Responding to long posts. I should be careful about choosing this
particular note, especially after denouncing Jim a couple of days ago, but
it is a useful example.
Michael K. wrote a long note about Thatcherism. Jim responded, placing
his comment at the end.
Two suggestions.
1. If you can, put a comment -- or at least part of your comments at the
head of the note so people don't have to wade through Michael's to see
what Jim has to say.
2. If you can do so without distorting your message, please try to delete
whatever you can of the post to which you are responding.
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:16:03PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
> forwarded from Michael Keaney ---
> >With respect to Chris's repeated assertions that Thatcherism is dead, this
> >line is totally misleading. Thatcherism is not dead -- it is being
> >consolidated and deepened; it is evolving. There is a big difference between
> >what Stanley Greenberg interprets UK voters as wanting and what his clients
> >are prepared to deliver.
> >
> >Punk Thatcherism -- the last throes of that strange cocktail of anti-EU
> >Little Englander nationalism, free trade dogma, anti-welfare statism and a
> >general loathing of all that could be perceived to be "socialist" -- is what
> >is dying. It is anachronistic and is generally recognised as such, although,
> >as with the recent flare-ups of racist-inspired violence, it could revive
> >owing to the insouciant way in which New Labour handles conflict (i.e.
> >ignores or deflects it). Thatcherism, on the other hand, is being
> >consolidated as never before. How is it possible that the UK government is
> >proposing real increases in expenditure without the ritual howls of protest
> >from all the usual suspects? If this were Old Labour, you can imagine the
> >newspapers filled with banner headlines and detailed commentary on the
> >fiscal irresponsibility of it all; Rightists would be out decrying the
> >encroachment of the state upon ordinary lives; business leaders would be
> >questioning the fitness to govern of the administration; the IMF and OECD
> >would be expressing international concern at the bleak economic prospects
> >facing Britain; speculators would be getting ready to attack sterling;
> >interest rates would be much higher. None of this has happened, aside from
> >the marginal wailing and gnashing of teeth from the punk Thatcherites. Why?
> >Because of the manner in which New Labour plans to finance all of this
> >expenditure. It is intensifying to levels previously undreamt exactly the
> >kinds of policies and processes that marked the Major administration, and
> >which live on within the Civil Service courtesy of the likes of "Sir" Steve
> >Robson. Blair et al. will face major trouble from public service unions as
> >they clumsily implement their plans mistakenly believing that a 165-seat
> >Parliamentary majority is a full mandate for wholescale privatisation. But
> >this, in a way, is good (for Blair & co.), because it further underlines
> >just how "responsible" and "fit to govern" New Labour is, given that it is
> >brushing aside the challenge of its erstwhile financial and ideological
> >backers. Meanwhile a queue of multinational service companies and associated
> >"academic" consultants can barely wait for the anticipated bonanza in
> >lucrative contracts. As the former did so much to help New Labour pay for
> >its campaign and operating expenses, we can be confident they will get what
> >they pay for, just as US companies got the President they wanted.
> >
> >Tony Benn was right. Let's not confuse personalities with policies. Thatcher
> >is well beyond her prime. Thatcherism, on the other hand, is about to step
> >up a gear.
> >
> >Michael K. (with thanks to that "miserable reactionary SOB" Jim Devine)
>
> Son of Bakunin?
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
