What support has Geoge Osborne for re-creating the Metropolitan authories?

[Michael Bell]

The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland. This made a lot of sense, it led
to good government. In the 1980s Ken Livingstone got up Mrs Thatcher's
nose (he has that effect on some people!) and in an act of great
smallness she unhorsed him by abolishing the GLC and to hide her
personal spite, abolished all the other Metropolitan areas too. And so
it drifted on.

And now comes along the unlikeliest reformer, George Osborne. I an not
an economist and I offer no opinion on his economic stewardship,
though it does have to be said that economies _always_ recover and
this may be because every year 2% of property owners die (assuming
that property owning starts at age 20 and ends at age 70) and their
estates are liquidated and the money invested in new enterprises. Is
this too simple?

Why has George Osborne taken on something that seems well outside his
remit, local government reform? It seems well outside some branches of
Tory thought. Some seem to have the local government ideas of Radovan
Karadzic, who said "We Serbs may be few in number, but we control the
hill around Sarajevo and therefore we have the power and the right to
kill or drive out the Muslim hordes that live there. It is our town".


But as I say, George Osborne seems to be determined to reverse Mrs
Thatcher's undoings. he speaks well of labour party control in
Manchester and Birmingham.

But what support he has within his own party?

Michael Bell

[Basil Jet]

Post by Michael Bell
But what support he has within his own party?

Perhaps he thinks it will reduce the ability of a certain religion to
take over areas.

[Hils]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Michael Bell
But what support he has within his own party?

Perhaps he thinks it will reduce the ability of a certain religion to
take over areas.

Real democracy is more likely to do that, but it would also reduce the
power of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois democracy, especially bourgeois
democracy which retains may of the trappings of monarchy, is little
different to a caliphate.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Hils

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Michael Bell
But what support he has within his own party?

Perhaps he thinks it will reduce the ability of a certain religion to
take over areas.

Real democracy is more likely to do that, but it would also reduce the
power of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois democracy, especially bourgeois
democracy which retains may of the trappings of monarchy, is little
different to a caliphate.

You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

[Hils]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Michael Bell
But what support he has within his own party?

Perhaps he thinks it will reduce the ability of a certain religion to
take over areas.

Real democracy is more likely to do that, but it would also reduce the
power of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois democracy, especially bourgeois
democracy which retains may of the trappings of monarchy, is little
different to a caliphate.

You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies. Caliphs, like British
monarchs, considered themselves to be political and religious leaders.
Many believed themselves to be chosen to rule by a god.

Beyond that, and particularly relevant in a bourgeois democracy, is that
power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few, and to the
vast majority of disempowered citizens, there is little practical
difference between absolute monarchy, bourgeois democracy, and caliphate.

So there. :-)

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Michael Bell
But what support he has within his own party?

Perhaps he thinks it will reduce the ability of a certain religion to
take over areas.

Real democracy is more likely to do that, but it would also reduce the
power of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois democracy, especially bourgeois
democracy which retains may of the trappings of monarchy, is little
different to a caliphate.

You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies. Caliphs, like British
monarchs, considered themselves to be political and religious leaders.
Many believed themselves to be chosen to rule by a god.
Beyond that, and particularly relevant in a bourgeois democracy, is that
power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few, and to the
vast majority of disempowered citizens, there is little practical
difference between absolute monarchy, bourgeois democracy, and caliphate.
So there. :-)

Why not try living in the real world rather than parroting this
out-dated clap-trap.

[Hils]

Post by Graeme Wall
Why not try living in the real world rather than parroting this
out-dated clap-trap.

"Out-dated"? And monarchies and caliphates aren't? LOL.

Don't fight HIV, syphilis, dementia and cancer, live in the "real world"
and accept them.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
Why not try living in the real world rather than parroting this
out-dated clap-trap.

"Out-dated"? And monarchies

Monarchies are very outdated, just a tourist attraction these days, like
steam engines.

and caliphates aren't? LOL.

One murderous lunatic does not a caliphate make.

Post by Hils
Don't fight HIV, syphilis, dementia and cancer, live in the "real world"
and accept them.

I fail to see what that has to do with it.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
Why not try living in the real world rather than parroting this
out-dated clap-trap.

"Out-dated"? And monarchies

Monarchies are very outdated, just a tourist attraction these days, like
steam engines.

I'd better tell that to my colleague who works in steam turbine development. He seems to have a lot of work to do, but if they're just out dated, he can presumably go home.

Robin

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
"Out-dated"? And monarchies

Monarchies are very outdated, just a tourist attraction these days, like
steam engines.

Of course, the other thing that monarchies & steam engines have in common
is that these days noone expects them to do massive amounts of "real
work"!

I suppose Churchill's comment about democracy might be re-worked as
"constitutional monarchy is the worst form of head of state, except for
all the others"?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
"Out-dated"? And monarchies

Monarchies are very outdated, just a tourist attraction these days, like
steam engines.

Of course, the other thing that monarchies & steam engines have in common
is that these days noone expects them to do massive amounts of "real
work"!

:-)

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
"Out-dated"? And monarchies

Monarchies are very outdated, just a tourist attraction these days, like
steam engines.

Of course, the other thing that monarchies & steam engines have in common
is that these days noone expects them to do massive amounts of "real
work"!

With the exception of the fact that steam plant is responsible for something like 80% of all the electricity generated globally. Clearly that doesn't count as "real work".

Robin

[Graeme Wall]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
"Out-dated"? And monarchies

Monarchies are very outdated, just a tourist attraction these days, like
steam engines.

Of course, the other thing that monarchies & steam engines have in common
is that these days noone expects them to do massive amounts of "real
work"!

With the exception of the fact that steam plant is responsible for something like 80% of all the electricity generated globally. Clearly that doesn't count as "real work".

I do love a good bit of pedantry :-)

All right, monarchs are like steam locomotives.

Cue someone to mention nuclear submarines!

[Andrew Clarke]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
"Out-dated"? And monarchies

Monarchies are very outdated, just a tourist attraction these days, like
steam engines.

Of course, the other thing that monarchies & steam engines have in common
is that these days noone expects them to do massive amounts of "real
work"!

With the exception of the fact that steam plant is responsible for something like 80% of all the electricity generated globally. Clearly that doesn't count as "real work".

I do love a good bit of pedantry :-)
All right, monarchs are like steam locomotives.
Cue someone to mention nuclear submarines!

Perhaps we should specify that monarchs are like steam *reciprocating* engines. Even the Turbomotive had to be rebuilt, before it became the Princess Royal.

Monarchs seem to serve their purpose. Lots of pleasant countries have them, e.g. The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Morocco. Lots of unpleasant countries do not. In fact the only thing holding Belgium together is the monarchy: cf

http://journal.media-culture.org.au/9910/nation/saxa.php
http://tdu.to/183005.msg
http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/dynastyhistory/books/1555.html

Graham, if you don't mind putting your bus conductor's hat on for a moment, could you tell me how somebody could get their hands on accurate information about the rebodying of provincial doubledecker buses ca. 1954?

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[Hils]

Post by Andrew Clarke
Monarchs seem to serve their purpose.

Self-perpetuation and the production of surplus, degenerate, often
retarded offspring who are ruinously expensive to keep.

Post by Andrew Clarke
Lots of pleasant countries have them, e.g. The Netherlands, Norway,
Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Morocco.

Their monarchies are much smaller than Britain's. They would be nicer
countries still with no monarchies at all.

Post by Andrew Clarke
Lots of unpleasant countries do not.

Switzerland, Finland, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Portugal.

Despite Ian's spin, it is too soon to tell whether Cuba will become a
quasi-monarchy since presidential power was effectively transferred
sideways to one of the other leaders of the revolution. Contrary to the
spin of the bourgeois media, the Castros are still relatively popular in
Cuba (more popular than Cameron in Britain).

North Korea is a de facto monarchy. It is how Britain will look if the
population continues to increase while the monarchy and aristocracy
remain in place.

[ian batten]

Post by Hils

Post by Andrew Clarke
Monarchs seem to serve their purpose.

Self-perpetuation and the production of surplus, degenerate, often
retarded

My, you do have all the nasty words, don't you? "Retarded"?
Seriously? I suppose that if your politics are living in the 1970s
and your attitudes to women are living in the 1870s then it's no
surprise that your attitudes to disability are appalling, as well.

Retarded? What a charmer you are.

ian

[Hils]

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by Andrew Clarke
Monarchs seem to serve their purpose.

Self-perpetuation and the production of surplus, degenerate, often
retarded

My, you do have all the nasty words, don't you? "Retarded"?
Seriously? I suppose that if your politics are living in the 1970s
and your attitudes to women are living in the 1870s then it's no
surprise that your attitudes to disability are appalling, as well.
Retarded? What a charmer you are.

Would you prefer intellectually challenged, a bit dim, a few trucks
short of a train? The current *respectable* term is "learning disabled",
but it's only a matter of time before that term becomes unfashionable
enough to be replaced by something new and shiny, carefully polished by
bourgeois liberal bureaucrats.

Here's one of my favourite Jews (a very slight paraphrase): "the only
people that inherit anything by right of birth are congenital idiots".

[Sam Wilson]

Post by Hils

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by Andrew Clarke
Monarchs seem to serve their purpose.

Self-perpetuation and the production of surplus, degenerate, often
retarded

My, you do have all the nasty words, don't you? "Retarded"?
Seriously? I suppose that if your politics are living in the 1970s
and your attitudes to women are living in the 1870s then it's no
surprise that your attitudes to disability are appalling, as well.
Retarded? What a charmer you are.

Would you prefer intellectually challenged, a bit dim, a few trucks
short of a train? The current *respectable* term is "learning disabled",
but it's only a matter of time before that term becomes unfashionable
enough to be replaced by something new and shiny, carefully polished by
bourgeois liberal bureaucrats.

Between "(mentally) retarded" and "learning disabled" the professional
term was "mentally handicapped". My wife is a retired practitioner in
this area and we have a number of friends who fit the definition.

Sam

[Hils]

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Hils
Would you prefer intellectually challenged, a bit dim, a few trucks
short of a train? The current *respectable* term is "learning disabled",
but it's only a matter of time before that term becomes unfashionable
enough to be replaced by something new and shiny, carefully polished by
bourgeois liberal bureaucrats.

Between "(mentally) retarded" and "learning disabled" the professional
term was "mentally handicapped". My wife is a retired practitioner in
this area and we have a number of friends who fit the definition.

ISTR "handicapped" was on the way out during the (fairly short) time I
worked in mental health. I'd prefer to see people paid a living wage for
whatever useful work they can do, but this isn't profitable enough for
the rentiers who now dominate the economy, and they are more than just a
bit dim, they're not doing real work and are often out and out psychopaths.

Rather than drive the dim but honest into hostels, prisons and the
streets, it would make more sense to shoot as many bankers, landlords
and aristocrats as it takes to make the economy sustainable enough to
find humane roles for working people. IMV mental health practitioners
often end up doing little more than trying (with diminishing success) to
alleviate problems caused ultimately by a rentier-dominated economy.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Hils

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Hils
Would you prefer intellectually challenged, a bit dim, a few trucks
short of a train? The current *respectable* term is "learning disabled",
but it's only a matter of time before that term becomes unfashionable
enough to be replaced by something new and shiny, carefully polished by
bourgeois liberal bureaucrats.

Between "(mentally) retarded" and "learning disabled" the professional
term was "mentally handicapped". My wife is a retired practitioner in
this area and we have a number of friends who fit the definition.

ISTR "handicapped" was on the way out during the (fairly short) time I
worked in mental health.

On which side?

Post by Hils
I'd prefer to see people paid a living wage for
whatever useful work they can do, but this isn't profitable enough for
the rentiers who now dominate the economy, and they are more than just a
bit dim, they're not doing real work and are often out and out psychopaths.

Don't sugar coat it say what you really mean|

[Recliner]

Post by Hils

Post by Sam Wilson

Post by Hils
Would you prefer intellectually challenged, a bit dim, a few trucks
short of a train? The current *respectable* term is "learning disabled",
but it's only a matter of time before that term becomes unfashionable
enough to be replaced by something new and shiny, carefully polished by
bourgeois liberal bureaucrats.

Between "(mentally) retarded" and "learning disabled" the professional
term was "mentally handicapped". My wife is a retired practitioner in
this area and we have a number of friends who fit the definition.

ISTR "handicapped" was on the way out during the (fairly short) time I
worked in mental health. I'd prefer to see people paid a living wage for
whatever useful work they can do, but this isn't profitable enough for
the rentiers who now dominate the economy, and they are more than just a
bit dim, they're not doing real work and are often out and out psychopaths.

Quite unlike people who make statements like, "would make more sense
to shoot as many bankers, landlords and aristocrats as it takes".

[ian batten]

Post by Hils
it would make more sense to shoot as many bankers, landlords
and aristocrats as it takes

You just can't help yourself, can you? The British left:
solitary men fantasising about mass murder.

ian

[BrianW]

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils
it would make more sense to shoot as many bankers, landlords
and aristocrats as it takes

solitary men fantasising about mass murder.

He's a jolly fellow, isn't he? I'm wondering whether he is related to Duhg Bollen. He also used to fantasise about inflicting violence on his political opponents. Curiously, though, when violence was inflicted by the police etc on people with whom he agreed, he was the first to complain. I wonder if Hils takes the same approach?

[Mizter T]

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils
it would make more sense to shoot as many bankers, landlords
and aristocrats as it takes

solitary men fantasising about mass murder.

Er, not really something you could accuse Miliband, E of, or indeed a
great many others.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Hils
Despite Ian's spin, it is too soon to tell whether Cuba will become a
quasi-monarchy since presidential power was effectively transferred
sideways to one of the other leaders of the revolution.

Sideways rather than downwards inheritance of the throne is/was common
amongst some monarchies, particularly in the Middle East.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Andrew Clarke

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
"Out-dated"? And monarchies

Monarchies are very outdated, just a tourist attraction these days, like
steam engines.

Of course, the other thing that monarchies & steam engines have in common
is that these days noone expects them to do massive amounts of "real
work"!

With the exception of the fact that steam plant is responsible for something like 80% of all the electricity generated globally. Clearly that doesn't count as "real work".

I do love a good bit of pedantry :-)
All right, monarchs are like steam locomotives.
Cue someone to mention nuclear submarines!

Perhaps we should specify that monarchs are like steam *reciprocating* engines. Even the Turbomotive had to be rebuilt, before it became the Princess Royal.
Monarchs seem to serve their purpose. Lots of pleasant countries have them, e.g. The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Morocco. Lots of unpleasant countries do not. In fact the only thing holding Belgium together is the monarchy: cf
http://journal.media-culture.org.au/9910/nation/saxa.php
http://tdu.to/183005.msg
http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/dynastyhistory/books/1555.html
Graham, if you don't mind putting your bus conductor's hat on for a moment, could you tell me how somebody could get their hands on accurate information about the rebodying of provincial doubledecker buses ca. 1954?

I've never had a bus conductor's hat.

[Andrew Clarke]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Andrew Clarke
Graham, if you don't mind putting your bus conductor's hat on for a moment, could you tell me how somebody could get their hands on accurate information about the rebodying of provincial doubledecker buses ca. 1954?

I've never had a bus conductor's hat.

What a shame: I always wear my candy-striped US engineer's hat whenever I read/post to uk.railway. I thought you might have worn something similar when reading/posting to uk.buses etc.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[Recliner]

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Michael Bell
But what support he has within his own party?

Perhaps he thinks it will reduce the ability of a certain religion to
take over areas.

Real democracy is more likely to do that, but it would also reduce the
power of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois democracy, especially bourgeois
democracy which retains may of the trappings of monarchy, is little
different to a caliphate.

You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies. Caliphs, like British
monarchs, considered themselves to be political and religious leaders.
Many believed themselves to be chosen to rule by a god.
Beyond that, and particularly relevant in a bourgeois democracy, is that
power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few, and to the
vast majority of disempowered citizens, there is little practical
difference between absolute monarchy, bourgeois democracy, and caliphate.
So there. :-)

Can't you, Michael Bell and Joe Stirling get together to fashion a more
entertaining, credible conspiracy? Individually, you're all ridiculous,
but together you might be a Spike Milligan equivalent.

[Hils]

Post by Recliner
Can't you, Michael Bell and Joe Stirling get together to fashion a more
entertaining, credible conspiracy? Individually, you're all ridiculous,
but together you might be a Spike Milligan equivalent.

Witty, and more imaginative than many comments here, but there's no
conspiracy beyond a minority of people who profit from wielding
unaccountable power over others trying to keep and enhance their
privileges, while another minority are competing for the same
privileges. It's even reflected in voting trends.

[ian batten]

Post by Hils

Post by Recliner
Can't you, Michael Bell and Joe Stirling get together to fashion a more
entertaining, credible conspiracy? Individually, you're all ridiculous,
but together you might be a Spike Milligan equivalent.

Witty, and more imaginative than many comments here, but there's no
conspiracy beyond a minority of people who profit from wielding
unaccountable power over others

Whereas your friends Stalin, Castro and Mao didn't in any way constitute
a minority who profited from wielding unaccountable power over others.

How would you say things are in North Korea right now? The CPGB, from
the safety of Islington, say it's a workers' paradise. Like most of the rest
of the left, they're always keen to live in the countries they hate, while
being too cowardly to live in the countries they espouse.

ian

[Hils]

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by Recliner
Can't you, Michael Bell and Joe Stirling get together to fashion
a more entertaining, credible conspiracy? Individually, you're
all ridiculous, but together you might be a Spike Milligan
equivalent.

Witty, and more imaginative than many comments here, but there's
no conspiracy beyond a minority of people who profit from wielding
unaccountable power over others

Whereas your friends Stalin, Castro and Mao didn't in any way
constitute a minority who profited from wielding unaccountable power
over others.

Stalin was a nasty piece of work (as Lenin warned). Mao wasn't quite as
nasty as Stalin. Castro was a true patriot, and one of the greatest
leaders in world history. (I don't expect you to take my word for this.)
Nevertheless, I still favour real democracy over Marxism-Leninism, no
matter what you or anyone else may prefer to believe.

Post by ian batten
How would you say things are in North Korea right now?

North Korea is how Britain will become if its degenerate ruling and
rentier class remains in situ while the population continues to grow.

Post by ian batten
The CPGB, from the safety of Islington, say it's a workers' paradise.
Like most of the rest of the left, they're always keen to live in the
countries they hate, while being too cowardly to live in the
countries they espouse.

"Left" and "right" are pejoratives which reveal more about their user
than about the things (or people) they are attempting to abuse.

[ian batten]

Post by Hils

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by Recliner
Can't you, Michael Bell and Joe Stirling get together to fashion
a more entertaining, credible conspiracy? Individually, you're
all ridiculous, but together you might be a Spike Milligan
equivalent.

Witty, and more imaginative than many comments here, but there's
no conspiracy beyond a minority of people who profit from wielding
unaccountable power over others

Whereas your friends Stalin, Castro and Mao didn't in any way
constitute a minority who profited from wielding unaccountable power
over others.

Stalin was a nasty piece of work (as Lenin warned). Mao wasn't quite as
nasty as Stalin. Castro was a true patriot, and one of the greatest
leaders in world history. (I don't expect you to take my word for this.)

Such a great leader he didn't see the need to hold free elections or
to permit either free trade unions or political parties to exist. Still, that's
the advantage of being right. Oh, and he was succeeded by his brother,
without needing an election: I thought you were opposed to families inheriting
power? The Castro family are absolute monarchs: they just pass power to
their relatives. And shoot their opponents. Still, nice to see the sort of
political system you favour: no free elections, no free trade unions, no
opposition political parties, power passed between family members.

Casto is also a sexual predator who has had a succession of children by
women he rapes, oh, sorry, "has one night stands with". But that's the
advantage of being an absolute dictator, isn't it?

ian

[Hils]

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by Recliner
Can't you, Michael Bell and Joe Stirling get together to fashion
a more entertaining, credible conspiracy? Individually, you're
all ridiculous, but together you might be a Spike Milligan
equivalent.

Witty, and more imaginative than many comments here, but there's
no conspiracy beyond a minority of people who profit from wielding
unaccountable power over others

Whereas your friends Stalin, Castro and Mao didn't in any way
constitute a minority who profited from wielding unaccountable power
over others.

Stalin was a nasty piece of work (as Lenin warned). Mao wasn't quite as
nasty as Stalin. Castro was a true patriot, and one of the greatest
leaders in world history. (I don't expect you to take my word for this.)

Such a great leader he didn't see the need to hold free elections or
to permit either free trade unions or political parties to exist. Still, that's
the advantage of being right. Oh, and he was succeeded by his brother,
without needing an election: I thought you were opposed to families inheriting
power? The Castro family are absolute monarchs: they just pass power to
their relatives. And shoot their opponents. Still, nice to see the sort of
political system you favour: no free elections, no free trade unions, no
opposition political parties, power passed between family members.
Casto is also a sexual predator who has had a succession of children by
women he rapes, oh, sorry, "has one night stands with". But that's the
advantage of being an absolute dictator, isn't it?

Even if your unsourced tales of him are true as you have spun them,
Castro was no worse than the monarchs who preceded the
Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, and they are still preferable to the abduction,
rape, sodomy and slaughter of young boys (not to mention other abuses of
power) by Britain's bourgeois "democrats". Castro also personally led
the fight to free the Cuban people from the tyranny of American bankers
and other criminals and their collaborators. This is an alien concept to
Britain because the last time anything like it happened here was
Boudica's revolt against the Romans. She eventually lost BTW, though not
as comprehensively as when Harold and his feeble Anglo-Saxons got their
arses kicked by William the bastard and his immigrant mercenaries: the
bastard's descendants still maintain control of much of Britain through
a corrupt legal system, bullshit monarchic "tradition", and bourgeois
media and "democracy".

[ian batten]

Post by Hils

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by Recliner
Can't you, Michael Bell and Joe Stirling get together to fashion
a more entertaining, credible conspiracy? Individually, you're
all ridiculous, but together you might be a Spike Milligan
equivalent.

Witty, and more imaginative than many comments here, but there's
no conspiracy beyond a minority of people who profit from wielding
unaccountable power over others

Whereas your friends Stalin, Castro and Mao didn't in any way
constitute a minority who profited from wielding unaccountable power
over others.

Stalin was a nasty piece of work (as Lenin warned). Mao wasn't quite as
nasty as Stalin. Castro was a true patriot, and one of the greatest
leaders in world history. (I don't expect you to take my word for this.)

Such a great leader he didn't see the need to hold free elections or
to permit either free trade unions or political parties to exist. Still, that's
the advantage of being right. Oh, and he was succeeded by his brother,
without needing an election: I thought you were opposed to families inheriting
power? The Castro family are absolute monarchs: they just pass power to
their relatives. And shoot their opponents. Still, nice to see the sort of
political system you favour: no free elections, no free trade unions, no
opposition political parties, power passed between family members.
Casto is also a sexual predator who has had a succession of children by
women he rapes, oh, sorry, "has one night stands with". But that's the
advantage of being an absolute dictator, isn't it?

Even if your unsourced tales of him are true as you have spun them,
Castro was no worse than the monarchs who preceded

"No worse than historic bad people" is rather weaker than "greatest
leader in world history", wouldn't you say?

ian

[Hils]

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils
Even if your unsourced tales of him are true as you have spun them,
Castro was no worse than the monarchs who preceded

"No worse than historic bad people" is rather weaker than "greatest
leader in world history", wouldn't you say?

Not really, it's because I don't trust "leaders" that I'd rather see
real democracy. More often than not "leaders" are nasty, corrupt,
warmongering psychopaths. Castro gets brownie points for liberating his
country from occupation, without then going down the path of the Kims.
Neither, for that matter, has Castro been as deranged or incompetent as
Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and any number of other "leaders" who
have got their citizens to fight wars from which have left the citizens
maimed or dead and the "leaders" and their families and friends richer.

[ian batten]

Post by Hils
Neither, for that matter, has Castro been as deranged or incompetent as
Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and any number of other "leaders" who
have got their citizens to fight wars from which have left the citizens
maimed or dead and the "leaders" and their families and friends richer.

Raul Castro has a net worth of $100m. I wonder where he got it from?

Fidel Castro has a net worth approaching $1bn. I wonder where he got it
from?

ian

[Michael Bell]

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils
Neither, for that matter, has Castro been as deranged or incompetent as
Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and any number of other "leaders" who
have got their citizens to fight wars from which have left the citizens
maimed or dead and the "leaders" and their families and friends richer.

Raul Castro has a net worth of $100m. I wonder where he got it from?
Fidel Castro has a net worth approaching $1bn. I wonder where he got it
from?
ian

Where do you get that from? Reliable sources?

Michael Bell

[Hils]

Post by Michael Bell

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils
Neither, for that matter, has Castro been as deranged or incompetent as
Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and any number of other "leaders" who
have got their citizens to fight wars from which have left the citizens
maimed or dead and the "leaders" and their families and friends richer.

Raul Castro has a net worth of $100m. I wonder where he got it from?
Fidel Castro has a net worth approaching $1bn. I wonder where he got it
from?

Where do you get that from? Reliable sources?

Claims by Forbes and by a Cuban emigre desperate to stay in the US,
parroted by the Daily Mail and a few other bourgeois media. And what did
Forbes (whose owner was a chum of Reagan and Bush) actually say?

"We assume [Castro] has economic control over a web of state-owned
companies... these estimates are more art than science."

Typical bourgeois propaganda.

Of course Castro's not living in poverty, but he's hardly in the same
league as the unearned wealth enjoyed by the Kims, the Sauds, the
Grosvenors, the Barclays, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas.

They're all some way still from this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-31679475

And he likes Fidel too...

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/07/26/mujica-praises-fidel-castro-as-a-brilliant-man-promoter-of-ideas

[Michael Bell]

Post by Hils

Post by Michael Bell

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils
Neither, for that matter, has Castro been as deranged or incompetent as
Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Cameron, and any number of other "leaders" who
have got their citizens to fight wars from which have left the citizens
maimed or dead and the "leaders" and their families and friends richer.

Raul Castro has a net worth of $100m. I wonder where he got it from?
Fidel Castro has a net worth approaching $1bn. I wonder where he got it
from?

Where do you get that from? Reliable sources?

Claims by Forbes and by a Cuban emigre desperate to stay in the US,
parroted by the Daily Mail and a few other bourgeois media. And what did
Forbes (whose owner was a chum of Reagan and Bush) actually say?
"We assume [Castro] has economic control over a web of state-owned
companies... these estimates are more art than science."
Typical bourgeois propaganda.
Of course Castro's not living in poverty, but he's hardly in the same
league as the unearned wealth enjoyed by the Kims, the Sauds, the
Grosvenors, the Barclays, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-31679475
And he likes Fidel too...
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/07/26/mujica-praises-fidel-castro-as-a-b
rilliant-man-promoter-of-ideas

You may be right, but I would like to read it from the OP.

Michael Bell

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by ian batten
Raul Castro has a net worth of $100m. I wonder where he got it from?
Fidel Castro has a net worth approaching $1bn. I wonder where he got it
from?

Surely the money was generously and voluntarily donated by the workers of
Cuba in gratitude for the banning of political parties, free elections &
trade unions and the general suppression of the populace?

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 09:37:08 -0700 (PDT), ian batten

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils

Post by Recliner
Can't you, Michael Bell and Joe Stirling get together to fashion a more
entertaining, credible conspiracy? Individually, you're all ridiculous,
but together you might be a Spike Milligan equivalent.

Witty, and more imaginative than many comments here, but there's no
conspiracy beyond a minority of people who profit from wielding
unaccountable power over others

Whereas your friends Stalin, Castro and Mao didn't in any way constitute
a minority who profited from wielding unaccountable power over others.
How would you say things are in North Korea right now? The CPGB, from
the safety of Islington, say it's a workers' paradise.

I'm not sure they do any more. In e.g.
http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/396/communist-party-of-britain-clings-to-labour-left-u/
they seem to be slagging the CPB's opinion of "living socialism can
also be witnessed today in Vietnam, China and even in North Korea." as
"perverse". The CPB (Communist Party of Britain) is presumably to the
CPGB what the Judean People's Front is to the People's Front of Judea.



Like most of the rest

Post by ian batten
of the left, they're always keen to live in the countries they hate, while
being too cowardly to live in the countries they espouse.
ian

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

[Hils]

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

True, and the same can be said of Britain's monarchy due to the
succession of various houses (none of which were elected by popular
vote). There have been plenty of opportunities to let the monarchy die a
natural death, or at least cull it, but the British ruling class need a
monarchy to give it a tradition which it can present to the people as
respectable. It's sprinkling glitter on a turd IMV but clearly others
are taken in.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Hils

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

True, and the same can be said of Britain's monarchy due to the
succession of various houses

The system has been pretty much (entirely?) hereditary under the rules
since 1714, when assorted catholic candidates really were skipped over
in favour of George I. The arrival of the houses of Hannover,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and whatever Charles counts as being comes within that
framework.

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:49:21 +0100, Arthur Figgis

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

True, and the same can be said of Britain's monarchy due to the
succession of various houses

The system has been pretty much (entirely?) hereditary under the rules
since 1714, when assorted catholic candidates really were skipped over
in favour of George I. The arrival of the houses of Hannover,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and whatever Charles counts as

Windsor, see also Railtrack v. Network Rail. ;-)

Post by Arthur Figgis
being comes within that
framework.

[Hils]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:49:21 +0100, Arthur Figgis

Post by Arthur Figgis
The system has been pretty much (entirely?) hereditary under the rules
since 1714, when assorted catholic candidates really were skipped over
in favour of George I. The arrival of the houses of Hannover,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and whatever Charles counts as

Windsor, see also Railtrack v. Network Rail. ;-)

At least Network Rail does useful work for the people. Birmingham New
Street excepted. I now have some concerns about how Temple Meads will
look in a few months, though I suppose they're starting from a rather
better place there than at New Street.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:49:21 +0100, Arthur Figgis

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

True, and the same can be said of Britain's monarchy due to the
succession of various houses

The system has been pretty much (entirely?) hereditary under the rules
since 1714, when assorted catholic candidates really were skipped over
in favour of George I. The arrival of the houses of Hannover,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and whatever Charles counts as

Windsor, see also Railtrack v. Network Rail. ;-)

But if Edward VII was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his dad, rather than a
Hanover through his mum, shouldn't Charles be a
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg ("bloody amoeba" factors aside)?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:49:21 +0100, Arthur Figgis

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

True, and the same can be said of Britain's monarchy due to the
succession of various houses

The system has been pretty much (entirely?) hereditary under the rules
since 1714, when assorted catholic candidates really were skipped over
in favour of George I. The arrival of the houses of Hannover,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and whatever Charles counts as

Windsor, see also Railtrack v. Network Rail. ;-)

But if Edward VII was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his dad, rather than a
Hanover through his mum, shouldn't Charles be a
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg ("bloody amoeba" factors aside)?

He should be an Oldenburg through his father.

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 28 May 2015 22:16:32 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:49:21 +0100, Arthur Figgis

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

True, and the same can be said of Britain's monarchy due to the
succession of various houses

The system has been pretty much (entirely?) hereditary under the rules
since 1714, when assorted catholic candidates really were skipped over
in favour of George I. The arrival of the houses of Hannover,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and whatever Charles counts as

Windsor, see also Railtrack v. Network Rail. ;-)

But if Edward VII was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his dad, rather than a
Hanover through his mum, shouldn't Charles be a
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg ("bloody amoeba" factors aside)?

He should be an Oldenburg through his father.

He changed his name to Mountbatten during Big Mistake I.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Thu, 28 May 2015 22:16:32 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Charles Ellson
On Wed, 27 May 2015 22:49:21 +0100, Arthur Figgis

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

True, and the same can be said of Britain's monarchy due to the
succession of various houses

The system has been pretty much (entirely?) hereditary under the rules
since 1714, when assorted catholic candidates really were skipped over
in favour of George I. The arrival of the houses of Hannover,
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and whatever Charles counts as

Windsor, see also Railtrack v. Network Rail. ;-)

But if Edward VII was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his dad, rather than a
Hanover through his mum, shouldn't Charles be a
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg ("bloody amoeba" factors aside)?

He should be an Oldenburg through his father.

He changed his name to Mountbatten during Big Mistake I.

Nope, that was his (Charles') maternal great-grandfather.

[BevanPrice]

Post by Hils

Post by Arthur Figgis

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
You obviously know litte about either Monarchies or Caliphates.

Most caliphates were hereditary monarchies.

The Ottoman system wasn't a clear-cut hereditary system like ours,
although I'm not sure whether and to what extent the overlap between
Sultan and Caliph was de jure or de facto.

True, and the same can be said of Britain's monarchy due to the
succession of various houses (none of which were elected by popular
vote). There have been plenty of opportunities to let the monarchy die a
natural death, or at least cull it, but the British ruling class need a
monarchy to give it a tradition which it can present to the people as
respectable. It's sprinkling glitter on a turd IMV but clearly others
are taken in.

Surely a monarchy is better than one feasible alternative in the 1980s -
a President Thatcher ??

Bevan

[Hils]

Post by BevanPrice
Surely a monarchy is better than one feasible alternative in the 1980s -
a President Thatcher ??

The only way Thatcher (or Blair) could have got elected as president
would have been under a FPTP election, and any country insane enough to
adopt FPTP elections for such a post would deserve someone like Thatcher
or Blair.

The Swiss system is better, their federal president is in office for
only twelve months and has very little power anyway.

A lot of discussions of monarch/president end up with a "President
Blair" bogeyman as if a presidential system like the USA's is the
inevitable option. Any abolition of the monarchy would need a thorough
constitutional reform which could hardly not include electoral reform,
the division of power between chambers, federalisation, etc.

[Recliner]

Post by Hils

Post by BevanPrice
Surely a monarchy is better than one feasible alternative in the 1980s -
a President Thatcher ??

The only way Thatcher (or Blair) could have got elected as president
would have been under a FPTP election, and any country insane enough to
adopt FPTP elections for such a post would deserve someone like Thatcher
or Blair.
The Swiss system is better, their federal president is in office for
only twelve months and has very little power anyway.

So why does it matter how he or she is selected? You might as well save
some money by letting the head of state serve for life. And why not make
sure they're well-trained for the role by starting when they're very young?

Post by Hils
A lot of discussions of monarch/president end up with a "President
Blair" bogeyman as if a presidential system like the USA's is the
inevitable option. Any abolition of the monarchy would need a thorough
constitutional reform which could hardly not include electoral reform,
the division of power between chambers, federalisation, etc.

Sounds like an expensive, complicated process, to what advantage?

[Hils]

Post by Recliner

Post by Hils
The Swiss system is better, their federal president is in office for
only twelve months and has very little power anyway.

So why does it matter how he or she is selected? You might as well save
some money by letting the head of state serve for life. And why not make
sure they're well-trained for the role by starting when they're very young?

They are there to serve the public, not use an already disproportionate
and unearned share of the nation's resources to spawn yet more surplus
offspring and enhance their family's privileges. The Saxe-Coburg-Gothas
(and their predecessors) got that way because they weren't accountable
to anyone except aristos who were in the same racket themselves.

The costs of elections would be more than recouped through reduced
corruption, nepotism,ad incompetence. If the Swiss people didn't want
their system of government, they could have changed it. They haven't
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

The people are the best judge of their representatives, not the
representatives themselves, still less someone who has never been
elected but who was born into unearned privilege.

Post by Recliner

Post by Hils
A lot of discussions of monarch/president end up with a "President
Blair" bogeyman as if a presidential system like the USA's is the
inevitable option. Any abolition of the monarchy would need a thorough
constitutional reform which could hardly not include electoral reform,
the division of power between chambers, federalisation, etc.

Sounds like an expensive, complicated process, to what advantage?

More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

[ian batten]

On Thursday, 28 May 2015 16:46:33 UTC+1, Hils wrote:
They haven't

Post by Hils
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

Why waste money when abolition of the royal family rarely polls better
than 25%, and when combined with "likely to vote" would be lucky to
get 20%?

Post by Hils
The people are the best judge of their representatives,

But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

Post by Hils
More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

Like Cuba, perhaps?

ian

[Hils]

Post by Hils
They haven't

Post by Hils
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

Why waste money when abolition of the royal family rarely polls better
than 25%, and when combined with "likely to vote" would be lucky to
get 20%?

There has never been a proper public discussion of this. After a
thousand years, a discussion is long overdue.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
The people are the best judge of their representatives,

But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

Like Cuba, perhaps?

They are healthier and better-educated, more stable, and their culture
is arguably richer and more democratic than Britain's.

Britain is much closer to Cuba than to Switzerland in governmental
structure. The difference is that Britain is run by traitors while Cuba
is (for the time being) run by patriots. As it seems I have to emphasise
this point time and again, a real democracy would be more stable than
either.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
They haven't

Post by Hils
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

Why waste money when abolition of the royal family rarely polls better
than 25%, and when combined with "likely to vote" would be lucky to
get 20%?

There has never been a proper public discussion of this. After a
thousand years, a discussion is long overdue.

Which thousand years are you thinking of?

Post by Hils

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
The people are the best judge of their representatives,

But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Castro polled, er hang on he didn't, ever.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

Like Cuba, perhaps?

They are healthier and better-educated, more stable, and their culture
is arguably richer and more democratic than Britain's.

That's one hell of a strange argement.

Post by Hils
Britain is much closer to Cuba than to Switzerland in governmental
structure. The difference is that Britain is run by traitors while Cuba
is (for the time being) run by patriots. As it seems I have to emphasise
this point time and again, a real democracy would be more stable than
either.

Given your idea of a "real" democracy appears to be rule by maniacal
murdering dictators I'll pass on that one.

[Hils]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Castro polled, er hang on he didn't, ever.

Arguably he won through a more democratic mechanism than mere voting:
enough of his fellow citizens put their own lives on the line for their
*collective* cause to (successfully, as it turned out) drive occupiers
and oppressors from their land.

Much as they blather on about heroism at every ceremonial
photo-opportunity, the likes of Blair and Cameron probably can't even
imagine what the Castros and their comrades went through for their country.

Post by Graeme Wall
Given your idea of a "real" democracy appears to be rule by maniacal
murdering dictators I'll pass on that one.

Resorting to straw men? How very conservative.

[Recliner]

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Castro polled, er hang on he didn't, ever.

enough of his fellow citizens put their own lives on the line for their
*collective* cause to (successfully, as it turned out) drive occupiers
and oppressors from their land.

So that must be why so many people from oppressed lands like the US are
desperate to migrate to the wonderful land of Cuba? Why boat people from
Florida keep turning up on Cuban beaches, hoping for a better life there?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Castro polled, er hang on he didn't, ever.

enough of his fellow citizens put their own lives on the line for their
*collective* cause to (successfully, as it turned out) drive occupiers
and oppressors from their land.

Rubbish, a bunch of Soviet funded malcontents and adventurers, some of
whom weren't even Cuban.

Post by Hils
Much as they blather on about heroism at every ceremonial
photo-opportunity, the likes of Blair and Cameron probably can't even
imagine what the Castros and their comrades went through for their country.

I

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
Given your idea of a "real" democracy appears to be rule by maniacal
murdering dictators I'll pass on that one.

Resorting to straw men? How very conservative.

Conservative? ROTFL.
Which one of your heroes, Mao, Lenin, Castro, was not a maniacal
murdering dictator?

[Hils]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
enough of his fellow citizens put their own lives on the line for their
*collective* cause to (successfully, as it turned out) drive occupiers
and oppressors from their land.

Rubbish, a bunch of Soviet funded malcontents and adventurers, some of
whom weren't even Cuban.

The USSR's involvement was perfectly reasonable given foreign capital's
support (and US government support) for Batista and (some need to be
reminded) the election he cancelled when it became clear that a
reformist alliance was going to win it. Nevertheless, like all the great
revolutions, including France's and Russia's, Cuba's was overwhelmingly
a popular uprising. They were, in effect, claiming the result which the
election should have given them.

Post by Graeme Wall
Which one of your heroes, Mao, Lenin, Castro, was not a maniacal
murdering dictator?

I have no particular fondness for Mao other than for his robust approach
to landlords, which was perfectly justified under the circumstances.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
enough of his fellow citizens put their own lives on the line for their
*collective* cause to (successfully, as it turned out) drive occupiers
and oppressors from their land.

Rubbish, a bunch of Soviet funded malcontents and adventurers, some of
whom weren't even Cuban.

The USSR's involvement was perfectly reasonable given foreign capital's
support (and US government support) for Batista and (some need to be
reminded) the election he cancelled when it became clear that a
reformist alliance was going to win it. Nevertheless, like all the great
revolutions, including France's and Russia's, Cuba's was overwhelmingly
a popular uprising. They were, in effect, claiming the result which the
election should have given them.

Which Russian revolution are you referring to?

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
Which one of your heroes, Mao, Lenin, Castro, was not a maniacal
murdering dictator?

I have no particular fondness for Mao other than for his robust approach
to landlords, which was perfectly justified under the circumstances.

Yes we know you favour murdering people you don't like just because you can.

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
Which one of your heroes, Mao, Lenin, Castro, was not a maniacal
murdering dictator?

I have no particular fondness for Mao other than for his robust approach
to landlords, which was perfectly justified under the circumstances.

Yes we know you favour murdering people you don't like just because you can.

Luckily, he can't.

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:29:08 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
Which one of your heroes, Mao, Lenin,

In Lenin's time, HMG was also in the business of shooting their own
people who they didn't like and were still doing so in the colonies in
Mao's time.

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall
Castro, was not a maniacal
murdering dictator?

I have no particular fondness for Mao other than for his robust approach
to landlords, which was perfectly justified under the circumstances.

Yes we know you favour murdering people you don't like just because you can.

Luckily, he can't.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:29:08 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Which one of your heroes, Mao, Lenin,

In Lenin's time, HMG was also in the business of shooting their own
people who they didn't like and were still doing so in the colonies in
Mao's time.

I don't claim them as heroes.

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:29:08 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Which one of your heroes, Mao, Lenin,

In Lenin's time, HMG was also in the business of shooting their own
people who they didn't like and were still doing so in the colonies in
Mao's time.

I don't claim them as heroes.

He was addressing Hils.

[Charles Ellson]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:09:59 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:29:08 +0000 (UTC), Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Which one of your heroes, Mao, Lenin,

In Lenin's time, HMG was also in the business of shooting their own
people who they didn't like and were still doing so in the colonies in
Mao's time.

I don't claim them as heroes.

He was addressing Hils.

It was Graeme that asked that actual question but implicitly
attributing their description to Hils. Once you start going back a
bit, some of the people now seen as a bit nasty were often not using
methods all that nastier than those they were fighting. The UK (and
other European countries) might not have been nasty on the same scale
but were still indulging in the odd slaughter such as e.g. the
Amritsar massacre in 1919 and activities by proxy in more recent years
in Northern Ireland while the Dutch were responsible for a massacre of
430 civilians in Indonesia in 1947.

[Denis McMahon]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
Yes we know you favour murdering people you don't like just because you can.

Luckily, he can't.

He can favour it.

[Michael Bell]

Post by Hils

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Hils
In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Castro polled, er hang on he didn't, ever.

enough of his fellow citizens put their own lives on the line for their
*collective* cause to (successfully, as it turned out) drive occupiers
and oppressors from their land.

I read a very interesting book by two American academics who recounted
the undisputed fact that Castro's predecessor, Batista, was the very
epitome of a foul, corrupt, Latin American dictator, the Americans
were glad to see him ousted,and Castro was not a communist at that
stage, but when Castro started to take over American-owned firms, the
Americans turned to oppose him and drove him into the Soviet's arms.
The book argued that was completely unnecessary; the Americans made an
enemy they didn't need to. I must look and see if I still have that
book.

Michael Bell

[ian batten]

Post by Hils

Post by ian batten
But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Could you remind us of the results of the elections in any of the countries
(China, Cuba, Russia) whose politics you claim to be better than ours?
Oh yes: they're all one party states. Typical stupid communist: decry the
mandates in countries with free elections, because the majorities are smaller
than in the dictatorships you prefer.

Post by Hils
Britain is much closer to Cuba

Aside from being a multi-party democracy. Which none of the countries you
praise are. Tell us, "Hils", why is it that the only countries you think are
models to follow are single-party dictatorships with appalling human
rights records that people risk their lives to leave in large quantities?
We can, and do, vote our leaders out. Cubans get the leader's brother
in a single-party state. Your definition of democracy is completely fucked.

ian

[Hils]

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils
Britain is much closer to Cuba

Aside from being a multi-party democracy.

Britain is not a democracy. It can be characterised as an oligarchy
which occasionally holds elections, or as a bourgeois democracy, but
democracy it is not.

Post by ian batten
Which none of the countries you praise are.

Have you told the people of Switzerland, Germany and Finland?

Post by ian batten
Your definition of democracy is completely fucked.

I have never claimed that Cuba is a democracy, because it is not.

[ian batten]

Post by Hils

Post by ian batten

Post by Hils
Britain is much closer to Cuba

Aside from being a multi-party democracy.

Britain is not a democracy. It can be characterised as an oligarchy
which occasionally holds elections, or as a bourgeois democracy, but
democracy it is not.

Post by ian batten
Which none of the countries you praise are.

Have you told the people of Switzerland, Germany and Finland?

So given you have right of abode in all of those countries, why are
you living here?

Post by Hils

Post by ian batten
Your definition of democracy is completely fucked.

I have never claimed that Cuba is a democracy, because it is not.

Sorry, I thought you said that Castro was more democratically elected
than any British prime minister, which is why it's perfectly OK for
the Cuban dictator to have been called "Castro" for more than fifty
years?

ian

[BevanPrice]

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
They haven't

Post by Hils
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

Why waste money when abolition of the royal family rarely polls better
than 25%, and when combined with "likely to vote" would be lucky to
get 20%?

There has never been a proper public discussion of this. After a
thousand years, a discussion is long overdue.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
The people are the best judge of their representatives,

But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

Like Cuba, perhaps?

They are healthier and better-educated, more stable, and their culture
is arguably richer and more democratic than Britain's.
Britain is much closer to Cuba than to Switzerland in governmental
structure. The difference is that Britain is run by traitors while Cuba
is (for the time being) run by patriots. As it seems I have to emphasise
this point time and again, a real democracy would be more stable than
either.

You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an
unelected House Of Lords. However, Cuba is anything but a democracy. In
effect one unpleasant corrupt dictator (Batista) was replaced by another
dictator who, in the early days, imprisoned and/or killed many who
opposed him.

Bevan

[ian batten]

Post by BevanPrice

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
They haven't

Post by Hils
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

Why waste money when abolition of the royal family rarely polls better
than 25%, and when combined with "likely to vote" would be lucky to
get 20%?

There has never been a proper public discussion of this. After a
thousand years, a discussion is long overdue.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
The people are the best judge of their representatives,

But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

Like Cuba, perhaps?

They are healthier and better-educated, more stable, and their culture
is arguably richer and more democratic than Britain's.
Britain is much closer to Cuba than to Switzerland in governmental
structure. The difference is that Britain is run by traitors while Cuba
is (for the time being) run by patriots. As it seems I have to emphasise
this point time and again, a real democracy would be more stable than
either.

You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an
unelected House Of Lords.

We also have the Parliament Act and the Salisbury Convention, so the
power of the House of Lords to frustrate the elected parliament is
actually rather low.

Post by BevanPrice
However, Cuba is anything but a democracy. In
effect one unpleasant corrupt dictator (Batista) was replaced by another
dictator who, in the early days, imprisoned and/or killed many who
opposed him.

And who then transferred power to his brother, with other family members
waiting in the wings. The whole thing is from the middle ages.

ian

[BevanPrice]

Post by ian batten

Post by BevanPrice

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
They haven't

Post by Hils
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

Why waste money when abolition of the royal family rarely polls better
than 25%, and when combined with "likely to vote" would be lucky to
get 20%?

There has never been a proper public discussion of this. After a
thousand years, a discussion is long overdue.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
The people are the best judge of their representatives,

But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

Like Cuba, perhaps?

They are healthier and better-educated, more stable, and their culture
is arguably richer and more democratic than Britain's.
Britain is much closer to Cuba than to Switzerland in governmental
structure. The difference is that Britain is run by traitors while Cuba
is (for the time being) run by patriots. As it seems I have to emphasise
this point time and again, a real democracy would be more stable than
either.

You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an
unelected House Of Lords.

We also have the Parliament Act and the Salisbury Convention, so the
power of the House of Lords to frustrate the elected parliament is
actually rather low.
ian

Low, but still present. And undemocratic in that neither you nor I can
help to decide who sits in the Lords -- unless you are one of the
fortunate few who can afford to donate millions to the (political)
party, or otherwise act in a way that greatly favours that party.

Bevan

[BevanPrice]

Post by BevanPrice

Post by ian batten

Post by BevanPrice

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
They haven't

Post by Hils
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

Why waste money when abolition of the royal family rarely polls better
than 25%, and when combined with "likely to vote" would be lucky to
get 20%?

There has never been a proper public discussion of this. After a
thousand years, a discussion is long overdue.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
The people are the best judge of their representatives,

But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

Like Cuba, perhaps?

They are healthier and better-educated, more stable, and their culture
is arguably richer and more democratic than Britain's.
Britain is much closer to Cuba than to Switzerland in governmental
structure. The difference is that Britain is run by traitors while Cuba
is (for the time being) run by patriots. As it seems I have to emphasise
this point time and again, a real democracy would be more stable than
either.

You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an
unelected House Of Lords.

We also have the Parliament Act and the Salisbury Convention, so the
power of the House of Lords to frustrate the elected parliament is
actually rather low.
ian

Low, but still present. And undemocratic in that neither you nor I can
help to decide who sits in the Lords -- unless you are one of the
fortunate few who can afford to donate millions to the (political)
party, or otherwise act in a way that greatly favours that party.
Bevan

P.S. I forgot to add, I know you cannot "buy" a seat in the Lords, but
donating lots of money does seem to help some people get there.

B

[Recliner]

Post by BevanPrice

Post by BevanPrice

Post by ian batten

Post by BevanPrice

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
They haven't

Post by Hils
changed it because they like the way it works. British people have never
had any such choice.

Why waste money when abolition of the royal family rarely polls better
than 25%, and when combined with "likely to vote" would be lucky to
get 20%?

There has never been a proper public discussion of this. After a
thousand years, a discussion is long overdue.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
The people are the best judge of their representatives,

But you reserve a lot of bile for Blair who was, wait for it, elected
three times. Who's the better judge, the people or you?

In those elections Labour polled 30.8%, 24.2% and 21.6% of the
electorates. I don't consider that a mandate for a majority government,
still less an endorsement of Blair.

Post by Hils

Post by Hils
More prosperous, healthy, involved and better-educated people, a more
stable economy and society, a richer and more democratic culture.

Like Cuba, perhaps?

They are healthier and better-educated, more stable, and their culture
is arguably richer and more democratic than Britain's.
Britain is much closer to Cuba than to Switzerland in governmental
structure. The difference is that Britain is run by traitors while Cuba
is (for the time being) run by patriots. As it seems I have to emphasise
this point time and again, a real democracy would be more stable than
either.

You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an
unelected House Of Lords.

We also have the Parliament Act and the Salisbury Convention, so the
power of the House of Lords to frustrate the elected parliament is
actually rather low.
ian

Low, but still present. And undemocratic in that neither you nor I can
help to decide who sits in the Lords -- unless you are one of the
fortunate few who can afford to donate millions to the (political)
party, or otherwise act in a way that greatly favours that party.
Bevan

P.S. I forgot to add, I know you cannot "buy" a seat in the Lords, but
donating lots of money does seem to help some people get there.

Obviously, you're right, but the rules have been tightened up a bit.
Candidates nominated by politicians now have to be vetted by the House of
Lords Appointments Commission (which excludes some of the sleazier donors),
and also now can't be non-doms (which excludes some of the richer donors).
Also, I think the attendance and voting records of these pay-peers isn't
very good -- they wanted the title and status, not the hard work of
scrutinising and revising legislation.

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by ian batten
We also have the Parliament Act and the Salisbury Convention, so the
power of the House of Lords to frustrate the elected parliament is
actually rather low.

Though I did laugh when after Labour got elected with a promise to not do
$THING (I forget what it was) in their manifesto, and proceeded to
legislate to do $THING ... The Lords responded by rejecting the proposed
legislation and used the Salisbury Convention as their reasoning!

[Roland Perry]

Post by BevanPrice
You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an
unelected House Of Lords.

Aren't all the hereditary ones there elected (albeit by their
peers[sic])

[Recliner]

Post by BevanPrice
You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an

Post by BevanPrice
unelected House Of Lords.

Aren't all the hereditary ones there elected (albeit by their peers[sic])

Yes, and it's a very well informed electorate which knows far more about
the candidates than in a normal election.

[BevanPrice]

Post by Recliner

Post by BevanPrice
You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an

Post by BevanPrice
unelected House Of Lords.

Aren't all the hereditary ones there elected (albeit by their peers[sic])

Yes, and it's a very well informed electorate which knows far more about
the candidates than in a normal election.

But a tiny proportion of the total population. And rather less than the
number of TU members who are needed to support a ballot on industrial
action...........

Bevan

[Mizter T]

Post by Recliner

Post by BevanPrice
You may be partly right in that UK is a shamocracy, in that we have an

Post by BevanPrice
unelected House Of Lords.

Aren't all the hereditary ones there elected (albeit by their peers[sic])

Yes, and it's a very well informed electorate which knows far more about
the candidates than in a normal election.

This feature was of course introduced in 1999 strictly as an interim
measure. Of course, the HoL has existed on an interim basis pending
proper reform since 1911.

Yes, they manage to do good work, but the basis of their existence is
still preposterous.

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by Recliner
Sounds like an expensive, complicated process, to what advantage?

Well a "Federal UK" might be a good idea, but hardly requires the
abolition of the monarchy to achieve it. Canada and Australia seem to
manage perfectly well as federal countries with a monarch.

As for the rest, wouldn't save any money anyway. You'd still have to pay
to maintain and guard all the royal palaces (excluding Sandringham &
Balmoral[1]), you'd still have to pay to guard the senior royal's since they
would continue to be potential targets and then you'd have to pay someone
else to do the "head of state" stuff, pay to guard said person and then
pay extra to cover the costs of selecting a new one every so often.

[1] Since they are the private property of the royal family. Though I
suppose if we where abolishing the monarchy I'm pretty sure someone
would pop up advocating the confiscation of private property[2] without
fair compensation too?
[2] Well, other people's private property anyway since said people never
seem to advocate that their own property for some reason ...

[Neil Williams]

Post by Hils
The only way Thatcher (or Blair) could have got elected as president
would have been under a FPTP election, and any country insane enough to
adopt FPTP elections for such a post would deserve someone like Thatcher
or Blair.

If we *had* to have one I would prefer it to be a simple one-person
one-vote highest-percentage-wins type election. But I prefer what we
have, it avoids one person having too much power.

Neil

[Mizter T]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Hils
The only way Thatcher (or Blair) could have got elected as president
would have been under a FPTP election, and any country insane enough to
adopt FPTP elections for such a post would deserve someone like Thatcher
or Blair.

If we *had* to have one I would prefer it to be a simple one-person
one-vote highest-percentage-wins type election. But I prefer what we
have, it avoids one person having too much power.

Why would a hypothetical ceremonial president have any substantive power?

[Neil Williams]

Post by Mizter T

Post by Neil Williams
If we *had* to have one I would prefer it to be a simple one-person
one-vote highest-percentage-wins type election. But I prefer what we
have, it avoids one person having too much power.

Why would a hypothetical ceremonial president have any substantive power?

What's the point in voting for someone that has no substantive power?
If we're going to have that person, it might as well stay as it is and
bring in a bit of tourist revenue.

I vote for policies, not people. If the person has no policies, and
they can't have any policies if they have no power, there is no
rational basis on which to vote.

Neil

[Recliner]

Post by Neil Williams
If we *had* to have one I would prefer it to be a simple one-person
one-vote highest-percentage-wins type election. But I prefer what we
have, it avoids one person having too much power.
Why would a hypothetical ceremonial president have any substantive power?

What's the point in voting for someone that has no substantive power? If
we're going to have that person, it might as well stay as it is and bring
in a bit of tourist revenue.
I vote for policies, not people. If the person has no policies, and they
can't have any policies if they have no power, there is no rational basis on which to vote.

Exactly. The current arrangement remains strictly apolitical, which is
impossible if you have regular elections, and is profitable for the
country's tourist industry to boot. There's no risk of our head of state
getting embroiled in funding scandals, nor getting entangled with sleazy
donors.

We also know they don't have dodgy political careers behind them, nor a
questionable retirement ahead of them -- which other job has no retirement
plan? And no other job has a longer training and apprenticeship programme.

[Andrew Clarke]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Mizter T

Post by Neil Williams
If we *had* to have one I would prefer it to be a simple one-person
one-vote highest-percentage-wins type election. But I prefer what we
have, it avoids one person having too much power.

Why would a hypothetical ceremonial president have any substantive power?

What's the point in voting for someone that has no substantive power?
If we're going to have that person, it might as well stay as it is and
bring in a bit of tourist revenue.
I vote for policies, not people. If the person has no policies, and
they can't have any policies if they have no power, there is no
rational basis on which to vote.

Besides, a republic would have left Collett and Stanier up a gum tree. I suppose the former might have created the 'Kink' class, although the curved GWR nameplate might not have been big enough to accommodate the names of some of them. Sadly,'Coronation Street' didn't happen until many years after Stanier's death, although there were probably enough foreign duchesses around to fill the bill in the 1930s-1940s?

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Hils

Post by BevanPrice
Surely a monarchy is better than one feasible alternative in the 1980s -
a President Thatcher ??

The only way Thatcher (or Blair) could have got elected as president
would have been under a FPTP election, and any country insane enough to
adopt FPTP elections for such a post would deserve someone like Thatcher
or Blair.
The Swiss system is better, their federal president is in office for
only twelve months and has very little power anyway.

The Swiss system is a little more subtle than that. The sovereignty is seated in the Federal Council of 7 members, elected by the combined chambers of the parliament (the lower chamber chosen by popular vote, the upper chamber with representatives on a per-canton basis, rather like the house of representatives and senate in the US), with a composition intended to represent the range of parties elected. The job of president of the council, effectively chairman of the committee rotates on an annual basis, and in situations where a single individual is required to represent the confederation, that is the person who does the job.

Post by Hils
A lot of discussions of monarch/president end up with a "President
Blair" bogeyman as if a presidential system like the USA's is the
inevitable option. Any abolition of the monarchy would need a thorough
constitutional reform which could hardly not include electoral reform,
the division of power between chambers, federalisation, etc.

There are all sorts of ways in which the UK's constitutional arrangements could be improved, and all sorts of flaws in the current system. Given that the issue of reform of the House of Lords has been on the agenda since at least 1911, and we remain unable to sort it out, I'm not holding my breath on the other matters.

Robin

[Mizter T]

Post by BevanPrice
[...]
Surely a monarchy is better than one feasible alternative in the 1980s -
a President Thatcher ??

Given that if things did change we'd have a ceremonial president as
opposed to an executive one, a President Thatcher wouldn't have been
able to do much - unlikely that Thatcher would have even considered it.

[m***@wrg.org.uk]

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland.

No they didn't - that's completely wrong. Assuming the Wikipedia page you quote is correct, the Redcliffe-Maud report in the 1960s *proposed* reorganising into unitary authorities. But my memory is that what actually happened in the 1970s was a reorganisation that retained two tiers: district councils and county (or region in Scotland) councils.

Martin L

[Mizter T]

Post by m***@wrg.org.uk

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland.

No they didn't - that's completely wrong. Assuming the Wikipedia page you quote is correct, the Redcliffe-Maud report in the 1960s *proposed* reorganising into unitary authorities. But my memory is that what actually happened in the 1970s was a reorganisation that retained two tiers: district councils and county (or region in Scotland) councils.

Ah, Michael Bell's great grasp of the facts comes into play once again.

Still, you can't blame him - he's northern and hence stupid.

;-)

[Recliner]

Post by Mizter T

Post by m***@wrg.org.uk

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland.

No they didn't - that's completely wrong. Assuming the Wikipedia page you quote is correct, the Redcliffe-Maud report in the 1960s *proposed* reorganising into unitary authorities. But my memory is that what actually happened in the 1970s was a reorganisation that retained two tiers: district councils and county (or region in Scotland) councils.

Ah, Michael Bell's great grasp of the facts comes into play once again.
Still, you can't blame him - he's northern and hence stupid.
;-)

Many people have disclaimers in their public postings to the effect
that the post reflects the author's views, and not their employer's.
Perhaps Michael should have a standard signature on his posts:

"This post reflects the author's opinions, false memories and dreams;
no connection with reality is claimed."

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:39:57 +0100, Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Mizter T

Post by m***@wrg.org.uk

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland.

No they didn't - that's completely wrong. Assuming the Wikipedia page you quote is correct, the Redcliffe-Maud report in the 1960s *proposed* reorganising into unitary authorities. But my memory is that what actually happened in the 1970s was a reorganisation that retained two tiers: district councils and county (or region in Scotland) councils.

The latter arrangement now consigned to the dustbin of history,
replaced by single-tier authorities. With pooling of services now
enabled, some seem likely to be grouping them in what is more or less
the original county areas.

Post by Recliner

Post by Mizter T
Ah, Michael Bell's great grasp of the facts comes into play once again.
Still, you can't blame him - he's northern and hence stupid.
;-)

Many people have disclaimers in their public postings to the effect
that the post reflects the author's views, and not their employer's.
"This post reflects the author's opinions, false memories and dreams;
no connection with reality is claimed."

[ian batten]

Post by m***@wrg.org.uk

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland.

No they didn't - that's completely wrong. Assuming the Wikipedia page you quote is correct, the Redcliffe-Maud report in the 1960s *proposed* reorganising into unitary authorities. But my memory is that what actually happened in the 1970s was a reorganisation that retained two tiers: district councils and county (or region in Scotland) councils.

Precisely. West Midlands council was established, for example (in the large office block
overlooking Lancaster Circus by Aston University and the fire station) but didn't in any
way affect Birmingham (the merger of Sutton Coldfield into Birmingham had taken
place a few years earlier). And quite right too: it's only in Bell-land that people have
an affinity with some vague region rather than their own city.

ian

[Sam Wilson]

Post by ian batten

Post by m***@wrg.org.uk

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland.

No they didn't - that's completely wrong. Assuming the Wikipedia page you
quote is correct, the Redcliffe-Maud report in the 1960s *proposed*
reorganising into unitary authorities. But my memory is that what actually
district councils and county (or region in Scotland) councils.

Precisely. West Midlands council was established, for example (in the large office block
overlooking Lancaster Circus by Aston University and the fire station) but didn't in any
way affect Birmingham (the merger of Sutton Coldfield into Birmingham had taken
place a few years earlier). And quite right too: it's only in Bell-land that people have
an affinity with some vague region rather than their own city.

Odd. As a teenager I felt much more affinity with Greater Manchester
than with the Metropolitan Borough of Bury. Previously I'm not sure
whether I felt more at home in the Borough of Prestwich or the County of
Lancaster.

Sam

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Post by Michael Bell
In the 1980s Ken Livingstone got up Mrs Thatcher's
nose (he has that effect on some people!) and in an act of great
smallness she unhorsed him by abolishing the GLC and to hide her
personal spite, abolished all the other Metropolitan areas too.

No that's a political myth widely disparaged by historians of London.

The GLC was always going to be abolished as soon as the borough councils
realised they didn't need it and could do the jobs themselves. The services
the GLC provided were not ones a lot of voters regularly encountered,
especially in outer London, and it became an excess tier of local
government. In 1979 the-then Conservative leader Horace Cutler commissioned
an enquiry into the role and future of the GLC; a Labour GLC member called
Ken Livingstone criticised it for not recommending outright abolition.

[BevanPrice]

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland. This made a lot of sense, it led
to good government. In the 1980s Ken Livingstone got up Mrs Thatcher's
nose (he has that effect on some people!) and in an act of great
smallness she unhorsed him by abolishing the GLC and to hide her
personal spite, abolished all the other Metropolitan areas too. And so
it drifted on.
Michael Bell

That is your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled. A lot of
other people think it was a rubbish system, in which communities were
compulsorily lumped together into what "Whitehall, etc." decreed was an
optimum size, regardless of local opinions, and without consulting local
populations (other than a few politicians).

Ask, for example, the people of Leigh whether things were improved by
putting them into "Wigan", or Prescot by being taken over by "Knowsley"
(largely dominated by Huyton & Kirkby).

Here in St. Helens, for example, we lost our local (council) bus
services and fares were "standardised" (i.e. increased) to Merseyside
PTE fare levels. Rates (the equivalent of council tax) were increased to
pay for services mainly benefitting elsewhere, etc., etc.

Bevan

[JNugent]

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland. This made a lot of sense, it led
to good government.

You might "think" that, but it definitely NOT what happened in 1974.

The whole of England and Wales was organised so that every location was
simultaneously within a district and within a county, with a separate
council for each.

There were no unitary authorities (or "county boroughs" as such things
were always correctly known).

Post by Michael Bell
In the 1980s Ken Livingstone got up Mrs Thatcher's
nose (he has that effect on some people!) and in an act of great
smallness she unhorsed him by abolishing the GLC and to hide her
personal spite, abolished all the other Metropolitan areas too. And so
it drifted on.

The Metro Counties were decidedly unpopular with their areas'
populations too, but perhaps you didn't know that.

Large cities which had proudly been independent county boroughs
(boroughs with the powers of a county) for a hundred years were demoted
to second-fiddle status and for almost everything of consequence, had to
go cap-in-hand to county council committees largely composed of
councillors representing the one-horse towns on the fringes of the great
cities. They were too often determined to humble the hitherto-mighty
(and perhaps just a little arrogant) cities.

In that context, abolishing the Metro counties was exactly what was needed.

Is there any great cry from the people of Liverpool or Wirral for the
re-creation of Merseyside County Council?

[trainguard]

Post by JNugent

Post by Michael Bell
The Redcliffe-Maud reforms of local government in the 1970s
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) organised England
and Wales into a well thought-out system Unitary Authorities for rural
areas and Metropolitan areas around the big centres, and under another
name the same was done in Scotland. This made a lot of sense, it led
to good government.

You might "think" that, but it definitely NOT what happened in 1974.
The whole of England and Wales was organised so that every location was
simultaneously within a district and within a county, with a separate
council for each.
There were no unitary authorities (or "county boroughs" as such things
were always correctly known).

Post by Michael Bell
In the 1980s Ken Livingstone got up Mrs Thatcher's
nose (he has that effect on some people!) and in an act of great
smallness she unhorsed him by abolishing the GLC and to hide her
personal spite, abolished all the other Metropolitan areas too. And so
it drifted on.

Oh, I rather think that Greater Manchester Council (and some others) got up the government's nose as well.

Post by JNugent
The Metro Counties were decidedly unpopular with their areas'
populations too, but perhaps you didn't know that.

I didn't, either, and I lived in Manchester at the time. The GMC was a highly successful and efficient organisation, when compared to a political toy town like Trafford

Post by JNugent
Large cities which had proudly been independent county boroughs
(boroughs with the powers of a county) for a hundred years were demoted
to second-fiddle status and for almost everything of consequence, had to
go cap-in-hand to county council committees largely composed of
councillors representing the one-horse towns on the fringes of the great
cities. They were too often determined to humble the hitherto-mighty
(and perhaps just a little arrogant) cities.

Compare the often seedy little backwater of a former borough with only some of what GMC achieved....

A unique public-private framework to set up the East Lancashire Railway.

The project that became Metrolink.

A forward looking transport policy that saw the opening of new stations.

A County wide rubbish treatment and processing strategy.

The creation of strategic country parks along the river valleys.

Major cultural developments including the present Museum of Science and Industry.

Tha knows nowt lad!

Dr. Barry Worthington

Post by JNugent
In that context, abolishing the Metro counties was exactly what was needed.
Is there any great cry from the people of Liverpool or Wirral for the
re-creation of Merseyside County Council?