The Gordon Brown problem

Ruthlessly engineered on top of a mountain of lies so Blair, supported by his 'cabal of ministers', could superglue himself onto the barbarous plans of the US neocons, the war in Iraq is an ongoing bloody catastrophe which should never have happened.

Growing critique over 9/11 means grave questions must be asked about Afghanistan too, while today, the carnage in Lebanon, speculated to be laying the groundwork for a forthcoming attack on Iran and rubber-stamped by Blair who now rewards himself with a holiday in Cliff Richard's villa, has appalled the world.

At home the situation is a dire miserable reflection of, and artifical justification for, the UK's Bush-friendly degenerate foreign policy. Society is being viciously liquidated into a fetid mush under a self-declared pronunciamento of 'global values' by a sub-Nixon-rated Prime Minister. Senior judges, lawyers and other professionals regularly protest the rule of law being melted down in a political furnace of half-baked social tyranny, which for New Labour can be explained by their 'sinister Leninist political DNA' as described by former Telegraph editor and Margaret Thatcher biographer, Charles Moore.

Consequently, after Labour's disastrous 2006 council election results, Labour MPs quickly circulated a letter appropriately demanding Blair's departure but it was initiated by a former Brown aide, and calamitously, called for the dreaded 'orderly transition of power'; aka the cultish mantra of the moronic, which now represents a new self-inflicted albatross for Labour, being as it is, code for replacing one problem with another even more perverse.

In the Observer on Sunday, as if already installed, or ascended like Kim Jong Il as leader, Gordon Brown proclaimed his plans not to scrap the horrendous human ID slave grid system as had previously been mendaciously and repeatedly nudged into the press that he would, something frequently referred to by MPs, where it was a common talking point, but to actually extend it into even more of a humanity-stripping abomination.

One might think this no real surprise after Brown's outrageous gut-wrenching speech pre the ID cards vote earlier this year, effectively sponsored by the biometrics industry, which Blair purportedly was unable to attend.

But based on the stories widely circulated and never directly contradicted by Brown, there remained a good possibility that this was a favour to an absent Blair, and that Brown would nonetheless still deep-six the 5-times rejected monstrosity when coronated, especially as every other party will correctly be fighting the next election on abolishing it.

Another signal to this effect was in May, when a hungry-for-power Brown, cashing in on Labour's rightly terrible local election results, jumped at every TV opportunity to promote himself as their saviour, including a softball (bordering on liquidball) interview with the BBC's Andrew Marr, where he seemed to implicitly criticise the dire status quo by talking about 'security without an assault on civil liberties'.

Of course, this had to be more stupid nonsense spewed from Brown as every Orwellian police state diktat gratuitously and fanatically spawned by the tinpot regime and foisted onto a society drowning in them, including 28 day internment and the ludicrous 'glorification of terror' has Brown's sweaty paws all over them, which, if he becomes leader, he fully intends to wield alongside his gruesome state programme of flag-waving to support New Labour's wars, panopticon and plebification strategies.

But there is something of a pattern here. In an article for the Guardian last year, former Conservative leader Ian Duncan Smith surmised that:

"Brown and Blair are not honest alternatives. Their personal relations may have been difficult, but for eight years they have cohabited in every major decision. The anti-war left is encouraged to vote for Brown as if he had nothing to do with the overthrow of Saddam. He may have absented himself from the pre-war PR campaign, but as chancellor he found the money to pay for Britain's contribution"

On Iraq, Gordon Brown himself had this to say:

"This was the most difficult decision a Cabinet can make but the decision was made in an honest, principled and clear way with the evidence before them," said Mr Brown, who has been campaigning alongside Mr Blair. When asked if he would have done exactly the same, he said simply: "Yes". "I not only trust Tony Blair but I respect Tony Blair for the way he went about that decision"

And when you think about, it is often reported that "Brown makes 'phone calls to trusted editors saying he's in favour of New Labour reforms", while in April Brown, who is already the longest serving chancellor for 177 years while he waits to cash in his Granita deal, presumptuously proclaimed his intention to "stay in power until he is 70 [and] has insisted he is planning for the next 15 years, including two election victories.", which translates to a quarter of a century of misery under Brown.

Brown's image has been one of a rancorous political prostitute, obsessed with keeping quiet on monstrous policies so as not to upset the delicate apple-cart which promises the power he believes is owed him from the infamous Blair-Brown pact hatched in 1994. Obviously this private arrangement itself should be cause for considerable concern as Brown now reaches for power.

As a result of the deal, Brown has been dangled as a dull somber bauble to the left; it's reward for years of Blair, that along the way might even be tempering the more radical ideologies of his pact-partner. But this analysis, which I myself have been misled by, is just plain wrong, and while Brown has tolerated, even cultivated, a stuffy boring depiction based on his long, waffling dreary speeches, it belies the vain, ambitious and grotesque ideologue that he now increasingly has trouble keeping under wraps.

Brown has demonstrated that, far from being at odds with Blair on all the major choices that are causing carnage across the world and devastating the United Kingdom he has actually been either participating in them, or in full support of them, while simultaneously, and disingenuously, trying to distance himself from them at times of his choosing, so the flak may be absorbed by Blair.

Indeed, as Brown represents not so much a smooth transition, but a smooth escalation of every horrendous crippling policy seen under Blair and the monumental problems they are inflicting, it is all the more alarming that quite a number of Labour MPs furious at the shattering devastation Blair continues to piss all over them, stupidly dangerously believe their fortunes, and those of the country rest with Brown shoehorned into position so that he may pick up where his Granita co-conspirator left off.

Clearly, this is a scandal. As Blair's continued rotting reign is fittingly a terrible indictment of the Labour party and indelible stain on them, the crushing prospect of an indistinguishably malignant Brown, coronated to power under a blind cultish following agitated by his own allies and former aides, so he can preside over wars he thoroughly supports, even initiating new ones while declaring people wave flags as they get their retina scanned is simply obscene and must be met with zero-tolerance.

Gordon Brown Tony Blair New Labour Labour party