Is there really not one single funny bone in any of those fusty, old, grumbly Tories?

Over at Tory Bear, there’s an air of pseudo-offense being taken at some comments on Twitter made by representatives of the Labour Party:

It takes a pretty sick individuals to look at the footage of a frail old lady enjoying a reward for years of loyal and great service to her nation and wish a violent accident involving stairs and skateboards upon them. You may disagree with someone politically but to wish them a violent death? Baroness Thatcher has been hospitalised in the past from falling down and to suggest the image of her falling down the stairs over a skateboard is in anyway funny or just reward to anyone is as deeply disturbing as it is shameful. Apparently this is funny though to Labour’s poster girl Ellie and Barnsley councillor Tim Cheetham.

So, a bit of slapstick humour about one of Labour’s biggest political enemies is completely and outrageously, apparently punishable-by-death-ably, far out of the realms of anything that’s funny? I take it Tory Bear makes sure he steers clear of shows like Have I Got News For You then? I mean, watching that would be enough to make him drink a gallon of bleach.

According to TB:

A joke here and there and a bit of banter is one thing but a line has very much been crossed here.

How bloody ridiculous. Especially seeing as he condones Jeremy Clarkson’s pasting of Mandelson. Clarkson’s article in The Times requests that Mandelson:

will have to be tied to the front of a van and driven round the country until he isn’t alive any more…Such an act would be cruel and barbaric and inhuman. But it would at least cheer everyone up a bit.

Clarkson then bangs on for another 800 words of underlying xenophobia. I don’t like Clarkson. I think he’s a smug, bigoted, oafish twatface, but I’m not going to sit in a corner and cry as he insults people. I don’t like Mandelson, but plenty of people do. What makes Clarkson’s comments any more acceptable that those on Twitter? According to TB:

Yes it’s moderately insulting to a broad range of countries but what were you expecting when you read an article by Clarkson? Come on. If you don’t want to be offended, don’t read offensive peoples work. It’s not rocket science.

Get back to the real issues!

Una tal Margaret Thatcher puso ‘de moda’ la Ley de los 2/3. Dícese del Gobierno que busca contentar a dos tercios de la población de un país para asegurarse la continuidad. El gobierno eterno. La gloria. Implícitamente, la estrategia propone que le den por ‘el mismísimo’ al otro tercio. Una traslación numérica de la idea supone que, en un país como España, más de 11 millones de personas serían sodomizados. Políticamente hablando, claro…

La canciller británica revisó con su Ley de los 2/3 la política del buen Gobierno que propuso en su día Maquiavelo.

Un par de décadas después nos encontramos con un método, el de formar mayorías de electores suficientes, que ya es un sistema. Es una forma de identificar la eficacia en la acción de Gobierno. Me reservo para otro ‘post’ los ejemplos concretos de esta inercia que ha llevado a los partidos a crear verdaderos aparatos estadísticos para medir cada una de sus propuestas.

Pero no. Hoy toca hablar de la nueva revisión del postulado maquiavélico. Ayer PP y PSOE se enzarzaron en una pelea de pandilleros, de los de chándal, moto trucada y navaja de mariposa. ¿A propósito de qué? ¿Del paro? ¿De la recuperación que no llega ni con el Almendro? No. Se hablaba de SITEL: el futuro escaparate de sus vergüenzas. Porque ayer se evidenció lo que es la verdadera guerra sucia.

Los bajos fondos de nuestra política comienzan a emerger. No así sus fontaneros (otro tema que me reservo para el ‘blog bueno’). El enredo de SITEL no llega ahora por casualidad. Viene precedido de un curioso escenario, al que se le da muy poca bola en este país.

Muchos ya conocerán el cuento. Pero por si acaso, lo refresco: érase una vez un Gobierno -del PP- que quería perpetuarse. Al que siguió otro con el mismo fin. Los unos crearon un sistema de escuchas legales. Los otros dieron su visto bueno. 13 millones de euros (es un decir, porque una cosa es crear el sistema y otro desarrollarlo) para una tecnlogía que es una Gran Oreja que todo lo oye.

Con los años, la Gran Oreja, creada para no molestar a quienes la crearon, giró su atención hacia uno de sus diseñadores. De hecho, Freud dixit, el giro suponía “matar al padre”. A uno de los padres. De esas escuchas nació un pequeño monstruo llamado Gürtel; del que sólo sabemos 1/3 de un sumario que está volviendo loca a la oposición.

Todos apuntan al señor Rubalcaba como la Gran Mente detrás de la Oreja. Y probablemente no les falte razón. Porque imaginen lo que significa este asunto en un momento económico y social tan delicado como el que atraviesa nuestro país.

Sabemos que faltan 2/3 del sumario Gürtel. Sabemos -en todos los corrillos de la Corte se habla de ello- que implicará a más sectores del PP; probablemente en Madrid. Pero, al mismo tiempo, no tenemos certeza. Sólo quienes están detrás del sumario (policía, Fiscalía, Gobierno y, muy probablemente PRISA) saben por dónde van los tiros.

Ahora imaginen lo que esto supone para el otro padre de la criatura. Cualquier acercamiento a uno u otro puede suponer aparecer manchado en el futuro. Se dice que la salida dialéctica de Cobo (y Gallardón), al que siguió Rajoy, responde a esta dinámica. Incluso se sabe que los acercamientos a PRISA son un medio para conocer  filtraciones.

El desconcierto en la oposición es comparable a una ‘Espada de Damocles’ del tamaño de Benidorm o Mahadahonda. Y todo, en plena recesión. Y todo, en manos de tu rival político. Hagan la prueba. Imaginen que varios de sus compañeros de trabajo van a ser imputados. Usted no sabe quién. Pero sabe que alguien caerá. ¿Con quién toma el café de por la mañana? ¿Comería con ese compañero con cara de sospechoso? ¿Conspiraría contra el jefe?

Y a todo esto. ¿Qué pasa con su trabajo? ¿Seguirá siendo igual de efectivo? ¿O estará tan distraído que el curro se le acumula? La nueva Ley de los 2/3 es todo un invento. Y, si no, prueben a ponerla en práctica en su entorno…

Diskussionen om politiska sympatier bland popmusiker dyker upp då och då. För några år sedan lanserade Timbro och PR-killen Erik Zsiga en version i ett desperat försök att framstå som relevanta inför sina bidragsgivare.

Zsigas metod var att dels med hjälp av diverse hiphop- och punktexter behäfta “popvänstern” med våldsglorifiering, dels skuldbelägga alla som uttryckt den mest försiktiga vänsteråsikt och samtidigt tjänat pengar på sin musik. Borgerliga ledarskribenter som Per Gudmundsson och Peter Wennblad har å andra sidan försökt klämma in så skilda saker som den svenska DIY-scenen, 90-talsindien och Manchestervågen i en högerkontext, med lite olika argument.

Grundfrågan kvarstår dock – olika tricks åsido, varför är så få popband öppet höger? Till och med de glättiga engelska syntpopbanden på 80-talet visade sig vara vänster när man skrapade lite på ytan – Depeche Mode flirtade med socialismen i intervjuer och i naiva texter, Wham! stödde de strejkande gruvarbetarna (men dissade fackbossen Arthur Scargill) och Martin Ware från Human League gjorde socialistisk konceptpop med Heaven 17.

Gary Numan, en outsider redan i småskolan, väckte uppståndelse när han deklarerade att han röstade på Thatcher. Här i Sverige blev Lustans Lakejer utskällda för sin utstuderat borgerliga image, men den känns i efterhand mer som ett sätt att reta upp proggare och punkare i stickade tröjor än som ett äkta politiskt statement. Därtill var det alldeles för mycket verklighetsflykt.

Naturligtvis finns det drösvis med band i diverse subkulturer som integrerat extremhögersymbolik och ibland också -åsikter i sin image – inom black metal, neofolk och vit maktmusik. Men det är ändå något fjärran från den ideologiska liberalism som Zsiga och ledarskribenterna bekänner sig till. I Sverige framstår fortfarande Alexander Bard som en särling i det att han kombinerar en genomtänkt liberal politisk ståndpunkt (och på sistone en politisk karriär i folkpartiet) med en framgångsrik artistkarriär. Men Bard skiljer å andra sidan nuförtiden oftast noga på de två rollerna.

Tanken på ett band som imagemässigt går in för att hylla arvet efter thatcherismen och önska hårdare tag mot fackligt organiserade, arbetslösa och sjukskrivna känns mest som något lika utstuderat som norska black metalbandet Mayhems hyllningar till diktaturerna i Albanien och Nordkorea.

Frågan om popvänstern och avsaknaden av en pophöger diskuterades i P1 senast i dag. Per Gudmundsson, som enligt egen utsago driver en kampanj för att “skriva om pophistorien ur ett högerperspektiv” pratade med Martin Aagård, vänsterintellektuell kulturskribent och medlem i Doktor Kosmos, ett band som i sin studentikost “lustiga” proggighet kan få vem som helst att drömma om att starta det där högersvaret på Mayhem.

Aagard har adopterat popvänsteretiketten på samma vis som homosexuella gjort med sina nedsättande epitet och säger sig vara stolt över att vara popvänster. Gudmundsson efterlyste tydligare politiska etiketter på låtar som i största allmänhet handlar om “frihet” – trots att de bästa brukar ha udden riktad mot sådana som honom. Programledaren lyfte fram en gammal spaning utbyggd till en lång artikel i Bon härom året om att det blivit hippt med borgerlighet bland annat eftersom vissa band anammat en ironisk tennis- och seglarstil och eftersom en ny generation vänsterengagerade ungdomar har bättre klädsmak än man hade på 90-talet.

Inte så värst intressant alltså, och mest småmysigt när det egentligen var upplagt för en ordentlig fight. Är det något som genomsyrat popmusiken de senaste 50 åren så är det passion.

Jag tror dessvärre att utgångspunkterna för diskussionen hamnat helt snett. Per Gudmundsson har tidigare velat se högerdrag i Joy Divisions musik med huvudsaklig hänvisning till att Ian Curtis röstade på tories i det enda val han hann med, vilket naturligtvis är en otroligt banal iakttagelse. Och övriga medlemmar var vänster. I dagens radiodiskussion talades om bristen på plakattexter om skattesänkning och privatiseringar, också det ett banalt sätt att resonera.

Om vi istället betraktar popmusiken på samma vis som Fredrik Edin gjorde med film nyligen finner vi att det självfallet finns mängder av högerinriktad populärmusik: All denna musik som genom att inte på något vis gå emot den rådande ordningen i själva verket blir ett stöd till den. Och då menar jag självfallet inte att det som krävs är vare sig gammal och ny progg eller förutsägbart “arg” musik som Rage Against the Machine eller Atari Teenage Riot – en ljudbild kan också vara politisk, som Tobbe i The Embassy en gång så klokt uttryckte det.

“Popvänstern” skapades genom att Erik Zsiga lyfte fram vartenda förment vänstervridet citat han kunde hitta hos svenska kändisar, inklusive Cardigans-Ninas försiktiga avståndstagande från höga chefsbonusar och till och med högertjejen Linda Skugges krönikor. I själva verket lider Sverige av att popartister talar alldeles för lite om sina politiska åsikter, alternativt är genuint ointresserade. Och det fåtal som öppnar käften tenderar tyvärr att vara olika sorters proggare.

“I’m working class. Give me a gun and I’ll shoot all the Young Conservatives” sade Primal Screams Bobby Gillespie när bandet var som allra störst. Den sortens tydliga ställningstagande för något radikalare än ett regeringsskifte väntar vi fortfarande på att höra från någon svensk artist i hans position.

Mer om Per Gudmundsson, Martin Aagård, P1, proggare, popvänster, pophöger, Wham!, Primal Scream, Bobby Gillespie, Cardigans, Linda Skugge, Erik Zsiga, Peter Wennblad, Doktor Kosmos, The Embassy, Fredrik Edin, Rage Against the Machine, Atari Teenage Riot, Joy Division, Ian Curtis, Mayhem, Alexander Bard, Gary Numan, Lustans Lakejer, Depeche Mode, Thatcher, Human League, Heaven 17

At a gala dinner last week, news circulated that “Lady Thatcher” had died; the lady in this case was, as we now know, Transport Minister John Baird’s cat, not the Iron Lady herself. Nonetheless, Blackberrys buzzed with the announcement, and it circulated across the Twitter-verse.

Staff in the Prime Minister’s Office moved quickly to issue a statement of condolence, although luckily did a bit of fact-checking first. Finding that Margaret Thatcher was quite alive, well, as quickly as the rumour started, it was quelled. Elapsed time: approximately 20 minutes.

This incident while, in the end, fairly benign, serves to illustrate the speed with which news travels.  It also illustrates the two sides of social media. Here, social media accelerated not just the spreading of the rumour, but also the dissemination of the ”truth,” allowing for a quick correction of the record before too much damage had been done.

This isn’t always the case; indeed, more often than not, news doesn’t travel at the same speed in both directions. We see this, in particular, with political scandal, where stories break, sensational reports circulate and then, nothing. We rarely hear much about conclusions, the resolution of the scandal or the penalties meted out. We remember ”stripper-gate” but don’t actually know how it was resolved.  What about “nanny-gate?” Even the details of the sponsorship scandal’s conclusion are somewhat murky.

This undoubtedly contributes to the public’s belief that politics is all scandal, all problems, all the same old. One wonders, however, if news celebrating the good could possibly circulate at the speed of the bad.

Neoliberalismo y conservadurismo aparecen asociados desde el acceso al gobierno de Reagan y Thatcher, que constituye su primera plasmación institucional, y lo continúan estando en la actualidad. Sin que postulemos una unión necesaria, creemos que su coexistencia es algo más que ocasional, pues, en nuestra opinión, las políticas neoliberales, por los efectos sociales de desarticulación que producen, requieren políticas conservadoras como nueva argamasa de cohesión.
Cuando hablamos de conservadurismo o neoconservadurismo no nos reducimos al plano de las políticas autoritarias, represivas, que no son más que la manifestación de un fenómeno más general. Pensamos en un campo que abarca valores, actitudes, etc. Veamos lo acontecido en el ámbito religioso. Cuando se habla del auge de la derecha cristiana en los Estados Unidos, se olvida que lo mismo es predicable del catolicismo. La década de 1960, una década denigrada por los conservadores actuales, fue una época de avance en la liberación en el terreno cultural. Por lo menos en Occidente, la emancipación de la mujer, la permisividad, dio pasos considerables. En la iglesia católica, en los mismos años, impulsado por Juan XXIII y el Concilio Vaticano II, se dio una notable apertura en todos los campos.

La subida al papado de Juan Pablo II, que coincide en el tiempo con la llegada de Reagan y Thatcher, marcó un giro considerable tanto en el terreno político como en el moral, un acento conservador que en aspectos esenciales es paralelo al de los dos políticos mencionados: cruzada anticomunista, condena de los movimientos de liberación, exaltación de la familia, de la moral tradicional, estigmatización de las conductas permisivas. En estos puntos, Benedicto XVI no ha hecho sino seguir los pasos de su predecesor, en cuya política colaboró activamente.

El proceso de conservadurismo del catolicismo en las últimas décadas se ha dado claramente en el español, acentuado hoy en las orientaciones de la inmensa mayoría del episcopado con sus cardenales a la cabeza, con sus continuados ataques y manifestaciones contra el Gobierno del PSOE, que culminaron en la concentración en Madrid del último domingo del año 2007, acusándole de atacar a la Iglesia (¡), de destrucción de la moral y de la familia, de favorecer la descristianización de España. La involución del catolicismo español, que se manifiesta en la proliferación de movimientos de base de índole conservadora, que se hicieron presentes en la concentración del 30 de diciembre, sigue la pauta marcada desde el Vaticano, a la que ha impulsado la política de nombramientos episcopales realizada desde el papado de Juan Pablo II y seguida por su sucesor. De nada valen ni la moderación de algunos obispos ni la benevolencia del Gobierno en la enseñanza concertada y en materia de subvenciones.

Las palabras de los cardenales de Madrid, Valencia, Toledo, poniendo en cuestión el Estado laico y democrático nos devuelven a los tiempos del nacional catolicismo, a la iglesia tridentina; parece como si la Iglesia española, pasado el sarampión del Concilio Vaticano II y las incertidumbres de los últimos años de la dictadura y de la transición, quisiera recuperar la posición que ganó con el franquismo, de ser la guía de la moral del país, asumiendo la misión de hacer tabla rasa del proceso de laicización y de autonomía de la conciencia.

Hay otros registros del neoconservadurismo que conviene no olvidar, como son el cuestionamiento de los valores cívicos a favor de un patriotismo de cuño tradicional. En el caso de España, ha supuesto el ataque contra la nueva asignatura de educación para la ciudadanía con sus valores de laicismo, tolerancia y pluralidad, mientras se ha defendido el valor de la religión en el expediente académico en concordancia con las posiciones del episcopado. Y, por otro lado, una exaltación de un patriotismo español que pone en entredicho cualquier manifestación de la España plural y lleva a la denuncia de cualesquiera políticas que pretendan avanzar en la articulación territorial.

La concordancia de neoliberalismo y neoconservadurismo se ejemplifica máximamente en España en las comunidades que se han convertido en los baluartes del Partido Popular. Tal es el caso de Madrid. Esperanza Aguirre es una de las más extremas defensoras de las políticas neoliberales en el seno del PP; lo ha demostrado en su gestión al frente de la Comunidad en materia de sanidad y enseñanza, minando la titularidad pública de las mismas, a favor de la gestión privada; la principal beneficiaria de la escuela concertada es la católica. Y es notorio que la TV autonómica se ha convertido en la gran propagandista de las concentraciones y manifestaciones de la Iglesia y de otras instituciones de carácter conservador, otorgándoles una difusión masiva a través de su canal.

Por todo ello, no debe reducirse el conservadurismo o neoconservadurismo a las políticas represivas en el estricto sentido de la expresión. Éstas forman parte de su arsenal, pero se completan con la vuelta a valores tradicionales. Volviendo a las conexiones entre neoliberalismo y neoconservadurismo se puede apuntar que en una sociedad en la que el neoliberalismo predica en el terreno económico un individualismo a ultranza y la competitividad al máximo, en la que se debilitan los mecanismos e instrumentos de solidaridad, se busca obtener la cohesión invocando los viejos valores patrióticos y religiosos.

*Profesor emérito de la UCM

Referencia: http://blogs.publico.es/dominiopublico/239/neoliberalismo-y-conservadurismo/

Drama in Canada! Thatcher is dead!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8358544.stm

Yeah yeah I know….

Not long now though…

August, Edward, Dominic, Henry, Julian, George, Broderick, Dashiell, Quinn, Rowan, Atticus, Barnaby, Benedict, Cato, Darwin, Emerson, Fergus, Harvey, Lucian, Lewis, Malachy, Micah, Maxwell, Oakley, Orlando, Phineas, Rupert, Rex, Sullivan, Solomon, Steven, Willoughby, Winston & West.

Carmen, Daisy, Aurelia, Daphne, Delphi, Eurielle, Flora, Geneva, Hazel, Hermione, Ivy, Linnea, Maddalen, Mirabelle, Nola, Olympia, Olive, Polly, Romilly, Ramona, Rosemary, Sally, Simona, Ursula, Valentina, Violet, Clara, Eulalie, Seraphia, Seraphina, Silvana, Adele, Amabel & Leora.

By Andrew Donaldson

When Canadian Transport Minister Mike Baird sent a text message this week declaring “Thatcher is dead”, it didn’t take long for the news to spread like wildfire throughout Canadian politics.

Even the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, was led to believe that Baroness Thatcher, Britain’s first female Prime Minister, had died aged 84.

What most were unaware of, however, was that Mr Baird was referring to his recently departed pet cat, rather than the Iron Lady herself.

Only a series of telephone calls to Downing Street and Buckingham Palace put the speculation to rest.

Of course, it’s not the first time that a rumour has spread concerning the death of a high profile celebrity.

Just ask Jeff Goldblum, star of such hit films as Independence Day and Jurassic Park.

Earlier this year, the 57-year-old actor was reported to have fallen to his death while filming a new movie in New Zealand.

The rumour turned out to be nothing but a case of inaccurate reporting, with Mr Goldblum’s publicist insisting that reports were “completely untrue” and that the performer was “fine and in Los Angeles”.

Jeff Goldblum, victim of internet hoax

Scrubs star Zach Braff is another victim of a hoax claiming he was dead.

Only last month, rumours spread online that the 34-year-old had been found dead in his Beverly Hills home after consuming a bottle of pills.

Reports of the apparent suicide were eventually silenced by Braff himself via his personal Facebook page when he declared:

“I’m very much alive.

“Total internet rumor [sic].

“Amazing how fast one douche can spread a lie.

“Be careful out there on the internets [sic].”

Braff raises an interesting point.

The internet seems to completely surpass all other forms of media in terms of its ability to circulate baseless information incredibly quickly and on a massive scale.

In the last year alone, rumours about the deaths of Rick Astley, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Harrison Ford and Ellen DeGeneres were all widely circulated on the internet.

But why is this? What about the internet makes it so good for spreading rumours?

Ex-Sociology lecturer, Dr Alison Harold said: “The nature of the internet and how it is structured, with anyone and everyone being able to have an input, means that any information can be passed around.

“The interconnectivity of the internet means that any information can be passed around at an incredible rate.”

Another explanation for the ever-increasing frequency of hoax celebrity-death reports is just how easy the internet has made it for would-be hoaxers to perpetrate their mischief.

It’s all too easy for pranksters to produce emails or webpages that, at first glance, look like authentic news sources, but contain completely inaccurate information.

Inevitably, the more gullible members of society will be taken in, forward the story on, and thus the rumour spreads.
Barry McPherson, spokesperson for the Scottish PR consultancy <em>The Big Partnership</em>, offerred another explanation as to why fake tales of celebrity demise are so prevalent online.

Mr McPherson said: “Bad, depressing or negative stories always have strong news value, particularly where they concern public figures.

“Add to this the increasing fixation with celebrity culture and the explosion in modern, social media, and it’s little surprise that such (false) rumours circulate so fast.

He, added: “It’s hard to credibly quantify the impact such hoaxes have on the individuals in question, though I’d  assume no-one’s particularly chuffed to  hear about their  own (falsely) rumored demise.

“It would also be particularly upsetting for their friends and family.”

Whether it’s mistaken identity or a simple prank, rumours heard on the internet often aren’t what they first seem.

The poor wee beastie probably died of embarassment.

• Ganz lustige Geschichte, die laut Spiegel Online sogar wahr ist: Warum man seine Katze nicht “Thatcher” nennen sollte.
• Wenn man sich alle Plattencover, die man so hat genug vors Gesicht gehalten hat, damit aber immer noch Quatsch machen will, sollte man vielleicht einfach Collagen daraus machen.
• Ich bin ja mal gespannt, wie es sich beim nächsten Heimspiel so ohne das hier anfühlt…

Thatcher Bede

Thatcher Cole

Thatcher Elliot

Thatcher Guy

Thatcher Joel

Thatcher Isaac

Thatcher Leon

Thatcher Michael

Thatcher Nathaniel

Thatcher Grey

Thatcher Rowan

Thatcher Ambrose

Thatcher Abram

Thatcher Arnold

Thatcher Blake

Thatcher Bart

Thatcher Beckett

Thatcher Bram

Thatcher Caspian

Thatcher Dalziel

Thatcher Ira

Thatcher Jude

Thatcher Marley

Thatcher Miles

Thatcher Maxwell

Thatcher Moss

Thatcher Owen

Thatcher Penn

Thatcher Rory

Thatcher Reuben

Thatcher Gabriel

Veinte años después de 1989 los alemanes, Europa y el mundo celebra la caída del muro de Berlín. El 9 de noviembre de 1989, el régimen criminal comunista de la República Democrática Alemana (RDA) había llegado a su fin. El régimen totalitario y criminal soviético impuesto en toda la Europa Central tras el nazismo se había derrumbado.

Las palabras que hubo en el emotivo acto que se vivió en Berlín hacían referencia a la frase en la que Don Quijote le habla de la libertad a Sancho y le dice que por ella hay que ser capaz de darlo todo incluso la vida. Y cuantas vidas han caído con el comunismo…

Alemania es la nación que ha padecido con más intensidad el fascismo nazi y el comunismo soviético. El nazismo fue un horror que despedazó las libertades y condujo a este país a la debacle de la Guerra Mundial. El comunismo fue aún peor y más largo. Sumió además en la miseria a uno de los pueblos más ricos del mundo y levantó en la capital alemana un muro de vergüenza y opresión para evitar la sangría de las fugas del este hacia el oeste. Hay que celebrar por lo tanto derrumbe del muro y la caída del comunismo.

Los artífices de este acontecimiento histórico fueron los ciudadanos bajo los gobiernos conservadores de Kohl en Alemania, Thatcher en Inglaterra o Reagan en EE.UU., Lech Walesa en Polonia y la inestimable colaboración del Papa Juan Pablo II.

Durante setenta años en la URSS y cincuenta en sus estados vasallos se jugaron libertad y vida y muchas veces perdieron las dos. Millones de cadáveres y muchas decenas de millones de seres humanos enterrados en vida en regímenes opresores son el único legado de la aventura criminal que en principio creímos enterrada aquel nueve de noviembre. Países como Cuba, China, Corea del Norte, Venezuela, Bolivia o Ecuador aún siguen sumidos unos en regímenes dictatoriales y otros en totalitarios.

Cuanto deseo que llegue el día en que pronunciar las palabras dictadura y totalitarismo solamente hagan mera referencia a la historia y no al presente y más que yo las personas que sufren estos regímenes todos los días. La discriminación, la desigualdad, la supervivencia diaria, la censura y el crimen son algunas palabras que van unidas a estos sistemas políticos.

Como muy bien decía una carta enviada al director del periódico El Mundo “El muro no cayó, lo derribaron” y añade “el muro no cayó, lo derribaron los demócratas y lo que realmente cayó fue el comunismo en Europa”.  Lo más vil, criminal y rastrero es que todas las barbaridades que hizo el comunismo lo hizo en nombre de las grandes palabras: democracia popular, dictadura del proletariado, igualdad… todo mentiras e injusticias.

Una buena interpretación de 1989 la dio el economista y socialista americano Robert Heilbroner, que ese mismo año, en un artículo en el New Yorker, afirmaba: “Menos de 75 años después de que oficialmente comenzara la lucha entre capitalismo y socialismo, el socialismo está acabado y el capitalismo ha ganado… El capitalismo organiza los asuntos materiales de la humanidad más satisfactoriamente que el socialismo”. Y poco más tarde escribirá: “Las libertades democráticas no han aparecido sino esporádicamente en ninguna nación que se haya declarado anticapitalista”.

Algo que me explico es que el puñado sectario de comunistas españoles digan en su Congreso que no tienen nada de que arrepentirse del comunismo. Para ellos, su miserable idea vale más que la vida y los sufrimientos de millones de seres humanos. Y que el presidente del Gobierno dijera que el hundimiento del comunismo era equiparable a la muerte del dictador Franco supone un insulto y una trivialización de los crímenes comunistas en Europa que produce náuseas y es propio de un ignorante que no entiende ni sabe de historia.

No estaría de más recordar al presidente Zapatero que él y su Gobierno mantienen complicidad con Fidel Castro, con Hugo Chávez, con Evo Morales, Rafael Correa o Daniel Ortega. Cuba es de lo poco que queda del comunismo soviético y la isla entera se ha convertido en un muro como el de Berlín. Los cubanos escapan del paraíso castrista como pueden, en pateras, cayucos o lanchas improvisadas arriesgando su vida y en muchas ocasiones la pierden. Pero aún quedan algunos desalmados que piensan que los derechos humanos en estos países se cumplen.

Ya hay que ser cínico para con la mano derecha encender una vela en el Muro de Berlín y con la izquierda otra en la Cuba de los dictadores hermanos Castro, que tiranizan al pueblo cubano desde hace 50 años. Mientras que Fidel erradica las libertades en Cuba, ciudadanos como los alemanes, rusos, húngaros, polacos, checos, búlgaros o rumanos empezaron a liberarse del comunismo hace ahora veinte años, fecha  que señala el fin del siglo XX y el comienzo del siglo XXI.

Pero España también tiene su propio muro particular. Está atravesada por una crisis internacional que gracias al desgobierno socialista se ha transformado en una crisis interna. Una crisis tanto económica como institucional en la que el capitán Zapatero del barco ha  ordenado un rumbo incierto con destino a encallar. En el que el contramaestre ha mandado alzar unas velas rotas y desgastadas que no nos dejan avanzar. En el que los oficiales nunca han sido marinos. Y en el que los tripulantes no damos crédito a la incompetencia absoluta del gobernante de la nave.

¿Es sostenible que en pleno siglo XXI, tras la caída del comunismo o del socialismo soviético, aún algunos sigan levantando el brazo puño cerrado y cantando La Internacional a semejanza del más cruel y criminal régimen comunista? ¿Es esto lógico? ¿Quien quiere que nos gobierne un partido que continúa con el mismo discurso de hace 70 años y parte de ese discurso procede del régimen comunista?

Creo que nos encontramos en la época de la batalla de las ideas, de los valores, de los principios y de las libertades.

Quiero acabar con unas palabras de, en mi opinión, el mejor presidente que ha pasado por este país José María Aznar: “Yo soy optimista porque confío en la fuerza de la gente libre y en la capacidad de las sociedades libres. Creo en el libre mercado, porque ha traído más prosperidad, riqueza y ha reducido más la pobreza que en cualquier otro momento de la historia. Precisamente porque todavía queda mucho por hacer para acabar con la pobreza debemos mantenernos firmes en estos principios”.

All the news about the 20th anniversary of the fall of Die Mauer, as the Germans called it had me thinking about where I was that day.

I had lived in Germany in the late 1970’s working both as a technician and with a side job. The job took me all over Europe, which I loved. I would occasionally have to go into East Germany or Czechoslovakia, and saw what communism was all about. It wasn’t pretty and it  was evil and huge armies stood on each side of the German border waiting for Armageddon and sometimes the Cold War wasn’t so cold. There is a small army of anonymous dead on both sides.

Later, after I came home, my job would take me back to Germany, sometimes several times a year, but always every other November to Messe Muenchen for a massive electronics trade show. I’m a factory junkie, so I would always visit suppliers and customers before and after the show.

Since I had spent time in the East, the protests in Leipzig and Dresden that began in early Fall were stunning. The GDR simply did not allow freedom of expression. But Poland had already seen a loss of control by the state as President Reagan, the Pope and Margaret Thatcher had both overtly and covertly supported Solidarity, and then Gorbachev enacted Glasnost. The Poles were never the best of communists, and nationalism was strong but suppressed in the East Bloc.They were the first to fall away, even before Glasnost.

East Germany was more communist than Stalin, they used to say. The Stasi were everywhere and the country was Orwellian in its dedication to communism with a German face. So when the demonstrations broke out and nothing happened there was some slight hope for greater freedom there as well. What happened next stunned the world.

As the rest of Eastern Europe began to liberalize, the East German people began to leave. Thousands were escaping to the West via Hungary, and that border was closed. Others went to Prague. The border with the West was the most heavily armed and patrolled real estate on the planet at the time and so was no outlet. Huge fences and razor wire and machine guns. Passing through the check points was scary for the Westerners who did so, and there was very little traffic the other way except Westerners going home.

The pressure within East Germany had risen, but no one expected the protests. First a few thousand and then more. Honecker was losing control. In mid October, Gorbachev visited Honecker who had had issued shoot to kill orders, which were never carried out. Gorbachev actually had to pressure Honecker into allowing some reform. The old Cold Warrior wouldn’t change though, and was replaced by Egon Krenz, nothing more than an apparatchik in the right place at the right time.

3 Weeks before November 9th, he took over. The protests kept on growing and there was a sense of change, but even then no hint of what would happen. The protests continued until the government called a special session of the Politburo, where things started to go to hell and 2/3 of the members resigned on the 7th. It was anyone’s guess what would happen next.

The radio in Europe generally sucks. When driving I would usually flip the dial every few minutes trying to find something, anything, to listen to.  Germany is a funny place. A very high population density, but on certain autobahns on a weekday morning there’s not much traffic. I had a big Benz on the morning of the 9th and was probably cruising at 110 and the highway to Boeblingen, near Stuttgart, was empty. I had to be at Hewlett Packard by 11 for an engineering meeting, and then IBM afterwards.

It was probably 10:00 or so when I dialed in Westdeutsche Rundfunk or another channel and heard an announcement that Krenz was speaking to the Politburo. I had a feeling it was very important, as did the radio network obviously. It wasn’t an especially long speech, maybe 15 minutes, but I had to pull over because I began to cry for a moment. I could not believe my ears. Krenz announced that he was opening the border effective as soon as possible. German is not my native language, so I had to listen to the announcer confirm what I had just heard.

To someone who had seen the Cold War up close and knew  the implications of a hot war in Germany, I was simply stunned. I realized, “It’s over and we’re still alive”. There were times when it was close. The Army kept the ammunition close at hand and the trip wire units were always ready to go. The Air Force planes that you saw on the rare clear day were sometimes armed and there were planes sitting on runways across Europe armed and crewed and ready. One phone call could set it all off. Large numbers of civilians and military would die very quickly and in the worst possible manners. And it was over. East Germany was the last possible pillar of aggression, and one man had made the decision to turn his back on the past.

I walked into HP half an hour later, and told everyone I met what I had just heard. No one believed me. I got to IBM later in the afternoon and got the same reaction. I got to the airport that night and the Avis desk clerk knew nothing. By the time I got to the terminal, I was seriously thinking of flying to Berlin to watch what happened next, but I had business in London the next day and got on the plane. It was eerie, even spooky.  The Germans I met simply could not comprehend what Krenz had just done. It was impossible, unbelievable.

By the time I got to my hotel and turned on the television sometime around 10:00pm, the scenes from Berlin were on CNN and BBC. Massive crowds of West Berliners and Easterners were tearing the wall down with their hands or a hammer or even heavy construction equipment. It was a spontaneous and joyous and riotous and somewhat (or maybe a lot) drunken celebration of freedom and repatriation. Family members on each side sought each other out, East German soldiers and border guards joined in and everyone was yelling or crying or both. The Russians quietly stayed in their Kasernes.

We must never, ever forget. The world got lucky that day. Great and good things do come out of nowhere sometimes.

One of my Trademark very long reports:

I’ve been walking around with a beatific smile on my face this week, as I keep thinking how delighted I am that the Sheffield ‘Town Takeover’ went so well.

Though I should write a quick note, before it entirely fades from my failing memory, to record what went on for those, who couldn’t be there, or the obsessively interested.

Basically Town Takeovers are a series of events taking place around the country organised by the National Union of Students, aimed at starting a debate around how Higher Education is funded, and making sure the general public are aware of the injustices and inequalities inherent in the current funding system of tuition fees, and the danger to students, Universities, and indeed society posed by suggestions of increasing tuition fees.
Holding events in towns around the country (although last time I checked London, Birmingham, Sheffield et al seemed to be cities…) also provides a good opportunity to hold MPs and would be MPs from all parties to account, and demanding to know their views on tuition fees. This is particularly important with a general election hoving into view, and the leadership of the main parties staying as weirdly silent as the P in pterodactyl on this issue.

In Sheffield, where the ‘Town Takeover’ was being organised jointed by Sheffield Students Union and Hallam Union, we decided it would be beneficial to particularly focus on how students and graduates are suffering from debt, which allowed us to have a nifty ‘In the Red’ theme. The event also gave us the chance to showcase some of the good things students do for Sheffield, after weeks of bad publicity for students, over what I’ll politely call ‘War Memorial Gate’.

The day started for me when I woke up with a horrible sinking feeling in my stomach, they I always associate with exams. I was worried that the event would turn out to be a hideous, humiliating disaster.
However, I resolved to try my best to prevent a smouldering disaster, and set off on a mad shopping spree, buying red cakes (Thank you post-Halloween reductions!), red sweets, red face paint, red hairspray, and a bag of I love Sheffield badges [Which later vanished – come on own up, who took them?].

Weighed down with my red shopping I quickly went home and changed into all the red clothes I could find – a hideous red jumper was donned, as was a women’s red coat borrowed from my friend Simon. I put on some red flares, which probably hadn’t been worn in public since c.1975. Unfortunately they were comically too long, and dragged along the wet ground. After a bit of walking on tiptoe I hit on the solution, and tucked the ends into my red-socks, golfer style. It looked as if I were singlehandedly trying to get ‘spats’ back in fashion. Somebody did comment that I looked like I’d stepped out of P.G.Wodehouse, but surely the idea that I’d ever be mistaken for an upper class twit is ridiculous…

I also found an old cherry red ‘Wes for Pres’ T-shirt leftover from Wes Streeting’s election as NUS President, which I pulled on, although I did notice that I’ve got too Wes T-shirts (from different elections) and both have the labels ripped out. I may be on the edge of uncovering a massive scandal. Why was this? Were they made by a particularly unethical company? Or worse by the same supplier used by the OIs?

After getting not a few odd glances in street, I arrived at the Union about 12, to help load placards and other protest paraphernalia into cars, and do a hasty bit of last minute promotion.
With the concourse full of students milling around, we thought it would be a good idea to stick I sign up in the Officers’ er Offices which overlooks it, to promote the event.

After hastily printing out some giant letters on A4 paper, Grace Crook and I started putting them in the windows – spelling the highly informative ‘4PM PEACE GARDENS STREET PARTY’, however we found our plan hampered by the fact that the windows already had giant posters depicting the Union Officers’ faces in them. Undaunted we began to take them down.
I swear when I took the poster of Martin Bailey down a cheer went up from the concourse, similar to the cheer when that Statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Amy Sutherland’s office was locked but I managed to track down a key, and get it, which lead to the slightly awkward situation of Amy returning to find me in her office in the act of ripping down a poster of her.
Having put the sign in the window, we were then infuriated by the fact that none of the students walking past ever seemed to look up. I banged on the window trying to ignite a flicker of interest, while Amy commented mournfully ‘To be honest you could wave all day up here and no-body will ever notice you…’
Having done our best to plug the event to passing students, the Sabbs then headed down to Hallam, leaving me in charge of leading people down to the Town Hall where our protest, or ‘Street Party’ as we’d cleverly marketed it was to take place.

I’d sent out messages to various people saying we’d meet on the Concourse at 3pm. Predictably enough, 3 o’clock arrived and I waited, and waited, and waited.
Nobody turned up. Literally nobody. This wasn’t good. As someone who’s not the best at time keeping myself I decided I should wait until half past 3 before giving up.
I saw various people I know but no-one was particularly eager to go. Ben my former housemate wasn’t interested ‘Unlike you Joe, I actually do my work, so I need to do that tonight…’, and the Chair of the University Tories, was even more dismissive; ‘I’m not attending something organised by that Communist organisation! (NUS) Besides I’ve only got one red item of clothing – which is a tie – and even that’s burgundy!’

Eventually however, a friend of a friend did appear who wanted to come. I was delighted and he instantly became my new hero. We set off down to the Town Hall, with me still feeling pretty sick, as I’d hoped for rather more than one student to turn up.

Arriving at the Town Hall we found a hive of activity as the Sheffield and Hallam Officers bustled around with various protest props such as a string of debt with giant £50 notes which we strung up outside the Town Hall, to demonstrate the ridiculous amount of debt your ‘average’ student will get in from doing a degree, boards full of photos of students showing the amount of debt they’re in (not that we’ve ever used that idea before…), a giant sign reading ‘SAVE OUR STUDENTS’, various bill boards detailing all the positive things students do, a huge clump of coloured balloons which would have delighted me circa 15 years ago, and the placards made by Education Committee – including the one I made, which was derided by Neil Mackenzie as ‘Quite hilarious pathetic’.

Various familiar faces from NUS arrived. Aaron Porter strode up rather incongruously clutching a megaphone. Shane Chowen turned up full of enthusiasm despite knowing next to nothing about HE. Ed Marsh bravely donned a bizarre costume to help the cause. Most people I spoke to assumed it was a dog, although I think it looked most like some sort of Jewish Kangaroo. Anyway, Ed danced about gamely and gave sheets out to confused children, nobly humiliating himself in the name of a fairer HE funding system.

However, despite the abundance of placards, free stuff, and a giant Marshian kangaroo, there was still one tiny problem. As the event was scheduled to start I looked up to see Vic Langer bearing down on me, with an urgent query ‘Joe…where are the people?’

It was a good question. My stomach sank as I feared the Cassandra-like churnings of my stomach that morning had been right. This was going to be a poorly attended disaster.

Then suddenly there was a flash of red in the distance. I ignored it, assuming I was hallucinating, like a drowning man who sees a mirage in the desert. But when I glanced in that direction again it was still there, and was growing bigger. Soon a merry band of people dressed in eye-wateringly bright red were upon us, drawn from the ranks of Education Committee, other Union committees, and even some ordinary students. Our numbers had now swelled to about a hundred people and one kangaroo, which I thought was impressive given that darkness was descending and it was now absolutely freezing!

A few passersby had been politely taking our flyers, and expressing vague interest, but now a small crowd actually gathered to watch because the cheer leaders arrived! They put up the Arctic temperatures with only pom-poms for protection, and performed various death defying fetes such as throwing one of their number up in the air and catching them moments before they splatted on the pavement. Was it bad that I thought as Aaron and I watched in horror, ‘If they drop her at least we’ll certainly get on the news.’?
As it was, we did get on the news without the need for grotesque physical injuries, as various reporters did show up, and waited patiently to interview people and take photos. We had coverage in the Sheffield Star, Sheffield Telegraph, BBC Sheffield, and the Forge Press.

We took various photos with our Sheffield and Hallam foam hands, SAVE OUR STUDENTS signs, balls and chains of debt (I had tried to buy some handcuffs of the sort used by kids playing policemen for this, but in the end we used some link chain so I got tired of the odd looks I got from going into toy shops and asking ‘Er…Do you sell handcuffs? And if so would they fit adults?)

However, there was one aspect of the event which could safely be called a disaster – our giant globe. The giant globe is owned by Leeds Student Union, and has to be seen to be believed. Towering above even Paul Tobin, the giant inflatable globe, bearing some slogan like ‘World Class Funding for World Class Universities’ can be rolled along, and is a cast-iron guaranteed crowd puller.
I remember in a meeting when somebody asked why we needed a giant globe, I stared at them in amazement; ‘It’s a GIANT GLOBE, why would we not need it?!’ Anyway, after much cajoling Danni Beckett heroically drove to Leeds to collect it last week, and various Sabbs and students wrestled valiantly all through the morning to get it blown up and ready. However, as it was being rolled up from Hallam Union to the Town Hall, already attracting interested spectators – disaster struck!

‘Was it punctured?’ I hear you gasp, ‘Deflate?’, ‘Roll away?’, ‘Stolen by an opportunistic Bond villain?’ I’m afraid it was worse than that – it was stopped by a ‘City Centre Ambassador.’

For those of you lucky enough not to have encountered them, the Sheffield Ambassadors are basically a feral gang of blue-coated busy bodies of the sort who couldn’t progress in the Neighbourhood Watch, so need another avenue to pursue their dreams of self importance. They now roam the city centre proffering unwanted advice and generally making a nuisance of themselves. So as our globe was being wheeled along the street, bringing joy to the people of Sheffield, an ‘Ambassador’ suddenly popped up like an unwanted zit on a young girl’s face. Displaying a conspicuous lack of the sort of diplomatic skills Ambassadors should require she demanded we take the globe down. When asked why, she replied with thinly disguised glee that it was a matter of public safety. When we expressed polite scepticism towards someone who clearly contained more hot air than the globe, we were told to show more respect, as somebody had died in Sheffield as a result of an inflatable balloon before.

Now, I don’t wish to make light of the very serious issue of giant balloon-related deaths, but I will just say, nobody I spoke to, including the Leader of the Council, seemed to have any knowledge of this alleged tragedy. Sadly however the ‘’’’Ambassador’’’’ was insistent, so being good, law abiding students, we tragically had to deflate our globe. I think the people of Sheffield ought to know that we tried to bring them a giant globe, but were thwarted by the kill-joy, puritanical City Council. Please take this into account at the next elections – Sheffield City Council are against the Earth.

As Neil Mackenzie commented it was also ironic that the Ambassadors had a problem with a lovely inflatable globe, but not with the cheerleaders throwing each other into the earth with only concrete to break their fall.

But we made the best of a bad job, ending the protest with Aaron Porter making a stirring speech, like Olivier before Agincourt. We cheered Aaron, we booed the foul spectres of fee-demanding Vice Chancellors and the CBI, and we shouted some of Susan Nash’s chants (with their poor rhyme schemes) before breaking up, and in time honoured tradition with anything that relates to NUS, heading to the pub, before the Panel Debate later that evening.

One we’d finally found the pub we were looking for, we all had a nice drink together, warmed by alcohol and by our burning hatred of City Centre Ambassadors. Sadly my chief memory of this social occasion was accidentally getting some salt from a crisp in a cut on my hand. The pain was excruciating! I got the cut while removing a giant poster of Kate Rickard so I might consider suing the Union.

I then headed down to the station to collect President of the NUS, Wes Streeting, whom I assume had spent the afternoon in London, or perhaps more likely been on a very slow connecting train. There was a big football match kicking off in Sheffield later that evening, which meant that my lurid red clothing drew some cutting comments from discerning fashion critics amongst the Newcastle fans arriving.

When it got to 6.58, with the debate scheduled for 7, and there was no sign of Wes’ train, my stomach began to give of it’s ‘It’ll be a disaster!’ rumblings again, when Wes, beaming like the Teletubbies’ sun, came rushing down the main staircase.

We rushed through the dark streets of Sheffield, arriving at City Hall, where the debate was taking place to a gratifying round of applause. (I’m going to assume most of it was for me.)

The debate itself between Wes, Paul Blomfield, the Labour Candidate for Sheffield Central, Paul Scriven, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Sheffield Central and leader of the globe deflating Council, and Spencer Pitfield, the Conservative candidate for Penistone and Stocksbridge, went rather well in my biased Pollyanna opinion. Unlike this week’s Question Time, I wasn’t bored and was interested to hear everything the panellists had to say.

Wes began in true Dickensian style by telling us a tale of two cities, or rather of the social divisions between rich and poor in one city – Sheffield, and the effect this has on widening participation in higher education. He highlighted various depressing statistics about the differences in standards of living in the prosperous Parliamentary constituency of ‘Sheffield Hallam’, and in ‘Sheffield Hillsborough’, one of the poorest constituencies in the country. He also show-cased some even more worrying statistics about the differences between the cities two Universities, with Sheffield Central admitting many more privately educated students than Sheffield Hallam, and many fewer students from C2, D and E social groups. (‘Which used to be called the ‘working classes’, but apparently referring to people as numbers is less offensive…’)

This theme has also been taken up by Hillsborough MP David Blunkett, this week who’s commissioned a report on the inequalities between Hillsborough and Hallam, and, always one for a good headline, has suggested Hallam be detached from Sheffield for the City’s own good.
Wes also set out how he believed morally that Higher Education should be free, but given how unlikely it is that any parties are going to be progressive enough to offer this, NUS is advocating [what is basically] a graduate tax, which would be paid by graduates in proportion to what they earn after benefitting from Higher Education.

Spencer Pitfield the Conservative candidate talked about his parties stance on Higher Education, including David Willet’s recent welcome speech, in which he said the case hasn’t been made by Universities for charging £3000 worth of fees yet, let along lifting the cap and raising them.

However this did lead Paul Blomfield to point out that the Conservatives have been sending out rather mixed messages on this, with Mr. Willets previously hinting that fees would certainly rise under a conservative government. Dr. Pitfield then claimed this was one of the areas where the Conservative Party was willing to listen and had changed.

Dr. Pitfield also promised a Conservative government would take students views into account and wanted to ‘get NUS round the table’ when discussing Higher Education Funding. This seemed particularly topical with the Governments Review of Tuition Fees and Higher Education Funding finally being announced on Monday, so I asked a question later, on how precisely students could get involved with the debate, when the Government seems to give rather more weight to the views of Vice-Chancellors and the CBI et al at present. Dr. Pitfield gave an answer, which won’t be popular with some in the student moment, saying it was best for students to put direct action out of their minds, as you ‘don’t need to let it get to that stage’ if you ensure ‘NUS representatives are represented and listened by the Government’, and added that of course NUS should be represented on the Fees Review Board.

Paul Blomfield agreed, and quick as a flash the chair, Aaron Dimbleby, asked if he’d follow this up by writing to Lord Mandelson. Paul said he would.

Paul Blomfield himself said he campaigned within the Labour Party against tuition fees, and declared unequivocally that he would ‘Not vote to raise fees’. He also backed NUS’s proposals for a graduate tax, and taked about the need for a national bursary system. He praised Labour’s record on funding Higher Education, and widening participation significantly.

Paul Scriven then pointed out that Paul Blomfield was voicing his own opinions rather than what his party believes.

Mr. Scriven then set out the Liberal Democrats policy of believing in free education and an end to tuition fees. When asked why Nick Clegg had recently talked about dropping the pledge, he insisted that the party agreed with providing free education there was just a question of ‘whether we can do it in one parliament or two’.
He also spoke about his own background and how ‘I began life in a poor family, and after working as a road digger, achieved everything I have due to going back to Higher Education.’ (This section made me think of Little Shop of Horrors ‘Oh, I began life as an orphan, a child of the streets, here on Skid Row…’ – but that’s probably just me.)
He disagreed with NUS’s proposed graduate tax as ‘you’d be paying it off for the rest of your life’. (Which as the NUS blueprint actually suggests it would be paid in instalments over 25 years after graduating, raises the worrying prediction that we’ll all die at around 46.) He also attacked Labour’s target of getting 50% of young people into Higher Education; ‘Where’s that come from. It’s a random figure.’ Wes then pointed out that although they attack the 50% target, the Liberal Democrats are the only main party that won’t commit to funding extra University places. However the Liberal Democrats clearly have the most progressive policy of the three main parties on fees (not that that’s saying much!).

There followed various questions and contributions from the floor, apart from my own about how students could get involved, there were questions to Paul Scriven from people none too happy at Nick Clegg’s seemingly weak commitment to his own party’s policy, and his neglect at not mentioning student support or bursaries.

The debate was then evened up by one man who said ‘I’m 25. My early childhood was blighted by the Thatcher Government, and now I’m in over £20 000 of debt, due to going to University under a Labour Government. I just wonder if the parties are proud of what they’ve done with our education system?’ This drew a sympathetic round of applause.

Spencer Pitfield responded with the curiously cryptic and off-message comment that ‘I know you didn’t like the last Conservative government, and I listen to what people say about the last Conservative government, but the fact is we haven’t had a Conservative Government now for 12 years.’ But then I don’t suppose he’ll win many votes in Yorkshire by praising Thatcher.

Everyone was then attacked by a gentleman from the SWP for not calling for Free Education, and in Wes’ case being a scab for not supporting the University and College Union in industrial action. Aaron Dimbleby eventually quietened him, saying that next time there was a debate he’d invite him to give a speech. Wes then responded saying ‘What I actually said when asked about the prospect of industrial action was that ‘Students need industrial action like a hole in the head’ which is true. I remember the lecturers’ strike in 2006 which caused massive disruption to marking, teaching, and students’ education. I’ll look after my own members first, which is what any Union should do.’ He also laid out how he’d like free education, and believed in it, but he thought calling for it was unrealistic in the current political climate, and would just lead to NUS being sidelined in the debate. This drew applause from most of the audience, whether because the audience contained natural Streeting-sympathisers, or because the SWP et al have become largely irrelevant in the student movement, I’ll leave to others to judge.

Another question was whether Scottish MPs should be allowed to vote on bills with have to do with students in England, which is a very good question, although I did sympathise with Aaron murmuring ‘Can we not get into the West Lothian question…’

Of course there was a lot more said than what I’ve recorded here, which I’ll leave out for reasons of space. Suffice to say I found it a generally interesting debate, and I was sorry when it was wrapped up.

A group of us hung around for a while, chatting and taking advantage of the free wine (appropriately red), and asking the assembled questions important questions, such as ‘Do you remember anyone being killed in Sheffield by an inflatable balloon?’

Some of us, showing shameful disloyalty went down to the Hallam Union bar where we continued the evening in style, and I may have made a fool of myself by having a tad too much to drink. I think a low-point was reached when Aaron and I arrived in Dempsey’s in the early hours of the morning to fine we made up about 50% of the people in there, and – if I remember rightly – while I struggled to sit up straight, Aaron checked Ednet on his Blackberry.

But despite the messy end, and the loss of our globe (let it go Joe…) I think the event was a great success at mobilising students, and keeping the issue of Higher Education funding and fees in the public mind.

We have anniversaries, biennial events, diamond jubilees, centenaries, bi-centenaries and even millenarianism but rarely do celebrations arrive around every 7,000 years!  Between 2015 and 2029 a very special event takes place that has not occurred since 5122 BC.  The world in 5122 BC was a very different place.  The population of the world was about 25 million people in 3000 BC, and so perhaps 10 to 15 million people were alive in 5122 BC – about the size of present day Los Angeles.  Nevertheless great things were stirring in the world as this period marked the first widespread settling down of humans, farming and domestication of animals.

Until 5122 BC the world was the closest in temperament to the society still being shaped by mankind in today’s Aquarian age in the 21^st century.  5122 BC marks the end of the Gemini age.  The Gemini age and Aquarian age are both Air signs.  The Aquarian age that arrived in 1433 AD is the first age of the same Air element since the Gemini age (7351 – 5122 BC).  Obviously the world’s inhabitants in 5122 BC were not concerned about broadband, computers, the price of fossil fuel, pollution or over-crowding, but their heads were in an intellectually creative mode – something common with Air signs. 

While these ancients may not have been making technological discoveries of the modern world, they were making farming and agricultural discoveries that allowed them produce more food than they required – spurning on population growth and spreading their new agricultural technology far and wide.  The Gemini age also saw the first large villages or hamlets and the introduction of many discoveries around the world including the relatively simultaneous cultivation of newly domesticated crops in most continents of the world.  Pottery became widespread, primitive canoes were built, irrigation trenches first appeared and the white skinned race continued to evolve as they turned to milk and trekked further north where the sun shines weakly.

The world in the Gemini age was on the move.  Probably more discoveries and inventions occurred in the Gemini age than in the previous 50,000 years.  While life was much slower and far less intense in the Gemini age compared to the current Aquarian age – similar intellectual inventiveness was evident.

The relationship between the Gemini age and Aquarian age deepens when the full context of each age is taken into account.  In reality it was the Cancer-Gemini age and today we are in the Pisces-Aquarian age (see Is the Aquarian Age Like a Block of Granite?).  Cancer and Pisces are Water signs and Gemini and Aquarius are Air signs.  There are four elements associated with the 12 zodiacal signs – Water, Air, Fire and Water.  Each of these elements has specific characteristics.  Fire and Earth signs promote conservatism, patriotism and the status quo.  Water and Air signs promote change, evolution and instability.  The more Water and Air signs the more change and instability.  The more Fire and Earth signs the more conservatism.  When Reagan was president of the USA, and Thatcher prime minister of the UK the world was experiencing a mainly Earth and Fire micro-age influences and even here we can see the rise of conservatism on the small scale following the heady 60s when the progressive Water element was dominant.

The current Pisces-Aquarian age being Water and Air promotes evolution, change and instability.  Within the current Pisces-Aquarian age are 12 sub-ages.  Currently the world is in the Scorpio-Libra sub-age.  Scorpio is a Water sign and Libra is an Air sign – the same combination as Pisces and Aquarius.  This is the first time in the Pisces-Aquarian age that we are in a Water-Air sub-age.  This is the first time in over 7,000 years that both the ages and sub-ages are all in Water and Air territory.  The plot deepens.  Each sub-age also has 12 micro-ages.  In 2015 the world enters a little 15 years Cancer-Gemini micro-age with Cancer a Water sign and Gemini an air sign – the same combination of Air and Water again!

Therefore in 2015, for the first time in over 7,000 years the world will be passing through an age, sub-age and micro-age that all aligned with Water and Air – with no Fire or Earth in sight.  This occurrence will occur nine times in the Pisces-Aquarian age, with the first three occurring between 2015 and 2148.  This period will therefore see the extreme of change, evolution and instability.  Over the last 7,000 years the world descended into the opposite of what we are now facing.  In the Taurus-Aries age (2916 – 732 BC) the world experienced nine times when Earth and Fire elements ruled supreme without any Water and Air signs in sight.  The world was turning to the bedrock of conservatism, war and nationalism, during that time.

Early societies were mainly democratic orientated often involving elders in a tribe. The Taurus-Aries age coincided with the firm arrival of an entrenched aristocracy, pharaohs, kings and other forms of totalitarian governments who by and large were hell bent on waging war with each other.  The world is like a pendulum that swings from conservative totalitarianism to ‘democratic’ liberalism. After 7,000 long years the world is returning to progressiveness, liberal change but instability.  Those revolutionary and heady days of the 1960s and early 70s have nothing on what is coming – at best the 1960s and 70s is a preview of what is to come.

The conservative backlash (mainly in the USA and Islamic fundamentalists) following the1960s and 70s was due to a small digression back into the conservative Virgo and Leo micro-ages – Earth and Fire micro-ages respectively. The stepping stones to the first all Air and Water period commenced with little fanfare in 2000 with the arrival of the Leo-Cancer micro-age (Fire and Water), but changed gear in 2007 (one year before the election of the first black president of the USA) when the Water element in the Fire and Water  Leo-Cancer micro-age (2000 – 2015) became stronger.  The world will finally move into all Water and Air territory in 2015 for the first time in over 7,000 years.

What can be expected in the period 2015 to 2029 – the first of nine such periods in the Pisces-Aquarian age?  Unfortunately the extent of what we can expect is hard to determine because historical records going back 7,000 are insufficient to provide us with clear antecedents.  Alternatively we can examine some of the previous two hundred years or so and look for periods where they are closest to the ideal scenario of all periods elements being Air and Water.  In the Sagittarius-Scorpio sub-age (1791 – 1970) only Sagittarius was Fire, all other signs were Air and Water, so those micro-ages within the Sagittarius-Scorpio sub-age that were also exclusively Air and Water may provide us with a guide.  The particular periods include: the Cancer-Gemini micro-age (1851-66) and the Pisces-Aquarius micro-age (1910-25). 

Both these period witnessed many instabilities including in the Cancer-Gemini micro-age (1851-66) the American Civil War, The Crimean War and the Taiping Rebellion with an estimated death toll of between 20 and 30 million alone.  Wikipedia states that

“The 1860s were an extremely turbulent decade in the world, with numerous cultural, social, and political upheavals in Europe and America.”

In the Pisces-Aquarius micro-age (1910-25) saw the end of European millenarianism and conservative influences with the arrival of the 1^st World War.  This triggered the abdication of various conservative monarchies and the fall of the last world empires (German, Ottoman and Austria-Hungary).  The arrival of the communists in full force with the Russian Revolution in 1917 introduced radical new concepts of how societies could operate.  The USA attempted to outlaw alcohol with prohibition. The Irish commenced throwing off their British overlords leading to the Irish Rebellion.  Fascists took advantage of political instability.

The instability in these periods was extensive, but so was the progressiveness.  Probably the most important breakthrough in the Cancer-Gemini micro-age (1851-66) was Charles Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species, putting forward the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859.  On a minor note Paris became the fashion capital of the world.  In the following period, the Pisces-Aquarius micro-age (1910-25) Einstein did to physics what Darwin did to biology, and produced his revolutionary theory of general relativity while Alfred Wegener suggests that the continents drift and collide with each other.  Culturally radio, movies and jazz became popular and Pablo Picasso became the leading 20^th century painter, first with Cubism than moving on to Surrealism.  The 1920s introduced the Roaring Twenties or Jazz Age.

As a guide to the Cancer-Gemini micro-age (2015 – 29) we can expect great instability, but also progress – one way or another.  Though doom and gloom pundits may predict a 3^rd World War I don’t think this is a possibility as astrologically the world is turning away from war.  There is a bigger problem facing humanity than war – climate change.  However even climate change can precipitate division.  One way or another the USA fractures in Gemini-Cancer micro-ages so some serious division, conflict or discord will occur in the USA.  Possibly this will occur due to a perception by conservative elements in the USA that they are losing control.  Mass dislocation of people and massive legal and illegal immigration is sure to be a factor in the world. 

Climate change requires great adaptation by societies if it is to be successfully tackled, and this period does to a certain extent promote such change – more so from the general population than leaders.   If the last two Water and Air micro-ages produced Darwin’s evolution and Einstein’s relativity – some very significant breakthrough may occur in 2015 – 2129, perhaps the understanding of dark matter and dark energy that supposedly constitutes around 90% of the universe? Other alternatives include breakthroughs in nano-technology, AIDS immunisation, a new and superior internet, longevity, DNA in medical technology, a cure for many cancers or even a replacement for fossil fuels.

It would be nice to say that in a Water-Air period that is soon to arrive in 2015 that positive elements will succeed at the expense of negative elements but this should not be expected. In the 1960s and early 70s though revolution was in the air for youth, many countries witnessed military coups and dictatorial governments.  Water-Air periods while producing advances both technological and societal, also produce instability which can be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous – particularly the military.  The desire by many people to be free will rise, and some existing totalitarian governments are sure to falter, but others will tend to extract revenge upon many of their citizens – such is the ugly nature of politics.  While public opinion and sentiment is sure to rise, leadership may be wanting in the years 2015-29.  Some key political leaders may actually suffer mental illness and behave like a modern day Nero or Caligula.  Hopefully they will not have their finger on the button!

The period 2015 – 29 is a celebration of over 7,000 years in the making – but what kind a celebration will it be?  Will it be more like a party or a wake?  It is bound to have elements of both, but at the bottom line and despite whatever conflicts and turmoil occur, some very interesting, evolutionary and progressive developments are sure to claim out attention, awe and wonder like we collectively have not experienced for over 7,000 years. 

 Copyright Terry MacKinnell 2009

Well, the strain has finally caught up with Kath and she has suggested that we split up. I didn’t argue because home life has become unbearable and it was starting to affect the girls. We’ve agreed that a seperation will be best for all of us and I’ll leave as soon as I can find somewhere to live. 12 years down the pan! Thank you Thatcher! Perhaps when the strike is finally over we can get back together, though I doubt it because there is no way I am ever going back down the pit again. I’ve been saying it for months, win or lose, and I can’t really see Kath wanting to be with me when I’m unemployed. Que sera sera.

Chris Moore phoned to say the Redskins are playing the Bunker club in Sunderland tomorrow night and has invited me and Kath along. Kath doesn’t want to go so I’ll go on my own. I need something to cheer me up.

Kinnock has refused to attend a series of planned rallies. Just proves where his true loyalties lie, and it aint with us miners!

The Delegate Conference has voted unanimously to continue the strike, which is heartening in the light of concerted efforts by the NCB to bribe men back to work. The bastards are trying hard to get NUM funds but they aren’t finding it easy. Let’s hope it stays that way.