You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in… grotesque chaos…
– British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock on the party’s far-left “Militant Tendency” movement
Thirty years ago in Britain, the election of Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party signaled not only the defeat of the Labour Party, but also a crisis for the dominant economic and social paradigm of the day, Keynesianism . Keynesian economics had been essential in powering Britain and the world’s post-war economic recovery and in providing answers to the major problems of the time: unemployment, lack of basic education and inequality. Unfortunately, Keynesian social democracy did not have answers to the demands of a new generation: lack of consumer choice, technical competition, economic globalism, inner city crime and stagflation. In the wake of Labour’s 1979 election defeat, the party entered into a period of prolonged crisis, a debilitating conflict between left, right and center that nearly put the party out of business. Don’t look now, but history may be repeating itself across the pond thirty years later…
The Leadership
Labour's Michael Foot and current GOP leaders
Following the Tories’ overwhelming victory in 1979, Labour elected Michael Foot leader. A well-respected and highly regarded MP and former journalist, Foot was an unabashed socialist. Well liked, Foot was thought of as out-of-touch, holding positions that were increasingly irrelevant to the problems of the 1980s and increasingly unable to manage a Labour Party spinning out of control.
* * * * *
The Fifth Columnists
Labour's Gang of Four and our Republican RINOs
Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, David Owen and Bill Rodgers despaired of the party’s left-wing direction and were hounded by far-left activists inside the party. Criticized for being too far to the right and insufficiently committed to socialism and class conflict, the so-called “Gang of Four” left (or were chased out) of the party in 1981.
* * * * *
The One
Labour's Tony Benn and the GOP's Mike Huckabee
Tony Benn was known for his oratorical skill, his fatherly and gentlemanly approach to political debate, and his deep commitment to socialism. He was respected and well-liked. If anyone could have turned Labour into a socialist party that could win, it was Tony Benn.
* * * * *
The Rank and File
Grassroots leaders like Arthur Scargill of the National Union of Mineworkers, MPs like future London Mayor Ken Livingston and Eric Heffer and rank-and-file activists from groups like the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, fought tooth and nail against Labour moderates, attacking them at every turn.
* * * * *
The Fire-Breathers
Terry Fields, leader of Labour's Militant Tendency and Glenn Beck
The men and women of the Militant Tendency, co-founded by Terry Fields, did not believe in the Labour Party at all, except insofar as it served as a vehicle to advance their revolutionary Marxist ideology. They used Labour to push revolution, argued for a class war and told followers not to believe the “capitalist media.”
* * * * *
The Results…
British 1983 electoral map with Labour party wins in red
The 1983 election saw Labour adopt its most left-wing program in decades. The party manifesto, mocked by one Labour MP as “the longest suicide note in history,” called on the Labour Party to implement a socialist program featuring unprecedented government expansion into the economy, reintroduction of planning, nationalization of industry and withdrawal from NATO and the EEC. The far-left got what it wanted and Labour was dealt the worst election defeat in its history. When all was said and done, the left-wing was discredited and the way was paved for the rise of “New Labour,” which was more centrist than anything Fields, Foot or Benn could have ever imagined in 1983.
39 responses so far
1 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:03 am
“Following the Tories’ overwhelming victory in 1979″
Actually the 1979 election results were anything but “overwhelming” – those results came in the 80s
http://www.ukpolitical.info/1979.htm
2 DFL // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:23 am
Labour moved to the center in the 90s so that it could broaden its appeal beyond society’s losers and the labor unions. Labour expanded its support to affluent suburbanites, especially women and the government class. With the errosion of industrial workers and decline of their unions, this was wise politically. America’s Democratic Party has done the same, regularly defeating in old Republican suburban neighborhoods and counties across the USA just as industrial labor has been marginalized. Symbolic of Labour’s search for suburban votes was Blair’s push to eliminate fox hunting, a winning issue with suburban women that cost Labour little.
But the Blair magic has run its course. Ironically, in May of next year the Tories will reclaim scores of suburban seats from Labour, especially in the south, and leave Labour with not much more than its 1983 rump of seats in the poorer sections of the realm- the old, mostly closed, coalpits of South Wales and South Yorkshire, the old industrial areas of Cleveland, Durham and West Yorkshire, poverty-stricken constituencies in Liverpool, Brimingham, Manchester, London, Glasgow, Newcastle-on-Tyne and Hull.
3 forgetn // Oct 30, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I arrived in London for grad school in 1983, Thatcher had been in power for 4 years, and has just won a new mandate(by the way, Thatcher’s first mandate was rather low in fireworks — most of what she was praised for occurred during this 1984-1988 phase) . The UK was in trouble, the left wing firebrands (coal miners) were in full furor and getting ready for a confrontation with the then conservative government.
As a graduate student at the London School of Economics it was clear to be me (23 year old guy) that labour was out of its mind, the orthodoxy was similar to what you have today in the Republican party with one major difference; the media — There were five national daily papers in the UK and 4 TV stations, roughly 50/50 in supporting the left/right views and no internet.
The Republican party needs to find its Tony Blair, his ability and that of his team (especially John Smith), my guess is that the media will make the task more difficult, because it will give a continued strong voice to the views of minorities, just look at the “tea party” game that took place last summer, a relatively small group was able to monopolize the agenda for the entire summer.
What Blair had in the labour party of the early 90s was the space and quiet of the opposition bench to re craft the party in a new image, and to jettison the crazier aspects of the party’s platform. I suspect that the Republican Party will not have this privacy to fix its broken engine. If the polls are correct the weakness of the republican message outside the South will damage the long term prospect of the party. America deserves a strong opposition, it doesn’t have that today. Granted the American system is not conducive to party unity, it remains that the Democratic party was able to a certain extent to build out its “tent” to include a variety of points of views.
The Republican Party needs to recapture the middle which it has forfeit over the past two election cycles. 2010 is almost certainly too early for a recovery, but 2012, especially if the Obama reforms do not deliver the goods (especially employment) could lead to a resurgence of the right. As to the presidency for 2012 it is too early to tell, but I suspect that the 2010 will decide what kind of leader the Republican base wants, and I would be very surprised if what the base wants and what the country wants meets in 2012. The real contenders will emerge in 2016, once Obama has left office.
4 Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:51 pm
This is political analysis? Is Frum so hard up for assistance that such piffle shows up on his web site?
5 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“This is political analysis?”
Yes. No-one asked you to like it.
6 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:17 pm
…….The Labor party committed suicide in the period from the mid seventies until the early nineties so Thatcher really had no opposition worthy of the name. Not that she didn’t have some bumpy times. Her first couple of years in office were very checkered and much of her own party was in open revolt against her because of the massive de-industrialization of the country that was taking place . What saved her was the Falklands War. But she was never popular in her own party let alone the country at large and ultimately was forcibly removed from the premiership in 1990 by an in-party revolt. I can think of no other instance in British history where this happened where the sitting prime minister was removed as a consequence of revolt purely within their own party. I would however rate her as one of the five most important British PM’s of the 20th century. The conservative party then went on to commit suicide in the 90’s. The Republican party in this country is currently committing suicide although the true believers who post here won’t accept it. They spend hours parsing the latest rinky dink poll or election result while completely ignoring the party schisms and societal changes that almost certainly going to result in prolonged eclipse. As a ps to the Thatcher story I heartily recommend the diaries of Alan Clark who was one of her very loyal ministers but a bit of character himself. They are the most real record of what governmental life is like that I’ve ever read, and a complete hoot.
7 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I don’t know why the Labour Party decided to go left rather than centrist in the early years of Thatcher.
But I know why the GOP base wants the GOP to go hard-core right-wing.
It’s because they have been fed misinformation.
They have been told, probably by some talk-show hosts, that the reason the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 was that the GOP base got discouraged by the party’s “abandonment of principle” and stayed away from the polls. And so the remedy is for the GOP to “embrace conservative principle” to encourage the base to turn out in large numbers.
And that’s just FALSE. An urban myth.
Turning out the base was a viable strategy when the Independent vote was fairly evenly split between the Dem and Repub candidates, as it was in 2000 and 2004.
But in 2006 and 2008, exit polls showed a big shift of Independent voters toward the Dems. And that’s why the GOP lost. It wouldn’t have mattered if the GOP base had turned out in somewhat higher numbers; Obama’s coast-to-coast win would still have happened, though by a slightly smaller margin.
And why did the Independents turn toward the Dems in 2006? It was NOT because they perceived that Republicans were “abandoning principle.” As Bill Schneider of CNN pointed out in his own analysis, it was because in November 2006, Iraq appeared to be falling apart. But as he also pointed out, rank-and-file Republicans refuse to believe that.
This is the entire source of the disconnect.
Those of us who believe that the GOP should be a center-right party, look at the Independent bloc of voters and assert (correctly) that capturing them is the key to victory. The GOP base continues to believe that THEY are the key to victory, and that the GOP can win elections just by turning out their base. Exit polls have shown that’s no longer the case.
As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out: You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
8 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:27 pm
sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“I don’t know why the Labour Party decided to go left rather than centrist in the early years of Thatcher.”
……..Simple explanation……the party came under the control of left wing idealogues who pushed it to the nutty left……..today the Republican party is under the control of right wing ideology……ergo it is being pushed to the nutty right……only prolonged electoral eclipse ultimately worked its magic and pushed labor back to the center…….and were going to see exactly the same thing here…….it’s inevitable.
9 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:25 pm
ottovbvs:
Well, obviously, we all got that.
What I don’t know is WHY a bunch of left-wing ideologues were able to take over the party like that. Maybe it was a general fear of nuclear war, which sparked a similar nuclear freeze movement in America? I noticed in their 1983 Statement that they were calling for Britain to break with the U.S. and strike a separate peace deal with the USSR.
But I do know why the hard-core right-wingers took over the GOP now. It’s because of a cynical disregard for facts on the part of some very clever media personalities and politicians.
In particular, Limbaugh is just flat wrong about a whole lot of facts. But the base trusts him because he reassures them that they’re right.
10 Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:41 pm
wrs10,
Perhaps Mr. Brackett’s comic book (sorry, graphic novel) presentation of false analogies may impress you as political analysis, I still say it’s piffle.
Equating Dick Armey to Arthur Scargill (read up on Mr. Scargill – wikipedia is a good start) has set the gold standard of nonsense for a featured writer at NM.
11 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:53 pm
sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“What I don’t know is WHY a bunch of left-wing ideologues were able to take over the party like that.”
……..Nothing really do to with nuclear disarmament per se although this was a leftwing article of faith just as anti abortion is an article of faith in today’s GOP. It’s incredibly similar to what has happened here, idealogues got control of the party.
…….As to how idealogues have got control of the GOP it’s a lot more complicated than Rushbo’s bs.
12 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:41 pm
” I still say it’s piffle.”
…….Well you would do because you’re in total denial…..obviously Scargill and Armey don’t share a political philosophy but they do share a style of extreme ideological activism…..it’s the same way the communist and nazi methods of govt weren’t awfully dissimilar……. Are you really that dim that you can’t understand what’s being discussed here.
13 Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:17 pm
ottovbs, my intellect is certainly dim – a mere candle flicker compared to the supernova that is yours – but I do recognize a ludicrous stretching of a false analogy when I see it. If you think that Armey’s activism is similar to Scargill’s, check this out:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/scar-s03.shtml
NM must be hard up for contributors if this mediocre cartoon passes muster with its editors.
14 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:18 pm
ottovbvs #7 “What saved her was the Falklands War”
????? Not according to the March 1982 opinion polls or the Glasgow Hillhead by-election held in that same month. They showed clearly that the Conservatives were in the lead again and what with another 2 years before the need to hold an election….. ( I think that the recovery in the economy had something to do with that state of affairs)
Churl #10
I have been familiar with the strategically catastrophic Arthur Scargill for 30 years now. I do not need a refresher coarse just yet. As for
http://www.newmajority.com/dick-armey-parochial-to-expect-hoffman-to-care-about-his-districts-concerns
all I can say is that you cannot see beyond the differences in style in order to see the similarities of in-fighting self destruction your powers of political analysis are not up to much.
15 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:28 pm
13 Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“all I can say is that you cannot see beyond the differences in style in order to see the similarities of in-fighting self destruction your powers of political analysis are not up to much.’
……boy you are dim if you can’t separate political philosophies from extreme forms of political activism……but of course as they say in England “there’s none sa blind as them that don’t want to see.”
16 Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:30 pm
wrs10, the lesson was intended for ottovbs.
I cannot see wasting time pretending that a few captioned pictures of politicians and speechifiers is political analysis.
17 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:32 pm
14 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:18 pm
“all I can say is that you cannot see beyond the differences in style in order to see the similarities of in-fighting self destruction your powers of political analysis are not up to much.”
………..what does this mean…..it’s gibberish…..please elucidate
18 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:38 pm
14 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:18 pm
ottovbvs #7 “What saved her was the Falklands War”
????? Not according to the March 1982 opinion polls or the Glasgow Hillhead by-election held in that same month
…….Er……the conservatives LOST the Glasgow Hillhead election to Roy Jenkins of the social democrats…….Glasgow Hillhead which is a upmarket suburb of Glasgow was amongst the safest conservative seats in Scotland……it was a bombshell for Thatcher
19 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:51 pm
wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Chronology:
Glasgow Hillhead bye election March 25, 1982
Falklands War April 2-June 14, 1982
…….The British victory gave an immense boost to Thatcher’s prestige…..it’s true the economy improved somewhat although there had been colossal job losses…..but it was the Falklands War that transformed her position……plus the fact that the labor party had split and was a joke
20 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 7:30 pm
“I cannot see wasting time pretending that a few captioned pictures of politicians and speechifiers is political analysis”
……It’s a shorthand explanation of what can happen when the political extremists take over…….right up your street I would have thought when you can’t tell the difference between political philosophies and styles of activism.
21 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 8:06 pm
ottovbvs #18 “Er……the conservatives LOST the Glasgow Hillhead election to Roy Jenkins of the social democrats…….Glasgow Hillhead which is a upmarket suburb of Glasgow was amongst the safest conservative seats in Scotland……it was a bombshell for Thatcher”
It was not a safe seat by any stretch of the imagination. The Conservatives ended up with more votes than Labour. A uniform swing based on the Hillhead result would have left the Conservatives the largest party in he House of Commons. Roy Jenkins was a “celebrity” candidate whose effects could not be replicated in more than a handful of seats. The opinion polls were giving a Conservative lead over Labour in March 1982. Margaret Thatcher was relieved by the result. To be in number one in the opinion polls is always a relief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Hillhead_by-election,_1982
ottovbvs #17
I shall rephrase.
Arthur Scargill and Dick Armey could not be mistaken for each other if they were each wearing brown paper bags over their heads. They both were/are out to sink the chances of candidates in their own parties who had/have a chance of winning moderate voters. The more “success” they had/have the more likely that their party stayed/stays in the wilderness Strategically they are sufficiently similar to be compared.
If that is not clear enough do not hesitate to ask again.
Churl #16
Thank you for clearing that up for me. (Although I could add that short articles in a magazine/paper are usually superficial! He did a reasonable job with the limited amount of space used.)
22 Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 8:14 pm
ottovbs, I am talking about Scargill’s style of activism vs. Armey’s. Read up on Scargill; compare and contrast.
23 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:17 pm
21 wrs10 // Oct 30, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“It was not a safe seat by any stretch of the imagination.”
…….The conservatives had held the seat forever…….for Jenkins as third party candidate to win it was a bombshell……the risk for Thatcher was that a third party could emerge because of her unpopularity and there was a real chance she could be overthrown in a palace coup……as she ultimately was……in the short term the Falklands war removed that risk
…….I went to universtity in Britain in the early sixties, worked there in the seventies, my wife is British, her father was active in conservative politics, by the early 80’s I was overseeing my company’s marketing in Britain and so was very up to speed with what was happening in British society ……apart from an ability to read wiki what exactly is your personal familiarity with British politics at the time?
“ottovbvs #17
I shall rephrase.
Arthur Scargill and Dick Armey could not be mistaken for each other if they were each wearing brown paper bags over their heads. They both were/are out to sink the chances of candidates in their own parties who had/have a chance of winning moderate voters. The more “success” they had/have the more likely that their party stayed/stays in the wilderness Strategically they are sufficiently similar to be compared.”
………there’s a contradiction between your first and subsequent three sentences!
24 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“ottovbs, I am talking about Scargill’s style of activism vs. Armey’s. Read up on Scargill; compare and contrast.”
…….I know all about “King” Arthur……..I actually met him once at a energy conference in the early 80’s…..he was an extremist whose activist style was essentially similar to Armey’s although his medium was trade unionism while Armey’s is business financed political activism/astroturfing……they are very similar in terms of their extremism albeit at different ends of the political spectrum!
25 Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I don’t know, otto.
If Armey has pulled any “activism” stunts of a magnitude comparable to the 1984-1985 British coal strike I’ve certainly missed them.
26 A Cautionary Tale from Accross the Pond | Republicans United. // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:46 pm
[...] Charles Brackett has a pretty good rundown of what happened 30 years ago in Britian. The election of Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives, placed the Labour Party in a crisis. In something that is strangely similar to today, the party decided that it was not left-wing enough and pushed ahead with an even more leftist platform. The result? The election of 1983 was a landslide for the Conservatives. [...]
27 wrs10 // Oct 31, 2009 at 8:14 am
ottovbvs #23 “The conservatives had held the seat forever……”
So????
http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/XXXV/3/252
or if you prefer
http://poluk.wikia.com/wiki/1979_General_Election_Results
Conservative Holds at the 1979 Election D–H
Constituency: Party (Majority), MP (Where Applicable)
Glasgow Hillhead: Conservative (2,002)
A majority of 2,002 is marginal – even if one stands on one’s head. End of story. Glasgow was the only area of the country which swung against he Conservatives in 1979. (Glasgow is also my home town – give up trying to make out that you are on the inside track on this one). I was also standing as a candidate for a local authority ward in May 1982 – so I did notice that my Party had re-taken the lead in polls in March. I noticed that the Hillhead (along with everyone else, including the media) result was more damaging to Labour than to the Conservatives. If you really were ” very up to speed with what was happening in British society” you would have noticed that the swing against Labour, by Roy Jenkins, in the Warrington by-election was noticeably more than his swing against the Conservatives in Hillhead.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap8iQufidpV4
……Labour hasn’t been placed third in Mori’s poll since February 1982……….
“………there’s a contradiction between your first and subsequent three sentences!”
No there is not. I would not pay you good money to tell me the time of day.
ps – “there was a real chance she could be overthrown in a palace coup……as she ultimately was……in the short term the Falklands war removed that risk”
Er, June 1982 (Argentinian surrender in Post Stanley) – November 1990 (Thatcher being dumped) exceeds the length of time one can be elected President of the US . Your idea of “short term” is not the same as mine.
I did not need to look up Google to inform myself – I knew from previous experience of dealing with “the Falklands saved Margaret Thatcher” myth that I would be meeting some resistance. Most of them were British so they were familiar with the fact that governments in Britain often lose about one third of their support mid-term but come back to win the following election – and that 1981 was typical of that historical pattern. You, on the other hand, have been particularly clueless.
28 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 8:57 am
Churl // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:51 pm
” If Armey has pulled any “activism” stunts of a magnitude comparable to the 1984-1985 British coal strike I’ve certainly missed them.”
………Purely a matter of the relative resources at their respective disposal…..if Armey had them he would……I was in the oil business at the time of the miners strike(although not living in Britain)….. about a third of British generating stations were oil fired so the maintenance of supplies was of paramount importance and we had police guards at the terminals and along pipelines……the miners tried to get the seamen union and oil installation workers who were in the transport and general workers union I think to come out in sympathy with them but they wouldn’t fortunately. Thatcher personally wasn’t enormously popular, never was, but the feeling in the country was that trade union anarchy had to be stopped. She did conduct it brilliantly from the get go…..it was obvious she was gearing up for a fight from at least a year before with the build up of coal and oil stocks and then Scargill walked right into the trap……once battle was joined she never lost her nerve despite a lot whining in her own party leadership who on the whole detested her.
29 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 9:25 am
wrs10 // Oct 31, 2009 at 8:14 am
……You miss the point entirely……Let us go back to your original comment where you were contesting my statement that it was the Falklands War that turned things around for Thatcher viz.
“ottovbvs #7 “What saved her was the Falklands War”
????? Not according to the March 1982 opinion polls or the Glasgow Hillhead by-election held in that same month. They showed clearly that the Conservatives were in the lead again and what with another 2 years before the need to hold an election….. ( I think that the recovery in the economy had something to do with that state of affairs)”
1)If your contention was correct she should have held Hillhead, but it wasn’t correct because her approval was in the twenties and didn’t turn around until after the Falklands War
2) The question that then arises was why didn’t labor win it since they were the main opposition. They didn’t win it because Labor was collapsing and there was great fear amongst the traditional parties that Social Democrats which Jenkins founded in 1981 would benefit from both a collapse in the labor party vote and the conservative vote because of Thatcher’s unpopularity.
3) The possible outcome at the next general election would have been a hung parliament with no party with an absolute majority but the conservatives probably with the largest number of seats and thereforce forced to go into coalition with the SDP who wouldn’t serve under Thatcher and therefore, would have to choose another leader.
4)Many among the leadership of the party, who largely disliked her, wanted to pre-empt this by dumping her and thereby improve the conservative party’s chances of winning an absolute majority at the next general election. There was nothing unlikely about this as they’d done the same to Heath only a few years before. Therefore the notion that she was “pleased” by the outcome of the Hillhead election and that it strengthened her position is total nonsense.
5)The Falklands War rendered this all moot, revived her popularity and blunted the growth of the SDP. When the next general came around, the Labor party was in complete disarray, I think Foot was leader by then, and she had a walkover.
30 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 9:38 am
wrs10 // Oct 31, 2009 at 8:14 am
“………there’s a contradiction between your first and subsequent three sentences!”
No there is not. I would not pay you good money to tell me the time of day.’
………..mamma mia
“Arthur Scargill and Dick Armey could not be mistaken for each other if they were each wearing brown paper bags over their heads.”
…………Politically Scargill and Armey bear no resemblance to each other whatsoever!
” They both were/are out to sink the chances of candidates in their own parties who had/have a chance of winning moderate voters. The more “success” they had/have the more likely that their party stayed/stays in the wilderness.”
…………Politically Scargill and Armey are both behaving in exactly the same way
“Strategically they are sufficiently similar to be compared.”
…………Politically Scargill and Armey are similar enough to each other to be compared.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
31 Churl // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 pm
ottovbs saith, “Purely a matter of the relative resources at their respective disposal…..if Armey had them he would……”. It would be interesting to see how you know that, or could prove it.
and this zinger on Margaret Thatcher,
“…once battle was joined she never lost her nerve despite a lot whining in her own party leadership who on the whole detested her.”
Reminds me of the Republican Party’s current national leadership (and wannabee prophets like Frum) who quiver and whimper whenever a conservative stands up for conservative principles.
32 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Churl // Oct 31, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“ottovbs saith, “Purely a matter of the relative resources at their respective disposal…..if Armey had them he would……”. It would be interesting to see how you know that, or could prove it.”
……..Quite easily actually since he’s already demonstrated this proclivity…..he and Gingrich were quite happy to shut down the entire Federal govt over a fairly minor budget dispute just so they could embarrass Clinton…….and then there was the whole Whitewater farrago……ultimately both of them blew up in their faces.
“Reminds me of the Republican Party’s current national leadership (and wannabee prophets like Frum) who quiver and whimper whenever a conservative stands up for conservative principles.”
…………I’m one of Thatcher’s greatest admirers but this is a typically simplistic reading………One of the far right’s besetting sins is they will try to transfer patterns of behavior they admire (eg. Churchill in 1940 etc) to totally different circumstances……Thatcher won big in the Falklands and against the miners because she was right, had general public support and showed a lot of tactical flexibility in pressing her campaign……later in her premiership she showed increasing signs of blind adherence to doctrine and tactical rigidity in matters like the poll tax and Westland which are the hallmarks of today’s GOP and which ultimately led to her overthrow……..an event unprecedented in modern British political history.
33 Churl // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:21 pm
ottovbs, and now the question is, which US party is pursuing the analog of the poll tax: Republicans who say stuff that liberals don’t like, or the Democrats who are trying to run the banking industry and 2/3 of the American auto industry, take control of health care with 1,990 pages of legalistic opacity, and whack with higher costs anyone who consumes energy or uses it to produce something with CO2 cap and trade regulations.
Time will tell.
34 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Churl // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:21 pm
…….Putting square pegs in round holes again……….they are not running the banking or auto industries…….they are not taking control of healthcare but piggybacking on an immense, disparate and almost entirely private existing system which is why you end up with a 1900 page bill…….the whole notion of less govt is a myth……Federal and state budgets total approaching five trillion (4.5 trillion in Bush’s last budget) this is several times the expenditure of any other sovereign state in the world……it’s never going to change……the challenge is to manage it as efficiently and cost effectively as possible……. the occasional whimsicality of your comments suggests you are not entirely without some appreciation of complexity and nuance, so what do you keep repeating this simplistic stuff
35 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:24 am
ottovbs:
Of course they’re running them.
They forced the resignation of several CEOs.
They told GM to start producing small “green” cars, even though any industry analyst would have told them that only the big SUVs produced enough revenue to keep GM afloat even this long. (The high cost of union labor is fixed no matter what type of car GM produces. And the chance that GM can produce a car to compete with the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla is virtually nil; GM engineers are simply incapable of that.)
36 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:28 am
ottovbs:
But they’re NOT managing it efficiently and cost effectively.
In fact, they’re deliberately doing the REVERSE: Spending almost wildly on everything (except, notably, national defense) in an attempt to boost the U.S. out of recession. This is Bernanke’s “helicopter model” on steroids.
The stimulus package contained a huge number of ridiculous projects that won’t produce any lasting capital goods. I don’t think Obama cared. He just wants to reflate the currency.
37 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:01 am
sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:28 am
“In fact, they’re deliberately doing the REVERSE: Spending almost wildly on everything (except, notably, national defense) in an attempt to boost the U.S. out of recession.”
…….Read conservative economist Bob Bartlett’s book, he’ll explain it to you.
“The stimulus package contained a huge number of ridiculous projects that won’t produce any lasting capital goods. I don’t think Obama cared. He just wants to reflate the currency.”
……Sinz gives us the benefit of his economic expertise…..now what you think Paris Hilton?
38 balconesfault // Nov 1, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Spending almost wildly on everything (except, notably, national defense) in an attempt to boost the U.S. out of recession.
The funny thing is, one day the charge is that the stimulus bill isn’t pumping money into the economy fast enough … for example, the tax cut and unemployment assistance programs kicked in immediately, but the CBO found that only 52 percent of the money in the stimulus bill devoted to new government spending will actually be spent by 2010, as bureaucrats were charged with developing procedures and criteria, issuing necessary regulations, and reviewing plans and proposals prior to doling out the cash.
Wildly?
39 wrs10 // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm
http://openleft.com/diary/15831/ny23-resultsdemocrat-owens-leads-in-early-returns
New York 23rd Congressional
(528 of 606 precincts reporting)
Owens (D) Scozzafava (R) Hoffman (C)
49.1% 5.5% 45.4%
Owens margin: 4,580
How does that old saying go again – oh yes “One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh!”
You must log in to post a comment.