| NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Fri, 09 May 2008 12:39  |
|
The following was posted in the 'Comment is Free' forum in response to John Denham's lickspittle piece, "Labour can't win without winning in the south. And we can't do that without making fairness mean fair rewards as well as a safety net." q.v.
What NuLabour Party means by 'fairness'
Destroying any semblance of Democracy in the Labour Party
Privatisation by stealth of the NHS,
Attacks on Trade Unionists in the NHS,
Former Labour Health Ministers becoming Health Consultants and snout in the trough Labour MPs pushing privatisation
The Quinetiq Scandal
PFI
Stalling investigations into BAE
Cash for Peerages
Trident renewal without debate
Bail out and welfare for the rich, harassment and means test for the old, poor, unemployed,disabled, the asylum seeker.
Tax breaks for the mega rich and increasing inequality
Murdoch in the Labour Cabinet and Digby Jones a Minister, 85,000 poor, ill-educated and mentally ill prisoners
Detention without trial
After 10 years very limited House of Lords reform
Illegal War for and with the Neo-cons killing hundreds of thousands
Homelessness increasing
Anti Moslem whitchunts
Bullying managers introduced into the NHS
10p Tax showing contempt for the low paid whilst Corporation, Non Domiciles and Inheritance tax is devised by the wealthy after consultation with Gordon Brown
Workers Pension benefits attacked
Anti Union Laws defended by Labour
Mrs Thatcher praised and sucked up too
Arming the Saudi Torturers
Calling NHS privatisation NHS reform
Mr Denham, Labour as a democratic party for progressive force died a long time ago.
Labour is now a hollow shell of a party without any real activists and as a membership all you have left are the Thatcherites, Wannabee sky presenters, The ermine scouts, Murdoch's 'Rent an MP/Lord', Privatisers like Johnson and Darzi, Quinetiq scalpers and John Prescott's undergear
Vote Labour for fairness - like Quinetiq
(marat, Comment is Free, Guardian 09.05.2008)
|
|
|
|
| Re: NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Fri, 09 May 2008 14:18  |
|
This could be because 'Western democracy as an ideological force for the general good' died a long time ago.
NuLab are operating under a variety of taskmasters, in a kind of pyramid:
1. The Corporate World - i.e. a wealthy elite who's interests are served by keeping everyone else in (relatively) low-paid wage-slavery
2. The US Government, who effectively serve the corporate world too
3. The Media - who are owned by members of group 1 and thus generally protect governments who serve the purposes of group 1 effectively
4. The Population - the least powerful group who have been gradually disconnected from the political process by successive governments and the media, so cannot (by and large) form reasonable expectations of government because they don't understand politics and economics to a high enough degree
If that sounds elitist and dismissive of the population in itself, I refer you to two recent statements by figures in the world of politics (who I shall paraphrase):
Paddy Ashdown: "Decisions shouldn't be left to the population because they don't know what's best - I can say that now that I'm no longer up for election".
Michael Portillo: "Boris Johnson's election campaign was an insult to my intelligence." i.e. Portillo (a Tory, lest we forget) knows Boris was making promises he has no hope of keeping, but they were good enough to bamboozle Londoners, but not someone in the (political) know.
Democracy can only work properly under the following conditions:
1. The population is properly educated in politics & economics from an early age
2. The population has the opportunity for active contact with the political world (through unionisation etc)
3. Corporate power is disconnected from political power
4. Politicians and parties become answerable to an educated population, not just the elite
5. The population recognises when they are being lied to by all the groups above them
Sound extreme? Well, who here voted for Poll Taxes, the dismemberment of public services, 2 Gulf wars, an Afghan war, a public smoking ban, the removal of the 10p tax rate etc etc etc?
Politics is controlled by businessmen and business has never been about fairness or 'level playing fields'.
|
|
|
|
| Re: NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Fri, 09 May 2008 17:33 |
|
Sadly, Melmoth, I am forced to agree with every word you say; unfortunately, that doesn't take away the feelings of being betrayed and ignored by a political party I have supported all my life - but then again, perhaps kicking off on here now and then is marginally more effective than kicking the cat!
Thanks for you wise words.
lacewing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Fri, 09 May 2008 19:56 |
|
New labour, old Conservative. We have been ripped off by this mob for long enough. The most observed, even these messages will be monitored, in the world. No matter where you go, there will be someone watching you, your phone calls will be listened to, just in case you utter one of the trigger words, then your life will be upside down. Pensioners robbed by those who are supposed to look after them. We can afford to prop up the odd bank, and third world countries, but we don't look after our own. That does say a lot for the non working class government.
Friday, mustn't depress myself too much, I'd like to enjoy the weekend. Just hope I don't need the emergency services, PCSO's, waste of time and money, the NHS the third largest employer in the world, and how inefficient is it ? Very !!
Enough. Time for a beer, just about afford that ..... I think 
|
|
|
|
| Re: NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Tue, 03 June 2008 13:03 |
|
"Politics is controlled by businessmen and business"
if only it were true - unfortunately its actually controlled by total muppets who are completely clueless.
|
|
|
|
| Re: NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Tue, 03 June 2008 13:23 |
|
|
How can you say such a thing. Totally true though.
|
|
|
|
| Re: NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Tue, 03 June 2008 13:53 |
|
My Dad told me years ago that if you really wanted to know who was doing what and why, read the business news. Business is where the real political power is and is becoming even more so with acacdemics talking of market states rather than nation states.
Look at the Murdoch empire. Who decides our government? Us or the Sun newspaper? Who runs football? The FA or Sky?
H is going to kill me, you've started me on one.
|
|
|
|
| Re: NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Tue, 03 June 2008 17:16 |
|
i.e. broadly everything is run by the media
if you think that "business" controls the media you are mistaken - a few dangerous crackpots like Murdock and Silvio B control the media - the vast bulk of "business" (banks/companies) has absolutely no control over these guys at all.
most anti-capitalists etc. are looking in the wrong place - they should be marching up and down park lane on a carpet of sun newspapers - rather than banging on about some phantom 1984 style establishment that doesn't exist at all
|
|
|
|
| Re: NuLabour and 'Fairness' |
Wed, 04 June 2008 01:07 |
|
| londonpaul wrote on Tue, 03 June 2008 17:16 |
i.e. broadly everything is run by the media
if you think that "business" controls the media you are mistaken - a few dangerous crackpots like Murdock and Silvio B control the media - the vast bulk of "business" (banks/companies) has absolutely no control over these guys at all.
most anti-capitalists etc. are looking in the wrong place - they should be marching up and down park lane on a carpet of sun newspapers - rather than banging on about some phantom 1984 style establishment that doesn't exist at all
|
What are Murdock and Silvio B? They are powerful businessmen in charge of business empires. Dangerous yes, crackpots, no.
Other businesses may not control the media but they do have the power to influence them - through advertising revenue & the threat of its removal. Even the guy who edits the free local newspaper where I live has to be careful about the stories he publishes - so as not to upset his advertisers. Do you think it's likely to be different at national level?
The media moguls know what's best for themselves and their ilk - and dictate editorial policy to reflect that - which means protecting and promoting the corporate power-houses as well as the governments that serve them best.
Read a bit of Chomsky (assuming you haven't already) and then tell me what you think the pecking order is.
|
|
|
|
| |
