Blair, Democracy and the Spirit of Contradiction
Posted June 19th, 2007 by Tom
in
Blair's search for his marbles took him to the Commons' Liaison Committee yesterday. Choice quotes from the Guardian, which hasn't spotted the contradiction:
First, the defence of murdering thousands to bring in an inquorate 'democracy' whose writ barely runs to the Baghdad Green Zone:
"What country has ever chosen not to be a democracy - it is nonsense. It is what oppressors do to justify their oppression"
Then the reiteration of his own views on democracy back home:
...revealing that he was personally opposed to three recent planks of government policy: a partly elected second chamber; elected regional assemblies; and a referendum on the proposed European constitution.
...
The prime minister revealed he personally supported a fully appointed second chamber.
...
...
The prime minister revealed he personally supported a fully appointed second chamber.
...
He also revealed he did not agree with the lord chief justice that the development of a ministry of justice represented a constitutional change which altered the independence of the judiciary.
"Democracy's great, except when it isn't". The man has lost the plot. I suspect that there may be more worth reading here.
"What country has ever
"What country has ever chosen not to be a democracy - it is nonsense"
This man has seriously lost the plot. How does a country 'choose' not to be a democracy? By a democratic vote?
And the concept of 'oppression' is interesting. Would Blair accept that the imposition of his version of democracy on states such as Afghanistan or Iraq is also a form of 'oppression'?
Its clear that this man in
Its clear that this man in on a last minute revenge strategy and is determined to make his mark whatever the cost. It seems totally absurd that the "soon to be" prime minister Brown, will not be attending the EU talks and Blair will have the freedom to sign away anything and everything.
Surely in this "so called" Democracy there will be checks and procedures in place to prevent such callous actions. I remember some time ago the Queen stepped in and dismissed the PM of Australia and she had the constitutional right to do so. Does she hold the powers to do so in the UK?
I caught a brief look at his
I caught a brief look at his performance (as in lights, camera, action!) before the committee - a brief look was all I could stand. I did catch one point where he came out with a couple of absolute gold-plated corkers. Responding to some vague critique or other he said (and I`m paraphrasing here) that if he were criticising the policy in question, he would be focussing on other aspects (as if this is somehow a rational defence of policy decision-making! - "Unless your criticisms deal with what I think is important, they`re not valid"); then he went on to say that his own criticisms of how policy turned out almost always were very different from those offered by everyone else.
At that point I wished for some benign deity to magically transport me into the committe chamber so that I could cry out - "That`s because you`re a deluded egomaniac, you complete and utter toerag!" - but sadly it was not to be.
Wafer-thin justifications plucked out of the ether seemed to be the order of the day, like this one from the Guardian article:
"I thought in July 2003 we had removed a terrible dictator, we had got in place a UN process of democracy and we were going to have an elected government."
Of course, as well removing said terrible dictator, he and Bush also removed the tiresome burden of life from tens of thousands of Iraqis, and subequently helped 100s of thousands onward to the next life. Thus amply demonstrating those western values he`s always going on about.
As noted before, the man has no shame and, like his party, expresses no guilt or remorse. Was it Bevan who said of the Tories of his time that `they only need to be described to be condemned`? That fits so well with Nu Labour.
ta
ta