h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This conversation abbi's journal F102610?thread=414396 got me to wondering about something.

During my lifetime I've lived through one far right government in my own country (Thatcher) and two in America (Reagan and Dubya). Thatcher's time was notable by the enormous left wing backlash during the 80s - the miners strike, the 'loony' left local councils, the GLC and Ken Livingstone, and the Dubya administration is having all these books written about it, most of which seem to hint at dark dealings, political skullduggery, and conspiracy theories.

I've never lived through a left wing government or administration as stridently... what's the word I'm looking for? Dogmatic? No... doctrinaire? Close, but I know there's another more suitable word. Anyway. The only left wing government I can think of which maight have been so doctrinaire as Thatcher's government would be the Labour government immediately after WW2, when the social security system was set up and many industries nationalised.

Is anyone here old enough to have lived through that period, or has anyone studied it in enough detail to know what the prevailing public attitudes were at the time? Did it provoke the same kind of reactions as right wing governments do?

If not, how do you think a stridently ideological - ah, perhaps that was the word I was looking for - left wing government or administration would be perceived? Would it get the same kind of 'hate' treatment that the right wing does?

I'd argue Atlees government wasn't as left-wing as all that. It accepted the mixed economy and was very anti-communist.

Even moderate labour governments that I remember like those of Wilson and Callaghan came in for vitrolic criticism from an overwhelmingly right-wing press. The Callaghan disaster blighted the Labour Party for 20 years but before that Labour had been reasonably successful at being elected so the public attitude to them was presumably reasonable. I grew up in a Labour-supporting family in a Labour-supporting area so when I was growing up it was hard to understand why anyone voted Tory (still is).

I think mainland Europe has a stronger history of far left-wing parties doing well in elections. The communist parties of France and Italy have often been particularly successful - helped in no small part by proportional representation. They have, however, usually been kept out of government by opposition parties forming 'strange bed-fellow' alliances.

The post-war Labour government was, to all extents and purposes, a popular government of national unity. The returning troops *wanted* a change and the country was largely with them. And, understandably, there was no animosity to the outgoing Conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Margaret Thatcher was elected largely as a reaction against a failed Labour government and trade union militantism. As in most "mature" democracies, Britain had two major parties with entrenched and loyal support who would always vote for them. The secret was (and is) to appeal to the "middle ground" of floating voters who could vote for any party. In the early eighties, Thatcher made herself unpopular with much of the electorate because of her ideological stridency and casual, ironically Marxist-esque, detatchment from any suffering it caused convinced it was for a future "common good" (not that her or the entrenched Conservative support were expected to endure any of it, of course). However, the Labour Party at the time were transformed into a hard-left party of unrealistic policies twenty years too late (including a part-planned economy, high taxes and making the Trade Unions partly responsible for the economy). Understandably, the floating voters were repelled by this and Thatchers policies were far more appealing to the "non-committed". So the Conservatives could retain the "floating vote" and use it to defeat Labour over and over again. This continued right up until Blair moved the party to the centre-left and wooed the floating voters away from the Conservatives, thus securing a landslide victory against an extremely unpopular Conservative government in 1997.

So, in short, the post-war Labour government basically had wide-spread popular support, Thatcher was an ideologically-minded Tory who was divisive but remained in power because of very poor Labour opposition.

The government we have here at the moment (NZ) is referred to by its opponents as left wing, but it isn't - not one little bit. Goodness knows what those who think it *is* socialist, would make of an ideological left wing administration! They'd be running and screaming and hoarding guns in no time flat!
(This government has done a few things which the right consider 'left-wing social engineering - new industrial relations, new property laws for relationships, the legalisation of prostitution - but fiscally they are firmly centrist...)

Hey Della

The NZ Labour govt does have somewhat leftish social policies although I agree that they aren't really a socialist party any more. We do still live in a socialst democracy though, don't we?

~~~

"If not, how do you think a stridently ideological - ah, perhaps that was the word I was looking for - left wing government or administration would be perceived? Would it get the same kind of 'hate' treatment that the right wing does?"

Not sure if this counts but in the 80s in NZ the Labour govt was hijacked by what turned out to be new right economic fundamentalists. So we had a Labour govt that privatised or semiprivatised many of our national assests, tried to dismantle the public health system, etc.

It was definitely 'stridently ideological' and very confusing to the general punter on the street who eventually went out and voted in droves ,in protest, for a right wing govt

Interestingly that main players in that 80s Labour govt went on to now be either in the ACT party (association of consumers and taxpayers <snigger&gt which is our far right libertarian party, or to run the contry again - eg our current Prime Minister.

Yeah, well, that was exactly it, kea! It was stridently ideological, all right, but not leftist! It was extremely confusing - I remember my American landlady asking "what do you think of your beloved Labour party now?"
What could I say? Well, at least they have come out now. Sigh.
I had heard someone say "Helen is so dry (economically) she's combustible!" That's why I laugh when people rave about galloping socialism. I wish!

"galloping socialism"

The other disturbing thing about the Labour govt is that even though their broad social policies are leftish, when you look in more detail there are some weird things going on.

They're still selling off crown land for instance, which is incredibly f*cked IMO. It's mad, and I can't really fathom it apart from thinking it's to do with their global/economic ideology - i.e. we don't really need that much sovereignty over our land because we are part of the global picture now.

I remember Bolger et al had that attitude and it really makes me see red. As if a country can be anything without it's land - as long as it looks right on paper we'll be right . Kind of like a cyber country. It must come from spending the whole day in a high rise


I was just trying to think who of the current Labour party was also there in the 80s. Jim Anderton of course, but he got out in disgust. What was Cullen doing in the 80s? Not sure about the rest - would have to look it up.

Among the most memorable Bolgerisms, was his statement that children should have businessmen as heroes, instead of rugby players!
Yes, what *is* all the land selling about?

If someone posts the terms of Thatcher and Reagan, I'm sure we could come up with some of the things that were being done in that time.

Just ignore that - it was meant for a different thread entirely


What I was about to say in this thread is that modern rugby players are hardly good role models either

Trying to think of a business leader I admire - maybe Stephen Tindal because he treats his staff better than most. But I do find it hard to respect anyone with that amount of wealth living in a world where people don't have enough to eat.

Stephen Tindall (the real one) is a good guy, so is Dick Hubbard (of Hubbard foods.)
I am barely aware of rugby, but I hear some interesting news stories about some of them. Some become words - you know what it means to "do a Hopoate"?

>>Some become words - you know what it means to "do a Hopoate"?<<

Yes, unfortunately



I'd forgotten about Hubbard

You've got me intrigued now
What is "to do a Hopoate" or is it unsuitable for repeating in a public forum

Gosho you almost sound as if the Dubya administration doesn’t deserve these investigative books (or attack books from their point of view) written about them. If the news media was a fraction as independent as it was 25 years ago, or if this was even a moderately open White House, these books wouldn’t be needed. How else are we to get the information about what is really happening with such a secretive group as these Neo-cons in power.

As for your closing question “How do you think a stridently ideological left wing government or administration would be perceived? Would it get the same kind of 'hate' treatment that the right wing does?” Sadly, I don’t see how such a huge tectonic cultural shift could possibly happen in the current atmosphere. The right-wingers have worked so long and thoroughly to cultivate their ties to corporate power, moral-majority style religious groups, and media controllers (i.e. cable news, talk radio, far right magazines, conservative attack web sites...) a partisan attack dog congress and a judiciary stocked with right wing idealogues, etc. effectively shutting out any debate or compromise to the center. But if you use the relatively centerist Clinton years as an example these groups, and more, painted them as liberal (a term that they’ve perverted in the minds of American’s to cause as strong a reaction as using the N-word to describe a black) they spent Clinton’s entire term obstructing his presidency with constant and ever-shifting investigations until finally they “GOT HIM” lying and IMPEACHED a sitting president over a bl*w job. In answering your question it helps to go to my local audio book store (I do still have that 2 hour daily commute) where books stay on the shelves longer than traditional stores, there you can find dozens of Clinton-hate books evidence of a decade long cottage industry. I think these book releases during election years will be the new status quo, for good or bad.

BC - here's an explanation (of sorts ) about Hopoate. It's very weird (both Hopoate's actions and rugby culture in general) but that's another whole thread

http://www.cpfc.org/forums/history/topic/4551-1.html

no elwood, they didn't get him over a blowjob.

they got him for lying under oath about geting a blowjob, which is much more serious.

a government can only work if you have some degree of trust that when the major officials say "I didn't do X" that they didn't actually do it.

this is why the whole idea of plausable deniability got of the ground.

Xyroth

But was Clintons sex life really any of their business
he wasn't breaking any laws so I can not see any justifiable reason for them asking the questions (unlike Whitewater which nobody ever got to the bottom of)

I wish I could remember who said this recently with regard to Clinton:

"in my day gentlemen were supposed to lie about affairs"

Thanks for that link Kea
I am now better informed about (if no closer to understanding) rugby players and their officials