Operation Save the May Elections

what's this 'vote but dont vote labour' all about?

William Hague was asked a few days ago if, knowing what he knows now about Iraq he would still have voted for the attack - his answer was 'yes'.

Now to me that is a sign of severe mental illness brought about by being unable to face the fact that his party voted for the death of over 650,000 Iraqis and thousands of allied service men and women. What's more troubling is if the same were to happen tomorrow, with say Iran or Syria, he would do exactly the same again.

These politicians find it impossible to admit any kind of mistake or error of judgment, and will lie and lie and lie again to save their own arse even if it means thousands of people have to die.

I say vote but don't vote for criminals or the party they represent that supports the waging of agressive war against civilians - these people deserve the same fate that awaits Saddam.

Nice to know things are going so well. Hard to understand why Tony's subconcious momentarily took over his tongue to utter the word 'disaster' in front of Sir David Frost, really...

It's now almost a year since Tony Blair, in an article published by The Observer, declared that "The most important freedom is harm from others" [sic]. Funny how that does not seem to apply to Iraq, where he apparently feels that killing the better part of a million people is a price well worth paying to let them enjoy "free" elections. Even if they risk being blown up or shot when they turn up to vote, and even if the candidates (and parties) for whom they vote are limited to those approved by the Occupying Powers. And even if the "democratically elected" prime minister is subject to arbitrary removal by the Occupying Powers, whose soldiers can rape or kill anyone they like without the slightest fear of any comeback. (Apart from the occasional token trial of the lowest of the low).

He must be very proud of his handiwork.

Bush security adviser Stephen Hadley carried a six-point message for Iraqi officials on his recent trip to Baghdad:

Prime Minister Al-Maliki was unable to accept the American proposals because of his institutional allegiance to Shiite parties who believe their historic moment has arrived after one thousand years of Sunni domination. That Shiite refusal has accelerated secret American efforts to pressure, re-organize, or remove the elected al-Maliki regime from power.

Expect a coup in Baghdad shortly, backed by the Americans.

It's good to see that the right question to ask of any MP who was there in 2003 is not being forgotten. It's a good that they can find no way round this question other than lying so blatantly.

If William Hague of any of those others on the front benches in the House of Commons had voted No to war, they would not have had the pleasure of being on the front bench for the last three years and in the future, and that's more important than taking a principled stand.

The system is so grotesque that it's better to be wrong and with the herd, than to be right and risk separating from the pack. No one in this Parliament *ever* gets punished for being completely flat-out wrong and evil. No one goes forward by proving to have good judgement. All that matters is whether you are with the crowd or against it. If everyone is wrong in the same way, no one can hold you to account.

The system is internally thoroughly broken. It's left to us to remember which ones are the spineless boneheads, and stick it to them. They sure as heck won't.

Hague's Iraq voting record

"No one goes forward by proving to have good judgement."

That's right, they usually get dead.

Don't vote. It only encourages them.

There is no choice in the English political arena - all three parties have a shared ideology, and nothing that disturbs theer cosy consensus is permitted in public life. They have far too many class interests in common to disagree.

The statement "Vote', but don't vote Labour" is meaningless. Is anyone seriously suggesting that a significant change in foreign or domestic policy would take place under a Tory or LibDem administration?

Quoth Cassandra - "Is anyone seriously suggesting that a significant change in foreign or domestic policy would take place under a Tory or LibDem administration?"

As a Lib-Dem party member and candidate in the May elections, I can assure you that a LibDem government would utterly change the course of foreign and domestic policy. To do otherwise would lead to division and collapse of the party: the party leaders KNOW that they must do what the membership tells them, otherwise the jig will be up for them.

Quoth John Bright:
"I can assure you that a LibDem government would utterly change the course of foreign and domestic policy."

Really?

If Lib Dem MPs can be bothered turning up to crucial foreign policy, civil liberty and anti-terror votes...

If the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party hadn't lied to the voting public about the abject incompetence of their leader being due to his alcoholism for so long...

If our local Lib Dem council wasn't merrily voting to close care homes and day centres, slash social services, destroying high quality advocacy sevices to the poor, paying themselves huge bonuses and pensions whilst behaving like school kids and generally trashing all hope of success for the City Of Culture and 800th anniversary celebrations in Liverpool...

Maybe then I'd believe Lib Dem rhetoric.

You may be one of the good guys, John, but I felt my Vote for Lib Dems had been wasted after the crucial votes in Parliament were missed. I also received a bad tempered - almost Thatcherite letter - from Ming Campbell, having appealed for help about local council policy.

Spoil ballots if people want, but I'm with Cassandra on this one- don't vote, it only encourages them and perpetuates the myth of democracy in Britain.

Haven't we been here before? I seem to recall repeated invocations of 'troop withdrawals' whenever the political going got tough. (See also the 'next six months' references which have been going on for the last two years ro so.)

Well it was obvious that the yanks would pull out when they realised their corporations couldn't make any more money, and that Tony would do what his boss in the White house ordered.

It ain't over yet though. When the Iraqi's have finished fighting each other, I doubt they're going to like us much when they realise just how much of their oil money was lifted.

Not so much a war on terror, but a war to put us in harm's way. More middle eastern terrorism is the only likely outcome and plenty of it aimed at us.

Only a deluded idiot could have thought up this foreign policy disaster. Come to think of it he did.

I don't want troop withdrawal. I want them not to have been sent there in the first place! And £7bn, or whatever it comes to, of public money not to have been spent on such a fatuous exercise (didn't Gordon realise he would have to sign a blank cheque?).

The trouble with talking about withdrawal is that it creates a bogus argument for supporting the war, because if you disapprove of leaving Iraq in an even bloodier mess than we found it, you are tacitly approving of the military presence and Tony's twisted rhetoric about 'finishing the job'.

I'll buy that if he does it himself, and from the front line. After all, he helped start it.

John, it doesn't matter what LibDem party members want, the financial markets, the corporate media, Rupert Murdoch and big business have infinitely more power. They determine the framework for policy and debate. It's just a fact of democracy under capitalism. Any move towards social justice would be met by disinvestment, capital strike and a massive hate campaign from a hostile media.

Politics will always remain the shadow cast by big business until we break the private sector monopoly over control of banking, investment, production and the media.

It won't last till spring, will it? Iraq is about to implode, and the "coalition" will get out as fast as the helicopters can fly 'em out. It'll be Saigon, 2007 style.

Going slightly off topic, but following the line of thought that all politcians think we,Joe Public, are stupid ...
Well am I not seeing the plot with these new touted road pricing policies?
Surely the lack of investment in a coherent transport system by successive governements. Who are more interested in seeing motorists as a captive taxable market to support other policies.
Where congestion and traffic jams are causing longer journey times, which are resulting in an increase in emissions.
We have already paid for these clapped out roads we drive on. Are we thought stupid enough that we will happily cough up to pay again to drive on them?
The Boston tea party was one moment in history caused by unfair taxation.
Perhaps road pricing might be the one that wakes us up to how useless politicians are with spending our money.

Ah, Cassandra! - you`re making the mistake of believing the tosh that somehow the markets and the corps and the MSM control it all, aaaaaagh! Well, truth is that the markets and the corporations depend on the State for their existence: they would not exist without the state to provide the legal framework on which they perch. Thus politics matter very much - have a look at a book called The Corporation by Joel Bakan, wonderful analysis of what corporations are and what they exist for.

As for the behaviour of Lib Dems in Liverpool, and the less than progressive gleams in Ming Campbell's eye (as well as Vince `Mr Shell` Cable), I can only agree, but I`m not giving in. There will be dingbats and pocket Capones in every party, and despite this I`m working with my local party to promote the things I and many other LibDems believe in. I dont frankly see any other viable avenue at the moment, but I shall personally be looking into the things you mentioned.

If the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party hadn't lied to the voting public about the abject incompetence of their leader being due to his alcoholism for so long

Hmm, is there anyone here who doesn't think that Mr. Bush would be improved by a robust course of Scotch? Too many bloody puritans around, at least Charlie's a proper Catholic, and therefore comes equipped with a fully working sense of guilt, under the politician's veneer. He's still the best leader the LDs have, electric soup or no.

Actually, my issue with the Lib Dems is a wilful refusal to read the runes correctly - when the whole of political discourse has moved so far to the right that David Cameron is laughably being portrayed as a centrist, it's time for the LDs to occupy that enormous left-of-really-quite-right-wing area that no one except the BNP (who are lying) and RESPECT (who aren't, but are a bit too far left for most) dares look at. There are quite a few votes there, but unfortunately they're probably in the wrong areas.

Instead of realising this, there's a nasty tendency to go for the neo-liberal ideologies, with an accompanying relegation of the 'Democrat' part of the party name to a bystander's role. The theory that Ming is a placeholder while the LD right wing sort out their best face (Clegg?) holds a bit of water, sadly. When that day comes, the party I've voted for most often can no longer count on my vote, unfortunately*. That'll be the time to set up in the politics business on our own account since no bugger will be doing it for us.

*Except tactically, which is usually how I vote. Brownite hegemony round my way in the MP department, rock-solid Tory locally, so it's not like my vote *counts* or anything, except for Europe or GLA/Mayoral elections, where I vote for Ken because it pisses Blair off (and he's sound on public transport, even if he does dip his hands into my pocket rather too much for comfort).

John, the financial markets are a 'virtual senate', they have what amouts to veto power over domestic legislation. A flutter in the Bond market can sink a currency. If you think governments can withstand that kind of pressure (black Wednesday) you're mistaken.

This fact was indeed covered by Joel Bakan in his book 'The Corporation,' and has been explored by Noam Chomsky in depth. The whole point is that the legal framework that corporations operate under is designed by states to be outside of public control. it's been developed as a result of judicial activism and agreements behind closed doors at the WTO and similar bodies.

It's not 'Tosh' John. Bretton Woods was destroyed precisely to take management of the global economy outside of the control of nation states and back into the hands of wealthy investors. Good luck with your local party, and you may well be right - very few viable avenues are open at the moment, it's true.

But the pivotal point remains - while industry and finance is in the hands of private tyrannies, real democracy is impossible. Changing the leadership of 'UK Plc' will make very little difference.

John Bright, good to see someone accepting the imperfections of his own Party, and determined to overcome them.

Posting from frogland, where the 2 major Parties are unvotable for, AND the enormous difficulty of creating a Third Force from nothing looks doomed to failure, it seems to me more sensible to infiltrate the LibDems and turn them into something 'worthwhile' !

I seem to remember the LD's are flirting with the ideology of the other two parties, which is ,natch, a recipe for "nonentitude".

I completely agree with your point that the STATE allows the corps and markets to exist, officially and technically, and therefore SHOULD be in 'control'.

BUT in fact the 'STATE'under tonyblair and brown has sold out to them. (Lock stock and barrel)

So maybe cassandra was right.

Now a big boon to the SNP ...

"Tony Blair to help SNP" shouts the BBC.

Well actually it was

"Tony Blair to lead attack on SNP"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6178804.stm

... same thing really.

can anyone explain why the BBC is lying through it's teeth about the current situation in Lebanon?

First they keep saying that Gemayel was anti-Syrian when the opposite is true;
A two-day shutdown closed Lebanese banks and many businesses Friday as protests against the assassination of pro-Syrian industry minister Pierre Gemayel rolled on.

Secondly they are portraying the recent demonstrations as anti-Syrian, when agin the complete opposite is true;
...they want the restoration of the broad coalition, including ministers from Shi'a militant group Hezbollah

The BBC is not reporting news it is trying to make you believe something that is simply not true.

It is complete fiction and something which all British people should be ashamed of.

Write to the BBC and ask them what is the purpose of printing such lies.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1164363484563B241

here's my favourite quote from the BBC today...

'US President George W Bush has pledged support for Lebanese independence from what he called the "encroachments of Iran and Syria".'

this from the man who sanctioned israels merciless attack on the country only a few months ago, supplied israel with weapons which killed thousands of lebanese and refused to reign in the war dogs.how can these people have the nerve to claim support for lebanon.it make me want to puke.

one has the impression that syria is now firmly in the firing line for some 'shock and awe' treatment,hence the continual anti-syrian lies being put out by the propaganda departments, err, i mean the news media.

Gavin Esler, the so called 'journalist' is in fact an establishment (MI5?) dis-information stooge.

Margaret Beckett's claim of 'continuing good progress' regarding Iraqi security was a very astutue observation - two days later we have 'the worst day of violence since the 2003 invasion'. That woman is a national treasure, I think she should run for the Labour party leadership.

Beckett's cognitive dissonance,

Functional schizophrenia appears to be a pre-requisite for political office, or a successful career in journalism.
Beckett's a great example. Objective reality no longer enters into the political equation. There are higher truths than mere reality, among them the divine truth of 'western' good intentions, the decency of 'our' institutions and 'our' concern for international democracy. Evidence of western support for Pinochet, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos and other genocidal mass murderers and dictators is irrelevant. As is the uncomfortable fact that all of the above provided a great investment climate for western multinationals.

So bloggers, elevate your minds to a higher level, cease your endless raking in the slime of filthy objective truth. Free yourself from coarse materialsim, and join the government and the BBC in that rarefied realm, where Prime Ministers never lie, business works for us all, and Washington cares about human rights.

Beckett's cognitive dissonance,

Functional schizophrenia appears to be a pre-requisite for political office, or a successful career in journalism.
Beckett's a great example. Objective reality no longer enters into the political equation. There are higher truths than mere reality, among them the divine truth of 'western' good intentions, the decency of 'our' institutions and 'our' concern for international democracy. Evidence of western support for Pinochet, Suharto, Duvalier, Marcos and other genocidal mass murderers and dictators is irrelevant. As is the uncomfortable fact that all of the above provided a great investment climate for western multinationals.

So bloggers, elevate your minds to a higher level, cease your endless raking in the slime of filthy objective truth. Free yourself from coarse materialsim, and join the government and the BBC in that rarefied realm, where Prime Ministers never lie, business works for us all, and Washington cares about human rights.

I resent that accusation. In the same as Victoria Beckenham is not talentless but differently talented (ie self-promotion as opposed to singing), Margaret is not 'deeply incompetent' but differently-competenced: she is highly skilled at taking caravan holidays.

Buenaventura Durruti
The Durruti Column
http://thedurruticolumn.blogspot.com/

Brilliant thread as usual Quarsan!!,Tony seems to be in a state of paralasis over the suspected Kgb assasination on home soil,this is looking more and more like a terrorist act from a foreign power,you just know it will just disapear without a trace over time -just like when Putin used "iliegal vacuum bombs on civilian targets in chechnya? Tony was cuddling up to this maniac at the time,funny how the west(usa/uk/un) only picks on the countries which can offer very little resistance !

I think politicians actually have a private 'joke' about who can make the most outragously untrue statement and get away with it.

So far Beckett seems to be blowing all competition into the weeds. I bet behind closed doors they piss themselves at what they get away with. no wonder they have so much contempt for you and I. any population that puts up with such antics deserves contempt.

As Jonny Rotten once said when asked "what should the man in the street make of the sex pistols' music?" he responded "I don't care. I've met the man in the street and he's a cunt." so true.

well done margaret, your a natural.

I think politicians actually have a private 'joke' about who can make the most outragously untrue statement and get away with it.

So far Beckett seems to be blowing all competition into the weeds. I bet behind closed doors they piss themselves at what they get away with. no wonder they have so much contempt for you and I. any population that puts up with such antics deserves contempt.

As Jonny Rotten once said when asked "what should the man in the street make of the sex pistols' music?" he responded "I don't care. I've met the man in the street and he's a cunt." so true.

well done margaret, your a natural.

Quote: "I bet behind closed doors they piss themselves at what they get away with."

Yeah, well, they only get away with it because - ahem, the media allow them to because, well, they too are bought and paid for (bar a scattering of noble lamps in the engulfing darkness). The media in this country - the tabloids, the Times, the BBC, Sky and the bought-up cadavers of local newspapers - have become The Constituency to which all those seeking serious stature must address themselves, because to do otherwise (with respect of course) is to invite a ruthless mauling in print or, worse, to be ignored. Which is why, as a Liberal Democrat, my concern about switches in party policy and presentation has to be seen in the context of the question - `who are these changes meant to convince?`. The axing of the 50p tax policy, for example, has angered many at the grassroots yet I have an uncomfortable feeling that it is meant to mollify some perceived slice of the media elite, perhaps in the city or close to it.

Smells too much of a sacrifice in fear of the elite's disapproval.

And I thoroughly agree with Tom's remark that:

- "when the whole of political discourse has moved so far to the right that David Cameron is laughably being portrayed as a centrist, it's time for the LDs to occupy that enormous left-of-really-quite-right-wing area that no one except the BNP (who are lying) and RESPECT (who aren't, but are a bit too far left for most) dares look at."

Exactly. Take a step back and look at the broad sweep of political change since the mid-70s, and you can see how far to the right the Thatcher, Major and Blair governments have pushed us, to the extent that centrist politics in Britain (where hardheaded regard is given to both public service sectors and private sectors, and where the market is ringfenced away from public institutions and the public commons) is now inevitably well to the left of New Labour. Without a doubt there is a vast constituency of the British people crying out for a party to articulate the desperation many feel at seeing all the hardwon postwar achievements slipping and dissolving away. And to my mind it is my party that should saying this, yet they pull every punch and opt for mealymouthed commentaries rather than the truthful outrage of a wounded and betrayed nation.

Yet I`m going to stick with it, just to see if I can find a place and a time to say what needs to be said. Who knows - might find other likeminded souls along the way.

"Yet I`m going to stick with it, just to see if I can find a place and a time to say what needs to be said. Who knows - might find other likeminded souls along the way."

Good for you, John. Nice to see someone standing on principle. Best of luck with it.

To commenter Politicians are money grabbing cock-suckers:

Do You watch Deadwood? :)
Fabulous, fabulous, fabulous programme.

BB

Cassandra said;

"Politics will always remain the shadow cast by big business until we break the private sector monopoly over control of banking, investment, production and the media."

And what would that change? Out here in Asia we have two good examples of the opposite sides of the coin; utterly non-democratic Hong Kong where business owns the government and the quasi-democratic Marxist paradise of Singapore where government owns business. Both systems suck. But, having lived and worked in both places, I know which one I prefer. That I now live in Hong Kong is a clue - that dildos and blowjobs aren't illegal here and opposition politicians don't get sent to jail for making "unauthorised" public speeches is a bonus.

Yeah David, I couldn't agree more, both systems of domination are unmitigated shite, with statism marginally worse in most instances (at least nobodies telling you who you can shag under captialism, George Bush and Anne Widdicombe notwithstanding).

I'm not advocating control by state or capital, but instead hope for something like an economic democracy, with genuine participation in decision making by the people who do the work, and the communities they live in. It's hard to imagine the coutours, but overcoming feudalism probably looked equally impossible a few centuries ago. Marxism just replaces private control with a caste of technocrats. I want to replace rentiers and technocrats with popular control and cooperative production.