<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't forget, in Britiain the Labour Party was Socialist (the party of Labour obviously), so us Brits (well me at least) don't share the same sort of close mental links between Communism and Socialism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Buh? What links? That they are both Left wing? Are you saying that anything left of centre is similar? Thats quite a generalisation. Its also wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fortunately (in my opinion) Margaret Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions and in the end Labour has had to go more towards the centre (if not all the way part it to be centre-right) to be elected. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take that back in time to 1979. Previously, Conservative governments had been conservative as well. Why else was it that the majority of nationisations happened post 79? Conservative governments had changed little from their Labour predecessors. Thatcher saw the (widely doccumented) sea change to the right and took her party in that direction to win in 79. If what you are saying is true, all post-war governments before Thatcher were elected by disaffected youths. The voting age wasn't dropped to 18 until the mid 60s. That means you're looking at 4 odd different cabinets all coming to power on a tide of leftist 21 year old youth votes. Nonsense. Having tried 10 years of Right wing Thatcherism, the country sea-changed again, and Blair came to power. Theres no denying he's centrist. Where then, does that fit into your scheme?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also just to point out to people in Britain, this is certainly not an American only thing. Need I remind you of this (the Mayday Riots of 2000)? And to cap it off they defaced The Cenotaph (Britain's War Memorial to its dead) Am I saying that this was the work of Socliasts/Communists/whatever? No, I'm merely saying that this sort of thing is not just an American phenominon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because causing public disorder and dishonouring the memorial to Britain's war dead proved once and for all that the youth vote would be for the left. Erm?
I'm sure that you have a similarly apt explanation for the poll tax riots, where ordinary middle class Thatcherites rebelled against an "unfair" tax. Of course, it must be because they were left wing youths in pipes and slippers to confuse the old bill.
I'm not saying that there are no Leftist youth voters today that won't change their leanings, and vote right in future. I'm not saying the reverse will always happen either. I am saying that what our cousins across the water see is not necessarily how the rest of the 1st world (yes, I am including the UK in that, just) sees it.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Nov 10 2003, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Nov 10 2003, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't forget, in Britiain the Labour Party was Socialist (the party of Labour obviously), so us Brits (well me at least) don't share the same sort of close mental links between Communism and Socialism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Buh? What links? That they are both Left wing? Are you saying that anything left of centre is similar? Thats quite a generalisation. Its also wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for that. What I said was that the Labour Party was Socialist. Not the Socialist Party.
Link: <a href='http://www.labour.org.uk/aboutlabour/' target='_blank'>http://www.labour.org.uk/aboutlabour/</a> "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." I was commenting on how other right wingers, notably the Americans amongst us discussion forumites, seem to be able to use the terms communism and socialism as interchangeable and that people in Britain don't see it the same way because of the Labour Party and its Socialist roots.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fortunately (in my opinion) Margaret Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions and in the end Labour has had to go more towards the centre (if not all the way part it to be centre-right) to be elected. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take that back in time to 1979. Previously, Conservative governments had been conservative as well. Why else was it that the majority of nationisations happened post 79? Conservative governments had changed little from their Labour predecessors. Thatcher saw the (widely doccumented) sea change to the right and took her party in that direction to win in 79. If what you are saying is true, all post-war governments before Thatcher were elected by disaffected youths. The voting age wasn't dropped to 18 until the mid 60s. That means you're looking at 4 odd different cabinets all coming to power on a tide of leftist 21 year old youth votes. Nonsense. Having tried 10 years of Right wing Thatcherism, the country sea-changed again, and Blair came to power. Theres no denying he's centrist. Where then, does that fit into your scheme? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Conservative Government (1979-91) privatised the previously nationalised gas, steel, and telecommunications companies.
I don't understand how you can say pre-1979 that Conservative governments had been conservative as well, and then Margaret Thatcher had to take the Party right to win in 1979, as if there was another party to the right of us that was going to steal all our votes.
I also don't see where I mention anything about disaffected youths being the largest majority of voters, or them being crucial to the success of any political party in any General Election. I was merely pointing out the move, by Labour, from its Socialist roots, towards the "Third Way" (<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2744133.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2744133.stm</a>) since Tony Blair became leader after the death of John Smith.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also just to point out to people in Britain, this is certainly not an American only thing. Need I remind you of this (the Mayday Riots of 2000)? And to cap it off they defaced The Cenotaph (Britain's War Memorial to its dead) Am I saying that this was the work of Socliasts/Communists/whatever? No, I'm merely saying that this sort of thing is not just an American phenominon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because causing public disorder and dishonouring the memorial to Britain's war dead proved once and for all that the youth vote would be for the left. Erm? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you see I was replying to Monse's claim that I quoted at the start, I was not saying that this was proof that all the youth would vote for the left but that it is not only America that has had a rise in the number of left wingers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sure that you have a similarly apt explanation for the poll tax riots, where ordinary middle class Thatcherites rebelled against an "unfair" tax. Of course, it must be because they were left wing youths in pipes and slippers to confuse the old bill. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Mayday riots have very little, if anything, in common with the Poll Tax riots, as far as I can see other than the fact that they were riots in London against the government of the time. Also, thank you for stereotyping me as a man who knows nothing about the Left wing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that there are no Leftist youth voters today that won't change their leanings, and vote right in future. I'm not saying the reverse will always happen either. I am saying that what our cousins across the water see is not necessarily how the rest of the 1st world (yes, I am including the UK in that, just) sees it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we were both, basically, saying the same thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thanks for that. What I said was that the Labour Party was Socialist. Not the Socialist Party.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Possibly I misunderstood what you meant by "so us Brits (well me at least) don't share the same sort of close mental links between Communism and Socialism". I was saying that its entirely wrong to equate the two. There's no need to sugar coat it. The American perception of Socialism and Communism as bedfellows is just plain wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand how you can say pre-1979 that Conservative governments had been conservative as well, and then Margaret Thatcher had to take the Party right to win in 1979, as if there was another party to the right of us that was going to steal all our votes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't, what I said was all post war Conservative governments had been conservative as well. Thatcher merely recognised that the mentality of the country as a whole had shifted right. By dispensing with the post-war views of Conservatism (even going as far as adopting the perjorative "Tory") and by positioning her party to the right (by selecting right wingers for her shadow cabinet, and through her 1979 manifesto) she was able to take advantage of this sea change. There never was another party to the right of the Conservatives, with any real legitimacy that could have stolen votes, but by moving away from Socialism and adopting the right and centre right, Maggie was able to win the heart of "sierra man". This isn't something that I'm suggesting, its widely documentd and accepted. See "Modern British Politics" by Beer. (as well as any number of other texts).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also don't see where I mention anything about disaffected youths being the largest majority of voters, or them being crucial to the success of any political party in any General Election. I was merely pointing out the move, by Labour, from its Socialist roots, towards the "Third Way" (<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2744133.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2744133.stm</a>) since Tony Blair became leader after the death of John Smith.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the thrust of the discussion is though is that Socialsim is a fad that you grow out of. Therefore Socialist governments must have been elected by those following this fad. Therefore Socialist goverments have been elected by the young. Therefore the young must be the largest segment of voters. Its a logical progression, but one I am saying is totally false.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you see I was replying to Monse's claim that I quoted at the start, I was not saying that this was proof that all the youth would vote for the left but that it is not only America that has had a rise in the number of left wingers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was asking you to justify the oppinon that those desecrating the cenotaph did so to express left wing views. You may have been disagreeing with MonsE but I'm rejecting the whole concept.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Mayday riots have very little, if anything, in common with the Poll Tax riots, as far as I can see other than the fact that they were riots in London against the government of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kinda. They were public rebellion against a government for its less than socialist policies. One was by the youth, one by the middle classes. I was saying its wrong to suggest that the young are the only ones willing to disagree publicly with the government of the time to support Socialism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, thank you for stereotyping me as a man who knows nothing about the Left wing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I only argue against (or for) what you write here. If its sarcasm (which doesn't translate well to print) then any stereotyping is inferred, not implied.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So we were both, basically, saying the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arbitrarily, yes. The devil, however, is in the details.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Possibly I misunderstood what you meant by "so us Brits (well me at least) don't share the same sort of close mental links between Communism and Socialism". I was saying that its entirely wrong to equate the two. There's no need to sugar coat it. The American perception of Socialism and Communism as bedfellows is just plain wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't, what I said was all post war Conservative governments had been conservative as well. Thatcher merely recognised that the mentality of the country as a whole had shifted right. By dispensing with the post-war views of Conservatism (even going as far as adopting the perjorative "Tory") and by positioning her party to the right (by selecting right wingers for her shadow cabinet, and through her 1979 manifesto) she was able to take advantage of this sea change. There never was another party to the right of the Conservatives, with any real legitimacy that could have stolen votes, but by moving away from Socialism and adopting the right and centre right, Maggie was able to win the heart of "sierra man". This isn't something that I'm suggesting, its widely documentd and accepted. See "Modern British Politics" by Beer. (as well as any number of other texts).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the Conservative Party adopted the term "Tory" after all the Tory Party is was the Conservatives were. (If this was not the point of your remark then I admit my ignorance of the word "perjorative" and that I couldn't find it in the dictionary, I did find pejorative but this doesn't appear to make sense)
I also agree with Margaret Thatcher appointed right wingers, but I feel this was more to do with her being right wing herself rather than for vote winning, I mean the Labour Party was making a complete arse up at the time (my own personal opinion) and the 1978-79 'Winter of Discontent' pretty much sealed the Labour Government's fate at that time. It is often said that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What the thrust of the discussion is though is that Socialsim is a fad that you grow out of. Therefore Socialist governments must have been elected by those following this fad. Therefore Socialist goverments have been elected by the young. Therefore the young must be the largest segment of voters. Its a logical progression, but one I am saying is totally false.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would never say that, after all I have a 76 year old grandfather who is a commited Socialist (and supporter of the Labour Party), what I will say is that there are quite a few people who like to rebel against the 'system' and all that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was asking you to justify the oppinon that those desecrating the cenotaph did so to express left wing views. You may have been disagreeing with MonsE but I'm rejecting the whole concept.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going by memory, I can't find any pictures on the internet otherwise, that there was a Hammer and Sickle pained in red on the side of it and I remember seeing as clear as anything, although I will retract that point from thsi debate, if not from my mind, because of this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kinda. They were public rebellion against a government for its less than socialist policies. One was by the youth, one by the middle classes. I was saying its wrong to suggest that the young are the only ones willing to disagree publicly with the government of the time to support Socialism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, but you must admit that the vast majority of the protesters at the May Day riots were berret wearing university students (including a few from public schools).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Arbitrarily, yes. The devil, however, is in the details.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Such is the way of the world, alas. Can't we all just get along?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think the Conservative Party adopted the term "Tory" after all the Tory Party is was the Conservatives were. (If this was not the point of your remark then I admit my ignorance of the word "perjorative" and that I couldn't find it in the dictionary, I did find pejorative but this doesn't appear to make sense)
I also agree with Margaret Thatcher appointed right wingers, but I feel this was more to do with her being right wing herself rather than for vote winning, I mean the Labour Party was making a complete arse up at the time (my own personal opinion) and the 1978-79 'Winter of Discontent' pretty much sealed the Labour Government's fate at that time. It is often said that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, look into the history of the word "Tory". It was used as a term of abuse for the conservatives - yes a pejortaive term. When Thatcher was called it, instead of reacting to it as abuse, she adopted the term.
I suppose its impossible to know whether Mrs T was genuinely a right-winger or just perceptive. As a modern-day parallel I'd suggest looking at Howerd. Traditionally a right winger, now he has a sniff of the election race he's positioning himself to the centre to capture the biggest number of votes. In terms of the winter of discontent, it proves my point. If Callahagn had "lost" in 1979, it wouldn't have mattered if Mrs T had come in as a revolutionary right winger, or Whitelaw had stepped up with the same brand of conservatism the Conservatives had been serving up for the previous 30 years. The "sea change" to the right I'm talking about is a very widely documented phenomenon. Seriously.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm going by memory, I can't find any pictures on the internet otherwise, that there was a Hammer and Sickle pained in red on the side of it and I remember seeing as clear as anything, although I will retract that point from thsi debate, if not from my mind, because of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok. I'll drop that too. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Indeed, but you must admit that the vast majority of the protesters at the May Day riots were berret wearing university students (including a few from public schools).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes the Public school, tradtional hotbed of left-wing activity... hehe. Seriously. What may have started out as a group of left wingers, including the young, travellers, hard-leftists etc. was quickly hijacked by looters with no real point to make. I'd say that in the majority of cases like this you see more young people because they're not constrained by the same social and economic pressures as the rest of us working joes. Not that they fell any more or less strongly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Such is the way of the world, alas. Can't we all just get along? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Hug*
.....I hope thats a wallet digging into my thigh.....
Comments
Buh? What links? That they are both Left wing? Are you saying that anything left of centre is similar? Thats quite a generalisation. Its also wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fortunately (in my opinion) Margaret Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions and in the end Labour has had to go more towards the centre (if not all the way part it to be centre-right) to be elected. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take that back in time to 1979. Previously, Conservative governments had been conservative as well. Why else was it that the majority of nationisations happened post 79? Conservative governments had changed little from their Labour predecessors. Thatcher saw the (widely doccumented) sea change to the right and took her party in that direction to win in 79. If what you are saying is true, all post-war governments before Thatcher were elected by disaffected youths. The voting age wasn't dropped to 18 until the mid 60s. That means you're looking at 4 odd different cabinets all coming to power on a tide of leftist 21 year old youth votes. Nonsense.
Having tried 10 years of Right wing Thatcherism, the country sea-changed again, and Blair came to power. Theres no denying he's centrist. Where then, does that fit into your scheme?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Also just to point out to people in Britain, this is certainly not an American only thing.
Need I remind you of this (the Mayday Riots of 2000)?
And to cap it off they defaced The Cenotaph (Britain's War Memorial to its dead)
Am I saying that this was the work of Socliasts/Communists/whatever? No, I'm merely saying that this sort of thing is not just an American phenominon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because causing public disorder and dishonouring the memorial to Britain's war dead proved once and for all that the youth vote would be for the left. Erm?
I'm sure that you have a similarly apt explanation for the poll tax riots, where ordinary middle class Thatcherites rebelled against an "unfair" tax. Of course, it must be because they were left wing youths in pipes and slippers to confuse the old bill.
I'm not saying that there are no Leftist youth voters today that won't change their leanings, and vote right in future. I'm not saying the reverse will always happen either. I am saying that what our cousins across the water see is not necessarily how the rest of the 1st world (yes, I am including the UK in that, just) sees it.
Buh? What links? That they are both Left wing? Are you saying that anything left of centre is similar? Thats quite a generalisation. Its also wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for that. What I said was that the Labour Party was Socialist. Not the Socialist Party.
Link: <a href='http://www.labour.org.uk/aboutlabour/' target='_blank'>http://www.labour.org.uk/aboutlabour/</a> "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." I was commenting on how other right wingers, notably the Americans amongst us discussion forumites, seem to be able to use the terms communism and socialism as interchangeable and that people in Britain don't see it the same way because of the Labour Party and its Socialist roots.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fortunately (in my opinion) Margaret Thatcher destroyed the power of the unions and in the end Labour has had to go more towards the centre (if not all the way part it to be centre-right) to be elected. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take that back in time to 1979. Previously, Conservative governments had been conservative as well. Why else was it that the majority of nationisations happened post 79? Conservative governments had changed little from their Labour predecessors. Thatcher saw the (widely doccumented) sea change to the right and took her party in that direction to win in 79. If what you are saying is true, all post-war governments before Thatcher were elected by disaffected youths. The voting age wasn't dropped to 18 until the mid 60s. That means you're looking at 4 odd different cabinets all coming to power on a tide of leftist 21 year old youth votes. Nonsense.
Having tried 10 years of Right wing Thatcherism, the country sea-changed again, and Blair came to power. Theres no denying he's centrist. Where then, does that fit into your scheme?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Conservative Government (1979-91) privatised the previously nationalised gas, steel, and telecommunications companies.
I don't understand how you can say pre-1979 that Conservative governments had been conservative as well, and then Margaret Thatcher had to take the Party right to win in 1979, as if there was another party to the right of us that was going to steal all our votes.
I also don't see where I mention anything about disaffected youths being the largest majority of voters, or them being crucial to the success of any political party in any General Election. I was merely pointing out the move, by Labour, from its Socialist roots, towards the "Third Way" (<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2744133.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2744133.stm</a>) since Tony Blair became leader after the death of John Smith.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Also just to point out to people in Britain, this is certainly not an American only thing.
Need I remind you of this (the Mayday Riots of 2000)?
And to cap it off they defaced The Cenotaph (Britain's War Memorial to its dead)
Am I saying that this was the work of Socliasts/Communists/whatever? No, I'm merely saying that this sort of thing is not just an American phenominon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because causing public disorder and dishonouring the memorial to Britain's war dead proved once and for all that the youth vote would be for the left. Erm? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you see I was replying to Monse's claim that I quoted at the start, I was not saying that this was proof that all the youth would vote for the left but that it is not only America that has had a rise in the number of left wingers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sure that you have a similarly apt explanation for the poll tax riots, where ordinary middle class Thatcherites rebelled against an "unfair" tax. Of course, it must be because they were left wing youths in pipes and slippers to confuse the old bill. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Mayday riots have very little, if anything, in common with the Poll Tax riots, as far as I can see other than the fact that they were riots in London against the government of the time. Also, thank you for stereotyping me as a man who knows nothing about the Left wing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that there are no Leftist youth voters today that won't change their leanings, and vote right in future. I'm not saying the reverse will always happen either. I am saying that what our cousins across the water see is not necessarily how the rest of the 1st world (yes, I am including the UK in that, just) sees it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we were both, basically, saying the same thing.
Possibly I misunderstood what you meant by "so us Brits (well me at least) don't share the same sort of close mental links between Communism and Socialism". I was saying that its entirely wrong to equate the two. There's no need to sugar coat it. The American perception of Socialism and Communism as bedfellows is just plain wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't understand how you can say pre-1979 that Conservative governments had been conservative as well, and then Margaret Thatcher had to take the Party right to win in 1979, as if there was another party to the right of us that was going to steal all our votes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't, what I said was all post war Conservative governments had been conservative as well. Thatcher merely recognised that the mentality of the country as a whole had shifted right. By dispensing with the post-war views of Conservatism (even going as far as adopting the perjorative "Tory") and by positioning her party to the right (by selecting right wingers for her shadow cabinet, and through her 1979 manifesto) she was able to take advantage of this sea change. There never was another party to the right of the Conservatives, with any real legitimacy that could have stolen votes, but by moving away from Socialism and adopting the right and centre right, Maggie was able to win the heart of "sierra man". This isn't something that I'm suggesting, its widely documentd and accepted. See "Modern British Politics" by Beer. (as well as any number of other texts).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also don't see where I mention anything about disaffected youths being the largest majority of voters, or them being crucial to the success of any political party in any General Election. I was merely pointing out the move, by Labour, from its Socialist roots, towards the "Third Way" (<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2744133.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2744133.stm</a>) since Tony Blair became leader after the death of John Smith.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the thrust of the discussion is though is that Socialsim is a fad that you grow out of. Therefore Socialist governments must have been elected by those following this fad. Therefore Socialist goverments have been elected by the young. Therefore the young must be the largest segment of voters. Its a logical progression, but one I am saying is totally false.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you see I was replying to Monse's claim that I quoted at the start, I was not saying that this was proof that all the youth would vote for the left but that it is not only America that has had a rise in the number of left wingers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was asking you to justify the oppinon that those desecrating the cenotaph did so to express left wing views. You may have been disagreeing with MonsE but I'm rejecting the whole concept.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Mayday riots have very little, if anything, in common with the Poll Tax riots, as far as I can see other than the fact that they were riots in London against the government of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kinda. They were public rebellion against a government for its less than socialist policies. One was by the youth, one by the middle classes. I was saying its wrong to suggest that the young are the only ones willing to disagree publicly with the government of the time to support Socialism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, thank you for stereotyping me as a man who knows nothing about the Left wing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only argue against (or for) what you write here. If its sarcasm (which doesn't translate well to print) then any stereotyping is inferred, not implied.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So we were both, basically, saying the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arbitrarily, yes. The devil, however, is in the details.
/edit, spelling, ffs!
Indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't, what I said was all post war Conservative governments had been conservative as well. Thatcher merely recognised that the mentality of the country as a whole had shifted right. By dispensing with the post-war views of Conservatism (even going as far as adopting the perjorative "Tory") and by positioning her party to the right (by selecting right wingers for her shadow cabinet, and through her 1979 manifesto) she was able to take advantage of this sea change. There never was another party to the right of the Conservatives, with any real legitimacy that could have stolen votes, but by moving away from Socialism and adopting the right and centre right, Maggie was able to win the heart of "sierra man". This isn't something that I'm suggesting, its widely documentd and accepted. See "Modern British Politics" by Beer. (as well as any number of other texts).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the Conservative Party adopted the term "Tory" after all the Tory Party is was the Conservatives were. (If this was not the point of your remark then I admit my ignorance of the word "perjorative" and that I couldn't find it in the dictionary, I did find pejorative but this doesn't appear to make sense)
I also agree with Margaret Thatcher appointed right wingers, but I feel this was more to do with her being right wing herself rather than for vote winning, I mean the Labour Party was making a complete arse up at the time (my own personal opinion) and the 1978-79 'Winter of Discontent' pretty much sealed the Labour Government's fate at that time.
It is often said that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What the thrust of the discussion is though is that Socialsim is a fad that you grow out of. Therefore Socialist governments must have been elected by those following this fad. Therefore Socialist goverments have been elected by the young. Therefore the young must be the largest segment of voters. Its a logical progression, but one I am saying is totally false.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would never say that, after all I have a 76 year old grandfather who is a commited Socialist (and supporter of the Labour Party), what I will say is that there are quite a few people who like to rebel against the 'system' and all that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was asking you to justify the oppinon that those desecrating the cenotaph did so to express left wing views. You may have been disagreeing with MonsE but I'm rejecting the whole concept.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going by memory, I can't find any pictures on the internet otherwise, that there was a Hammer and Sickle pained in red on the side of it and I remember seeing as clear as anything, although I will retract that point from thsi debate, if not from my mind, because of this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kinda. They were public rebellion against a government for its less than socialist policies. One was by the youth, one by the middle classes. I was saying its wrong to suggest that the young are the only ones willing to disagree publicly with the government of the time to support Socialism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed, but you must admit that the vast majority of the protesters at the May Day riots were berret wearing university students (including a few from public schools).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Arbitrarily, yes. The devil, however, is in the details.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Such is the way of the world, alas. Can't we all just get along?
Sorted!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think the Conservative Party adopted the term "Tory" after all the Tory Party is was the Conservatives were. (If this was not the point of your remark then I admit my ignorance of the word "perjorative" and that I couldn't find it in the dictionary, I did find pejorative but this doesn't appear to make sense)
I also agree with Margaret Thatcher appointed right wingers, but I feel this was more to do with her being right wing herself rather than for vote winning, I mean the Labour Party was making a complete arse up at the time (my own personal opinion) and the 1978-79 'Winter of Discontent' pretty much sealed the Labour Government's fate at that time.
It is often said that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, look into the history of the word "Tory". It was used as a term of abuse for the conservatives - yes a pejortaive term. When Thatcher was called it, instead of reacting to it as abuse, she adopted the term.
I suppose its impossible to know whether Mrs T was genuinely a right-winger or just perceptive. As a modern-day parallel I'd suggest looking at Howerd. Traditionally a right winger, now he has a sniff of the election race he's positioning himself to the centre to capture the biggest number of votes.
In terms of the winter of discontent, it proves my point. If Callahagn had "lost" in 1979, it wouldn't have mattered if Mrs T had come in as a revolutionary right winger, or Whitelaw had stepped up with the same brand of conservatism the Conservatives had been serving up for the previous 30 years. The "sea change" to the right I'm talking about is a very widely documented phenomenon. Seriously.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm going by memory, I can't find any pictures on the internet otherwise, that there was a Hammer and Sickle pained in red on the side of it and I remember seeing as clear as anything, although I will retract that point from thsi debate, if not from my mind, because of this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok. I'll drop that too. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Indeed, but you must admit that the vast majority of the protesters at the May Day riots were berret wearing university students (including a few from public schools).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes the Public school, tradtional hotbed of left-wing activity... hehe. Seriously. What may have started out as a group of left wingers, including the young, travellers, hard-leftists etc. was quickly hijacked by looters with no real point to make. I'd say that in the majority of cases like this you see more young people because they're not constrained by the same social and economic pressures as the rest of us working joes. Not that they fell any more or less strongly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Such is the way of the world, alas. Can't we all just get along? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Hug*
.....I hope thats a wallet digging into my thigh.....