The end for Blair

[corruptwesterner90]

Is the end nigh for Phoney Tony?he has all but lied stole his way to the top and he is a definate murder.Along with Bush.He should lose his job now.The papers think he won't reach till January.That is still alot of lives in Iraq.He should go tomorrow in my opinion.Does anyone think the same.

Put him up for war crimes!

[Kez]

how do you suggest we oust the bastard comrade?

[corruptwesterner90]

I think he will be booted out by his own party in a vote of confidence (like Thacher and IDS in the Torys) or just sacked.He won't make it next to the next election.I will never vote Labour or Torys in my life.I am hoping to start a party by myself.Evil must be stopped!

[Kez]

yeah, he will be booted, by Labour MP's, Grassroots and Trade unions

as for building a new party... :blink: :blink: :blink: you can join the SWP,SP,CPB, CPGB, WP, RCP and so on in attracting the workers....to no-where....

[monkeydust]

He probably won't be publicly booted out by his own party.

For a long time it has been Labour policy not to so publicly get rid of their leader, they consider such leadership oustings a trademark of the conservative party.

I think it's much more likely that he will conviniently 'step down', whenever his party make it clear that thye want him out.

Still, you never know, he might stay on for the full third term, though I feel it nlikely

[The Feral Underclass]

It's up to Tony, say cabinet heavyweights
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
17 May 2004

Independent

Senior cabinet ministers have told Tony Blair that the fate of his embattled leadership is now in his own hands.

Four members * Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Geoff Hoon and Alistair Darling * came out yesterday to shore up Mr Blair's leadership but, in spite of the public show of support, privately ministers were not ruling out the possibility that Mr Blair may decide to go before the general election.

"It's up to Tony," one of his senior ministers said last night. "If Tony says he is going to stay and fight the next general election, fine."

Another cabinet minister said: "It's down to Tony. He is resilient. He doesn't look like someone who is about to give up."

Charles Clarke, in an interview with The Independent, today says he believes the leadership speculation is "nonsense'' but he reflected doubts in the Cabinet when he added: "Maybe I am completely isolated. I don't think I am, but maybe I am. I just don't feel this stuff is going on.''

Mr Blair's cabinet allies said he would not step down before he had "cleared up the mess'' in Iraq.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who has been accused of forging an alliance with Gordon Brown for a senior post in a Brown administration, paid tribute to Mr Blair's leadership.

"The Prime Minister has led and continues to lead, and will lead for the future, one of the most successful administrations for the past 60 years," Mr Straw said. "This is a government defined by its leader. The success of this government is above all down to the success of its leader."

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, fuelled the speculation at the weekend by confirming that cabinet ministers were discussing the fact that "tectonic plates are moving'' in British politics.

But close friends of Mr Blair's fiercely loyal deputy said his remarks were a warning to ministers to stop manoeuvring for position. Mr Prescott, whose authority would be decisive if he withdrew his support from Mr Blair, made it clear to friends that he was seeking to protect the Prime Minister and will give him total backing to fight the next election.

One of Mr Prescott's allies said: "John thought Jack Straw, John Reid, Charles Clarke and others were manoeuvring and they should stop it."

The Deputy Prime Minister has also made it clear to colleagues there could be no handover of power without a contest, and that, in the approach to a general election, would damage the party. Another of Mr Prescott's allies said: "Tony is saying he is going to stay on and fight the general election. You would have to have a challenge to remove him in those circumstances ... Everyone knows that is not going to happen."

The fevered search for evidence of a coup took a surreal turn yesterday as the media descended on the car park of the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar in Argyll, where Gordon Brown and Mr Prescott were allegedly spotted in a ministerial Jaguar last weekend. They had been to John Smith's memorial service without Mr Blair and were said to have discussed a peaceful succession of power for Mr Brown and how Mr Prescott could use his influence to avoid a contest. Both camps flatly denied the claims yesterday.

Meanwhile, thousands more British troops are to be sent to Iraq without a fresh Commons vote, Cabinet ministers made it clear yesterday.

Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, led Labour backbench demands at the weekend for a fresh vote in the Commons before the deployment of more troops. He told The Independent: "It has been 12 months since the last vote on Iraq in the Commons. A lot has happened since there. There should be another vote before more troops are sent out to Iraq."

But their demands were rejected by Peter Hain, the Leader of the Commons, who said the Government had taken the unprecedented step of securing a vote for the war on Iraq last year. "I do not think people would want a vote or expect one on a detailed operational matter about troop deployment," he added.

THE CANDIDATES

Gordon Brown, 53 The Chancellor is the favourite and has courted the union and MPs' vote for years. He has pressed Blair to honour the "Granita" deal to stand down. Crown could go to the next generation if Blair delays for long. Odds: (William Hill) 4-7 favourite

Jack Straw, 57

The Foreign Secretary is not likely to run against Brown. He has established a close working relationship with the Chancellor. Could become Deputy PM in a Brown cabinet. Odds: 10-1

Charles Clarke, 53 The Education Secretary is a fighter and is expected to throw his hat in the ring for the Prime Minister's camp.

He would gain some MPs' votes as a "stop Gordon" candidate. Odds: 12-1

John Prescott, 65

The Deputy Prime Minister will not run. He has been a loyal deputy to Blair, but is a close ally of Brown. Will campaign for Brown to be elected and is likely to step down from the deputy leader's post when Blair goes. Odds: 50-1

David Blunkett, 56

The Home Secretary is unlikely to run against Brown. Had private dinner with the Chancellor to reach an understanding after falling out over the Home Office budget. Would expect senior post in a Brown cabinet. No odds

Alan Milburn, 46

The dark horse. Quit his cabinet post as Health Secretary to spend more time with his family, but could be the champion of the younger generation to stop Brown taking the crown unchallenged. No odds

[Invader Zim]

Great lets get rid of Tony and have Gordon brown instead!!!

Joy :rolleyes:

[h&s]

Great lets get rid of Tony and have Gordon brown instead!!!

Somehow I don't think Brown will be much better. Unless he publicly scraps "New" Labour and goes back to grass-roots, he is likely to follow the same Thatcherite crap as our friend Anthony.
We should support the communist party (http://www.cpgb.org.uk). They are in desparate need of funding.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 18 2004, 09:46 AM

Great lets get rid of Tony and have Gordon brown instead!!!

Somehow I don't think Brown will be much better. Unless he publicly scraps "New" Labour and goes back to grass-roots, he is likely to follow the same Thatcherite crap as our friend Anthony.
We should support the communist party (http://www.cpgb.org.uk). They are in desparate need of funding.
LOL, dont do sarcasm then?

I dont really want brown or Blair they are both bastards.

[The Feral Underclass]

The latest from the Independent...

PM wants two more years but ministers say Iraq will be key

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
18 May 2004


Tony Blair intends to lead Labour into the next general election but to stand down one or two years later, close allies said yesterday as they tried to kill speculation that he might quit this year.

Cabinet ministers dismissed the idea that Mr Blair would be forced out by Labour MPs but said privately that the timing of his departure could depend on events in Iraq. Some ministers believe he may rethink his plan to fight the general election if Iraq is still in crisis when Labour's annual conference takes place in October. One minister said: "It is more likely to be determined by what happens on the ground in Iraq than by Labour MPs."

Despite Mr Blair's publicly stated intention to serve a full third term, his private goal is said to be to stand down soon after the referendum on the European Union constitution, expected in early 2006, and to endorse Gordon Brown as his successor.

In the clearest sign yet that Mr Blair would not serve for a whole parliament if he wins a third election victory, one aide said: "He has never wanted to 'go on and on'. He has always known there will come a moment when it's time to go."

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, who has a pivotal role in the Labour succession, wants Mr Blair to lead Labour into the general election, believing that a leadership election before then would harm the party's prospects.

He has told Mr Blair he deeply regrets his comments in an interview with The Times at the weekend in which he unintentionally sparked another flurry of speculation about the Prime Minister's future.

Mr Prescott had intended to fire a warning shot at ministers whom he believes are jockeying for position in a post-Blair government. His intended targets were Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who has forged an alliance with Mr Brown, and two men who may stand against the Chancellor for the leadership - Charles Clarke and John Reid. At the same time, Mr Prescott intended to urge Mr Brown's supporters not to rock the boat before an election by talking up the Chancellor's prospects of taking over before then.

"John is furious with himself," one friend of Mr Prescott said yesterday. "He meant to be helpful, but he is now licking his wounds."

Last night Mr Prescott told Labour MPs at their weekly meeting not to "play the media's game" by talking about the leadership. He complained that his weekend remarks had been misinterpreted but one of those present said: "He read the riot act to the MPs - and to himself."

The Deputy Prime Minister said Mr Blair would continue to lead the party, insisting that Labour had "a damn good record" and should emphasise bread-and-butter issues such as health, education and the economy. "The reality is that Iraq is not being raised on the doorsteps," he said.

Mr Prescott described as "a load of nonsense" newspaper reports that he held a 90-minute discussion about the succession with Mr Brown at the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar in Argyll nine days ago. Earlier he said: "Just for the record, in the five minutes I was there I bought kippers. The rest is press prattle."

Peter Mandelson, the former Cabinet minister and a Blair ally, said that "the best Prime Minister to lead us out of the present difficulties is the one we have." Writing in the London Evening Standard, he said: "He is not someone who is going to lose his nerve or walk away because the pressure is too great. And he is not going to buckle now in the face of frothed-up front pages and wishful editorials."

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord Chancellor, said Mr Blair would remain for the "foreseeable future". Asked if he had discussed the situation with his close friend, Lord Falconer said: "Yes I have and he is determined to stay." Peter Hain, Leader of the Commons, and Mr Clarke, Education Secretary, confirmed similar talks with Mr Blair.

Mr Clarke and David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, dismissed Mr Prescott's weekend description that the [tectonic] "plates" in Cabinet were moving.

Mr Brown spoke warmly of his friendship with Mr Blair at the launch of a report about youth volunteering. A Treasury spokesman said: "The Chancellor and the Prime Minister are in daily contact and they are both clear that we are not going to be diverted by malicious, divisive and baseless gossip."

Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=522398)

[Funky Monk]

I want Prescott to win it.

[James]

Boris!

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Politics/Pix/pictures/2003/10/29/borisjohnson128.jpg

[h&s]

LOL, dont do sarcasm then?


Sorry, its hard to tell if you can't hear someone.

I think that Iraq will be the downfall of Tony just because of the vast numbers of people who hate him for it. I think that the European election will show if Blair goes in for another term or not, but then does that mean we're gonna' get the Tories in again? I just can't see anyone who has ever known a miner voting for Count Howard.
The Lib Dems have got my vote. :angry:

[Danton]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 19 2004, 02:09 PM
but then does that mean we're gonna' get the Tories in again? I just can't see anyone who has ever known a miner voting for Count Howard.
The Lib Dems have got my vote. :angry:
No, because we will attack Labour from the left, not the right.. It is the right wing policies they have employed which the voters are aggravated about..
Why vote at all? Do you think the Liberal democrats seriously offer a viable alternative?

Blair will most likely fight the next election as leader, the jostling and jockying which would accompany any leadership challenge is the last thing Labour needs if they are serious about a third term..

[h&s]

I didn't mean for us to vote Conservative, I meant thats what the general population will do.
Personally I do think we should vote Lib Dem because even though they are crap, they are the furthest left out of the mainstream parties.
Anyway, if we don't vote and the BUF, sorry.. BNP get in, we will be more than just kicking ourselves.

[Kez]

so u choose to split the left vote and make it easier for the BNP?
wheres the logic in that?

Why dont you join the Labour Party and get rid of the wankers inside it when the time comes?

[Roses in the Hospital]

Boris!
I'll second that...

[h&s]

No, I just don't think that anyone can ever consider Labour as a left party. Compromise is a bad thing, so compromising to go as far right as the Lib Dems is bad enough. Ideally I'd vote Communist, but the Lib Dems have much more cance of getting into power

[Kez]

But your opposing a party the working class looks to, and splitting the left vote, making it easier for BNP.

and since when were the liberals left wing?
when was last workers initiative put forward by the liberals?

[h&s]

They are left with a few of their ideas, which is more than can be said for "labour."
Anyway I think the real problem isn't Labour, it is us arguing constantly and splitting up. If the Anarchists, Communists, and all of the Socialists were just to join we would have serious oppostion.
There have been too many times in history when the far-right has won because there is too much in-fighting between us.
At the end of the day we all want roughly the same things, so why don't we join in some sort of Socialist alliance?

[RevoltNOW]

thats true but its kinda ironic the together we stand united we fall was used by bush after 9-11 but thats true

[h&s]

On the subject of Bush after september the 11th, has anyone read his speach. Personally, it is enough to get him impeached; he quotes a psalm and says"god bless us all."
Has he never heard of separation of Church and State?

[blank_frackis]

The Scottish Socialist Party won 5 seats I think, in the scottish parliament so I'll vote for them as it's the closest thing we have to a proper socialist party that has a chance of winning maybe a seat at westminster if I'm optimistic. Allthough I'd begrudgingly consider voting Lib Dem's, I don't get how people can be so stupid though, the only things Labour gets beaten up on in the press is it's overly right-wing policies yet the tories gain popularity because of it and the Lib Dem's are actually losing some of their support. People have no logic.

[h&s]

I just found out about these the other day; vote for the "Respect the Unity Coalition"
It says on their leaflet that they wish to re-nationalise important industries (obviously the trains!), and that they are "dedicated to socialism."
Normally people wouldn't put that in this country unless they meant it.
Also, Georgous George (Galloway) is a member, so for once I actually believe a political party!

[themessiah]

blair is a stupid grinning moron. he has no muscles in his face. it appears to be made out of plastic. I have seen more lively expressions out of my pet fish.

and IT can breathe under water. what has blair done?

[Kez]

i saw the funniest thing the other day.

Looking outside my window, when i some prick was blaring music out, so i look outside this windown, and see a brand new BMW convertable with RESPECT flag and RESPECT stickers on it, and there was a convoy of such cars with flags and megaphone saying vote RESPECT. i nearly pissed myself laughing

Yes, BMW convertible, the typical car of the workers, how would these wankers know know anything about the workers with cars like that?
what a joke.

[corruptwesterner90]

Taking about Irony my mate used to be apposed to Communism but because I have chosen Socialist belives he has copied me.His display picture on MSN was smash Communism,He defaced Che's face and wrote GAY in giant letters next to the hammer and sickle.But now he is all "Communism is brilliant.I am communist" when he doesn't know his Lenin from his Stalin :hammer: :che:.Talking about Lenin they should have a smilie of him.Going back to my mate he may come on here as bullet_in_the_balls.Ignore him

[James]

how would these wankers know know anything about the workers


Do they claim to?

[Kez]

since they (according to themselves of course) say they support socialism, ie for the workers, then yes...

[monkeydust]

As far as I'm concerned any political movement fronted by George Galloway is not even worth considering.

Of course, many laud him as a conscientious opposer of the war, willing to stand up against Blair his cronies.

I wonder if his war views had anything to do with Saddam buying him two estates in Spain?

hmmmm........

Frankly, he's a dick.

[refuse_resist]

Blair doesn't stand a chance.

[fuerzasocialista]

How long is a Prime Minister's term in Great Britain? Also, how long has B-Lair held that position?

[DaCuBaN]

4 year terms with no upper limit

We can have a single prime minister indefinitely - which I agree with in comparison to the stupid term-limit the yanquis have - so long as they continue to get voted in first by their party and then by the ballot.

We've had him for (coming upto) eight years now. This would be to take him up to 12

[h&s]

He's actually allowed upto 5 years between General Elections, but they always serve 4.
Anyway, it is better to vote left with Galloway than right with all of the other parties.

[James]

kamo
They don't claim to be for the workers.

socialism
•n. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

So, socialism doesn't automatically = marxism.

What they say

We stand for:

- An end to the war and occupation in Iraq. We will not join any further imperialist wars.
- An end to all privatisation and the bringing back into democratic public ownership of the railways and other public services.
- An education system that is not dependent on the ability to pay, that is comprehensive and gives an equal chance in life to every child no matter how wealthy or poor their parents, from nursery to university.
- A publicly owned and funded, democratically controlled NHS, free to all users.
- Pensions that are linked to average earnings.
- Raising the minimum wage to the European Union Decency threshold of £7.40 an hour.
- Tax the rich to fund welfare and to close the growing gap between the poor and the wealthy few.
- The repeal of the Tory anti-union laws.
- Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship.
- The right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices.
- The defence of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Opposition to the European Union's 'Fortress Europe' policies.
- We will strongly oppose the anti-European xenophobic right wing in any Euro referendum. But we oppose the 'stability pact' that the European Union seeks to impose on all those who join the euro. This pact would outlaw government deficit spending and reinforce the drive to privatise and deregulate the economy
and we will therefore vote 'No' in any referendum on this issue.
- Support for the people of Palestine and opposition to the apartheid system that oppresses them.
- An end to the destruction of the environment by states and corporations for whom profit is more important than sustaining the natural world on which all life depends.

[Kez]

either that, or they dont advocate socialism, and they are only socialists by name...which is the more likely explaination, or are you now a supporter of the SWP and their RESPECT front?

[Invader Zim]

On reflection I personally would rather see Tony get another term in Office, than Howard, on the condition that he had only a slight majority in parliment. That would make any leftwing opposition considerably more potent. Revolting back benchers would have far more impact on a government with a small majority than, a vast government similar to the one now in place.

Though it would be better if neither of them were in power.

[James]

no no no, not in the slightest.
I don't know what i'll vote in the nationals - alot can change between now and then.

Local - probably go green.
Europeans - probably UKIP or Tory (they are the only ones against a constitution)

[Funky Monk]

What i am worried with is the prospect of the increasing New Labourisation of the back-benchers. It is not unthinkable that Tony will manipulate the constituency candidates in Britain to clear out the old left and bring in more of his cronies.

This would mean that even with a small majority he will still have New Labour behind him.

There are going to be a few rare seats where the old Labour candidate would be able to stand as an independant and perhaps keep his seat but Tony still has the capability to remove most of them.


By the way
Im probably going to vote Labour in the Europeans, its not going to make any difference, my constituency has three Tories but i would at least like to demonstrate my support for some of Labour's plans.

I can't seriously believe that you are thinking of voting UKIP James, have you seen their party political broadcast??!

[James]

no, but as i stated - tories and UKIP are the only ones who have stated they are against the constitution.

You know how i feel about europe.


I'm not sure which will get my vote...

[h&s]

You are ACTUALLY CONSIDERING voting UKIP?
The day that those fascists get my vote, especially with Kilroy in their ranks, will be the day I am dragged kicking and screaming to the voting station.
And the Tories? Surely you hate Thatcher? Do you want this country to go back to that?

[Kez]

and they still called him a socialist in the Commie Club saying he should remain...

Ever heard of popular frontism James? Course you havent Disraeli never wrote about it...

[monkeydust]

I don't see where you're coming from James.

If you don't want the constitution vote Tory, UKIP should not even come into the equation.

As you know, for the UKIP, pulling out of the EU is of prime importance, if you advocate this, then frankly, you're a fool.

I can understand why you wouldn't want a constitution, but pulling out of the EU altogether is frankly, an idiotic notion, from any point of view.

Then again.....the UKIP do want to abolish VAT.

[DaCuBaN]

As you know, for the UKIP, pulling out of the EU is of prime importance, if you advocate this, then frankly, you're a fool

Much as I agree, I feel that it would be an interesting step to take. If the UK pulled out of the EU, Scotland would try to pull out of the UK to join the EU - after all, we had a 90% opposition to the war up here, but 90% of 5 million doesn't equate to 50% of 40 million alas :rolleyes: Not to mention the overwhelming support for Europe north of the border.

With these facts in mind, I was rather pissed off to find they were sending regiments based in Scotland over to Iraq.

Anyway, my point is that the UKIP could be used as some kind of catalyst to throw the political arena into dissaray... Considering a vote for either Labour or Tories is a wasted vote, and Lib Dems are just the centre ground between the two it makes at least some sense to vote this way

Personally, I say vote in your local independant, and help oust party politics. Or stand as an independant, but let's get rid of these absurd parties.

[Hate Is Art]

who are the UKIP? I have never heard of them before?

Please don't vote Tory, it makes me cry!

[DaCuBaN]

United Kingdom Independance Party

Bit like the BNP, but not so heavy on the immigration. Believe strongly in the sovereignty of the UK and wish to see her independance from Europe.

Nothing to write home about, and they don't stand a chance in the electionss

[monkeydust]

Nothing to write home about, and they don't stand a chance in the electionss

To be fair, they do in European elections. As you probably know, the EU parliament is elected by proportional representation, as such, the UKIP have quite a good chance of getting some seats and making gains.

They already have 3 or 4 seats as it is.


who are the UKIP? I have never heard of them before?


Uk Independence party: or, as I like to call them the UK isolation party.

Bunch of foolish old British Nationalists, who fail to realise that Britain is no longer a dominant world power.

They have such supporters as Kilroy and Joan Collins.

They spout nationalist rhetoric about Britain "being controlled by Brussels" which, frankly, is untrue. Especially when used in conjunction with "keep the pound" arguements. The issue of the Euro is a purely economic one, it doesn not involve British sovereignty in the least.


Lib Dems are just the centre ground between the two

Not really, the Lib-Dems are the most pro-European party we have, moreover, they're actually further left than Labour, currently that is.

For example, they want to institute heavier progressive taxation and abolish tuition fees...........which is nice.


but let's get rid of these absurd parties.

Absurd parties rock!

Don't you recall the infamous "party party" from the last general election.

What about the "Literal democrats"?

The "Black haired medium build caucasian male" party was also a laugh.

Personally my vote would have gone for the "Mongolian Barbecue great place to have a party" party.

[DaCuBaN]

Absurd parties rock!


Ah crap, I put myself across wrong. I was labelling the tories, labour and lib dems absurd in favour of independant politics.

I dislike the idea of parties at all. At least those you mentioned are undermining the system - problem is they paid £500 into the system to do it - a bit of a waste in my eyes.

[Funky Monk]

I think the idea of Scotland pulling away from Britian would be welcomed by all. The tuition fee debacle was just stupid.

[Kez]

whats wrong with a party?
or are you refering to bourgeoise parties?

[DaCuBaN]

I intenseley dislike the entire 'United we stand, divided we fall' argument. We're not nationalists here, and hence have no enemies other than those within - we don't directly fear invasion as much as the right. As such the idea of keeping a 'front' or 'face' seems absurd to me. I want the political system in this country to be full of nothing but independant politicians. I feel this way we can make a bad system work.

[Kez]

why would u want a bad system to work when you can have a good system instead?

i dont see how having independent politicians will change the relationships with the means of production in the UK or globally.

[DaCuBaN]

The two are not mutually exclusive


why would u want a bad system to work when you can have a good system instead?

I would much prefer a good system, but I'm realistic, and in the meantime would like to see things better for as many people as possible. Certainly therer are no signs of a proletariat revolt where I'm standing... Hence i feel it's reasonable to advocate reform of the current system. We can do both after all.


dont see how having independent politicians will change the relationships with the means of production

Well take for example Tony Blair. The only reason he even got into power was because he was pushed as a socialist. Had he been a tory outright he'd never have got elected.

The party 'disguised' his true colours.

This is aside from the idea of party whips, who will use anything in their power to get members to keep in line.

If we had no parties, there would be no hiding what people were trying to do in their time in government. Every politician would have to be inspected for what they think, not what the party manifesto says.

After all, We are both socialists, yet we differ on many things.

[James]

You are ACTUALLY CONSIDERING voting UKIP?
The day that those fascists get my vote, especially with Kilroy in their ranks, will be the day I am dragged kicking and screaming to the voting station.
And the Tories? Surely you hate Thatcher? Do you want this country to go back to that?



I was considering - because i only had two options open to me.
Fascists? How are they fascists?

Tories - the EU elections i'm talking about mate... not nationals.


and they still called him a socialist in the Commie Club saying he should remain...

Ever heard of popular frontism James? Course you havent Disraeli never wrote about it...


Kamo, i see you are still struggling to get both of those brain cells working.
Have you even studied europe? And i mean going beyond newyouth.com.

If i'm against political union - i only have two options.

And that is why i wouldn't vote for the UKIP - because they arn't an actual political party yet: the tories would probably be more efficient and effective as my representative.

Who you going to vote for kamo?



Nothing to write home about, and they don't stand a chance in the electionss


Actually thats incorrect.
They pushed the lib dems into 4th mid week (according to a YouGov poll).
Tories are most popular, then labour, then UKIP, then Lib dem, then green - and then "other".

[Kez]

the UKIP are a shade lighter than the BNP, and are clearly an out and out bourgeoise party. If you consider yourself a socialist, then you cannot in anyway support a bourgeoise party.

If you want out of the EU, or a stop to further political intergration (as do i) then vote for a socialist party, ever a large section of the Labour Party are against further political intergration (as im sure you know, as its written in our brilliant A-level text books)

I'll vote for Labour, and at the same time fight against Blairism, allowing the only mass workers party to remain in power, and also getting rid of Blair at the same time.

What are your views on popular fronts? (ie the tactic Stalin used in Spain)

[James]

shade lighter?
Which socialist parties?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:27 PM
the UKIP are a shade lighter than the BNP, and are clearly an out and out bourgeoise party. If you consider yourself a socialist, then you cannot in anyway support a bourgeoise party.
Hense the reason you, a card carrying labour support, are not a socialist.

[Kez]

the Labour party is a Bourgeoise-Workers Party, always has been.

There is no mass workers party, that is why we should operate within the Labour Party, as it is where the workers are, if you cant get this into your thick skull you have a problem and no doubt are a supporter of the many sect organisations.

James you could vote for the Socialist Party, they are against Europe, as are the SLP i believe, as well as the rump parties such as WP etc, and a large faction within the Labour Party.

Even respect and the scummy SWP are probably against Europe.

[James]

hmm...


Labour, and at the same time fight against Blairism, allowing the only mass workers party

2 hours later...


There is no mass workers party


Nice.



James you could vote for the Socialist Party, they are against Europe, as are the SLP i believe, as well as the rump parties such as WP etc, and a large faction within the Labour Party.

Even respect and the scummy SWP are probably against Europe.

erm... Respect are the only ones standing in the north west. And they have even less experiance than UKIP (plus they say on their website they would support it).

So no: tories are the only option.

[Kez]

no mass parties, as in no mass workers parties with socialist leadership. I explain this so often that i forgot to insert most important detail, my mistake, apologies. But you get what i mean tho?

Actually, the SWP claim they are the quote unquote "smallest mass workers party on the left", a bit silly if u ask me.

of course i agree with u, RESPECT are shambolic effort, but "So no: tories are the only option." is no option, as the tories dont stand for the workers interests, their interests are in private Capital and its preservation.

Dou not think there is a contradiction?

[James]

Tories are the only ones who don't want a constitution - thats the issue i'm voting on in this election.

[DaCuBaN]

As a result of course, you are voting in favour of complete privatisation, removal of welfare benefits, tax cuts for the rich along with the miriad of other appalling ideals the tories hold.

Voting on a single issue is possibly the dumbest thing you could ever do. Read the entire manifesto and see if you can even agree with 50% of what they advocate - if no party is in at least this much accord with you, then don't vote at all as you upset the balance and make a party look more popular than they really are.

[James]

How very condescending.
Sadly the tory page is down or something (or its just my computer), thus the closest thing we have is the guardian's summary (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/elections/story/0%2C13008%2C1206268%2C00.html);



Sunset clauses
All new EU regulations to have so-called "sunset clauses", which would expire after a set period of time. To renew legislation, therefore, the burden would be to prove it was necessary and successful. The Tories also want to scrap 25% of existing EU regulations.

Legislation
The EU commission would lose its monopoly right of initiative on legislation and share it with member states. The European parliament would have a right of appeal over all legislation.

Red card procedure
Nicknamed "Five cards and you're out", a new plan to block or veto any new legislation that five or more of the 25 national parliaments object to.

Strasbourg
An end to the parliament's second home in France, which the party says would save £120m a year.

Referendums
In addition to the (granted) referendum on the forthcoming constitution, the party pledges to hold referendums on any future treaty which impinges on British statehood.

Respresentation
Mr Howard suggests that a senior British minister should head up the UK's representation in Brussels and report back to the Commons and Lords on a fortnightly basis.

Fisheries
The Conservatives would renegotiate to restore sovereignty to the UK over British fisheries.

The Euro
The party maintains its strong opposition to the currency - although all 10 accession states will shortly be exchanging their current currencies for the euro.

Fraud
An independent anti-fraud unit, and a new EU commissioner specifically charged with budgetary control, to improve transparency, would be introduced.

The Tories warn that "until confidence in the EU accounting system is restored by effective reform, Conservative MEPs will refuse to sign off the commission's accounts - and so will a future Conservative government".

Transport
EU efforts to impose congestion charges and tolls on major roads in Europe would be rejected.

Food
Clear labelling of food origins, although only a "cautionary" approach on GM crops, with a "necessary legal framework to protect biodiversity and clarify liability for contamination".

CAP
£600m subsidy to tobacco growers would be scrapped.

Immigration
The party would reject measures to harmonise immigration, asylum and border controls.

Defence
Defence and foreign policy to remain under national control, opposition to an EU defence force, more effective action against Zimbabwe and Burma.

I fail to see how this equates "complete privatisation, removal of welfare benefits, tax cuts for the rich along with the miriad of other appalling ideals the tories hold.".

Who are you voting for?

[Kez]

so you support a party which wishes to increase its imperialist stranglehold in Zimbabwe and Burma?

nice one

[James]

a party which wishes to increase its imperialist stranglehold in Zimbabwe and Burma

Pardon?

[DaCuBaN]

I fail to see how this equates "complete privatisation, removal of welfare benefits, tax cuts for the rich along with the miriad of other appalling ideals the tories hold.".

Who are you voting for?

I fail to see the relevance of the points there to my original post. After all, was my assertion that you are 'picking and choosing' the ideals that you like, whilst simply ignoring the others.

Personally, I'm unsure as to who to vote for. I'll probably end up not voting at all :(

There is no party that fulfils my 'minimum 50% agreement' clause

[Kez]

The ****servative party want:
"Defence and foreign policy to remain under national control, opposition to an EU defence force, more effective action against Zimbabwe and Burma."

And you want to vote for them, hence you'll be supporting "a party which wishes to increase its imperialist stranglehold in Zimbabwe and Burma"

[James]

Well i think thats a little over the top kamo - but yes: i think the UK should flex "more effective action against Zimbabwe and Burma". Don't you?

[Kez]

nope.

I think that the future of Zimbabwe and Burma lies with its own people, not an imperialist force such as Britain.

[James]

nope.

I think that the future of Zimbabwe and Burma lies with its own people, not an imperialist force such as Britain.


I think everyone thinks that.

Here we have a clash of ideology though - personally i think we should help others - even if it means some individuals call it "imperialism".

I thought you would have been for intervening (which doesn't automatically mean occupation) to help the zimbabwe and burmese working people overthrow their fascist regimes.

[DaCuBaN]

Third party liberation seldom works out as intended.... We may go into this situation with all the best of intentions, but rest assured it would end up in tatters.

Have we had a request for support from the populous of this country to start a socialist revolt? Until that day, I'm afraid I cannot advocate intervension abroad, other than diplomacy.

Not even economic intervension.

[Kez]

Sure im for intervention, as a communist.

If i thought i would be effective in going down there and spreading literature, having discussions, building an organisation up, sure.

But Imperialism, as in the intervention of a capitalist nation in another states affairs for her own interests, fuck no.

I cant see a capitalist nation fighting a war if it doesnt mean its in its own interests
why did nobody try stopping the hutus and tutsis but there is uproar at Mugabe taking land off the landowners

[James]

With these two countries i'm strongly for 'intervention' based on human rights issues.

[Kez]

by whom? and in whose interests?

by the way, by the capitalists for the workers interests is not a possible answer...

[James]

well i did suspect that you were a little ignorant of current affairs... But not this ignorant!

these people are called amnesty international (http://www.amnesty.org/)
Type zimbabwe into the search box.
and you get lots (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAFR460112003)and lots (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/February2002/Zimbabwe)
of examples

There are also other sites (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=zimbab)



+ + +

Actually no i confess, kamo found me out. Really i'm a fat cat who wants to invade zimbabwe so that we can economically exploit them

*rolls eyes*

[Kez]

Saddam was doing the same to his own people, of course the USA and Britain were invading on humanitarian grounds...

*rolls eyes*

Amnesty International has also made reports on the US police system and execution process, i dont see Blair attacking the USA funnily enough

[h&s]

James, why don't you stick to your opposing ideologies section?
Do you really think anyone here can take someone seriously who wants us to vote for the party that ruined this country?

[James]

Well, "hammer and sickle forever":

Firstly; i noticed that you didn't answer my question that was in response to your earlier comments directed at me
i.e. "How are they [UKIP] fascists?"
Any chance of an answer?

Secondly; Oh you looked so communistic when you said "James, why don't you stick to your opposing ideologies section?". Really big and clever. Well done! I thought i'd do the political compass for you, i imagine its easy[ish] for you to understand. Today i'm Economic -6.50, Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.03. So actually i'm still a leftist. In fact i'm only 1 point behind you! Note i don't "show off" with it though in my sig.

Thirdly; I don't care really if you can and can not take me "seriously". If it helps i don't take you seriously. You seem a little stupid.

Fourthly; I don't "want" you to vote for anyone; i don't know where you got that idea from.

Fithly; "the party that ruined this country?" - lol, unlike the labour party of course. No doubt you think that whilst labour were in power our economy was strong etc etc. As i said previoulsy "EU elections i'm talking about mate... not nationals.".

[h&s]

Ok man, calm down.
I thought you were one of these rightist people who come in and just argue with everything.
But come on, the UKIP and the Tory party?
Even if it is only for the european elections i still would never do it.
Aren't the greens against europe?

I am not "showing off" my political compass, I just put it there 'cos it says something about me.

I stand by what I said about the Tories. Thatcher ruined this country, but I'm not saying the "Labour" party are good either.

[Kez]

The Labour Party beat the Tory PArty everytime hands down.

If you fail to see this, it is your problem

[Funky Monk]

I think what James is trying to get across is that he is an opportunist. He cares little for historical influence and would prefer to place his vote according to what would he sees would benefit him at any given moment.

[Kez]

bure surely as socialists we work for the general benefit of society as a whole...

[James]

which does not always mean voting blindly for the labour party (i.e. not always adding one's personal support to the labour party, thus not always doing one's bit to strengthen the labour party rulling elite - i.e. New Labour)

The EU hurts our workers in many ways (and also helps them in many ways) - e.g. CAP + fishing policies. In a club where every member is looking after number 1 (that is, one's home state); it makes sense to have representatives who are going to play that game, the best. You can only loose out in the EU if you don't protect your home country's interests first. I think the tories can do this the best.
...and of course i'm not for political union - thus rulling out labour, and to a greater extent: the lib dems.

[Kez]

i dont give a shit about the British capitalist class, the only people i care for is the working class, and for the British working class this will NEVER be translated in European terms by the tory scum

However, Labour MEP's are often sponsored by Trade Unions, so with whom can the worker exert more influence in, a sponsored Labour MP, or a Tory **** hair who only cares for the British Capitalist Class?

[James]

which ones on the north west list are you actually refering to?

[Kez]

generally is the case, nationally

[James]

:unsure:

i guess that means you don't know

[Kez]

means find out yourself u lazy fuck

[Funky Monk]

Got the list yesterday of parties for the Europeans, bit scared of most of the parties

BNP
English Democrats
UKIP
Liberals
Lib Dems
Tory
Labour
Green
Respect
And some independant guy.



Have to admit the general consensus is anti-Europe.

[Kez]

i got a pro-life group too, fucks that about??

good thing about having so many far right groups is that they will split their own vote ie conservatives, english democrats, UKIP and BNP are all gonna fight for set amount of votes.

The curse of the left may have finally hit the right again :)

[gaf]

he(blair) is only a fuckin pupet who use a (COPYRIGHT?) name to go carreer. only question who is the master???...
everybody forgot what socialists revolutionary people were?,well he doesn't give a fuck......$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[h&s]

Who are the English Democrats? They aren't in my area
They're not another bunch of white nationalists are they?
There's only one actual proper left-wing party!

[James]

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/
They say "NOT RIGHT, NOT LEFT, JUST ENGLISH"

On europe:
"favours European co-operation and trade but not a European political entity which undermines the independence, sovereignty..."

They are against the regional assemblies, and want an English parliament. They do have some valid points. If some of these points were addressed i think the BNP's support would drop away. For example, Blair gave scots a parliament stating that they are "a proud and historic nation". When questioned on an english parliament they apparently replied "there is no such nationality as English". Whether they said this or not doesn't really matter, because it does seem the general consensus in government, refering to scots, welsh - and brits. Never english though...
I think this does annoy alot of english people.

Personally though i'm against an english parliament. All they need to do is make sure only english MPs vote on English matters (if this was the case the government would have failed over tuition fee's).


So no, they are not a bunch of white nationalists. I'd say they are more middle englanders. What kamo would call very nasty names...

Which (leftwing) party are you refering to?

[James]

kamo,
It (pro-life group) could well be standing in your local election (if you are having one too that is)

[Kez]

I'd call them petit bourgeoise nationalists.

My comment on the pro-life group was meant as a jibe against the group, i dont see how their ideology of no to abortion is gonna help clean my fuckin street or fix the street lamp or indeed funnd my school

[Funky Monk]

I think a lot of single issue groups see European Elections as their best chance of election, especially with a multiple vote system. Although i agree that they are more feasable as pressure groups.

[James]

kamo, when you said
"i got a pro-life group too, fucks that about??"
I thought you meant, in addition to Monks list. Which of course was the european list.

(EDIT: actually i've just looked at my list and realised that you are right! "Prolife" are standing in the europeans!)


+ + +

Its an effective tactic (when used in addition to more traditional PG tactics): for example all that free media coverage.

[h&s]

I was referring to Respect (I know a lot of people here don't like them, but I think they are the only people who stand up for what I believe in).

James, you may like some of what they say;

We reject the EU constitution currently being negotiated by the leaders of the EU...
....We call for a referendum in Britain before this constitution is accepted. Let the people decide!

...We will campaign for a different Europe, a Europe based on need not profit. A Europe which is a clear alternative to global capital, which opposes militarism and war, which is open to the needs of the countries of the South, which defends human rights and human dignity.A Europe of solidarity and hope.




Are you completely against Europe being united, or just the EU in its current form?

[James]

The vast majority of europeans want a united europe. I fall into this group of people. I hope that this is very clear.

I dislike alot of aspects of the EU though. Fundamentally; i don't want a federal europe - and that is what the constitution is leading to (utter political union).

I think it should be an option for states to "opt out" of aspects of the EU. Whats wrong with that? It seems to me, to be even more of an important ability when one considers EU expansion. Its not just the sheer number of states and people now in the EU - but rather; the sheer range of issues/opinions/views/values.

This links to my concerns regarding EU democracy. Who here actually thinks the EU is democratic "enough"? Of course there are strong elements of democracy, but i think the british parliament is more democratic in that those making the decisions are more accountable. Obviously though, the british system has its own faults. My point though is that when one considers how undemocratic britain is - it rams home by contrast how undemocratic the EU actually is.

This election really isn't an issue of "you are EITHER in or out" - thats absurd. Its only peddled about by the parties who are either for complete integration, or complete independence.

Respect: well i personally don't consider them vote worthy. Sorry if that hurts alot of people - but its the same reason i wouldn't vote for other "new parties" which form following single issues (which in respect's case is the Iraq war - which has further implications because [1] i dislike significant aspects of the anti war movement, and [2] i disagree with the anti war movements policies - i.e. full withdrawal straight away etc etc). Also i really dislike george galloway; and i don't really trust the ideology of someone i know who is high up in the organisation. It smacks of SWP to me.

[h&s]

Yeah, I understand what you are saying about Respect.
If you look at the Green's Website (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/europe.html) I think a lot of what you say is similar to their policy.

[James]

i can't actually access their manifesto. It is very annoying.