Meltdown
Tony Blair described the Israel/Lebanon conflict as a 'tragic crisis', so why indeed has Blair's position been at odds with the immediate crisis? Blair's position while hundreds are being killed is that he is calling for a lasting ceasefire, when a long-term solution isn't what is immediately required to address the immediate crisis.
Of course, this is hardly rocket science, Blair's rationale is like saying "we'll send food to the starving only when people understand the dangers of over-eating", and naturally Blair has effectively greenlighted weeks of ongoing carnage while proclaiming a search for an inappropriate solution.
But as I've said recently, there's nothing unusual about this at all. It is fully consistent across the board with the kind of upside-down, twisted anti-morality that Blair and New Labour have become known for.
As Labour's time in office has dragged on, policies have become more radical, depraved and seperated from reality. Blair, with the approval of Brown, knowingly led Britain into a disastrous conflict in Iraq on utterly false and misleading intelligence molded around the shape of a policy already decided on, and long coveted, by neoconservatives in the US. Iraq is a now an ongoing bloodbath and officials in the US and UK both agree on the road to full-scale civil war and ethnic balkanization.
From internment, to local goverment stealing homes that are thought to be unoccupied, to a radical human ID slave grid that will rewrite society and reconfigure people's very existence as never before seen in human history, things have continued to get worse and worse.
Attacks on the rule of law in the UK have been so great that last year, it prompted a "powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians to warn that "the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany" 1
But this is now commonplace, with warnings often coming from the judicary and other experts and professionals that things are not well and this path needs to stop.
In the Guardian last week Neil Lawson, argued that Blair is a kind of enforcer for Neo-liberalism (aggressive forced markets, privatisation, IMF, worldbank, globalisation etc that tends to favour the Western powers, broadly something Thatcher was associated with), and there's certainly a truth there.
However it's worth remembering that for Blair, a backdrop of neo-liberalism has been accompanied by an endless fountain of radical 'reforms', swathes of legislation and regulation including on finance, unprecedented attacks on the liberty of the individual and the rule of law, on historic constitutional law and expectations, a vast infliction of social engineering through technology and legislation and an active pursuit of, and participation in, a disastrous series of fraudulently engineered international conflicts ultimately contributed to by large and ongoing increases in taxation (by stealth, to give a hazy impression to the middle classes that taxation isn't going up). The premise offered by Blair of course to many of these policies is that they are not national, but 'global issues' and 'global values'.
A US/UK neo-liberal backdrop alone, cannot alone explain a great many of these policies. Blair has declared a (his) political/social will on top of out-of-control forced globalisation, indeed where he sees no seperation between the two and declared that mix the theme of the age that nothing must be allowed to challenge. But we must not forget these are all choices.
And the manifestion and effects of these choices are also interesting. For instance, we hear a great deal about immigration, which as Robert Rawthorn writing in the Telegraph reported is being deployed on an unprecedented scale, and yet which "all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative".
One statistic we don't hear a lot about is emigration, where the BBC reported that record numbers of people are leaving the UK, and for those who want to leave in the near future, 12% say 'They didn't like what the UK had become". You can hardly blame them.
Meanwhile Blair himself, always seems to be struggling with his arguments, as if he is in constant battle with some hidden invisible enemy that is resisting his will, which is curious as his entire programme has often been allowed to go effectively unchallenged by his own party (or other parties).
Perhaps one reason this has been so is because something of a personality cult surrounding Blair and you may recall Tessa Jowell famously saying she would "jump under a bus for the Tony Blair" 2 If that is not a personality cult then I don't know what is.
But that is not the full story as we know. Last week in the Guardian, Michael Meacher said:
"When Tony Blair abruptly overturns his own 2003 energy white paper and announces that Britain will go nuclear "with a vengeance", even before the energy review he himself set up has reported, is policy-making now a matter of personal diktat? [...]
Power is now more centralised in Britain than at any time since the second world war. Within Whitehall power has been sucked upwards to No 10, and at the same time it has drained away from the cabinet, the parliamentary Labour party and the national executive and funnelled towards more presidential rule from the centre [...] The division of powers, on which the unwritten constitution of Britain has depended for centuries, is being eroded. The checks and balances have all but collapsed."
Others have said the same, "..in Tony Blair's government...decision-making is centered around him and Gordon Brown, and the Cabinet is no longer used for decision making. Former ministers such as Clare Short and Chris Smith have criticised the total lack of decision-making in Cabinet. On her resignation, Short denounced "the centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers". The Butler Review of 2004 condemned Blair's style of "sofa government" 3
This seems to indicate that there is an intensity of policy that can't be deployed otherwise, that a backdrop of neo-liberalism alone is insufficent to cultivate. Policies, the like of which as Labour's John McDonnel observed, are "handed on down from on high that bear no relation [...] to the real world".
And if they bear no relation to the real world then it suggests they have no place in the real world.
Consequently, Blair's appropriately dreadful approval ratings 4 speak of a serious problem: A fundemental psychosis in Blair's (and Brown's) behaviour about what people are prepared to tolerate and how much war, degredation, state interference, dehumanization and misery, along with a declared urgent geo-political/social fiction to deploy them will be put up with. The public, and the good people of Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel as well as British soldiers snatched of their lives and limbs have all been victims of a grand utopian hallucination of 'global values' only Blair can see, and which is routienly killing, maiming and enslaving everyone else.
On domestic issues, there is a deliberate miscalculation that the UK is a radical country, and that Blair has been bestowed to deploy vicious radical policies, despite the fact as concluded from the last general election 5 he simply has no mandate to perform them.
Furthermore we don't have elections in the UK to nominate a dictator to be grandstanding about 'global values', but about the political future of the country itself, reflecting the long established national values. And sadly, the values of the UK, dramatically mishapen by the government are now considerably different than they were in 1997, a point reflected in the BBC poll on emigration.
Similarly, there is a miscalculation that a highly controversial 'War on Terror', heavily propangandized by Blair's good friend Rupert Murdoch can be relied upon as a motor across the board of government to inflict an intensity of policy otherwise politically impossible or at least extremely difficult. The human ID slave grid comes to mind here, as does basically every policy post 9/11, which is an absolutely pivotal juncture for Blair as he frequently states.
Yet astonishingly, Blair himself says he 'worries he hasn't been radical enough', which underlines a staggering and unreconcilable chasm between his position and that of the rest of reality, including many in his own party and in even in his handpicked cabinet of Blairite loyalists, which as Clare Short said do not actually contribute to decision making anyway.
Blair's distorted position on a host of domestic issues as well as on issues like Iraq is also unquestionably severely damaging and undermining the Labour party (as reflected in crushing results in the council elections) as well as the country, indeed it is having a catastrophic effect as Labour MP Frank Dobson writes:
"[Party] membership has collapsed, with fewer than half the members we had in 1997 - and few of those remaining are active at election time, let alone between elections. We now have debts of more than £20m. The row about loans and peerages has put off potential large donors" (I would say that is a very good thing, potential large donors should be put off the Labour party)
Labour's continued poor poll ratings are an appropriate response to the proclamation of perpetual war and enslaving people under a centralised edict of terrifying subjugation for some horrific private vision. Blair, and increasingly Gordon Brown are correctly identified as the main protagonists of this agenda.
Indeed policy upon policy for the Blair regime has been a disaster, again Labour's Frank Dobson could only really be enthusiastic about a largely symbolic minimum wage and a complex series of tax credits, everything else effectively being a catastrophe:
"Some legacy! A legacy is supposed to involve handing down something valuable. A legacy also often gives the recipients a freedom of action previously denied them. But the way things have been going recently, the prime minister's legacy looks likely to fail on both counts, with him handing over more liabilities than assets and restricting the actions of his successors. A new New Labour concept - the negative legacy"
But again, this is nothing new. Blair had become such a burden upon the Labour party that in the last general election Labour MP's openly declared him as a 'liability', and Labour even encouraged MPs to keep him out of their campaign literature as it would loose them votes.
Blair is repeatedly doing things that are damaging the country and the world and at an exponential rate and that he has no mandate to do. To do them Blair has centered power around himself, Brown and a few advisors loyal to one or the other, bypassing the commons and even the cabinet which is essentially peripheral, meanwhile corrupting the Lords by flooding it with cronies and degenerate businesmen, some apparently willing to provide secret cash described as loans in exchange.
He has declared a 'world changed' (inspired by the US -which is kind of Philip Zelikow's 1998 essay in Foreign Affairs written to be the template post (a) 9/11) to inflict unimaginable policies, and an outrageous and dangerous level of dialogue otherwise simply not sustainable.
Professional and stark criticism of horrific and destructive policies is routinely ignored. And indeed it is worth noting that a stream of whitewashes that garner no public confidence are periodically required to mop up afterwards and absolve Blair and his cadre of wrongdoing.
Far less importantly, but significantly Blair (and Brown) are doing irreversible damage to the Labour party, which is well deserved, as this point is well known within the Labour party and very openly discussed, yet Blair (and the threat of his successor Brown being coronated in on the back of a private arrangement) continues to be tolerated despite the enormous injury being inflicted on the UK because of it.
In Blair's recent speech to Murdoch executives, he said 'tribal politics had come to and end', yet tribal politics (of the Labour party) can be the only explanation as to what has kept him in position and allowed this misery to rot on, presumbably as the short term embarassing kerfuffle of getting rid of him may give some advantage to the other parties as well as asking questions about why it wasn't done sooner. It would also force the Labour party to acknowledge there was a really serious problem.
But there is a really serious problem and the Labour party are frequently talking about it, so all this is of course, a terrible reflection on, and indictment of, the Labour party itself, who would rather tolerate a rotting, out-of-control and sociopathic dictator (with another being prepared on the conveyor belt in the form of Gordon Brown) who they have no sway over, who has approval ratings 5, lower than US President Richard Nixon's during Watergate 6, and is not only damaging them greatly, but catastrophically mutiliating the country itself.
It seems, effectively, we don't have a legitimate government anymore and that is now something people should constantly be aware of, instead a revolutionary coup faction manufacturing a means to deploy horrific policies under the pretext of 'global values' is decimating far more important national values and has installed itself in the UK in the form of Blair/Brown/Levy/Falconer and various advisers.
One way or another this constitutional crisis has to be dealt with.
New Labour Labour party Tony Blair Gordon Brown
Of course, this is hardly rocket science, Blair's rationale is like saying "we'll send food to the starving only when people understand the dangers of over-eating", and naturally Blair has effectively greenlighted weeks of ongoing carnage while proclaiming a search for an inappropriate solution.
But as I've said recently, there's nothing unusual about this at all. It is fully consistent across the board with the kind of upside-down, twisted anti-morality that Blair and New Labour have become known for.
As Labour's time in office has dragged on, policies have become more radical, depraved and seperated from reality. Blair, with the approval of Brown, knowingly led Britain into a disastrous conflict in Iraq on utterly false and misleading intelligence molded around the shape of a policy already decided on, and long coveted, by neoconservatives in the US. Iraq is a now an ongoing bloodbath and officials in the US and UK both agree on the road to full-scale civil war and ethnic balkanization.
From internment, to local goverment stealing homes that are thought to be unoccupied, to a radical human ID slave grid that will rewrite society and reconfigure people's very existence as never before seen in human history, things have continued to get worse and worse.
Attacks on the rule of law in the UK have been so great that last year, it prompted a "powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians to warn that "the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany" 1
But this is now commonplace, with warnings often coming from the judicary and other experts and professionals that things are not well and this path needs to stop.
In the Guardian last week Neil Lawson, argued that Blair is a kind of enforcer for Neo-liberalism (aggressive forced markets, privatisation, IMF, worldbank, globalisation etc that tends to favour the Western powers, broadly something Thatcher was associated with), and there's certainly a truth there.
However it's worth remembering that for Blair, a backdrop of neo-liberalism has been accompanied by an endless fountain of radical 'reforms', swathes of legislation and regulation including on finance, unprecedented attacks on the liberty of the individual and the rule of law, on historic constitutional law and expectations, a vast infliction of social engineering through technology and legislation and an active pursuit of, and participation in, a disastrous series of fraudulently engineered international conflicts ultimately contributed to by large and ongoing increases in taxation (by stealth, to give a hazy impression to the middle classes that taxation isn't going up). The premise offered by Blair of course to many of these policies is that they are not national, but 'global issues' and 'global values'.
A US/UK neo-liberal backdrop alone, cannot alone explain a great many of these policies. Blair has declared a (his) political/social will on top of out-of-control forced globalisation, indeed where he sees no seperation between the two and declared that mix the theme of the age that nothing must be allowed to challenge. But we must not forget these are all choices.
And the manifestion and effects of these choices are also interesting. For instance, we hear a great deal about immigration, which as Robert Rawthorn writing in the Telegraph reported is being deployed on an unprecedented scale, and yet which "all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative".
One statistic we don't hear a lot about is emigration, where the BBC reported that record numbers of people are leaving the UK, and for those who want to leave in the near future, 12% say 'They didn't like what the UK had become". You can hardly blame them.
Meanwhile Blair himself, always seems to be struggling with his arguments, as if he is in constant battle with some hidden invisible enemy that is resisting his will, which is curious as his entire programme has often been allowed to go effectively unchallenged by his own party (or other parties).
Perhaps one reason this has been so is because something of a personality cult surrounding Blair and you may recall Tessa Jowell famously saying she would "jump under a bus for the Tony Blair" 2 If that is not a personality cult then I don't know what is.
But that is not the full story as we know. Last week in the Guardian, Michael Meacher said:
"When Tony Blair abruptly overturns his own 2003 energy white paper and announces that Britain will go nuclear "with a vengeance", even before the energy review he himself set up has reported, is policy-making now a matter of personal diktat? [...]
Power is now more centralised in Britain than at any time since the second world war. Within Whitehall power has been sucked upwards to No 10, and at the same time it has drained away from the cabinet, the parliamentary Labour party and the national executive and funnelled towards more presidential rule from the centre [...] The division of powers, on which the unwritten constitution of Britain has depended for centuries, is being eroded. The checks and balances have all but collapsed."
Others have said the same, "..in Tony Blair's government...decision-making is centered around him and Gordon Brown, and the Cabinet is no longer used for decision making. Former ministers such as Clare Short and Chris Smith have criticised the total lack of decision-making in Cabinet. On her resignation, Short denounced "the centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers". The Butler Review of 2004 condemned Blair's style of "sofa government" 3
This seems to indicate that there is an intensity of policy that can't be deployed otherwise, that a backdrop of neo-liberalism alone is insufficent to cultivate. Policies, the like of which as Labour's John McDonnel observed, are "handed on down from on high that bear no relation [...] to the real world".
And if they bear no relation to the real world then it suggests they have no place in the real world.
Consequently, Blair's appropriately dreadful approval ratings 4 speak of a serious problem: A fundemental psychosis in Blair's (and Brown's) behaviour about what people are prepared to tolerate and how much war, degredation, state interference, dehumanization and misery, along with a declared urgent geo-political/social fiction to deploy them will be put up with. The public, and the good people of Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel as well as British soldiers snatched of their lives and limbs have all been victims of a grand utopian hallucination of 'global values' only Blair can see, and which is routienly killing, maiming and enslaving everyone else.
On domestic issues, there is a deliberate miscalculation that the UK is a radical country, and that Blair has been bestowed to deploy vicious radical policies, despite the fact as concluded from the last general election 5 he simply has no mandate to perform them.
Furthermore we don't have elections in the UK to nominate a dictator to be grandstanding about 'global values', but about the political future of the country itself, reflecting the long established national values. And sadly, the values of the UK, dramatically mishapen by the government are now considerably different than they were in 1997, a point reflected in the BBC poll on emigration.
Similarly, there is a miscalculation that a highly controversial 'War on Terror', heavily propangandized by Blair's good friend Rupert Murdoch can be relied upon as a motor across the board of government to inflict an intensity of policy otherwise politically impossible or at least extremely difficult. The human ID slave grid comes to mind here, as does basically every policy post 9/11, which is an absolutely pivotal juncture for Blair as he frequently states.
Yet astonishingly, Blair himself says he 'worries he hasn't been radical enough', which underlines a staggering and unreconcilable chasm between his position and that of the rest of reality, including many in his own party and in even in his handpicked cabinet of Blairite loyalists, which as Clare Short said do not actually contribute to decision making anyway.
Blair's distorted position on a host of domestic issues as well as on issues like Iraq is also unquestionably severely damaging and undermining the Labour party (as reflected in crushing results in the council elections) as well as the country, indeed it is having a catastrophic effect as Labour MP Frank Dobson writes:
"[Party] membership has collapsed, with fewer than half the members we had in 1997 - and few of those remaining are active at election time, let alone between elections. We now have debts of more than £20m. The row about loans and peerages has put off potential large donors" (I would say that is a very good thing, potential large donors should be put off the Labour party)
Labour's continued poor poll ratings are an appropriate response to the proclamation of perpetual war and enslaving people under a centralised edict of terrifying subjugation for some horrific private vision. Blair, and increasingly Gordon Brown are correctly identified as the main protagonists of this agenda.
Indeed policy upon policy for the Blair regime has been a disaster, again Labour's Frank Dobson could only really be enthusiastic about a largely symbolic minimum wage and a complex series of tax credits, everything else effectively being a catastrophe:
"Some legacy! A legacy is supposed to involve handing down something valuable. A legacy also often gives the recipients a freedom of action previously denied them. But the way things have been going recently, the prime minister's legacy looks likely to fail on both counts, with him handing over more liabilities than assets and restricting the actions of his successors. A new New Labour concept - the negative legacy"
But again, this is nothing new. Blair had become such a burden upon the Labour party that in the last general election Labour MP's openly declared him as a 'liability', and Labour even encouraged MPs to keep him out of their campaign literature as it would loose them votes.
Blair is repeatedly doing things that are damaging the country and the world and at an exponential rate and that he has no mandate to do. To do them Blair has centered power around himself, Brown and a few advisors loyal to one or the other, bypassing the commons and even the cabinet which is essentially peripheral, meanwhile corrupting the Lords by flooding it with cronies and degenerate businesmen, some apparently willing to provide secret cash described as loans in exchange.
He has declared a 'world changed' (inspired by the US -which is kind of Philip Zelikow's 1998 essay in Foreign Affairs written to be the template post (a) 9/11) to inflict unimaginable policies, and an outrageous and dangerous level of dialogue otherwise simply not sustainable.
Professional and stark criticism of horrific and destructive policies is routinely ignored. And indeed it is worth noting that a stream of whitewashes that garner no public confidence are periodically required to mop up afterwards and absolve Blair and his cadre of wrongdoing.
Far less importantly, but significantly Blair (and Brown) are doing irreversible damage to the Labour party, which is well deserved, as this point is well known within the Labour party and very openly discussed, yet Blair (and the threat of his successor Brown being coronated in on the back of a private arrangement) continues to be tolerated despite the enormous injury being inflicted on the UK because of it.
In Blair's recent speech to Murdoch executives, he said 'tribal politics had come to and end', yet tribal politics (of the Labour party) can be the only explanation as to what has kept him in position and allowed this misery to rot on, presumbably as the short term embarassing kerfuffle of getting rid of him may give some advantage to the other parties as well as asking questions about why it wasn't done sooner. It would also force the Labour party to acknowledge there was a really serious problem.
But there is a really serious problem and the Labour party are frequently talking about it, so all this is of course, a terrible reflection on, and indictment of, the Labour party itself, who would rather tolerate a rotting, out-of-control and sociopathic dictator (with another being prepared on the conveyor belt in the form of Gordon Brown) who they have no sway over, who has approval ratings 5, lower than US President Richard Nixon's during Watergate 6, and is not only damaging them greatly, but catastrophically mutiliating the country itself.
It seems, effectively, we don't have a legitimate government anymore and that is now something people should constantly be aware of, instead a revolutionary coup faction manufacturing a means to deploy horrific policies under the pretext of 'global values' is decimating far more important national values and has installed itself in the UK in the form of Blair/Brown/Levy/Falconer and various advisers.
One way or another this constitutional crisis has to be dealt with.
New Labour Labour party Tony Blair Gordon Brown
posted by J.UL1R4 at 10:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home