From: John Ryskamp
You should worry less about differences between parties and start
worrying that your economy, like the American, is about to fall apart. Here
in California the State budget deficit is publicly stated to be $21
billion. But do you know what the whisper number is? SIXTY billion, and
growing rapidly. Come about February you will see how bad it really is. I
suppose a lot of people on this thread are tenured professors--well, these
are the folks they're talking about cutting here, even at prestigious
Berkeley. You shouldn't get caught unaware by this--you're never really told
how bad it is going to get, you have to ferret it out of people who have
reason to know how revenues and sales are really doing: California is a
disaster area, and if California sinks, America drowns (and Britain never
had a chance). Start agitating for rights that will keep you in your housing
regardless of what happens to the economic situation or your own economic
situation. Enuf bout Eliot--aux armes!
Yes Mark. And what do you do for an encore?
Put on black face paint with white lips,
and roll around on your bum?
>From: INGELBIEN RAPHAEL <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: OT British politics (was Thatcher)
>Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 19:45:47 +0100
> > I thought it very odd to see Labour called centrist and Lib-Dem not
> > So I am still puzzled at the way you (Kate) define the parties.
>When one looks at issues like public services, it's hard to tell who is
>left of centre. In some respects, New Labour is more right-wing than
>Dems. Also, did you note Charles Kennedy's address to the TUC
> > Labour is almost completely centrist, which is why they won so
>in the last couple of
> > elections
>It looks decisive if you consider their majority in the Commons. It
>definitely less decisive if you consider the number of votes cast for
>Blair never got as many votes as John Major in 1992 - or as Thatcher in
>eighties. In some constituencies (often held by Labour), the turn-out
>last general election was a joke (less than 40%). The overall turnout
>slightly over 60% - an all-time low. How solid is popular support for
> > rather, Labour was now the spokesperson for all of the middle class
>the best interests of Britain.
>Is there any dictionary that defines 'middle class' as a synonym of
> > He made it clear that improving their Health Service and Educational
>system, and the interests of the
> > nation as a whole, was more important than union interests
>That's presumably why Britain is now exporting patients to continental
>hospitals. That's presumably why teacher shortages are growing at the
>rate as educational red tape. That's presumably why the British
>system is heading for meltdown.
> > The Lib-Dems are now clearly to the left of many of Blair and
>positions, the issue of Europe > and how intimate Britain should be in
>alliance being prominent among the issues.
>I wonder where that leaves the Europhile Tories who want to sign up to
>single currency. Are they left-wing? The Europhobia of the Tory
>certainly didn't help the party much at the last two elections.
>I'm sure Nancy could also point out that there are parts of Britain
>the Euro is popular - Scotland, for instance. Though I suspect that
>popularity is sometimes inspired by a rejection of English attitudes,
>than by a real grasp of what is at stake in the single currency.
>[log in to unmask]
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.