Friday, September 15, 2006

Who cares who leads Labour!

The British media is feeding on a frenzy of leadership speculation. New names for deputy leader of the Labour party emerge by the day, calls for Tony Blair to resign as leader before his personal milestone of having been prime minister for 10 years flood in from various quarters. Can he ride the waves or is he clutching at straws? Will Gordon Brown succeed him without much contest or will there be no coronation? Will the leadership row damage the Labour party's electoral chances or is anyone better than the lame duck prime minister? Questions after questions, yet nobody is asking the most important of them all: Does it really matter?

Of course, we are tired of listening to Blair's meaningless business management jargon being delivered with deliberate punctuation pauses after every two or three words to pretend that his brain was engaged in fresh thinking and the occasional high-pitch to mime real enthusiasm, so anyone would be better than him. Yet, it would only be a change in style, not substance. Gordon Brown's platitudes sound just as hollow, and John Prescott who either refuses to or is incapable of using consultancy speak is not going to be let loose on the public as he might damage the smug image of New Labour. But even if Prescott headed the party and the government, he wouldn't write its policies.

For that matter it wouldn't make a jot of difference either if Cameron or Campbell were elected. Successive alternating Tory and Labour government have hardly ever cancelled out each other's unpopular tax policies, for example, or ever opposed the main establishment view in anything but trifle issues. They are the puppets, they do not pull the strings. They use the same financial consultants to write their corporation-friendly economic policies to appease banks and financial institutions. They equally support the war-mongering and are similarly supine in the face of American dictate. They didn't become leading politicians by showing morals, values, convictions and backbone. They sold their principles to further their careers. We haven't had a Liberal government yet, but if ever they became electable in the eyes of the media they too would be non-distinguishable from the other two parties in this respect.

Maybe here lies the clue why the media are so obsessed with discussing leadership: it is a convenient way of avoiding a debate about policy. Only a minority of the British adult population bother to vote, for they know too well that they are not given a real choice. Focusing on personalities, as if they were the driving force behind the country's direction, is a convenient spectacle to fool the public and distract them from realising the real affects continuous government usurpation of power has on their lives and those of their children. We'd be better off watching neighbours, at least the soap opera's programmers do attempt to tackle relevant topics.

Britain liked to describe Westminster as the mother of parliaments, but she can hardly assume the title of mother of democracy. British democracy has become barren and her people haven't got a say. The groundswell of opposition to the Iraq war could safely be ignored by government and opposition parties alike, because they were never really answerable to their constituents. Compulsory voting would not make much of a difference, but there is something which could double the turnout at the polling booths without needing much persuasion: give us citizen-introduced referendums with binding outcomes. Over night politicians would have to listen to the will of the people, and nobody would want to miss the opportunity to tell them what to do.

4 Comments:

At 15 September 2006 at 20:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perfect analysis......

 
At 18 September 2006 at 15:21, Anonymous Nina said...

Utter Hogwash!


Of course the Holy Father holds the belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the proper belief! He is the POPE! I wouldn't expect anything less from him. Just as your imams and mullahs believe that your faith is the "right" one.

As for the Emperor Manuel...he did promote the crusades as he asked for help in defending Constantinople from those who had savagly sacked her and stolen her fdrom the Orthodox. His thoughts and comments to the Persian with whom he was discussing the differences between islam and Christianity reflect his direct experiences with the faith of muhammed.

What is truly dangerous is the complete irrational reaction to the lecture by the Pontiff. The death threats, murders and firebombings of churches only prove the point that Emperor Manuel II Paleologos was making in his conversation with the educated Persian!!

The Crusdaes happened long ago yet the islamic world is still fighting them. The islamic world is the one who wishes to IMPOSE its beliefs on the rest of the planet! Even if there are so-called moderates out there they do not do enough to denounce the violent diatribes spewed by evil - YES, EVIL - imams and clerics who command their follwers to murder "infidels" and westerners in the name of their prophet muhammed and his god (illah), allah.

As for the "war on terror". It IS a just was against those who only seek death and submission from the world as a whole. It is a war against the islamic "crusade" against the world. Show me what today's islam has brought new to the world and I will show you only things evil and inhuman. Such as "suicide" bombers, murderers of innocent children (Beslan), murderers of innocent people (9/11, Madrid, 7/7, Bali, etc., etc....), and abusers of children (palestinians), and women (by Taliban and the islamic republic leaders in iran)...Yes the Emperor Manuel II's worlds are fitting indeed in describing the islamic world today!!

Shame, shame, shame...to call on the POPE to retract and apologize for speaking the truth. May God help you!

 
At 24 September 2006 at 14:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nina,
Wake up from your propaganda induced slumber!

 
At 27 September 2006 at 15:13, Anonymous LONDONER said...

WHO CARES INDEED

I quote from the Film the Good the Bad and the Ugly :
"One Bastard goes out and another one one comes in"

Lets face it all they are doing is re shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home