Thatcher has gone ...

Page 4 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

15 Apr 2013, 5:52 pm

Cornflake wrote:

The country has moved on. Pockets of it haven't.
After 23 years I don't think it's valid to blame that lack of movement on Thatcher. I'm not denying it exists or that it's acceptable, but there are more contemporaneous reasons for the lack of action.

This. We've had four Prime Ministers since Margaret Thatcher and the Labour Party has been in power for 13 years. They had ample opportunity to heal all those wounds and reverse all Thatcher's policies. But they didn't, because most people more or less agreed with them or accepted the settlement.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

15 Apr 2013, 5:54 pm

Cornflake wrote:

I think we're basically in agreement - what I put in quotes was my take on your "Take the wind out of their sails". :wink:

Yeah.

Or they could deliberately (and obliquely) refer to the song's history and its performance, without mentioning the real reason for it being at #2.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

15 Apr 2013, 6:07 pm

Tequila wrote:

Cornflake wrote:

I refute the idea that we had a true labour party in power during those 13 years. What happened in 1997 is that Blair lied through his teeth to get his foot in the door. He promised 'education, education, education' instead what we got was university fees, railtrack and PPP's in hospitals. Come 2002, the traditional old labour voters had become disillusioned with the Blair project but corporate cronies were jumping on his bandwagon, and the right wing takeover of the labour party had been completed. The gradual metamorphosis to nu-labour is why Thatcherism was never reversed under their rule. Quite the contrary, he stole her costume and put a red rosette on it. Labour's last true socialist leader was Michael Foot. The sidestepping to the right can possibly even be traced back to Kinnock's leadership.

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,079
Location: Over there

15 Apr 2013, 6:27 pm

visagrunt wrote:

So long as that little green tag sits under your name, you are held to a higher standard of behaviour.

We are held to the same standard of behaviour as other members; we are other members, with extra tools to facilitate our performing volunteer site maintenance duties and assisting with the implementation of the site rules.
It would very likely be an unworkable and untenable position if we were expected to be remote and not involved with members and discussions on the forums. I have no desire to be placed on a pedestal as some sort of high moral example or a paragon of virtuous behaviour and I don't believe that's why I was chosen by Alex to be a moderator.

Quote:

I have no problem with the substance of your post. But I have a great deal of problem with a moderator setting the prcedent that "mindless little twats" is acceptable posting language that is consistent with the terms of service on this board.

It appears to be acceptable here in PPR according to the forum guidelines, being the only forum on WP given a light moderating touch, and I don't believe any precedent has been set - far more extreme sentiments are allowed to stand here because no site rules were broken in their expression and because PPR is lightly moderated.

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,079
Location: Over there

15 Apr 2013, 6:33 pm

thomas81 wrote:

The problem with your logic here is that although Maggie the prime minister is (was) no longer in power, her protégé and ideological student Dave is.

And Dave is not Thatcher, so it's doubly illogical to try and visit the sins of the son on the mother... :wink:

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

Arran
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 375

16 Apr 2013, 12:54 am

duncvis wrote:

a walk around Barnsley or Liverpool might be instructive, while the investment-rich South has been able to thrive little came in to take the place of the old industries elsewhere.

Is it actually possible to revive an economically depressed area without annoying the residents? London Docklands was an example of an economically depressed area completely turned around but it was the yuppies and the City spivs from outside who benefited rather than the working class Cockneys who shrugged their shoulders and moved to Dagenham and Thurrock. Leeds has become the second English city for law but it's the lawyers rather than the former industrial workers who have benefited from the change.

There is a big difference in the populations of Barnsley and Liverpool compared with 30 years ago. The residents back then overwhelmingly wanted to work in menial unskilled jobs. Remember "Coal not Dole" but try telling the X-Box and iPhone generation to go and dig coal out of the ground every day for a living.

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

16 Apr 2013, 3:05 am

thomas81 wrote:

I think the bedroom tax is going to be 'Cameron's poll tax'.

Get ready for riots. Anyone old enough to remember the poll tax riots will remember how bad it was. I think people in the leafy south east are living in a bubble. They just don't get the extent of the resentment in the North.

In the south east they don't care about us in the north. They think only of themselves.

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

16 Apr 2013, 3:07 am

Tequila wrote:

Cornflake wrote:

I think we're basically in agreement - what I put in quotes was my take on your "Take the wind out of their sails". :wink:

Yeah.

Or they could deliberately (and obliquely) refer to the song's history and its performance, without mentioning the real reason for it being at #2.

Which makes one wonder if the BBC felt the campaign was justified.

bucephalus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,847
Location: with Hyperlexian

16 Apr 2013, 4:25 am

dox has a good point below, it's people's spare time

_________________
"grrrrr"

Last edited by bucephalus on 16 Apr 2013, 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

16 Apr 2013, 4:44 am

visagrunt wrote:

So long as that little green tag sits under your name, you are held to a higher standard of behaviour. Like it or not, when you speak, you associated the Administration of this board with your form of speech.

A few years ago Visa, I would have agreed with you entirely, and was most likely the most vocal proponent of moderators being held to a higher standard on the board at the time. As I've gotten a better grasp of how they're selected and what they actually have to do, without remuneration, I've come to feel that I can't really expect someone to volunteer so much of their time and surrender their identity and opinions, even the strong or contentious ones. I think so long as we're not seeing a double standard applied, i.e. I don't want to hear any complaints if I or any other members use similar language or tone in the future, it's not a problem. I have more of a problem with mods posting as mods in threads in which they have a dog in the fight, as regardless of how fair they might think they're being, the appearance of bias is going to be there and cause resentment and ire. That's not a PPR matter, however.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

duncvis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,642
Location: The valleys of green and grey

16 Apr 2013, 7:47 am

Arran wrote:

duncvis wrote:

a walk around Barnsley or Liverpool might be instructive, while the investment-rich South has been able to thrive little came in to take the place of the old industries elsewhere.

You make some fair points - the question really is how to successfully attract jobs to an area and make sure those who live there are able to get them rather than displacing folk, particularly if you're going to slash public sector employment. I just got back from my Work programme interview this morning - the consensus in the building was that we do want work, it's demoralising twiddling your thumbs all day while being told by millionaire politicians that we're lazy spongers taking part in an entitlement culture. Some of the lads hanging around in the training centre this morning would bite your hand off for a job in a mill or engineering works - and most of the industrial jobs which have gone weren't badly paid and some pretty skilled, compared to the insecure and poorly paid warehouse, retail and call centre dreck which has, to an inadequate extent, replaced that which was lost in the 80s. Currently even those vacancies are few and far between. *Some* of the young ones are lazy sods though I'll grant you, but the majority do want something better to do than smoke weed and play video games. It gets old after a while.

_________________
I'm usually smarter than this.

www.last.fm/user/nursethescreams <<my last.fm thingy

FOR THE HORDE!

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

16 Apr 2013, 11:07 am

Cornflake wrote:

It is neither unworkable, nor untenable to lead by example. As I have already said, I have no objection to the substance of your post. I object to means by which you chose to express that substance.

If you can't see the difference, then how can I expect you to exercise good judgement when the light moderation that is applied in this forum becomes necessary?

Quote:

Acceptable according to whom? You are in no position to judge your own behaviour, and I suggest that there is not a consensus on the matter within the forum.

_________________
--James

Cornflake
Administrator

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,079
Location: Over there

16 Apr 2013, 12:41 pm

On balance I'd say that Dox47's view of moderator activity is the more practical and better reflects how we work here.
We keep the site tidy, deal with trolls/scammers on behalf of the membership, handle disputes between members as best we can, and ensure rules are adhered to in an unbiased way, not favouring one member over another or ourselves over anyone.

We are not here as leaders, we are not here as teachers and the membership is not our class, to be guided along some morally virtuous path.
As I said, we are held to the same standard of behaviour as other members and in PPR, that expectation is somewhat relaxed for everyone.

My choice of words reflected my personal feelings on the matter and I would allow - and have allowed - anyone else to reflect the strength of their feelings in PPR, using those words if they wanted to, provided they weren't used in a way which broke a site rule: personal attacks on another member, for example.

visagrunt wrote:

Cornflake wrote:

Acceptable according to whom? You are in no position to judge your own behaviour, and I suggest that there is not a consensus on the matter within the forum.

According to both the forum guidelines and the site rules.
But your objections might be put to better use by defining something precise and totally unambiguous, both for the PPR forum guidelines and WP's rules. You know, a tick-box system which handles everything with no requirement of interpretation or gradation, where every conceivable transgression or impoliteness is graded accordingly in regimented order, and where "go too far" is codified relative to each situation and to each forum. We've tried and failed many times; perhaps you'd have more luck.

But since you've graciously allowed me to express an opinion on this thread's topic, your objection comes down to two words: "mindless twats". (I figure "little" is pretty harmless, even in this context)
If it will calm your fevered brow, I withdraw those words and substitute "silly people" instead. Or am I not allowed even that?

All that said, I am not going to continue derailing this thread with a discussion of moderator activity so if you wish to continue, it will have to be via PM.

_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

16 Apr 2013, 12:51 pm

I thank you for the amended expression, to which I have no objection.

_________________
--James

Page 4 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:

Thatcher has gone ... Post Reply New Topic

Thatcher has gone ...