More Labour Neo-con Love

Scoop Jackson ... the old democracy-at-the-point-of-a-gun ploy.  That's worked so well to this point.

I know I partly restarted this Scoop Jackson revival, but the Tories really are in a crisis. Right in the middle of a party conference they are desperate for popular policies and are being pushed into a sudden general election campaign so have to make things up on the hoof. They are hopping mad that they've been topped in the news headlines each day by Labour policy leaks and photo ops culminating in Brown's Iraq visit and phony claims of troop reduction. A real crisis for them. Liam Fox especially , a neo-cons neo-con, is really pissed.

The BBC's political correspondents are saying a lot of Cameron's speech today is going to be about Iraq and Afghamistan. But what can they announce which is going to grab back the headlines, which is going to make a real difference with the public? A restatement of neocon garbage and threats about Iran aren't going to do it. They know that. There is only one way of doing it. A real change in policy. A dramatic break in the two party neocon consensus. And they're desperate and angry enough to do it.

What I can't believe is that the "Deputy Prime Minister" who got in allegedly to bring about some balance in policy can even bear to be in the same room as the right wing neo-con Gordie and his nu-lab sychophants. She has obviously swallowed any principles she ever had (and possibly a bit more besides) and remembers CND and Liberty as something someone else did in the dim and distant past; possibly youthful exuberence.

Has she actually said or done anything since Gordie was crowned?

Harriet is the product of an election in the Labour Party which Gordon didn't win.  Therefore he's hardly going to talk to her, is he?

I'm still not buying the Brown-as-neocon argument, though.

Gordo is neo-con? Gordo isn't anything. He's been saturated in power without owning it for so long he's turned into Gollum. He has only one policy and that is keeping his grubby little hands on the newly aquired driving wheel irrespective of the cost. And I mean the cost to whoever, he is not thinking short term in this, even if it means embracing something that in a previous life would almost certainly have resulted in spontaineous human combustion. He is now pure politian whose only foible is a puritanical need to micro manage his world and loath those he cannot control, which by happy circumstance is getting smaller and smaller daily. I even think his latest tussle with Rupert is his bid to set his own agenda without any undue influence from someone who isn't going to expire any time soon. He is still as high as a kite, endorphines flowing freely but not so much as to forget what is required to stay exactly where he is. So he's keen to dial down the heat and ensure the populace has a plentiful supply of soma and principle be damned. Keep everyone happy as they are not going to be around for as long as he intends to be. Sold his soul, that of the party, that of the parliament and that of the country. Yippee.

Well, I was dead wrong on a sudden change of Tory foreign policy. But he did spend a bit of time talking about a "realistic" as opposed to "utopian" foreign policy, which, I felt by its context, as a signifier on Iran.

Brown's an archetypal Neocon, alright.

Isn't the whole point of contemporary conservatism,  that is 'neo-connery,'  that you're not really anything more than a cipher for business elites? You never had to 'sell out' because you never had a human position to betray. You've always worshiped the powerful and hated the weak. By this obvious definition Brown's a Neocon and so are most of his colleagues in Parliament.

1. Drop more bombs on a single country than were dropped in Europe during WW2
2. Send in an occupation army that is exempt from criminal prosecution and the Geneva Convention.
3. Send in 100,000 mercenaries that are given licence to kill anyone at will, including women and children.
4. Sit back and wait for democracy and peace to blossom because the people will be so grateful for the aforementioned.

This is what has happened in Iraq. How anyone can even talk to the US is beyond me, let alone be contemplating more of the same with Iran.

Over 1,000,000 Iraqis killed. 2,000,000 internal refugees, 2,000,000 external refugees. Disease and malnutrition widespread, a country completely and utterly destroyed. This is a terrible crime of gigantic proportions and the UK government are fully complicit.

We need to put the politicians on trial for the worst crimes in humanity, not discussing whether or not they will be doing it again. Where is the outrage for crying out loud? This is just obscene.

Any person that voted Labour or Conservative in the last election supported a political party that approved of these actions, they all should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. People that turn a blind eye to these crimes are EXACTLY like the Germans in the Nazi era, each is as guilty as Bush and Blair for enabling their crimes.

I remember well Gordon Brown telling the Firemen to go back to work in 2003 because there was no money available for a pay-rise. Two weeks later he announced an increase in the defence budget of £2 billion to pay for the Iraq slaughter - he is one of those that should be on trial and not running the fucking country.

The US is a cruel nation indeed. Crowd swipes dying man's groceries

Gordon Brown is just the latest Bilderberger to be foisted on to the British public. The Bilderbergers, along with the Council for Foreign Relations,the Trilateral Commission and a bunch of other supra-national groups, are in fact the global shadow government. They appoint our leaders to carry out their policies. All Prime Ministers and Presidents in the West have to attend Bilderberger meetings prior to taking office.

It's no use looking at the man, you have to look at his backers to understand what they say and do. John Smith was a member of the Bilderberger's steering committee and introduced both Blair and Brown to the group in 1991, the rest as they say, is history.

Brown can never make his own decisions on major policy, it's a simple fact. Anyone that decides to 'go it alone' will get the JFK treatment.

"Brown was a traditional Labour figure. He took on an advisor - Ed Balls, a Financial Times leader writer - an ideologist for globalization, in effect - who learned his economic trade at Harvard. Balls is a regular Bilderberg attendee, his name can be found on the attendance lists almost every year since 2001. Brown soon started going to New England regularly for his summer holidays and became a true believer in the the neo-liberal line from Harvard - Globalization, the Washington consensus."

http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2007/170507_Gordon_Brown.htm

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism: a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics.

Now this doesn't seem like our boy does it. Think less poodle more St. Bernard.

And yes that is Dubbya on his right. Mwahaha

Apologies I lost the other two bits of Irving Kristols claptrap:
a less libertarian approach to domestic affairs than some other conservatives; and an idealist, expansive foreign policy.
HMV.

Did anyone watch SKY news yesterday, after the Cameron waffle? They got a Tory shadow minister to say that there would be a referendum on the EU CONSTITUTION, if they got into power. This was promised.by this shadow minister.

 The obvious get out clause when they do get to power, is that it is not a constitution but a bluff treaty. All politicians know as I know, the drivel that comes out of the EU is totally meaningless crap. There is none of it that is worth the paper it is written on.

Barroso is only too happy to let any member state government do as it likes, to citizens of the EU within its territory. He obviously does not understand what Democracy is, if he thinks that Hitler wrote laws to protect citizens against his regime.   

"Unite demonstration at Labour Party conference"

"If Brown won't listen then it's"...

"Time for a new workers' party!"

http://www.cnwp.org.uk/

I've never got this.  You don't get anything *more* risk-averse than a big businessman, indeed it's one of the key failures of neo-liberalist Underpants Gnome economics that they assume businessmen will all cheerefully take on lots of risks, rather than observing that what they actually do is minimize risk as far as possible, in order to keep their jobs.  The history of rail privatisation, with the Government having to write in funding guarantees for the big bank run rolling stock leasing companies and risk-sharing agreements with Train Operating Companies shows exactly this - without the safety net of state corporate welfare, privatisation would never have got off the ground.  Northern Rock is probably a similar example - the first hint of adverse weather and they come running for shelter.

I have just watched 'The Trap' trilogy by Adam Curtis again (just gets better). I believe the 'less risk-averse approach to economics' thing is a reference to dismantling the parts of the US goverment that regulated capitalism put in place to prevent another depression. Go unregulated capitalism! I wonder what happens next?

The most risk-free method of capitalism is running a monopoly, either by seeing off or absorbing your rivals or by entering into exclusive contracts (this happens in both the public and private sector - at my school PTA meeting the other day I was chatting to another member who revealed that the school has only three approved IT suppliers, which naturally results in higher prices).

Therefore, one of the key demands of business is for less regulation of monopolies (allied with more exclusive contract outsourcing and state privatisation, such as PFI or particularly Metronet who are a prime example of both examples of monopoly above and fortunately came up against Livingstone's remaining socialist bloodymindedness), either by the relaxing of regulations (the CBI have the ear of Brown on this one) or by starving the authorities of funds.  This has nothing to do with the risk-taking nature and all to do with avoiding the risk that someone might come along and undercut your margins.  It's also, by the logic of free markets, a recipe for inefficiency and waste.

there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism: a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics; a less libertarian approach to domestic affairs than some other conservatives; and an idealist, expansive foreign policy.

Point 1: a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics
I forgot that the venture capitalists pay only 10% tax, the latter part as has been previously stated translates as go capitalism go. And holy crap there its is again PFI and the return of the Robber Barons.

Point 2: a less libertarian approach to domestic affairs than some other conservatives
And there we are again we've seen our civil liberties assaulted like never before.

Point 3: and an idealist, expansive foreign policy.
Well we han't done that since Suez and remember how that turned out and besides this is US specific.

The first british neocon was Margaret Thatcher who bought James Buchanans public choice theories hook line and sinker. Then Blair morphed into Thatcher and now we have Brown describing Milton Friedman as "one of the great economic theorists" of the 20th century. And they don't come as appallingly neocon (read really right wing) as Freidman. So unfettered capitalism, keep the trolls quiet and promote the US of A, I honestly think he is a neocon! Although recent posts on this site might mean part three is about to take a hit.

Surprise Surprise (I think NOT).

"The City of London has become the number-one home for the fruits of corruption"

http://www.corruptionisacrime.com/

The real corruption is in The White House and number 10.  Something I`ve always wanted to now...What is an offshore account?.

Of the world's 72 tax havens, 35 are British territories or Commonwealth members;

or why London is the destination of choice for the world's multi-billionaires.

What chance *real* democracy... I'm posting whilst under the influence, it should be a crime.

Neo-con = NAZI

The politics of today is plain and simple NAZISM. I have written to Barroso asking him to explain the use of NAZI legislation in Germany, and challenged him to a discussion in the media about this. Because the evidence is so simple and overpowering, he is too cowardly to take up the offer, he knows what the truth is. His office has admitted that the judgment from a court cannot be correct, because simply no one can walk to work 91kms, do a 12hr day and then walk home 91kms, this was the government excuse for not paying shift allowances. As you can imagine any result is possible from a NAZI convened court, especially as the German Government was the defendant. They claim the NAZI law in question protects the client in a legal contest, so how did a verdict mean this was possible?

 I'll bet no one knew that Hitler was a Democratic leader, he must have been, if he allowed laws to protect the citizen, even in cases against his regime??

 The documentation that Barroso has to read takes about 5 minutes, but he considers the upholding of Democracy, to be not worthy of his high office.

 I have had a report published by Hurriyet the Turkish newspaper on this subject and it contained a letter which mentions Barroso and his refusal to investigate NAZISM. As yet he has not challenged Hurriyet on the report, which if it were not correct would be libel. As he has failed to challenge the report it must be correct.  

Barroso is protecting the Merkel regime, because she is so enthusiastic about the bullshit EU Treaty. She knows no Germans could possibly get through to invoke their rights within the EU crap because the NAZI legislation in question means they would be denied the right to a lawyer