Talk:Blatcherism

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Source, please. Charles Matthews 08:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Material cut from page. Charles Matthews 10:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another characteristic of the complex phenomenon we know as 'blatcherism' is covered by the German word, 'kinderfeindlichkeit'. When Germans use it they mean societal or official coldness or hostility towards children.

Arguably, a wave of British kinderfeindlichkeit first openly manifested as Education Minister Thatcher's withdrawal of school children's free milk, was amplified later by a government culture coloured by the personal/political philosophy indicated by Prime Minister Thatcher's notorious "there is no such thing as society" outburst, and subsided during a brief spell of relatively benign 'one-nation' Conservative government.

Reinvigourated by 'new' blatcherist government in forms typified by Prime Minister Blair's 1997 high profile 1997 discriminatory campaign against single-handed parents and their children, and by lower profile actions like that of his Health Minister Dobson's concurrent abolition of school dental services. It peaked in the repetitive electionering promises by both main contestants to "hard working families" (code for part-time parents) and is displayed in 2005 by Prime Minister Blair's declared "war" on society's own alienated children as "yobs", aggravated by his presidential government's 2005 implementation of a "toothless" "glorified TV presenter" as England's Commissioner For Children, in contrast with powerful Children's champions in mainland Europe and elsewhere.

Kinderfeindlichkeit, it can therefore be argued, is one of the defining characteristics of blatcherism that helps us clearly differentiate it, not only from "previous postwar political consensus" in Britain and from current mainland European culture, but also from mainstream neoconservatism.

Another secondary characteristic, government dominated by leaders characterised by huge egos supported by less than commensurate intellect is suggested by recent implementation of a series of toothless "Commissioner" offices (HealthCare, Information, Children's, et al) populated by jolly good chaps who can be relied on not to rock the political boat in the way that Commissioner Elizabeth Filkin did a couple of years ago - and by recent books written by associates associates

'Blatcherism' was used rather earlier the article suggests, and not by a critic of neo-liberal economics; it's used in an approving article of May 2001 by Brian Lee Crowley, the President of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (I don't know if he invented the term). Crowley writes:

'Like Clem Attlee before her, she [Margaret Thatcher] refashioned the mould of British politics. Her greatest political victory was the fact that she made the Labour party unelectable as long as it clung to the failed tenets of democratic socialism. Michael Foot, the socialist conscience of the Labour party of the 1960s and '70s, cut a Quixotic figure as Labour leader in the early '80s, promising to roll back the privatizations, the fiscal discipline, the reforms of welfare. Only a Thatcherite leader could bring Labour within the new political consensus in Britain. Tony Blair was that leader.

'In fact, the new political consensus in that country is now sometimes called Blatcherism.

'Blatcherism was born when Tony Blair saw off the trade unions that demanded the party toe their line, when he agreed to leave the Thatcherite legacy largely intact, and to be as fiscally disciplined as the Tories. In fact, he also embraced the consumer-oriented philosophy of the Tories in other areas and maintained, for example, tough testing in the schools, publishing annually the league tables of how every school in the country performs, over the objections of the once all-powerful teachers' unions.'

http://www.aims.ca/cm_Print.asp?cmPageID=200&typeID=4&id=474&fd=0&p=10&pg=newsletters.asp

It was also in use rather earlier than the Crowley article, by myself among others. - but aside from that Crowley also asserts : " Blatcherism was born when Tony Blair... agreed to leave the Thatcherite legacy largely intact.... In fact, he also embraced the consumer-oriented philosophy of the Tories...." adding momentum to the slide into a gluttony driven economy that produces nothing that other societies want to buy and a society that makes "war" (nice mr. Blair) on its own alienated children.

Would blatcherist zealots kindly refrain from vandalising the page and its text hyperlinks and reference links. By all means contribute (supported) alternative/variant meanings, but kindly refrain from characteristically sociopathic blatcherist vandalism as censorship of the kind also displayed here : http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2005/story/0,16394,1580713,00.html ,in misuse of Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act , as predicted, as an instrument of the Ministry of Truth. Thank you.

This kind of language actually does not help anyone engage in debate, when it comes to content disputes. Charles Matthews 08:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that you condone the clumsy deliberately anti-social vandalism, as distinct from "debate", that was perpetrated again today - well done.

Hang on - are you here to construct, or to abuse people? Let me make a point. If you think New Labour's policy on children and youth is worth an article, create it. Charles Matthews 20:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation - I'll try to find the time, although as kinderfeindlichkeit is a defining characteristic of blatcherism before and after the Major years of 'one-nation' Conservatism, it should be at least superficially covered by, and for the same reason should not be excluded from, development of the 'blatcherism' topic, otherwise we end up with a page of porridge about something other than 'blatcherism' - meantime do you, unlike whoever is deliberately vandalising the main page, have anything useful to contribute towards the development of the topic "blatcherism", by for example tendering some supported/supportable argument in place of personal attack on other contributors?

I'm not going to be intimidated out of editing the page into shape by cliched verbals, actually. So just drop the 'vandal' this and George Orwell that. Charles Matthews 06:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other words your answer is 'no' - you do not have anything supportable to contribute in place of the 'me, me, me' focus. If and when you decide to focus on constructive development of the topic, do let us have your (supported) input for consideration.

You just don't get it. I should be able to edit the page, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, without silly shouting about 'censorship'. Some of the references on the page are on-topic, some are not. I'm going to tidy it all up again. When I do, displays of 'attitude' on your part are not going to be in my mind, but the requirements of policy, on neutral point of view. After about 41000 edits here, I think I might know what the policies are. There is little point you abusing me further. Charles Matthews 08:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you cannot plead ignorance when making time-consuming work for busy contributers who don't enjoy the amount of spare time that you brandish, by breaking links, deleting on topic references and supported comment - and substituting shallow unsupported personal opinion. The meaning of "blatcherism" is determined by the majority of users of the descriptor, not by a tiny opinionated minority who wish to believe that censorship can change the reality of usage, in the manner of a 21st century Ministry of Truth. If you can unearth usage that supports your prejudices, submit it as a minority opinion without deleting majority references and usage, otherwise shut up. Better still use some of your apparently ample spare time to do something useful by for example polishing the page instead of vandalising it, since I and others dont have the time to.

You will really save yourself plenty of time if you figure out how WP works. Political blogging is out.

So is misrepresenting reality and sources in the way that you do.

Aggressive language aimed to deter others from editing your contributions is right out. Verbal fluency can backfire, if all it says is negative. 'Blatcherism' has a low number of Google hiis.

Google is your bible? Oh Dear!

WP articles should be crisp, and, when it comes to politics, understated. You are still using 'vandal' in a bullying way. However, patience prevails here. Charles Matthews 07:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.geocities.com/cronyblatcher/ - HA! HA! HA! , I love it. Whose idea was that?

Who invented this term? Is it widely used amongst political scientists? Lapafrax 05:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, but does the answer content matter? Maybe the French language evolves either not at all, or differently. English language developement/evolution is essentially brute usage driven. Somebody invents a neologism. It takes root and spreads as a virus does, thereby enhancing the thought processes that differentiate humans from other apes, or it doesn't and dies.

It gets a few Google hits, not that many. No reason to hang long discussions of all and everything about Blair on it. I have reverted all the rambling about 'banana republic' etc., and I have cut back the external links to those which are roughly on-topic. Charles Matthews 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should close down Wikipedia and refer instead to "Google" - not!

That ain't necessary, it's already superseded Wikipedia - [1] "blatcherism" according to Google - there was an interesting discussion by Andrew Marr and (intellectually) fairly heavy weight guests (as distinct from minnows who zealously vandalise this space in the cause of party-political correctitude) on a BBC radio programme when I was driving to work this morning 21-11-05. The agreed outcome was to the effect that Google has already displaced 'books' and 'books-on-line' like Wikipedia et al, as people's first and most trusted source of information, because of the technology's resistance to censorship.

Are you refering to Radio 4's Start the Week? They must have broadcast a different program where you live, because when I listened, they did not say anything like that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a replacement student allocated, by the 'owning' (that means original page initiater) school, the job of overseeing the evolution of this page, I've removed the following para (feel free to discuss if you wish) on the ground that it plays into the hands of the thought police because it does tend to reflect Blairism back onto poor ol' Thatcher to an unsupported extent - however do by all means deliver the support if it can be unearthed:

Less easily related to the 'banana republic' theme, because the connection is made more tenuous by existence of some actual banana republic's the leadership of which does not wage "war" [quote Blair], on their own alienated children, is the announcememnt by a 'minimaggie' (excuse the neologism - it's shorthand for the succession of child 'free' women who appear onstage as fronts for blatcherism) today, that teachers are to be authorised to 'physically restrain' alienated children.

No ownership of any kind here. Charles Matthews 15:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrantly prejudiced 'editing' (replacement of supported content by unsupported woofage and even misrepresentation of sources like Cockburn), tallies with both apparent inability to differentiate beteen " 'owned' " as I used it and "ownership" as you used it, and admitted reliance on a commercial source "google" What *is* your native language? It isn't English apparently.

Flagrant misrepresentation by you of Major's 'one nation' Conservative Government as no different from the Thatcher and Blair ['banana republician', warmongering over oil/pipelines - 'ere, do tell us you didn't know about the Falklland oilfields] blatcherist governments with their social and economic policies and practices that are the antithesis of 'one nation' anything'ism' - is characteristically politically motivated. Do try Hyde Park Corner instead of Wikipedia, there's a sweetie.

That's just abuse. There are plenty of policy pages on relevant topics (personal attacks, editing from a POV and so on). Spam links (such as those to pages run for fringe left political parties) are against policy, too. Charles Matthews 07:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So is unscrupulous politically motivated misrepresentation by exclusion of evidence aggravated by thought police misquoting of sources. Oh and btw, about your conceptual confusion over - or is it 'English as a second language' misuse of - the English language descriptor 'left-wing' as a term of intended abuse, the thought police are according to Eric Blair and usage, an arm of a 'left-wing' State, and the TP are *not* on this side here. We're not the would-be censors here.

You've violated the three-revert rule, despite warning. This is a blocking offence. Charles Matthews 13:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on what Charles wrote: the

edit wars

. If you do this again, you will be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia again.

I wrote a more complete warning at User talk:80.42.76.76. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That which you accomplished, apparently, is to render Google a more informative source than Wikipedia.

Indeed ! I inserted a 'reference' to 'blatcherism' according to Google this morning and within five minutes Mathews et al had deleted it - that's a kind of suicide.

I am amazed that such a minor topic can have so much ink spilt on its talk page. On second thoughts, no, I'm not. The article as it stands is short but well-refernced, and will probably never get bigger.

There is only one reference on the page. On Google Trends there isn't any data on the term Blatcherism, Blatcherism also isn't found in any books using Google Books Ngram tool. Both Blairite and Thatcherism are recognised in the English Corpus; Blatcherism is however not present Robincard (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you mean that you intend to see to it that it 'gets no bigger'.

If no-one objects shortly I'll remove the NPOV and cleanup tags. The Land 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Charles Matthews 16:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  To finish the censorship job? It won't work. I watched the development of this page and for your info censorship is ALWAYS counter-productive. The 'crime' the banned writer was accused of was actually perpetrated by "Mathews" and co. Don't believe me, check the records (unless they've been censored too).

I've removed them, for now. If you can provide evidence of previous or alternative uses, or what certain commentarors actually said, then we can improve the article.

Every time anybody provides such evidence it is immediately vandalised by Mathews

However, persistent reversions of the page may be regarded as vandalism and could result in your being prevented from editing Wikipedia. The Land 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only apparent (according to the records I have seen) persistent perpetrator of (instantaneous in reflection of the zeal) "reversions" is "Mathews", therefore kindly get on with the ban so that the rest of us can develop the page without it being persistently and repeatedly vandalised by one or more zealots.

This is the edited version :

Blatcherism is a term formed as a combination of the names of two British politicians, Tony Blair (Labour Party) and Margaret Thatcher (Tory). It is used by critics of neo-liberal economics to refer to the thesis that a policy model of the devisive Thatcher government as distinct from the 'one-nation' Major government, was resumed when Blair came to power.

An early sighting of this term was in 2001, used by Brian Lee Crowley[1], a Canadian commentator. It mimics the much older Butskellism frequently used to describe the post-war consensus established on the UK's welfare state. It has been used, for example, by the journalist Alexander Cockburn, in preference to Blairism. Cockburn would be extremely angry if he knew his content was being misrepresented as above.

Much earlier ones exist but are presumably deemed to be unacceptable on a scale of political correctitude by Wikepdia's censors.

The term is also used as shorthand by Ananyeva (Polis Journal - Political studies - No.5, 2001) and others. It then refers to that which is "personified by T. Blair" and has "substituted for the previous postwar political consensus", as an approach to a solution to Britain's modernisation problems that is compatible with Thatcherism. Ananyeva would be horrified by the half-truth. What a fraud! The correct quote is as follows : "consensual with neoconservatism as embodied in thatcherism"

Vandalise the page once more, and you'll be blocked. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but pushing a POV is not toleratedCharles Matthews 14:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wrote a persistent vandalism offender

You can say that again. There follows my editing this morning. Watch to see how long it remains free from vandalism and flagrant misrepresentation of sources : Blatcherism is a term formed as a combination of the names of two British politicians, Tony Blair (Labour Party) and Margaret Thatcher (Tory). It is used by critics of neo-liberal economics to refer to the thesis that a policy model of the Thatcher and Major governments was retained when Blair came to power.

An early sighting of this term was in 2001, used by Brian Lee Crowley[1], a Canadian commentator. It mimics the much older Butskellism frequently used to describe the post-war consensus established on the UK's welfare state. It has been used, for example, by the journalist Alexander Cockburn, in preference to Blairism. An earlier "sighting" is usage in 1995 when Hilary Wainright (Red Pepper) observed "Beware Blatcherism - the new Labour leadership has appropriated and rejigged the framework laid down by Thatcher" (as distinct from Major).

The term is also used as shorthand by Ananyeva (Polis Journal - Political studies - No.5, 2001) According to Ananyeva (Polis Journal - Political studies - No.5, 2001), "blatcherism" is currently "personified by T.Blair", has "substituted for the previous postwar political consensus", and is "consensual" with "neoconservatism as embodied in thatcherism" in the approach to a solution to Britain's modernisation problems.

I removed the reference to Wainright, as no source is given. Furthermore, it seems unnecessary to repeat the reference to the Polis Journal. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Hilary Wainwright (NB spelling) and Red Pepper (magazine). There is no reason these can't be mentioned in the article. All it takes is slightly better references: just saying 1995 is a little vague. Charles Matthews 15:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Mathews "just saying" 2001 which of course is not "a little vague"

You know, there is an actual link to an actual web page there. Now perhaps if you do provide a Red Pepper reference we can improve the page. (You won't get far with Google if you omit letters randomly from people's names.) Charles Matthews 22:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the article in Red Pepper that the link points to now does not explicitly say that they used the word back in 1997.

It does - " before" Blair conned his way into office = "1997" (or earlier - in fact it was 1997)

My point is that they did not say that they used the word "blatcherism" in 1997. They said that they accused Blair of blatcherism back then, but that leaves open the possibility that they used a different word. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes dear - take a deep breath and let me put it this way: "we accused Blair of blatcherism" is a usage of descriptor 'blatcherism', I think

The relevance of the last link added, from Glasgow University, is not clear to me. It does not even mention the word Blatcherism.

The term then favoured by the Media unit at GU was "New Right" which didn't take root and was effectively displaced by more precise and accurately descriptive (of the local British phenomenon) 'blatcherism' - the article outlines the birth of what we now call 'blatcherism', that effectively communicates the 'New Right' root of what we now call 'blatcherism' - to complete the picture and help you 'get head around' it I've added link 'Television Politics and the New Right' http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:mlOatOZEzZMJ:www.gla.ac.uk/departments/sociology/units/media/television.pdf+Television,+Politics+and+the+Rise+of+the+New+Right&hl=en&client=firefox-a

I am also surprised by the insistence to separate Major's policy from Blatcherism. This does not seem to be supported by the sources. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the term is 'blatcherism' not 'blajorism' or 'blajoratcherism' - the distinction speaks for itself about its meaning to users - look for a single instance of usage that does not imply the direct (often with sub-surface referrence to its neoconservative charactersitic) cultural link between Thatcher and Blair, bypassing Major - in fact had Major culture (as distinct from the day to day operations of a weak and distracted prime minister) not been quite different, then the term would not have taken root as a neologism referring to a real phenomenon - you need not take my word for it , take it from Blair who is a widely reported admirer and sometimes cardboard caricature (when the prevailing wind is that direction) of Thatcher not Major - there are also some reports that the admiration is mutual - at another level both have the same backers/allies - at another level, Thatcher and Blair both rank as clinical 'successful sociopaths' and Major doesn't - the proof of the pudding is the usage and the usage is a product of the birth of a clear public perception of a phenomenon in need of a shorthand descriptor to aid effective communications - as someone has suggested, ask Red Pepper's Ed. why she used 'blatcherism' as distinct from 'blajoratcherism' or 'blajorism'

You can add in that as a hypothesis (Major ≠ Thatcher) to the whole thing. I'm not convinced about that: there was a small change under Major on public spending, but perhaps not a real change of attitude. Anyway that is small potatoes, compared to other issues about the page. By the way, Hilary Wainwright has an email address on a web page, and the Red Pepper business could be checked just by asking her. Charles Matthews 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the 'other (major)issue' is your apparent determination to convert what is essentially a derogatory term into something that reflects differently on nice mr. Blair's personal career path

You know, it is difficult enough to write sensibly about politics within our 'neutral point of view' policy. Deliberate slanting of what is on the page, and abuse in discussion, make it much harder. This is not, in fact, a particularly important or widespread term in political discourse in the UK. Charles Matthews 10:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wrong - it refers to a significant sociopolitical shift from "butskellism" to 'blatcherism' - the fact that it not in widespread use in the mass media referred to in 'Television Politics and the New Right' http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:mlOatOZEzZMJ:www.gla.ac.uk/departments/sociology/units/media/television.pdf+Television,+Politics+and+the+Rise+of+the+New+Right&hl=en&client=firefox-a

or in the mass media owned/influenced by the backers of both Thatcher and Blair, is symptomatic of another facet of blatcherist culture that has a tentacle in this space - its sometimes referred to as 'news' management, I prefer Eric Blair's concept floating on a raft of patronage systems and 'shoot the messenger' (or 'Kelly') syndrome

I don't think there is any conspiracy not to use this term. People just don't use it. I don't think a journalist on the The Guardian thinks, ooo, better not use that word. All Wikipedia does in such a situation is to document usage. The article now seems to me to be proportionate, and to use neutral language. No doubt it can be improved. Most articles here can. Charles Matthews 11:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a culture not a 'conspiracy' and a significant defence mechanism among its adherents is to resort to labeling critics as 'conspiracy theorists' - I am inclined, subject to reconsideration when more spare time available, to agree that the page now fairly accurately communicates a flavour of the (significant) phenomenon.

correction - at this level its a culture, at the level of nice messrs Blair, Murdoch, Black and the new intimidated BBC management, et al, its a conspiracy

OK, that's a step forward then. I've just sent Hilary Wainwright an email, to see if she can cast further light. Charles Matthews 11:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no prob - I've unearthed both a contemporary and an earlier usage anyway - and incidentally I object to the removal of link 'Television Politics and the New Right' http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:mlOatOZEzZMJ:www.gla.ac.uk/departments/sociology/units/media/television.pdf+Television,+Politics+and+the+Rise+of+the+New+Right&hl=en&client=firefox-a

for the reason illustrated by your chum's above displayed need for it to enable him/her to get head around the roots and development, via the "New Right", of 'blatcherism' as a radical shift from 'Butskellism'

It's entirely an analysis of broadcast media,

it's essential (as was demonstrated above by your chum) to anybody without first hand relevant experience, to understanding of the sinews of growth and propagation of the "New Right" as precursor of "New Labour" as a vote winning facade/vehicle for 'blatcherism'

and hardly relevant. Charles Matthews 14:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in your opinion, the unbalanced flavour of which is adequately illustrated above - the shift from butskellism to blatcherism could not have happened, in fact was enabled if not driven by to some extent, by crude mass media engineering - the most recent example we have of the bits thereof that surface, is the intimidation of the BBC over its failure to misrepresent the killing of whistle-blower Kelly, by sacking its top brass and stuffing the top job with a reliable 'crony' (Grade) equipped/armed with billions in hypothecated taxes - if only

Eric Blair

could be here to comment....

I think this article should only discuss the term "Blatcherism" by itself: it is a contraction of Blairism and Thatcherism, it is used by so-and-so, etc. The article should not discuss the thesis that the political consensus in the UK shifted to the right in the last two decades,

Three decades - and btw, it ain't 'to the right' - it's actually to a bizarre powderpuffland of cronycapitalism and manufactured 'reality', or as one user puts it : blatcherisation of Britain was an essential ingredient or symptom (according to which way round you see cause/effect) of the banana republicanisation of Britain

added 27-11-05 glimpse of the banarepublicanisation of blatcherist Britain, nice mr Blair's reported response is to tut tut and pretend that he ain't the principal architect of the traffic and guardian at British taxpayers' expense of the Albanian traffickers - it reminds of his speeches about 'drugs at our school gates' that implicitly deny being a military enabler/protector of the Afghan/Balkan oil/narcotics/people pipelines - is this characteristic of the Blair government comparable with Thatcher's Falkland oilfield war and the great North Sea bonanza, at British paxpayers' expense (we are already importing vast quantities of gas/oil/coal in 2005), for cronies? Pending closer scrutiny , lets just say that the art of making war with taxpayers' money to protect cronies' financial interests, is, arguably, another strand of blatcherism.

Update : BBC reporter Andrew North from Afghanistan 0720 hrs 29-11-05 : "So far British forces (in Afghanistan) have avoided confrontation with drug producers/traffickers, focussing instead on suppressing the Taliban (who, had effectively suppressed the narcotics trade)". Told y'so..... remember that report next time a blatcherist whinges about "the drugs at our school gates" and tries to blame somebody else.

(address, maliciously and characteristicially inserted by a blatcherist, deleted with warning that such conduct is not only a gross contravention of netiquette but could also be construed as a criminal offence if criminal activity successfully incited by the malicious publication) -

I have news for you. Your IP address is available. If you don't want your IP number to be available, you should create an

not to call other editors names. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Come on, you cannot simply add all newspaper articles about things going wrong in Britain. The least the article should do is to establish a link with "blatcherism". The link that you mention is only your own interpretation and not supported in any way by the article. By the way, if you do cite a newspaper article, you should follow the academic conventions and give the title of the article, the author (if known) and the title of the newspaper. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since bananarepublicanisation of Britain is the primary goal of blatcherists, it's reasonable to cover the process and its outcomes - unless you want to argue that the goal is purely a subversive political one? I'm willing to consider supported argument to that effect but would take a lot of convincing. Someone did try suggesting that it was in the cause of producing a lame duck offshore basket case that could be easily absorbed as an American theme park cum aircraaft carrier, with a postmodern mainland Europe's ('good riddance') blessing, but when you look at the main players pulling he strings of B & B, it simply doesn't wash.

nor should it discuss the influence of the government on the mass media. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in other words you err.. 'think' that the term should be 'sanitised' by being divorced from its layered meaning, and insulated from what we know of the origins and development of the phenomenon to which it refers -

Eric Blair

would simply luv this, if only...

- and the blatcherism driven bananarepublicanisation of Britain continues unabated http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4493008.stm - the funniest part of this iceberg tip is how when caught red-handed the perpetrators are given tax-financed "counseeling" HA! HA! HA! - when they were caught not so long ago spending there 'working' days watching child pornography at taxpayers' expense, it was also quietly swept under the carpet

Whoever has vandalised todays (140407) : 1. editing (note not deletion as was actually deserved in the cause of accuracy and avoidance of contradiction by the 2005 agreed content) kindly desist; 2. updated 'external links';

kindly desist. Wikipedia is not, repeat not, a soapbox

I disagree with the edits made by 82.35.32.190. They seem to subjective and not objective enough for an encyclopaedia. For example, why the derogatory comments about New Labour's Third Way? It really should be more balanced in nature. And which "others" believe that Britain economic success over the past fifteen years has contributed to a lack of social cohesion? Really, academic sources or works by political writers/scientists should be used as citations, not ignorant lay people on the Internet. Lapafrax 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I have reverted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120717080210/http://www.polity.co.uk/kingdom/pdfs/010.pdf to http://www.polity.co.uk/kingdom/pdfs/010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified one external link on Blatcherism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927023836/http://www.aims.ca/cm_Print.asp?cmPageID=200&typeID=4&id=474&fd=0&p=10&pg=newsletters.asp to http://www.aims.ca/cm_Print.asp?cmPageID=200&typeID=4&id=474&fd=0&p=10&pg=newsletters.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]