Print

Print


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!



>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
>
>From Nancy:
>
> > 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 now
>left of centre. In some respects, New Labour is more right-wing than the
>Lib
>Dems. Also, did you note Charles Kennedy's address to the TUC conference
>this year?
>
>From Kate:
>
> > Labour is almost completely centrist, which is why they won so
>decisively
>in the last couple of
> > elections
>
>It looks decisive if you consider their majority in the Commons. It looks
>definitely less decisive if you consider the number of votes cast for
>Labour.
>Blair never got as many votes as John Major in 1992 - or as Thatcher in the
>eighties. In some constituencies (often held by Labour), the turn-out at
>the
>last general election was a joke (less than 40%). The overall turnout was
>slightly over 60% - an all-time low. How solid is popular support for
>Blair,
>really?
>
> > rather, Labour was now the spokesperson for all of the middle class and
>the best interests of Britain.
>
>Is there any dictionary that defines 'middle class' as a synonym of
>'Britain' ?
>
> > 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 same
>rate as educational red tape.  That's presumably why the British university
>system is heading for meltdown.
>
> > The Lib-Dems are now clearly to the left of many of Blair and Labour's
>positions, the issue of Europe > and how intimate Britain should be in
>their
>alliance being prominent among the issues.
>
>I wonder where that leaves the Europhile Tories who want to sign up to the
>single currency. Are they left-wing? The Europhobia of the Tory leadership
>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 where
>the Euro is popular - Scotland, for instance. Though I suspect that that
>popularity is sometimes inspired by a rejection of English attitudes, more
>than by a real grasp of what is at stake in the single currency.
>
>Yours,
>
>RaphaŽl
>[log in to unmask]


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail