On 14 Sep 2011 at 3:47pm bastian wrote:
Mercian that was a brilliant last post and hit the nail on the head. Neo-liberalism is very insideous, look how we bicker on here when if we met in the pub we might actually find that humanity had common ground. but now we argue about everything,it's called divide and rule...and it works.
On 14 Sep 2011 at 4:23pm demon wrote:
vote them out .the conservatives are a bunch of hitlers
On 14 Sep 2011 at 4:34pm Hedley Lamarr wrote:
I must say that if I took to heart all the political rantings on this site and thought for one minute that they were truly representative of Lewes (or any other town for that matter), then I would get the hell out of here pronto. It amazes me that some people can be so bitter about politics and politicians (well, Tories on this site). We live in a democracy so get over that for starters. Also, apart from the short heady post war period when politicians actually did some good, can anybody name one other period when they have added any real value to the populace? No, not at all. Most, if not all countries are living in debt and they have to make the most of a bad job. Some are better than others. In the UK, its a proven fact that the Tories and Labour have messed up the country in one way or another. And the Liberals? If they got full power then God help us all!
On 14 Sep 2011 at 4:57pm bastian wrote:
ah, another anarchist...that's two of us, let's start a party.
On 14 Sep 2011 at 5:10pm DFL wrote:
Three...
On 14 Sep 2011 at 5:29pm jrsussex wrote:
Whenever a political party, and over the years they have all done it, change the constituency boundaries they do so to safeguard the seats they have or to increase the chances of gaining seats in any subsequent election. So what's new?
On 14 Sep 2011 at 5:58pm Clifford wrote:
Four. At this rate we're going to be able to form a non-government.
On 14 Sep 2011 at 7:28pm Peter Byron wrote:
Bloody well said bastian!! Never voted in my life, but the Divide and Rule trick is a basxxxd they all use. Best, Peter
On 14 Sep 2011 at 9:34pm MC wrote:
Out with the old. Failed.
Five
On 15 Sep 2011 at 9:39am Clifford wrote:
A Lewes Anarchist group seems to be forming.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 2:04pm bastian wrote:
about bl**dy time,this is the result of indifference to the electorate...eventually they crack and see through the smoke and mirrors to reveal a nasty nest of vipers all lining their pockets and the pockets of their best mates.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 2:58pm Southover Queen wrote:
The trouble is that if you actually want to get anything done/changed, you need to be elected to a position of some kind of power. A Lewes anarchists group is consequently unlikely to get anywhere, because most people vote according to party and prejudice.
Best thing to do is get involved in one of the parties which represents the position closest to your way of thinking and make sure your views are heard. If you make enough noise and are heard by others of like mind you can - maybe - change things a little in your direction.
It's called democracy. And while it's not even slightly perfect it's a great deal better than any of the other options.
(Although I rather like the sound of Lewes anarchists. With a bit of luck they'll be better than the common or garden variety)
On 15 Sep 2011 at 4:31pm bastian wrote:
The above is exactly the rubbish spouted by politicians and it has been seen to fail,revolution or nothing...
On 15 Sep 2011 at 4:39pm Hedley Lamarr wrote:
SQ - I usually like and agree with your posts but must disagree with you on this point and support Bastian. Democracy as you have described it never works. If you can give me an example of where it has I will certainly eat umble pie.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 6:55pm Clifford wrote:
This is beginning to get interesting. My remark about 'Lewes Anarchists' was slightly tongue in cheek. But I'm beginning to think there may be some mileage in the idea.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 7:11pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Make that six. Although I should confess to slightly anarcho-syndicalist tendencies.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 7:27pm Paul Newman wrote:
The difference between a conservative and an anarchist that a conservative plays the piano and an anarchist sits on it ( a socialist would probably play each note an equal amount )
I know which I prefer ..
On 15 Sep 2011 at 7:38pm Clifford wrote:
I always like a good analogy. That isn't one Paul.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 8:51pm Zebedee wrote:
Southover Queen. There is no democracy here. Democracy is about representation (look up definition of democracy). Our first past the post political system is not representative. Most often the party that gets in is the one that the majority of people don't want!
The lack of representation and democracy is one of the major reasons for the lack of interest in politics. 'Go and activate for one of the existing parties' does not work and is fruitless for most. If they don't want to work for one of the major parties its a total waste of time.
Given the lack of voting and activism counting for anything, riot and strikes are all we are left with.
Time to bring down the old. It does not work anymore. It is not sufficient for our diverse times.
Anarchy (in the tabloid sense, not the Kropotkin sense), is closer than we think.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 9:58pm Southover Queen wrote:
I hope you're wrong, all of you, and sometimes fear you might be right. If you are, then we might as well roll over and let the Daily Mail tickle our tummies.
I am an activist. It started because I could see young people being exploited in my industry a while back, and a group of us started a campaign. Slightly to our surprise we made a difference and, in that industry at least, there are now guidelines and conditions are better than they might be. Now I work through our trade union, because in the end they're the only organisation I could find whose stated aims closely matched mine. I'm proud that my union has also been willing to change and we are now also making a difference to a group whose interests are otherwise completely unrepresented (and most of them aren't union members either).
That's why I say that if you see something you know is unfair or immoral then you can't just be supine and let someone else sort it out. You can get involved and you can make a difference, and that's how change happens. Not because someone else does it, but because you care enough at least to give it a go.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 10:23pm Zebedee wrote:
Is your union planning to go on strike? If so, it's a case of QED. Otherwise it's a drop in the ocean.
I'm sorry but hope is for those rose-tinted folk.
On 15 Sep 2011 at 10:35pm Southover Queen wrote:
No, it isn't. The membership is mainly freelance and most of it does not work in the public sector.
Of course it's a drop in the ocean. That's the whole point though: people working together can make a difference, and it doesn't have to be left to others: lots and lots of drops add up to an an ocean.
I prefer doing something and at least trying to the alternative - hopelessness is not for me, rose tinted or not.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 7:24am Paul Newman wrote:
I`m sure we are all grateful for the selfless charitable work the trade unions are famous for. Perhaps the needlessly unemployed, the taxed and pensionless private sector, the 80% who are not unionised ( who are poorer , from lower social classes and so on) should have a day of thanks ?
I look forward to expressing my gratitude when the country is further imperilled by their thoughtful and selfless disruption later this year.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 8:06am Clifford wrote:
There's nothing stopping people working in the private sector joining a union Paul. Except perhaps their employers who don't like workers knowing their rights and defending them.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 8:49am bastian wrote:
I am in a union and it didn't make a jot of difference when the axe fell on my public sector pension rights 4 years ago so the only thing to believe in is anarchy, the system is very damaged.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 10:22am bastain wrote:
in this climate you can fight and your union will fight with you,but the bosses have made their minds up and will not budge an inch. It's not a breakdown of communication, it's a sh*t storm of ideology.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 10:58am Southover Queen wrote:
Thanks for your message of support, PN. My experience of trade unions is that the vast majority of their members join because they want support and advice, and they want to do the same for others. I speak of what I know: you speak of what you read in the Daily Mail.
I wasn't aware that it was the unions who used MY money to gamble with, resulting in billions of pounds being lost and bringing the country to its knees. It certainly wasn't the unions awarding vast bonuses for failure to those who gambled with our money and lost.
Did you know that the average "gold plated pension" for a civil servant is just over £4000 per annum? Is it right that Fred Goodwin's pension pot on "retirement" from RBS was nearly £17m? What about the fact that the savings the govt will make by further slashing pension rights to public servants is more or less equal to the bonuses the bankers took home last year?
In my experience a good union is an example of altruism in action: a group of people join together to protect their rights and support each other. The vast majority of us wicked trades unionists do it entirely on a voluntary basis because we believe that workers have the right to a fair wage, not to be exposed to danger in the course of their work, not to be obliged to work excessive hours, not to be bullied. Do you actually disagree with any of that?
Bastian: yes, you're right. But I don't think that rolling over and giving up is the answer.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 11:23am Hedley Lamarr wrote:
So the rail unions fight a for a "just" cause do they? Or do they just fight because they have the ability to bring the country to its knees just to protect their own bigoted and self-serving views? Altruism? I think not.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 11:37am jrsussex wrote:
I assume the union supporters are in favour of the grossly inflated salaries that most union's pay their senior staff. And the use of union credit cards to dine out at top restaurants running up a bill of several hundred pounds.
This of course whilst many of their members are struggling to pay their mortgage/rent, put decent food on the table, cannot afford a holiday and are generally suffering in many ways from the financial crisis.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 1:34pm Southover Queen wrote:
Ah yes, JR: I saw that in the Daily Mail/Express too. It's not "most unions" either: there's one which pays a couple of hundred grand less than the Director General of the BBC and five other leaders of Britain's big unions have General Secretaries which group in the early three figures - £100k-£130k.
As it happens I'd feel very uncomfortable supporting a salary package of £500k, but I don't know if it's actually true given the papers which published it in the first place. As to the others, they work hard and their members don't object. It would also suggest that the rest of the "union fat cats" are on salaries considerably less than £100k, so perhaps, in spite of what the Daily Mail/Daily Express/Tax Payers Alliance would have us believe, most union leaders are on much more modest incomes?
Hedley Lamarr: excuse me while I duck the grotesque stereotype. You don't like the RMT from the sound of it: how dare you tar everyone else with the same brush?
No-one's mentioned the fact that banker's bonuses pretty much equal the cost of public service pensions, I notice. That's the real scandal.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 2:31pm Paul Newman wrote:
Red Queen
-OK lets go with your Polly Anna theory, exchange the 15% above average pay rises and Pension premium for tea and sympathy, suits me .
On the Banks I take it you think the implicit guarantee the tax payer gives the banks is worth less than the £50 billion pa they slop into the Exchequer. Its arguable and if you feel you are up to it be my guest.
A teacher on £35,000 a full career pot would be worth about £750,000 .£4000 pa is arrived at by ignoring the value of index linking, the non performance related pay out and working per capita not pension years.
We have made pitifully little impact on the vast pension burden the Public Sector are bequeathing our children I agree, and if think a bankers bonus makes you poorer we await your suggestions for replacing capitalism with barter .Onwards and upwards eh
On 16 Sep 2011 at 3:28pm bastian wrote:
Hi, it's friday and I get the weekend off,do you? if not then perhaps you to should join a union, because the only reason any of you have sick pay, statatury holiday pay and a minimum wage is because someone else faught for it, they were in a union,some went to prison to obtain the right for you to have these privaliges as the right likes to call them.
as usual this has been hijacked by the right wing to sound off as if we didn't hear enough in the broad sheets at the moment.Older right wingers are actually shecked by what the new wiz class are up to.
SQ you make alot of sense, I haven't given up I am just thinking of new ways to tackle the problem because the old system has failed.
PN, you are using sophistry again,the reason the average civil servant will have a pension of £4k is because a huge proportion of public employees are not paid 35K a year but 16K,only a small number of proffessionals are paid 35k and that's because they are highly trained.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 4:43pm Clifford wrote:
Hedley Lamarr wrote: 'Or do they just fight because they have the ability to bring the country to its knees just to protect their own bigoted and self-serving views?'
I think you're confusing unions with banks threatening to leave the country if we try to find a way of not having to prop them up with taxpayers' money next time they mess up. Talk about 'holding the country to ransom'.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 6:35pm Southover Queen wrote:
I have no idea what you're on about, PN.
"Red Queen", eh? No, not really. I'd just like to see a society where the sick get the treatment they need regardless of income, where poor children can believe that they might improve their lot if they study hard and where social mobility isn't choked off at birth, where prison is an opportunity to teach someone to read and write (over 50% of prisoners barely reach primary school level) rather than somewhere to brutalise them further. My ideal society is somewhere naked greed is regarded as socially unacceptable rather than the foundation of the economic system.
I'd like to see young people get opportunities because they have something to offer, not because their parents can bankroll them through years of penury. That just leads to an impoverished and stratified system where only the rich can prosper. If you're rich then I suppose I get it; if not, I really don't understand why you wouldn't want the same.
On 16 Sep 2011 at 8:44pm bastian wrote:
conservatism is just that, conservative, not progressive and they do not claim to be.The whole thing works if you are a white male, middle class and preferabley privately educated,that way nothing ever has to change. Progressive means giving every one a chance to excell in their own field, with help if need be,because unless we are all born equal,and we are not,then some people will always need help.that is what has been disgracefully whipped away from the masses,(93% not privatey educated...er..that is a majority but don't let democracey get in the way)And talk of meritocracey is futile in a country so infected,for 200 years, with fetid capitalism that it can never work...
On 16 Sep 2011 at 8:46pm bastian wrote:
it isn't a level playing field,everytime we kick the ball it ends up in the oppositions goal...and they get the gold cup to.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 3:13am Deelite wrote:
Southover Queen. Well said. Almost brought a tear to my eye and throws the shallow, self-centred, misinformed and confused nature of some of the other posts in this thread into sharp relief.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 8:19am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Yes, top posts SQ.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 9:18am bastian wrote:
SQ you are not alone in your wish for equality but there are alot of us who just cannot see a way through the minefield to a solution.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 2:11pm Southover Queen wrote:
Thanks Deelite and ACT. Bastian: you can make a difference. I'm not even sure you have to have a solution (in fact, I'd be amazed if you did), but you can take action when you know that something needs to be changed, even if it's something really small. If nothing else, it's good for the soul. And sometimes that small change leads to another larger change, and sometimes you'll meet other people along the way who agree with you. Looking back at something you know was wrong and seeing that you have helped, even in a small way, to make it fairer is a great feeling and it's good for us all.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 3:06pm pn wrote:
New Labourâ??s ten years unsustainable squander delivered less social mobility ,not more. The throw money at it' approach more or less failed to improve health inequality without suggesting it did no good
With a 10% plus deficit we might have to run faster to stay where we are. The Red Queenâ??s race in fact, to which I was referring. ( Lewis Caroll ?). As for hosing resources on criminals denied to decent and equally under privileged families. Very caring.
On 17 Sep 2011 at 3:07pm pn wrote:
Its a bit like one of those cults the lot of repeating this free floating gloop. Best thing to do is probably to back slowly to the door smiling 
On 17 Sep 2011 at 5:43pm bastian wrote:
paul please post under your familliar name,as it happens SQ I will be taking my fight out there with all the other PS workers but I can guarantee it won't change a thing, except that I will be down on my money for striking over something which doesn't affect me because I have already lost my retirement rights that I was employed under.See what I mean,kick the ball at the net and it rolls into someone elses goal,opposition wins every time