OK, this has gone wildly and pointlessly OT but just for fun and to address your points.
If you read your history correctly as you seem to know so much perhaps you would enlighten us as to why the labour party became new labour
- Anyone who really knew much about British electoral history and Labour's own history from 1974 - 1984 and then later between 1985 - 1997 knows
how come the Labour party elected Tony Blair and subsequently endorsed the 'New Labour' agenda......and continues to vote for and
There's no mystery and no great occultist conspiracy.
The original party was for the people and the current format is for new labour.
- Well matey you can conjure whatever mumbo-jumbo you like to avoid the facts and the truth of the actual history and events.
The Labour part was invented to attain power and exercise that power, when in power, in the interests of the majority of British people, which it
still does to this day.
'Old Labour' became 'Old Labour' for the very good reason that they couldn't win sufficient electoral support to win a general election and gain
power with out-dated, out-of-touch and dogmatic principles.
4 times running the Labour party had lost general elections and they were out of power for almost 20yrs.
That would be bad enough but they couldn't even win when the country was suffering as it was under such ghastly policies as those pursued by the tory
party back then.
Eventually the party wised up and elected people who could win and endorsed a platform that would win.
No mystery and no conspiracy.
There's the bald truth no matter what day-dreams about 'ideological purity' you might prefer to clutch at.
Politics is being eroded in the U.k because if the 67% of people who did not vote were to have a say then we would have democracy and not
demoncracy which is currently in power.
- OK, let's see you back this up.
Which recent British general election saw Labour elected on a turnout of 33%
I shall not be holding my breath for an answer on this one.
(I think you're getting rather - or perhaps deliberately? - confused over the overall Labour proportion of the total vote which was split several
ways......here's the facts of the matter and the truth;
the British general election has never had a turnout of under 50% post-war
you might care to admit it.
Blair and his friends have destroyed what the original party stood for
- You obviously know little or perhaps prefer to know nothing about the internal structures of the Labour party or how policy is voted upon by the
Labour party democracy saw Tony Blair elected by the mass-membership under a 'one man one vote' election (they did this long before the tory party
and were the first of 'the big two' to embrace such a democratic mechanism).
Labour party democracy also saw the mass-membership vote for and endorse the New labour platform (as they continue to do).
.....you'll get nowhere arguing that sort of ridiculous fantasy with me;
I was then a member of the Labour party and I personally voted for TB & New Labour policies.
Blair and his friends have destroyed what the original party stood for and all the good things that they put in place before, the nhs, national
security, national insurance and even NATIONAL identity in their lust for power.
- This is simply not true.
Have you been to a (new) hospital or (new) school lately?
OK, feel free to let us know what terrible new threats we are now exposed to - thanks to Labour and Blair - that so threaten the whole realm then,
......and "National identity"?!
Feel free to give examples - if you dare.
hence "TEFLON TONY".
- Actually the term "Teflon Tony" (no need to shout btw) came about because fools in the British right-wing press could never settle on a
consistent plausible line of attack.....and everybody knew it and so took little notice of them.
It is, for instance, one of the reasons why people like the Daily Mail & Telegraph are laughed at so much in so much of British society today.
Glaringly obvious and faintly absurd inconsistency.
Much like your own commentary on Blair/Labour at the moment.
One minute it's scary and alarmist tales of how Blair's a raving and dangerous Marxist leading a gang of Trots and the next they're sneering that
he's just 'Tory Blair', a pawn of the ruling class and business who has wrecked the good ol' Labour party (like they were ever it's 'friends'
) making it no different that the tory party.
If you're going to comment or use these kinds of lines then at least please try and be accurate, eh?
33% swallow it and say these overpaid middlemen on state benefits are the next Gods.
- You'll, of course, be able to back that up, hmmmm?
The return of the '33% general election turnout fantasy' (or are you just confusing Labour's share of a vote split several ways?) and people
claiming they're "Gods" (where the hell do you get that from?)
The book concerned is or was available in public libraries up until about five years ago and is called if remembered correctly "A HISTORY OF
THE OCCULT" In hardback.
- Why don't you just 'grow a pair' and own up to it and admit that you are talking about an obscure early 20th century writer and a book
published way back in 1933, hmmmm?
Please try and have a little courage and do us all the courtesy of posting a link about her and the book so that other folks here can see exactly who
you are talking about, huh?
(or shall I?
MARXISM, BLAIRISM,they are all just the same dogma in a different suit
The 'Blair's a Marxist' line......well of course.
When does he reveal himself as the anti-Christ?
.....and don't you think he'd better hurry up constructing that 'workers paradise' then seeing as he's stepping down within no more than the next
9mths or so, wouldn't you say?
personally I have had seven operations cancelled and had a heart attack and given drugs which made it worse.
- It's all the Gov's fault...... and probably Tony Blair's personally.
I'd complain if I were you. That sounds terrible.
However your case doesn't sound anything remotely like either my own experience with the NHS nor that of any
of my family and friends.
Whatever flaws remain in the NHS, right now, it is totally incontestable that it is immeasurably better than it used to be pre-1997
(so incontestable that even the tory party have given up on that line of attack and now concentrate on such, handy for them, limp and unquantifiable
nonsense as 'there's been a lot of wasted spending').
You must have some luck, very bad luck.
Thatchers problem was that she did not read Milton friedmans,"Tyrrany of the status quo" properly like Reagan did.
- Er, Thatcher eventually ditched Friedman's gobbledygook after her disastrous and prolonged 'experiment' with it ushered in the deepest and most
prolonged recession the UK had seen post-war......a recession which only ended when she eventually did jettison all that garbage (finally and publicly
ditched with Lawson's Mansion House speech in 1985).
All that hurt and damage (to the British people) thanks to the grossly and wickedly over-valued £ and long-term sky high interest rates through
following Friedman's loopy money-supply dogma.
Major engineered his own crazy high interest rate over-valued £ recession (btw that one was the 2nd most deep and prolonged recession in the UK
It's thanks to both
Thatcher & Major's recessions why 'we', the British people, ditched the tory party and have no appetite for seeing that
brand of politics back anytime soon.
It does not matter to me how Blair is debunked,as long as he is and I belong to a group working toward this end.
- Rock on, good for you.
You might have noticed that Blair is stepping down of his own accord probably in the late spring early summer of 2007.
You and your little gang better hurry up about it if you're to bring about his "end".
BTW I'm think 'Jimmy' (Reggie Perrin's wife Elizabeth's brother in the rise & fall of Reginald Perrin) and his little gang.......am I close?
How is your (traitorous) little 'revolution' coming along then?
Next you'll be trying to tell people the British 'honours' system has been "dishonoured"!
[edit on 13-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]