Lord Falconer's tenuous grip on reality

Didn't Faulkner have something to do with the Dome fiasco? I don't think his views and opinions will cut much ice after that.

A revealing article, especially with regard to the level of delusion prevalent at cabinet level.

"Geoff Hoon, the Europe minister, told the BBC the Conservative party "looks and feels very different" to voters and said it was essential for Labour to renew itself. In an apparent reference to Mr Brown, he added: "That is the renewal leaders of the Labour party have very clearly set out."

Renewal? I cannot recall an instant in recent political history of a party managing to 'renew' itself in the way Hoon says. Handing over to Gordie Brown will make not a scrap of difference as he is as wedded to the snakeoil neo-liberal economics as TB. And since he hasnt shown the slightest sign of a backbone with regard to challenging the Dear Leader, I wouldn't expect him to show any in our 'special relationship' with the White House leash-holder either.

Then there was this priceless piece of self-important guff from some Mouth-Of-Sauron type from within No 10:

"Does it return to [the] values which saw the party lose four successive general elections? Or does it take New Labour and the values which have seen the party win three successive elections to its next phase?"

Eh? Scuse me? The values which have seen the Labour party membership collapse, seen voter turnout fall, and seen Labour's share of the total electorate fall to 21%? What planet are these guys reporting in from? More to the point, what are they smoking?

Finally, there is this gem which demonstrates perfectly the New Labour attitude to the people of this country:

"Harriet Harman yesterday called for Labour to win back support by making further progress on family policy, introducing mandatory pay audits, a legal right for employees to work part-time at hours of their choosing, and paid leave if their children are taken ill."

Get that? To win back support, but not by changing a failed and criminal foreign policy and not by changing the vast consultantcy plunder of the nation - but by adding a few social policy bolt-ons, which in essence is saying "Dont worry your silly little heads about thousands dying in Iraq or Afghanistan or Lebanon - here, have more flexitime and parental leave. Now go back to watching Big Brother, you morons."

It took me while to realise that the few scraps of social policy enacted under Blair since 97 have acted as the dampening rods in a nuclear reactor, or as a sop if you will to short-circuit critics of government policy from within the party and to use as PR spin. It really is time for us all to say that our silence on Iraq/Lebanon/Afghanistan cannot be bought.

"...go back to watching Big Brother, you morons."

Spot on, the Guardian article reveals "Reid's rating was up from minus 21 before the terror crisis to minus two - just ahead of Tory leader David Cameron on minus five."

That makes him the countries most popular senior politician at the moment - can anyone explain this? other than that this nation is a totally screwed up bunch of morons of course.

Possibly because until then he hadn't been sufficiently in the public consciousness, so the man in the street doesn't know about the Stalinism or the chip-on-shoulder unpleasantness or the chumminess with Karadzic. My theory that the hyperventilation over liquid explosives was at least partially to give Reid a boost seems to be holding up.

Had enough government bullshit? Had enough wars? Had enough liberties curtailed? Had enough suppression? Had enough lies?

Take a day off work on 9th October and join thousands of other equally unhappy citizens at The Houses of Parliament @ 1 p.m.

This is the day MPs and Lords are due back to work (sic).

A mass demo is organised to blockade the entire building and prevent MPs and Lords gaining access. http://www.sackparliament.org.uk

As much as I value blogs, nothing will be changed by people reading or writing on them. Direct peaceful action is the only way to get your country back from the organised criminals.

Falconer is a complete *anker. He simply wants to keep his snout in the trough.

@Anonymous, 13:47.

Hadn't heard about that one. Thanks.

But you've a bigger chance a couple of weeks before that (23rd September), when there'll be a massive demonstration outside the Labour Party conference. Hopefully big enough for the Labour Party to finally see the writing on the wall and give Blair his marching orders

I'm not sure that any sort of demonstration will shake the self-confidence of the messiah. For some reason though I'm reminded of Blackadder:

Prince George: Well, they can't do that. Why, the public love me! Only the other day, I was out in the street and they sang, `We hail Prince George! We hail Prince George!'

Edmund: `We *hate* Prince George', sir. `We *hate* Prince George!'

Prince George: Was it?

Demonstrating and other acts of 'civil disobedience' are the only options left to non-violent people. What are the alternatives? Sit down and keep your mouth shut (exactly how totalitarian governments like it) or become a 'terrorist'.

The problem is not soley with Blair. Do you think it will be different under Brown, Cameron or any one of the people supposedly representing you and me.

The problem is a lack of elected representation and real opposition within the house. The pathetic debates witnessed in the chambers should show you this lot are all on the same side - advancing capitalism at the expense of decent society, or simply there to line their own pockets.

Sack Parliament, it's not working anymore.

Er, are we allowed to demonstrate outside parliament these days?

"The problem is a lack of elected representation and real opposition within the house. The pathetic debates witnessed in the chambers should show you this lot are all on the same side - advancing capitalism at the expense of decent society, or simply there to line their own pockets."

Anonymous@10:14 - You are absolutely right that nothing will fundamentally change under a government led by Brown, Reid, Cameron or any of the other front runners of either party. Fully agree with your position promoting non-violent civil disobedience, but the difficulty is that the problem goes far beyond parliament.

The 'line their own pockets' brigade is the ruling elite, which, as well as politicians, comprises the executives of the broadcast and dead-wood media, the PR spinners, the civil service and the usual suspects of industry, big oil, big pharma and big retail. They all work together towards Orwellian-style control of the 'consumer/worker-bees' that we are all becoming. Effective demonstration against them all is a major challenge.

The other issue is that any act of 'non-violent, civil disobedience' is now inevitably transformed into criminal acts of riot / terrorism / violent conduct by the aggressive actions of the police. However peaceful demonstrators endeavour to remain, their natural actions of self defence against 'armoured', baton-wielding police are conveniently painted as aggression.

Charlie Falconer is a joke - the rich man's John Prescott. His head is so far up the Bliars' arse he has to take a peek to see if it's daylight! Himself and Levy are on nodding terms inside!

"Er, are we allowed to demonstrate outside parliament these days?"

Freda, this one sentence of yours demonstrates exactly where the problem is - it's not the elites of any sort that are the problem - it's US, the Brit people. We are all molluscs - not a decent spine between us. Who cares what we are "allowed" to do - just bloody well DO IT! Sod all the self-serving laws these slimes pass.

They - you? - like to say that the cream always rises to the top. Yes, well, so does the scum.

Vervet is SPOT ON.

"""Somehow, the "line your own pockets" brigade is in power""". Not only that , but they have a sizeable proportion of the electorate thinking and living the same way as they do.

That is how they stay there.

Wot's in it for me --- as to who you vote for .

No magic answers for the Brits, us frogs same enemy, same confusion, same lack of "alternative leaders" out of the quagmire.

For the mom, just keep on rather blindly fighting against the shitsters, while looking around for real opposition.

Anonymous@16:30 -

"... it's not the elites of any sort that are the problem - it's US, the Brit people. We are all molluscs - not a decent spine between us. Who cares what we are "allowed" to do - just bloody well DO IT! Sod all the self-serving laws these slimes pass."

1 Million + people with spines demonstrated against the Iraq war, and what good did it do ?

Numerous people do "... just bloody well DO IT!" at many events, demonstrating against the curtailment of our democracy, freedoms and rights. They are controlled, restricted, attacked and generally demonsied for their views. This is not their fault, it is the fault of the elite grouping that I identified in my earlier post.

By your measure, anarchy is the only option ... ?

Yes, vervet. 1 million people turned out... and then they went back to sleep!

I think Stop the War Coalition were badly at fault - they could and should have organised another demonstration for two weeks later. As it was, they did NOTHING, and allowed Bliar to dominate the media again.

There is no point in calling a demonstration for the first Saturday after war starts - as soon as the first shot was fired, the lying warmonger had won.

If, on 23rd September, Stop-the-war Coalition are just going to organise a gathering in Albert Square and a polite walk around Manchester, we are wasting our time. People don't have to break the law to make their point, but they do at least need to cause Blair inconvenience.

Anonymous@10:49 -

This is an interesting thread - I would be more comfortable debating with an identified name, but still ...

I think it is harsh to say that 1 million people "... went back to sleep!". I also think it is unreasonable to expect the SWC to organise a repeat, within 2-weeks, of the largest demonstration ever seen in the UK ! Their lack of follow-up did not allow Blair to dominate the media - the media decides, based on what suits their (ruling elite) agenda best.

I fully agree that more needs to be done - but it is difficult to see what might cause Blair real inconvenience, protected as he is by a spineless cabinet, fawning MPs that just want to retain power at any cost, a politicised police service, a biased media, city financiers and big business.

@ververt...Call me peacewisher, if you like.

Earlier this month, the STW were excellent. They showed that they could organise a demonstration of 100000 people to assemble at only one weeks notice... so it certainly IS possible.

Going back to 2003, I think the STW organisers expected that Blair would listen; that they had done enough, done their bit. But they had led us - they shouldn't have abandoned us and expected politicians to do the rest! In the days that followed, Blair lied like mad to made it sound as if he hadn't yet made a decision - when as we now know the troops were mobilising with all speed.

STW achieved a HUGE amount in the weeks and months up to 15th February. But Blair had plenty of form as a lying git before 2003, and there was no reason to expect that he would change. Another march two weeks later certainly WOULD have media coverage, and certainly WOULD keep the no WMD message in the public spotlight.

The theme for a 1st March demonstration could have been "Let Hans Blix finish his inspections". A lot of other things COULD have been done Nationally by STW, who were at that stage sponsored by a national newspaper... but the chance was missed, and Blair cleverly muddied the waters with that 2nd resolution, which we all could see coming, but there was NEVER a response.

And I can't help thinking that Clare Short WOULD have resigned the weekend she called Blair "reckless", if STW were doing more to rally people, at that stage. Did anyone contact her, I wonder?

Anonymous@13:29 - or peacewisher ...

As you develop the argument my problem is that I agree with far too much of what you say to present any worthwhile counters. I guess your original post raised my hackles mainly due to a sense of frustration. The failure of influence of the unprecedentedly large demonstration in 2003 proved beyond doubt that the electorate has been castrated, and that resistance to Blair has been futile.

The frustration is not so much that Blair is still in position (it clearly wont last much longer) but that there is no prospect of any leader or party, left, centre or right (admittedly meaningless terms today) rolling back any of the Orwellian legislation that has been enacted.

I think we should get ready for Blair hanging on to No 10 to the bitter end: the cabinet is stuffed full of spineless apparatchiks and the parliamentary part doesnt have the stones to take Blair down to the wire and beyond. As far as I can see, there are only 2 ways to get the bugger out; a) a combined assault by cabinet rebels and same in the PP informing him that he is ousted, or b) a backbench revolt which splits the party, destroying his majority to the point of turning it into a minority administration. And the only way either of these would come about would be in the event of something extraordinarily horrible, like Bush bombing Tehran and Blair showing every sign of either joining in or supporting it.

Sorry, but looks like it's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Didn't somebody once say 'The worse it gets, the better it gets'

If Bush starts dropping bombs on Tehran, it'll be too late. What makes you think it will be any different to the bomb dropping on Baghdad in 2003 - our TV screens will be full of explosions, media censorship will increase, and Blair will be unassailable.

We must make sure, Captain Swing, that it never comes to that. I think we COULD have done it re Baghdad, but with the benefit of greater knowledge of how Bush, Blair, and the BBC work in "war mode", it really should be possible to head it off this time.

Bush won't risk it if there is UK disapproval. The way I see it, that can be achieved - but only by the removal of Blair.

peacewisher, how will removing Tony Blair change anything? both Gordon Brown and David Cameron backed Blair to the hilt over the invasion of Iraq. My prediction is that the first one of them bold enough to say they support a US invasion of Iran will win the next election.

Confusion reigns I see .

Some weeks ago an astute analyst here pointed out that it was actually far better to leave the current monster in place, as any successor would have a poisoned inheritance.

Things are getting even worse, once more, in Afghanistan for one example, so maybe better to allow them to get even WORSE under the current management ?

As they will.

Now that UN forces will be engaged to protect Israel's northern frontier, are we about to see new fun and games against Iran ?

Long promised by Sy Hersh, and Dickcheney , are the neo-cons and Israel and Bushblair going to DO it ? Maybe HERE , we could have a dissection of the Ahmadinejihad speech, where he does NOT actually call for the massacre of all Israelis down to the last baby ?

I also much enjoy peeling away the BlairNuLab lies and corruptions, but it is a self-indulgent sport. None of the Pretenders to the Blairthrone are significantly different to him, as far as I can see, so any salvation looks years away ?

They may be astute observers as far as the Westminster political bubble is concerned, but I am looking to a potential future where the British leader is NOT supine to US Imperialism, because public opinion is dead set against it.

This won't happen under Blair because, like Thatcher, he has the arrogance of being in the coccooned environment of Downing Street for many years and doesn't give a s*** about public opinion.

ANY replacement for Blair would HAVE to take note of public opinion - anything else would be political suicide for a new incumbent. The recent example that demonstrates this is Thatcher's highly unpopular "flagship" policy, the poll tax. Whoever succeeded her had to ditch this policy to stand a chance of building for an election victory.

Those "astute" observers who say we haven't yet got to Thatchers "meltdown" position, and can afford to let Blair cock things up even more aren't living in the real world OUTSIDE Westminster. They should heed the words of Jimmy Carter to get some sense of just how bad Blair is for International Relations. Preventing world war 3 is more important than the "dubious" spectator sport of watching Blair going more and more insane yet remain in power.

I watched Tony Blair on TV last night, and for the first time felt a tinge of compassion for the man. He really shouldn't be head of a household in that state, let alone running a country!