you can't govern from opposition.

    Edit: Also, hello everyone, good to see you're all not dead yet.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.