The EU is phooked...

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I well remember having a serious debate within the Labour Party on Margaret Thatcher's stance on self reliance. We came to the conclusion she had singlehandedly killed off the philosophy of "Cradle to grave socialism". I really fail to see how any other interpretation is even possible?

This is however a very complex issue. At it's heart is my own belief the Tory Party have gone too far in the last decade in removing the "safety net" for our own vulnerable people. Disability benefits cut, homelessness on an exponential upward curve, Universal Credit, NHS cuts etc, etc.

One benefit from the coronavirus panic is the government are now being forced to chuck back those missing billions into society. Johnson is looking to slash Foreign Aid (no longer mandatory after we leave the EU) and realises there actually is a thing called "society" which requires social cohesion, a moral community and collective spirit.

Interpret this as you will, but this Thatcher inspired philosophy radically changed British society in my opinion and how the government was required to tend for its own:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. B]And, you know, there is no such thing as society."]

There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

[1959_60]

Thanks for putting up the longer quote with more context BT.

I reckon you and I could consider a coalition?

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Thanks for putting up the longer quote with more context BT.

I reckon you and I could consider a coalition?

Never 59er! I don't do coalitions with lily livered Lib Dems. In fact I'm not sure where my political affiliations lie anymore! We need that long hoped for revolution and we need it NOW!

[Supersub6]

Never 59er! I don't do coalitions with lily livered Lib Dems. In fact I'm not sure where my political affiliations lie anymore! We need that long hoped for revolution and we need it NOW!

BT --I'm surprised that you have not joined Extinction Rebellion --they seem to be quite revolting!

[Balanbam00]

''We need that long hoped for revolution and we need it NOW!''

NUCLEAR REVOLUTION P.R. Sarkar Founder of PROUT

A diverse, multifarious organization is required to conduct revolution. The responsibility of the organization is like that of a government. The revolutionary organization must be operational from the highest level of the state down to the village level. Local activists or coordinators are connected to every level of the structure. All the activities of the revolution are directed by the highest body.If a revolution is started without building a proper structure, or if loopholes are left in the formation of the structure, the results will be disastrous.

The revolutionary organization must follow a positive philosophy. A progressive, comprehensive ideology is the invincible weapon of the revolutionary organization. It counteracts negative ideas in society and generates a powerful, positive psychic flow in the collective psychology. People become revolutionary-minded, yet vested interests determinedly try to resist positive change, hence polarization occurs in the collective psychology. The duty of the revolutionary leaders is to create polarization through the propagation of a positive philosophy.

The philosophy of the revolutionary organization should be free from all kinds of narrow defects and dogma. If there are any defects in the philosophy or if it is not comprehensive, there is the danger that the leadership of society will go out of the control of the revolutionaries. This will be extremely harmful for the progressive development of the society.

In addition, the philosophy must be based on practice, not on theory. If there are any defects in the practical implementation of the philosophy then can be rectified, but if there are fundamental defects in the philosophy itself, the philosophy can never be implemented, nor can it be rectified.

The theories of Marx and Gandhi are examples of defective philosophies. The fundamental principles of Marxism are unpsychological, irrational and anti-human. Marxists say that revolution is the only solution to capitalist exploitation. This is a positive idea. But the concepts of dialectical materialism, the materialist conception of history, the withering away of the state, proletariat dictatorship, classless society, etc., are defective ideas which can never be implemented. That is why the post-revolutionary stage in every communist country has suffered from turmoil and oppression. There is not a single country in the world which is established according to Marxist ideals.

Gandhism is also defective. Instead of guaranteeing liberation from exploitation, it favours the interests of the exploiters, hence it is a negative philosophy. Liberation from exploitation is impossible when the exploiters themselves find shelter in the philosophy. The co-existence of the exploiters and the exploited can never lead to a society free from exploitation. No revolutionary organization can accept Gandhism as an ideal philosophy. If any organization does, then it will no longer be a revolutionary organization, and it will break apart within a short time. This is an historical inevitability. Thus, the revolutionary organization must adopt a positive philosophy which is without defects.

[1959_60]

Thatch Churchill bod was a nasty piece of work, eh Sinkov?

A male chauvinist who got lucky.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I have read countless books on Winston Churchill and concluded many years ago, that despite his numerous and well documented faults (hands up who hasn't any?) he was a true force of nature.

How we could do with one like him now!

Attachment 15385

[sinkov]

I have read countless books on Winston Churchill and concluded many years ago, that despite his numerous and well documented faults (hands up who hasn't any?) he was a true force of nature.

How we could do with one like him now!

Attachment 15385

Agreed BT, Margaret Thatcher in trousers. They don't make 'em like that any more, either of them.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Agreed BT, Margaret Thatcher in trousers. They don't make 'em like that any more, either of them.

I cannot share that comparison sinkov. One was a force majeure, the other a war criminal in my opinion. I know I could not possibly go any further down in your estimation, but when the news came out of the bitch's passing me and the ex-wife (who despised her as much as I did) quaffed our three bottle stock of chilled Bollinger in one session!

Attachment 15390

[sinkov]

I cannot share that comparison sinkov. One was a force majeure, the other a war criminal in my opinion. I know I could not possibly go any further down in your estimation, but when the news came out of the bitch's passing me and the ex-wife (who despised her as much as I did) quaffed our three bottle stock of chilled Bollinger in one session!

Attachment 15390

No problem with that at all BT, any excuse to open the Bolly will do for me. In fact I'm delighted to read it, Saint Margaret detested Lefties, I'm sure she never lost any sleep over the fact that those feelings were reciprocated, and the fact that the Left are still dancing on her grave, and still lying about her, illustrates what a fecking good job she did. God bless her and rest her soul.