Friday, June 30, 2006

More Proof that New "Labour" is a one way ticket to long term oppisition

The massive defeat for New "Labour" in former Labour heartlands of Blaenau Gwent is yet ahgain more proof of the serious threat that the New "Labour" project is, and the threat that Blairism poses to the future of the Labour Party.

Blaenau Gwent was Labour safest seat in Wales and was home to some of the most famous, important key figures in the history of the Labour Party, most notable is Aneurin "Nye" Bevan, who was the Health Minister the brought in the National Health Service (the greatest achievement of any Labour government to date) uder the 1945-51 Attlee's Labour government, a man who was a good socialist, and a political idol of mine.

The seat was also home to the left wing leader of the Labour Party, Michael Foot, who lead Labour in the 1980s.

Now we have lost that historic seat, our former safe seat, thanks to the policies of Tony Blair and his New "Labour" project, the people are now fed up of New "Labour" taking traditional Labour areas like Blaenau Gwent for granted, they are fed up of New "Labour" only doing things, and saying things to chase votes in Middle England, they are fed up of New "Labour" not caring about deprived areas like Blaenau Gwent.

The vote yesterday was against the sleazy, corrupt, slightly right of centre policies of New "Labour" a vote against the neglect of the grassroots of the Labour Party, of traditional Labour voters, a votre against New "Labour" chasing the few votes in swing seats like Blaenau Gwent, the Clause IV of the Labour Party saids '...For the many and not just the few', while the policies of New "Labour" are '...for the few and not the many.'

The impact of loosing Blaenau Gwent is huge, it is a clear sign of the failure of the New "Labour" project, of it's failure to deliever in places like Blaenau Gwent, of it's failure to listen to the people, like those in Blaenau Gwent and its failure to make any great improvement on the lives of the worse off in our communties.

The vote in Blaenau Gwent was a vote for socialism, against the policies of New "Labour" that do very little for deprived communties like Blaenau Gwent, this is a vote against the spineless politicans, the politicans that follow the party line blindly, the politicans that do not represent the consituants but represent the party, the politicans that do not vote what is best for their consituancy but why the party whips tell them how to vote, this is a vote against a spineless politican, one that follows party lines blindly, agains thte unthinking politicans and most of all a vote against Tony Blair and his New "Labour" let down.

This is a clear sign, that New "Labour" is now a serious risk, that we no longer have any safe seats, that our grassroot, core voters are leaving us and that this could very well be repeated time and time again in other consituancies, with traditional Labour voters leaving Labour for someone who they think is more left wing then Labour, be it Indepdent, Lib Dems, RESPECT, Green or maybe even the Tories and we could loose those seats from the lost of vote, this has been shown it can either be done by a direct lost in Blaenau Gwent, or a loss of votes going else where but allowing another party to win, like the Tories.

The disasterous election results in the Local Council elections in England this year and in countless by-elections are all showing that the New "Labour" Project has had it's day, that people are fed up of Blair, fed up of Blairsm and fed up of a party that just chases the middle class votes, and the votes it needs to survive, the grassroot, core voters are leaving us, and that is serious, because without them we can never be a government again.

Indeed New "Labour" may try and blame something other then themselves, they claim that Blaenau Gwent is unique, that Charles Clarke's comment cost them, that is was a sympathy vote, that it was because of all the bad news headlines, that the butterflies were farting too loud, they would blame anything but themselves, but the blame falls on the lap of Tony Blair and New "Labour" we are loosing safe seats because of their neglect, of there policies and of their failure to do much for the working classes, for the poorest and worse off in our country, the very people we in the Labour Party use to fight for, the very thing Labour should stand for. The "Labour" Party in government is not the Labour Party I want, I dont want a Labour party that stands for corruption, sleaze, a small selection of middle england, spin, privatisation of the NHS, fighting for the few and authoritarianism, if I wanted that I would have joint the Tories. I want a Labour Party that strives to improve our communities, that fights the good fight, that improves the lives of the poorest in Britain, that improves the NHS and not privatises it, that believes that economic stability and social justice can go hand in hand and it is not one or another, a Labour Party that puts people before profit, that redistributes the wealth effectively and fairly, a Labour Party that truely is the peoples party and I believe that is the Labour Party we use to have, that the core vaules of the Labour Party are still in the party and that we will have a Labour Party that is centre-left, democratic socialist, or at very least social democratic in the future, and not the current "Labour" Party of the 'radical' centre/third way, of spin and scandal.

This is the start of the end of the New "Labour" project and that I hope that it dies not before time, I hope that we see the fall of the New "Labour" project after we loose a general election, that way, they cannot blame "Old" Labour for the fall, that way the blame of the end of "Labour" govenrment falls on them, and that way they will be discredited and the old 'right' of the party can make an attempt to get elected back into the leadership of Labour and concentrate on making Labour electable once more, rather then the unelectibility of New "Labour".

There are lessons we must learn from Blaenau Gwent and those lessons are clear, they are the lessons that New "Labour" is a sinking ship, that is has failed, the lessons that if we take our core vote for granted then they will take their votes else where, a message that we must listen and act on the concerns of the most deprived communities and not do what Tony Blair and New "Labour" does and pretend to listen and don't act.

When we loose the safe Labour seat of Baenau Gwent by 2,500 votes for Westmisnter and a majority of over 4,000. Those majorities are very big, and show the scale of mistrust, of dislike, of disllisuionment, of unhappiness with the Labour Party, thanks to New "Labour", these massive defeats are a clear sign that New "Labour" is not working, that they are wrecking the Labour Party, that people in deprived communties are fed up of being taken by granted by Tony Blair and the New "Labour" leadership, that people are fed up of the lack of any democratic socialist vaules in the Labour Party, of any social democratic vaules in the Labour Party, under the corruption of New "Labour" and the destruction of what Labour use to stand for, of what Labour should stand for, and what I believe Labour will stand for once again in the future.

When the New "Labour" project dies, in what I hope, is a not too distance future (but not before it looses a general election), that we will see a return of a real Labour Party in Britain.

I believe that a move to the cetnre-left will lead to a Labour government that does the right thing, that stands up for the worse off, for the poorest, that fights for the deprived communties and not a fight for middle England.

We can no longer take traditional Labour seats for granted and we have to listen to them and act on what they say, we have to fight for them and ensure they get what they deserve, of what a Labour government should be delievering to the people, and what should lead to the end of New "Labour" vaules of pretending to listen, of authoritirianism, of privatisation of public services, of wasting money in PFIs that do not work, of not rebuilding the hope in communities in Blaeunau Gwent, of wasting money on Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be better spent in the NHS, in redistribution, or in giving our armed forces decent equiptment, rather then them having to beg, borrow and steal off the Americans.

This is the start of the end of the dark days of New "Labour" the end of the project and the end of Tony Blair and his cornies, and will see the Labour Party raising for the ashes once more, to become back to the peoples' party and once again be the party of fairness and social justice.

The people are fed up with the careerist politicans leading the Labour Party at the moment, the politicans that have no vaules or princibles other then there own personal gain and puting their careers first (why else would Tony Blair writtien a letter to Michael Foot in the 1980s supporting him and opposing what was then the right of the party) people want politicans with vaules, that have princibles and that believe in what they are saying and say what they believe, rather then the careerist mob that believe in saying what will improve their careers and do not have any vaules, princibles other then that.

The era of New "Labour" is surely coming to an end.

Random Fact:

Shoppers spend £46m a year on "distraction buys" - items bought to mask embarrassing purchases, such as condoms and treatments for piles, in the same shopping basket.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Anti-Human rights, Europhobic and anti-devolution the "new" look of the Tories

The changing face of the Tories, eh?, who would have guessed there would have been such a radical change from the old party that opposed human (and workers) rights, had a Europhobic attitude and opposed devolution to the party of today, that wants to leave the European Convention of human rights, wants to move their MEPs out of the Centre-Right wing bloc in the European parliament because they are too "pro-European" (Though there is some suggestion 'Dave' Cameron has lied about that) and has blocked a bill going through the House of Lords giving Wales more devolved powers, some radical changes.

'Dave' Cameron, everyones' best friend, the cool, hip and happening youngster, mr "I hate punch and judy politics but will do it all the time in PMQs", good ol' Davey boy, he wants to repeal the nasty Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights, yea, that will teach the Europeans and their convention on Human rights, that covention is not for us, oh no....wait? Oh he doesn't want to pull out of the European Convention of Human Rights, he just wants to repeal human rights laws? Oh right, well that doesn't send out mixed signals at all does it, no, we can have our cake and eat it, we can have it both ways cant we, 'Dave' Cameron, he can say that he will have it both ways to try and please as many people as possible, we can stay in the convention of human rights, while not following the rules of the convention, yea, that makes perfect sense and is not "xenophobic and legal nonense" (Former Tory/Conservative Chancellor Ken Clarke's words and not mine), and this is definitly not 'Dave' pandering to the right wing (Dave? right wing? Never!) tabliods of the Daily Mail who opposes the Human Rights Act and wants something more British, oh no, this is 'Dave' using his own initive that just so happends to be in line with the rignt wing tabliods, its conscience, seriously, there is nothing populist in what 'Dave' is saying at all, oh no no no, it might be popular to the masses and saying what everyone wants to hear but its not populist, no no, not at all.

The Lords altering the Government of Wales Bill by both Tory and Fib Dem hands is again not the return to the old ways of the old Tories, no, I dont think this is an attempt to undermime the Welsh Assembly by stopping the bill getting through just because of some concern over the names of committees and how they are made up, and also the oppisition parties wanting to undermime Welsh democracy by allowing 'loosers become winners' (how would stopping cannidates from standing in both the consituancy and regional list seats help Labour? surely it wouldn't have any effect since the list seat members will stand for the list seat again?), so there excuses do not really wash on me, it is clearly an attempt to undermime the Welsh Assembly, either because they don't like it, like the Tories or because they want to make electoral gain from failure like the Fib Dems.

But, lets get back to Mr.Cameroo, 'Dave', the Green man, the man on a massive Eco trip, ah David Cameron, nothing shows his green credentials more then him riding a bike, with his chauffeur driven papers, shirt and shoes, yea, there is nothing more green then having a car just for your papers, shirt and shoes while going around trying to con voters that you are green by rididng a bike to work while having that car follow you with the chauffeur driven papers, shirt and shoes, yea that is very green isn't it, just like flying to the Antartic to see the polar ice caps melt and then flying back again, on a vehicle which is appearently contributing to the metling of the ice caps more then any other (don't get me wrong though, I oppose taxing air travel since it will mean that working class people cannot travel on holidays aboard)

Its fantastic that the Tories have picked the "heir to Blair" (Hopefully Cameron will in that case do as much damage to the Tories as Blair and his New Labour cronies has done to the Labour Party.) especally when the public is fed up of the sleaze, scandal and corruption that Blairism and New Labour have brought to the Labour Party and this "Labour" Government, just like the sleaze, scandals and corruption of the previous Tory government, so the "heir to Blair" (and if he is telling that to the red lot, then he won't get many Labour voters) or the "Liberal Conservative" or the "Conservative through and through" or the "Vote Blue go Green"(probably be being sick?) or the "We are nice really, please vote for us, we are populist, please please with sugar on the top" party or "the party with no policy" or whatever Cameron is at this very second, it is so hard to keep up with him, thinks that he can pull the wool over the voters eyes for long, he got another thing coming, the public might be fed up with Blairism, the corruption, failure and rot of New Labour, but they do not want to see it replaced with a Tory government that will no doubt end up doing more harm to the country then good, and not doing any of the few good things to come, even out of this crappy and under achieving Labour government. (The polls suggest the likely hood of a hung parliament, but there is a while to go yet).

The choice that the poor old British public have to make though is not good, New Labour lead by a Blairite (Blair, Brown, Miliband, Milburn, Ried, take your pick) or a Tory party lead by a Tony Blair clone (spin, populist adgenda and the like) or the Fib Dems who cannot be trusted at all by their record in local government and the contrictions in their messages across the country, or some other minor party (take your pick), choice? what choice?

Random Fact:

George Bernard Shaw named his shed after the UK capital so that when visitors called they could be told he was away in London.

Dont push your blooming morals on us Claire Curtis-Thomas

Why oh Why does Claire Curtis-Thomas trying to push her right wing morals on us, from what is meant to be a centre-left party (although Tory Blair has preverted the party into a centre-right one), the Labour Party is NOTHING like the blooming Republican Party in the USA, firstly the Republican Party is traditionally a right wing, conservative, christian party, where the Labour Party is traditional a Centre-Left wing, democratic socialist/social democratic secular party (until Blair came in and started to spread the decay of New "Labour" in the party, but thats another matter) So why, oh why, oh why, is Claire Curtis-Thomas pushing forward her vaules on the British public , claiming that "lad mags" are 'replusive' and wants to protect 'minors from obsence matierals' (yea, because they are corrupting aren't they) she seems to think it will scar the poor little children for life, sure, lets also make sure that we get rid of toy guns and toy soldiers and other such things while we are at it for being 'dangerous' and warp up our children in cotton wool...

The arguement that such "lad mags" is 'expolitation of women' is total and uttrer rubbish aswell, these women are paid to model, they do it WILLINGLY, women are not some mindless slaves that do whatever a man saids, it does not work that way, the women that do the SOFT porn stuff in the "Lad mags" are not degrading themselves, since they are probably making a good bit of money from the shoot, and they are not being expolitated, since they are making a good bit of money from the shoot, much more then someone on the minimum wage makes (why isn't Claire Curtis-Thomas speaking up about something that is expolitation, like the underpayment of immigrant workers and the effect that has on the British workforce?) and if a woman is offended by such magazines, then their is a simple explaination DON'T LOOK AT THEM!!!!!! good grief, is that so bloody hard for some people to do? Seemingly so.

Besides which, I do not see it as a bad thing that say a 13 year old boy can (and should be allowed) to by such magazines, and a 13 year old girl buy the female equalivant (which their are and, suprisingly Claire don't seem to be ranting about those as much) , this is because their is nothing really wrong with such things and with young teenage boys and girls exploring their sexuality by reading such magazines, it is perfectly natural for young teenagers to be interested in such things (no matter what sexuality they might feel they are at that point, if any) and moving this material to the top shelf is some vain sttempt to protect children and not offend women is ridiculous.

Maybe Claire Curtis-Thomas should stop acting like the wife of that Lovejoy (or Killjoy in her case) character in The Simpsons (you know the one that always saids "Wont someone please think of the children") and end her attempts to restrict access to magazine just because she feels the need to push her morality and her fears onto society, when we don't want the state dictating to us what we should and shouldn't be reading and not tell us that the material in such magazines is dangerous and corrupting to children, because the reality is that it is not, and her views on such matters shouldn't become law and thankfully, since parliament has real things to discuss rather then the nonesense she wants to be put into law, it never will be.

Random Fact:

MPs use communal hairbrushes in the washrooms of the Houses of Parliament.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Tridant Missle, opperated by one of those infamous private computer companies (bye bye Austrillia)

It seems like Chancellor Gordon Brown (how long before he starts calling himself 'Gord'?) looks set to be yet another Tony Blair clone (which is the last thing Labour needs) with his commitments to the Tridant nuclear subs (I bet you Bin Laden is quaking in his boots....) aswell as the countiued privatisation of the NHS, attacks on civil liberties and general bad mouthing of public sector workers (who do a fine job in my opinion).

The "Iron" Chancellor has, in all his wisdom signalled he would follow Blair's lead (probably the lead which Bush is holding....) and replace Tridant, the question I am wondering is why?

With the end of the Cold War and the threat of the Soviet Union marching across Western Europe what do we need nuclear missles for?

I know that there are several possiblities, North Korea is the most obvious one and the one that holds the most water, yet the government has not (yet, and to my knowledge) mentioned the threat that N.Korea posses as a reason, they have however mentioned Iran (hmmm, a Middle Eastern country that happends to be next on Bush's hit list, how interesting.....) as a reason to arm ourself with nuclear weapons, which again is using the fear of 'Islamic' terrorism and 'Islamic' nations to its own political ends (and probably will add to the reasons to invade Iran, because they have Weapons of Mass Disappearence....)

Another one is that Russia may be a threat again, however with Russia's new found power over its engery and fuel sources (as demostrated when to cut off supplies to Ukraine and effectively held Ukraine to ransom) why would it need to threat the use of nuclear weapons, especally when there is a small chance that Britain will need supplies from Russia and if that is a case, Russia could easily beat Britain into submission without nuclear weapons. Moreover, the state that the Russian economy is in at the moment, and that they would probably need to replace their nuclear weapons, I don't think they would be able to afford it.

Terrorism is another one I have heard the pro-nuclear mob jump and shout about, but why would a terrorist be scared of a nuclear bomb? We can't drop it on the terrorists because after the attack they either be dead if they are a suicide bomber, left the country to hide in another country (Probably without the knowledge of that country) or be lying low in Britain, so where do we target, there is no "Terrorist land" (Like Bush would like us to believe their is) there is no where to target, the nuclear weapons are usless against terrorists, and let me go back to Iran, if I may, if Britain or America was to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran (I seriously doubt that any nation would nuke Iran) but if we did drop a bomb, or America did, then that would create 10 times more terrorists (I know that Bush wants more terrorists, but even he is not that stupid.....) so terrorism is out of the question.

So firstly their is no clear reason from my understand but to stop some "potenional enemy" (either N.Korea or Iran then, should be N.Korea but is probably Iran)

Another probably is the cost, now from what I read it will cost between £10 billion and £25 billion, now since this "Labour" government has come to power the gap between the rich and the poor has gotten bigger, we still have many problems in our poorest communities, the NHS is still in crisis (thanks to New "Labours' " privatisation of parts of the NHS, too many mangers, both a waste of money)
So won't that, £10 billion be better spent on redistribution of some sort, either by investing it into areas where there is high unemployment so there is more training for jobs and actually to attract jobs into the area, spent on improving schools in those areas, spent on the NHS to help it get back onto it's feet, spent on giving young people in areas with high anti-social behaviour something to actually do, there is all kind of things those billions could be spent on, rather then building new nuclear weapons that will just never be used and go to waste.

The NHS is in a deficit of at least £512 million, that £10 billion would wipe out the deficit of £512 million 20 times over at most, there is also a £1.8 billion gap in social care funding, and a £2.2 billion shortfall in funding for local governments, all of which would be far more important to spend money on, especally the NHS and the social care gap.

And although this is a pre-emptive strike by Brown (campaigning to be next Labour leader, or thinking he will be) in a contest is will count against him amoungest traditional Labour MPs and members, and if someone from the old right of the party stands (and I am not on about the loonies from the Socialist Campaign Group, though I would vote for them over Brown, as a protest vote) then I would say I hope they would kick Brown and New Labour out, however thinking about it I would rather New Labour lost the next election and then they will have no-one to blame but themselves, and hopefully allow our lot to retake the party.

On one final note, Blaenau Gwent duel by-election is coming up and a former Labour safe seat, if we do not win this back, this time the New Labour mob cannot blame all women short list for the loss of the seat (though I am sure they will blame something else) but the real blame will rest again ont he policies of New Labour, and it will show the effects that New Labour is having on traditional Labour voters and Labour seats and the threat that it posses to the Labour Party, if we losoe our safe seats and traditional Labour voters, our base, then we can never stand a chance of getting into government ever again, and possibly not even be the offical oppisition.

Random Fact:

Only 36% of the world's newspapers are tabloid.