Koolzuurgas-ideologie: Thatcher en aartsconservatieven inderdaad aanstichtster 'Global warming'

[Henk op xp]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Martijn Meijering schreef:
>  REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl
>
> > Ik heb het ontstaan van de Koolzuurgas-ideologie inderdaad tot 1984
> >  weten te traceren en het begon inderdaad bij Maggie Thatcher. Maar
> >  ook bij andere aartsconservatieven - waaronder afkomstig uit
> > Nederland.
>
>  Even terzijde: Thatcher was alleen een conservatief in naam.

Jaja ...

>  In feite was ze een aartsradicaal, het tegendeel van een
>  conservatief.

Ongeveer zoals,  ´Martijn´ ? :)
Niet nadenken, doen, al voert het je naar de afgrond!! Zoiets?

Aartsradicaal conservatief, richting > nog conservatiever!
Dus niks, ´tegendeel´!

>  Alleen op het immateriele vlak was ze misschien conservatief. Zie
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism.
>
>  Ze was een van de grootste Britse minister-presidenten, haar tijd ver
>  vooruit.

Haha, wat een grap ... Als er een de klok heeft teruggdraaid dan
was het uitgerekent Tatcher wel.

>  Haar manier van werken was weliswaar confronterend

Confronterend? Stuitend, is een betere omschrijving.

>  en haar stijl van leiding geven autoritair

Die zit.

>  en dat is niet ieders kopje thee,

Daar hebben we landen voor als Myanmar, Zimbabwe
en nog een hele reeks niet democratisch bestuurde landen.
Niet toevallig ook voormalige Britsche kolonieen?

>  maar conservatief was ze niet.

LOL Wow, wat een onboezeming. Wacht even, en
Tatcher was de eerste eraan wist te ontsnappen? :) LOL

>  Haar economische politiek is nu voor het grootste deel algemeen
>  aanvaard

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=E1USE5YJ3OWFFQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2005/04/26/do2601.xml
" Brown may praise Thatcher but he's buried her legacy "

Or:

Up for Debate: Privatization and the *Thatcher Legacy* Page 1
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/pdf/ufd_privatizethatcher_full.pdf>

"
*Thatcher's* Impact on Britain's Coal Mining Industry

INTERVIEWER: What was the coal miners' strike about? Was that a great 
clash of
values?

GORDON BROWN: The coal mining strike of the early 1980s was a tragedy for so
many of the mining families that were involved in it. They were denied 
proper
benefits for a year. Many were arrested. Many families never recovered 
from this
dispute, and it was a human tragedy. It was always the case that the 
coal industry of
the country had to reform and modernize. It was always the case that 
there were
going to be less jobs in the coal industry in future years.
But like it or not, the Thatcher government at the time gave people the 
impression
that they didn't care whether there was a mining industry at all. They 
didn't care
whether you had a balanced energy policy, or simply a policy for energy 
based on
nuclear, gas, or oil without coal. And it was, I suppose as a result of 
that, a clash of
ideas. because people felt that the government neither cared about the 
future of
communities, nor did they care about there being a balanced policy 
towards energy,
and that it was irrelevant to them whether there was a coal industry or 
not. I
suppose that was how these problems arose.

...

The Imbalance of Thatcherism

INTERVIEWER: Would you agree that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were
both ideological politicians?

GORDON BROWN: I think that Mrs. Thatcher in particular was reacting to 
people's
sense that the British economy was in decline [when] she took office. 
She identified
the failure of the British economy at that time with a failure of 
collectivism, and she
said it was because Britain was overtaxed, over-bureaucratic, [and] 
there was too
much trade union power. I believe the work that was done by that 
Conservative
government was essentially negative because what they were doing was tearing
down some of the postwar institutions. The policies that were being 
adopted did not
reflect the original aims that people had for employment or security or 
prosperity
being extended to all.
What happened was that in the 1940s, the Labor government nationalized
[industries]. In the 1980s, Mrs. Thatcher moved these industries back 
into the
private sector. We still did not have and we are still working on the proper
relationship in a global economy between state and market, between 
public and
private. We are still working on, because these are questions that remained
unresolved at the end of the Thatcher years: How [do] you manage public 
services
to the best effect, to achieve the values that you set out [to achieve]? 
Each of the
initiatives that she tried -- one, classically, was a poll tax -- the 
positive policies that
were put forward in the Thatcher years ended in difficulty, and in some 
cases having
to be reversed entirely.
The way I put it is this: While she understood that we had to move from the
overregulated economy of the 1940s and 1950s, what she didn't understand was
there were still problems -- underinvestment in education, 
underinvestment in
health, a transport infrastructure that was failing, lack of community 
spirit in our
country, lack of opportunity for many groups -- she still did not 
understand that
these were problems that had to be addressed if you were going to have a 
successful
economy. And in the end, of course, the public rejected the Conservative
government.

INTERVIEWER: Mrs. Thatcher is described again and again as the savior of the
British economy.

GORDON BROWN: What Mrs. Thatcher essentially did was tear down the old
institutions that had outdone their usefulness, but what she failed to 
do was to build
the new institutions, the new practices that were going to guarantee 
prosperity for
people in the future. So she privatized and deregulated and she 
liberalized. I agree
that she was right to emphasize the importance of enterprise, but what 
she didn't do
was extend enterprise to all. What she created was a relatively unstable 
and volatile
economy, and we had to come in and make the Bank of England independent. All
major problems that British people faced -- the public services and 
their quality, the
infrastructure for transport, under-investment in education, lack of 
community, an
increasing sense of unfairness, Britain's role in Europe and the world 
unresolved, had
not in the end been resolved by the Thatcher leadership. Other 
governments [since]
have had to face up to all of them and try and work out the best way 
forward.

INTERVIEWER: Would you say Mrs. Thatcher inflicted unnecessary suffering 
on the
country?

GORDON BROWN: The problem with the Thatcher prescription is not only did she
leave a volatile and unstable economy, which had two of the worst 
recessions since
the war, but she left a society where people felt the public services were
undervalued. The health service, investment was not taking place in 
education, and
there was a general sense that issues of fairness were of no consequence 
to the
Thatcherites. When she said there was no such thing as society, what she 
meant was
that the attention that should have been given to the institutions of 
society, like the
health service, like education, was simply not devoted to them during 
these Thatcher
years. So almost every major problem that Britain had faced -- its poor
performances in economy, the lack of stability in its macroeconomic 
management,
the underinvestment in education, a poor transport infrastructure, a 
health service
that needed both reform and money, and inequalities, particularly in the 
poor
communities that left people out of the mainstream of the economy -- all 
these
problems remained unaddressed, even as Mrs. Thatcher left office. And 
they have
had to be addressed by [subsequent] governments.
"

>  en maakt deel uit van de Lissabon-agenda.

Wat inmiddels een groot succes genoemd kan worden?

>  Werkelijk conservatisme is wat we zien in een CDA-PvdA-CU kabinet:

Klopt. Het CDA vormt al tijden het conservatisme in dit land.

>  CU conservatief op zowel het materiele als het immateriele vlak, CDA
>  voornamelijk op het immateriele en PvdA vooral op het materiele.
>
>  Jij verwart conservatief nogal eens met dat wat tegen het belang van
>  de 68'ers ingaat.

Wat gaat concreet tegen het belang van de 68'ers in?

>  Dat wat in de jaren 70 vooruitgang werd genoemd (op materieel
>  gebied), was helemaal geen verbetering ten opzichte van wat ervoor
>  kwam, maar puur opkomen voor het economisch eigenbelang van een
>  nieuwe generatie.

Vertel ...

En jij komt op voor wiens belang? Blijkens? Welke veranderingen wil jij, en
waarvoor/waarom en wat vormt daarvoor - behalve je fanta - de basis?

>  De eerste generatie die zowel zijn ouders als kinderen grof bestolen
>  heeft?

Als je dergelijke beschuldigingen uit, dien je die, door
feiten gestaafd, te onderbouwen. En waarvan bestolen?
Een leven in redelijke gezondheid? In levensverwachting?
In kansen, mogelijkheden?

Maar ik je wacht (verdere en goede) onderbouwing
verder wel even af ...

>  ZO! dat moest er even uit.

Teiltje voor Martijn !!! :)

Zozo verwarde man, wil je niet vergeten ook even door te spoelen? ;)

Tjonge jonge, dat conservatisme zit je wel erg diep in het bloed, zeg. 
:) Ik had al zo´n
vermoeden, maar hetgeen je nu uitbraakt vormt daarvoor een wel zeer 
ernstige bevestiging. :)

Wil jij in je analyses niet eens laten leiden door de feiten i.p.v. door 
je al te wilde fantasieen,
sprookjes en wat dies meer zij?  Pas daarna komt het denken, wat je 
kennelijk, en zo
opzichtig nu al voor ´geloven´ hebt ingeruild,  in elke geval moeilijk 
blijkt af te gaan gezien
ook je hang naar autoritiare (confronterende) dames.

"Thatcher was alleen in naam conservatief", haha, hoe langer ik er over 
na denk, des te
grappiger wordt ie. :) Maar, zo klinkt de mantra toch alleen voor de 
Neocons, niet ?

Oh ja,  het geprivatiseeerde OV is zo fantastisch in dit land dat het 
lege bussen van hot
naar her laat rijden, en als je zelf werkelijk ergens heen wilt ben je 
er sneller met op fiets ...

Voor ouderen die elkaar zouden willen helpen is er geen mogelijkheid, 
behalve een hele
dag uittrekken voor een paar uurtjes samen zijn. Tenminste, als je niet 
de pech hebt
provinciale grenzen over te moeten, want dan is een overnachting (als 
daar al ruimte
voor is) de enige optie. De ´Concurrentie´, van wie dan?

Jouw generatie, Martijn?

Henk Elegeert

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********