The entire economy was in the hands of an intellectually corrupt, Luddite trade-union confederation, which chose most of the delegates to any conference of the governing Labour party, and whose shop stewards and craft-unit heads could shut down an entire industry in mid-contract for any reason, from an individual work grievance to the sour grapes generated by a poor round of darts in their local pub (on working hours).
In the year preceding the 1979 election, in what became known as “the winter of discontent,” almost every industry in the country had been shut down by capricious strikes, including the airports, trains, electric power, coal mines, garbage collection, and undertaking. The captains of industry and finance in the City, the style-setters in Mayfair and the West End, the doyennes of Bloomsbury and Knightsbridge, and the denizens of the chancelleries and ministries of Belgravia and Westminster huddled in the cold and dark, dead or alive. Government-owned operations, from the steel industry to the airports, were a cesspool of inefficiency and, in the private sector, large numbers of fictitious jobs were salaried and the proceeds went as sinecures to union favorites or into a pot to be divided at the pleasure of the union bosses. It fell to Margaret Thatcher to redeem Britain from the slough of despond and lassitude in which it had been totally immersed by overindulgence of the workers’ leaders in guilt over the inequalities of British life.Perhaps the strikes are not as obvious (more manipulative?) but give the corrupt union leaders half a chance and they would be, perhaps our taxation system is not quite as injurious (yet) but give Swanee a sniff and see what happens. The behaviour of corruption within trade union ranks is certainly mirrored in the numerous cases pending before Australian courts and even the guilt over inequalities is reflected in the guilt over the 'orginal inhabitants' that Australia suffers under.
UPDATE
How about the premise of this essay also from one on Thatcher and how similar it is to the Australian bogeyman...Abbott, Abbott, Abbott...it appears the leftards are quite limited in their approach to politics, but limitations on the part of ideologues is, I suppose, par for the course
Thatcher – or rather “Thatcha”, always said with a dramatic sneer – has become the Left’s catch-all explanation for why it isn’t taken seriously by the masses anymore. Thatcher brainwashed the plebs into becoming materialistic, they say, making them love “stuff” more than community and turning them off Big Picture politics. Thatcher turned people individualistic, they claim, making it more difficult for Leftists to pursue a politics based on collectivity. Thatcher stole working-class voters from their natural home of the Labour Party, they argue, fatally denting that party’s standing among the masses. (This overlooks the fact Labour’s support had been declining long before Thatcher allegedly colonised the fickle brains of Joe Public: among manual workers, Labour’s support fell from 62 per cent in 1959 to 38 per cent at the opening of the 1980s.)
Time and again, the failures of the Left – to convince the public of its agenda, to win the working classes to its cause – is projected on to Thatcher. She and her ideology are transformed into an all-powerful force that corrupted the little people’s minds and singlehandedly finished off Socialism. That is why Thatcher became, if anything, even more hated in recent years, long after she left office, including among new radical Leftist who weren’t even born when she was PM: because Thatcher-bashing is fundamentally an expression of Leftists’ fury and frustration at their own increasing insignificance in public debate and among the demos. How much easier it is to claim that the public have being mentally kidnapped by an awesomely powerful leader than to have a serious think about why latter-day Leftism failed. The question is: now that Thatcher is dead, who will the Left blame for the indifference and even hostility it is met with in communities up and down the country?.Useful idiots, it would be a laugh if the implications were not so dire.
UPDATE # 2
From yet another article on Maggie where the insights given her sound remarkably like someone on the Australian political scene...that figure the leftard media like to make such fun of perhaps?
This is why her great career is so worthy of study. She is the almost exact antithesis of the contemporary politician, whose craft is largely a matter of technique. She possessed integrity. She had a clear sense of herself. She scarcely possessed what is known today as a "media strategy". She rarely uttered words for effect. She cared about substance. She sought power for a purpose. Having attained it, she knew how to use it.
There was therefore an umbilical connection between what she said and what she did. The Left, aided by her media allies, often made out that she was a liar. But she was in fact strikingly honest. She was scrupulous in her personal dealing and (despite the Leftist mythology) the anonymous author of countless acts of personal kindness. She was driven by a profound sense of public service.
And here is the greatest lesson of all: she was a living, breathing disproof of the facile theory that history is the product of vast, impersonal forces. In fact the world is formed by remarkable individuals of great insight and, above all, courage.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-outsider-who-changed-the-course-of-history-20130409-2hicq.html#ixzz2QD7Hmyhg
No comments:
Post a Comment