Ed Waller

Does Tony Blair ever lay awake at night and realise that people might express revulsion at him for the carnage and loss of innocent life in Iraq?

Only in order to work out how to get these misguided, deluded, evil criminals, and put them in a very very dark place for up to three months, never mind habeas corpus, these people are a real and present danger..... to the way he wants to run the country.....

Presumably he and Bush will want to take a few aircraft and boys and girls in yellow and 'democratise' there in few months...

Iran, that is, of course, in case you were wondering...

I think it was Michael Bakunin who first said that. Ken has gone down in my estimation for that.

Or maybe Emma Goldman, another of the Anarchist movement. Not sure that Ken went on to be of the opinion (as some anarchists do) that one shouldn't vote as 'it encourages them'.

Not sure about John's point... Democracy didn't prevent Hitler (although arguably it should have done), who, however distateful, gained power with (by and large?) legal or rather constitutional means. Equally not sure that the 'British People' dont agree with Socialism or want it (they may not know it as socialism, and I wonder what a poll of views on that question might produce) - People I know want a decent health care system for everyone, better schools for everyone, secure well paid worthwhile jobs for everyone, enough food in the house for everyone, enough fuel for everyone to be warm throughout winter, an end to the disaster in Iraq. People DO want socialism - this is what socialism is all about.

What they don't want - people doing well just because their family has always done well; people getting better treatment than their poor granny just because they're rich; the schools their kids attend falling apart, with classes that are way too big to maintain order, in surroundings that call to mind Bleak House not Bounty Hall.

What prevents them from 'realising' this? (ie articulating and then achieving?)

The media (owned and controlled by a few)

The Government (of the few for the few, still)

Employers (by definition, the few)

It's time for Gramsci again, and we've only got a few hours before I (at least) go to bed. So I leave this torch here.....

Ed, I suspect that like any fever it must run its course. of course it will do a lot of structural damage before its finished, but unfortunately most people seem unable to learn this, except though personal pain, and loss. Whats comming, I suspect, is a world wide depression that will rival the 1930's in ferocity, and destruction. Sorry to be so defeatist, but given the setbacks suffered by working class movements over the last 30 odd years, I am finding it hard to be optimistic. Steve.

If we, who can see the past and see where it might lead, offer nothing, then indeed there is no hope.

It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees - Dolores Ibarruri

Well I certainly agree there were atrocities and horrors commited in the name of Christianity.

And it is incredible that only a few hundreds of years ago Catholics and Protestants would kill each other over doctrines such as transubstitution (not being a Catholic I am sure I spelled it wrong).

Years ago "evangelization" was often become a Christian or we will kill you".

One cannot deny such things, of course.

But I repeat the fascists were not Christians!

Clearly depends on one's definition of 'Christian'. It's pretty easy to say something like "oh look at what they did! They're not Christians, no matter what they might have said".

At that point the whole debate fails to exist. No leader I can think of, regardless of professed status as christian or other or non religion, would meet the criteria of being christian.

You might as well call people in the Labour Party socialists!

Frankly, as I've been following the proposals since Monday, often with my parents and children (as it's half term) I have regularly felt like crying. Now this comes from a 'hard as nails' revolutionary, but the way some of these people believe they can manipulate anything to suit themselves has left me wondering "what will it take?"

In my lighter moments I've felt convinced that Blair is actually a better Revolutionary than VI Ulyanov - because surely what he's doing is to make revolution the ONLY alternative to lemming-like herding of society toward the nihilistic ending of a pure market model for all sectors.

The recent white paper puts the TLR issue into a new light, which I feared my be the case - breaking the national agreements on pay and terms and conditions in order to 'deregulate' education. It had happened elsewhere in education in hte 1990s, and friends of mine who were then on the 'Silver Book' were dismayed at how easily AUCL/NATFHE gave up the struggle, in order 'not to rock the boat' so that Labout might get in. Some years later, Labour, or some bastardised version of it, is in and..... There is little precendence in the l(post 1978/9?) labour movement to take on a government; that part of their history has been forgotten, or sold, or given away.

Anyone who has watched Brassed Off, The Full Monty or Billy Elliot (to name a few) might wonder how our labour movement allowed such horrors in the 1980s. There is no need to go any further than the Labour Party of the late 1970s, ie fice or six years before Blair even became an MP. The adoption of monetarism and its premises by Callaghan and co was the real end of even the vaguest socialist ideology within the party.

However, we could spend hours or months debating when where why (or even if, I guess) the socialist dream within the Labour Party (new or old) died.

What 'the left' or anyone else who cares about education (social housing - the list goes on) must do is work out a strategy to stop the attacks and reverse them.... Any suggestions??

I assume this is not you:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,9290,-6733,00.html

http://www.edwaller.com/

http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/user_....pl?url=ewaller

Am very happy to confirm I am:

Not a LibDem (even though this = most left-wing party in parliament with the exception of the 1 Respect MP)

Not dead (with commiserations to the family)

Not a musician (although having played some of his compositions, I might add "either"!)

My own entry in Wiki... tempting... but I'll leave it for now, and probably write it after the revolution...

There is an interesting article about Wikipedia in today’s Guardian. It asked 7 people to check the entries for their specialist subject (they had all written books about the subject). They were asked to rate the entries out of 10. This was the result: Bob Dylan (8/10), T. S. Eliot (6/10), Samuel Pepys (6/10), Steve Reich (7/10), Haute Couture (0/10), Basque People (7/10) and Encyclopedia (5/10).

I decided to check out the subject I am an expert in: myself. Indeed, I found an entry for John Simkin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Simkin

I would give it a rating of 6/10. It is completely accurate but fairly brief. All of the information seems to have been taken from my website. It can be edited so I think I will add to it.

Interestingly, the Democratic Underground also has an entry on me. It seems to be taken from Wikipedia.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com...php/John_Simkin

Most of those scores are encouraging given the size of wiki...

Anyone interested in applying for the work required to widen John's doors at around head height should apply in writing to the address on his website.

A brief google on my own name shows just how anonymous the 'real me' is

"You can't win anything with kids" Hansen - Alas he was wrong.

"I spent my money on Booze, Birds and Fast Cars...The rest I just squandered!" G Best (what a misogynist?)

As a mere European, it's not really my scene to comment on who is or is not the Greatest American. Although I can understand putting all the above names forward (and yet not necessarily agree with any) I'm a little shocekd at the absence of the people we've come to know as Geronimo, Pocahontas, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud (etc).

Note also that no-one has thought to mention Noam Chomsky in any of this. Or is some form of death (to include career or brain in certain cases deemed still to have a pulse) important in inclusion?

Real test for the Spurs this afternoon. Even if they do lose at Manchester United they will probably stay 5 points in front of Arsenal (I expect them to be beaten by Manchester City).

I find the latter a little hard to accept, unless Psycho makes an horrendous tackle on Henry as he moves past the dugout

Probably about time there was a beginning of the inevitable 'bad weather' dip

Any adult who still believes in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or a God should be given 20 years hard labour. See how their praying will get them out of that one.

Just as I would like to see you get out of explaining yourself on Judgement Day...

Let's assume there is a god.... Will that entity be concerned about keeping to laws (which ultimately are human in origin in that they are articulated in certain language constructs) or in 'doing good'.

I'd argue that, unless god (whichever 'flavour' might be right) is enormously petty actions, to help others (cf Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son, with apologies for my lack of sufficient knowledge of the culture of non-christian faiths, for which I blame my christian-dominated background) is far more important than strict observance of religious 'niceties'.

In which case an atheist who has 'done good' might find it easier on Judgement Day than many believers.

Okay, you should now return to your earlier assumptions regarding faith...

Although to be fair, Lend-Lease was pretty handy...

Despite the facts that:

1 the US demands of war,

2 fears that the privations of US business (ha ha) were benefiting European business

successively reduced it.

Perhaps the death of entire villages in Northern Iraq, through the usage of chemical agents, is of no concern to you. If not, it certainly should be.

Perhaps the fact that Iran & Iraq had been conducting limited "war" along their borders for almost eight years is of no concern to you. It not, it certainly should be.

It's of enormous concern to me. I wonder where the chemicals came from! The thought that Saddam was a nasty dictator and that as a result he did some really horrid things does not escape me. The intervention by a bunch of people who don;t give a tinker's cuss for democracy but are dead keen to control increasing proportions of the world's oil supply is of even more concern. Where were these people when Iraq was having a little dispute with its neighnbour? Oh I forgot - they were supply the people who went on to wipe out whole villages in N Iraq.

Perhaps the progressive attempts to develop the first nuclear weapon in the Arab world is of no concern to you. If not, it certainly should be.

That's funny, I was sure Israel already had one. So the next would presumably be the second, and therefore might bring some balance to that area of the world (Remember M.A.D.?). Or should some countries have done more to prevent Israel's development of that particular weapon of mass destruction?

Perhaps the prior "Iraqi" incursion into another Arab nation is of no concern to you. If not, it certainly should be.

Strangely enough I'm totally and unequivocally opposed to other countries sending an army to another country.

However, those who view the world through "tunnel vision" are not likely to either see or understand the significant differences.

Yes, tunnel vision... I can see exactly why it might be a problem...

"The RIG proposals are quite explicit about what they hope to achieve - cuts: " the net national cost of TLR payments will be no greater than the cost of allowances - our expectation is that it should be less". In fact, the savings have already been budgeted for ! The DfES expect schools to save £25 million in 2005/6 by "reducing numbers of allowances". That’s the cost of 15,000 MAN 1 Allowances !

Or of you'd rather about 4 in every secondary school. Shame that we can't reduce the income of Sec of State for Ed in the same way every time s/he fails to defend schools or the teaching profession, or send her/him to the GTC on a competency procedure.

There appears to be a breakthrough which can be read here. Probably not what we'd hope, but good news for current members of the profession.

Do these two women have a chance to heal this division which causes so much bitterness?

When it's difficult to put a very thin piece of paper between the policies of two parties (ie Republican and democrat in US) teh only REAL differences they can work on are personal. The invective will get worse as teh 2008 election nears. If the two key personalities are Rice and Clinton there are two whole new angles to open up.

It troubles me that some of these characters hold managerial responsibility within their own schools.

Sorry, I'll resign my HoDship with immediate effect..

Ah well folks, you try to have an honest debate. I'm disappointed in you Ed. Nick, you take my resources, borrow my ideas ..... I would like to add to the record that I haven't made any racist comments about CSEs. As someone who has always gone the extra mile for the kids I teach I find you guys, well ..... I'm a gentleman. Shame you guys don't understand the meaning of the word.

Roy

I'm presuming that this is the part of a post from SchoolHistory Forum that has since been edited out by Roy.

My comment about racist use of CSE was about Nick's post and his comment about his brothers being forced into CSE rather than GCE and nothing at all to do Roy's post, which was a comment on the lines of a return to tiered history exams, like in the days of CSE and GCE.

It's a little hurtful that the confusion occurred.

An electoral system which allows the "winner" to have less than 50% support within the electorate is clearly undemocratic.

This would, of course, make PR (which as noted tends to lead to compromise and negotiation) FAR worse in terms of democracy tha FPTP. At least SOME people vote for the winning party in FPTP. Nobody (as far as I can work out) votes for a coalition, or even CAN vote for a coalition.

How many people in Germany in 2005 would say "Oh yes, Angela for Kanzler, SPD for the Cabinet!"?

One of the problems of the “first-past-the-post” system is that you give tremendous power to politicians who only represent the interests of a small minority. For example, in the 1980s Margaret Thatcher was able to bring in legislation that only had the support of around 40% of those people who voted. A good example of this is the “Poll Tax”. What made matters worse was she imposed it first on Scotland, a country that had overwhelmingly rejected her policies at the polls. Despite high levels of protest Thatcher went on to impose the Poll Tax on people living in England and Wales. The British people eventually had to take to the streets in order to get this unfair tax removed.

There's a clear lesson here for single-issue politics, John. The same lesson is to be learned should people realise that the problems they face are largely system, and therefore demand systemic 'cure'.

I sit corrected! Would you be willing to discuss a possible refinement - "the embodiment of the Will of the People-who-survived-the-purges"? I'd be whole-heartedly with you/him on the purging from USSR the Romanovs.

830,000 were offed in the Yezhovschina, between 1937 and 1939. Judging by the amount of Trotsky-Fascists hawking their 'Social Worker's outside Tesco's on a Saturday, too many deviants slipped through the net!!!

I take it that's a "no" to the discussion, then! And it's spelled "Socialist Worker" (although pron = So'shlist Whirr'ka).. but the thoughts of people selling social workers outside Tescos could have a political-satirical humour somewhere in it... Presumably for all the basket cases....

yours,

an escapee (retired)

I'll leave aside your CIA-propagand opinion for a moment, and kindly inform you that Cde JV Stalin was not the 'leader' of a country, but the embodiment of the Will of the People.

Cheers!

I sit corrected! Would you be willing to discuss a possible refinement - "the embodiment of the Will of the People-who-survived-the-purges"? I'd be whole-heartedly with you/him on the purging from USSR the Romanovs.

Or, indeed Acts 2v44-45 and 4v34-35. Christians (or at least most evangelicals) would say that man's seeming inability to share resources comes from his sinful nature.

But all this is tangential...

But the nature of human beings is quite a good thing to discuss... although something people will seldom agree on... And the early Christians you refer to above must have felt at odds with their Roman world, yet saw (as with Shareforum!!) the benefits of sharing what they had.

I read the Communist Manifesto this morning - starts off well, but kind of goes downhill...

Great! The Bible has good bits too (Matthew 6 v24, 7 v12-13, Mark 11 v17) But I don't want to seem like a J Witness....

As far as I see it the 'market' can never be eliminated. For example, the butter factory churns the milk too much and makes cheese. There is therefore a butter drought. Those people who have butter are now in a position to barter for more luxurious items with those who want butter. This is a market, is it not?

Marx would call this the 'muck' of ages. People become conditioned to certain ways of thinking and thus cannot see past it. If you have enough coke (or whatever) in your glass and your partner is thirsty would you sell or give a share of your coke? When a student asks to see me after school, I don't say 'sure, my rate out of school is £75 per hour or part thereof'. In a butter drought, to use your example, why couldn't people share, or make Rarebit with the cheese or use the bread with margarine or with the gravy on their plate, or make bruschetta? The examples can be spread (yuk, another bad pun) beyond butter. Sharing or using alternatives are the most obvious.

Bizarrely in the current 'market' system thousands of tons of food is destroyed each year to maintain prices.

Which version of PR do you mean? I think STV is quite fun, especially when filling two or more vacancies from one constituency.

When talking of voting and democracy, you should always remember what Ken Livingstone said in his 1987 book: If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It.