Jeremy Corbyn wins yet another Labour election victory but will it stop the Blairites attempting another coup?
Jeremy Corbyn has won his LabourLeadership election battle against the unknown (to me at least until this content), Owen Smith.
I don’t find it a surprise, I don’t find it a shock I find it a waste of time and a stupid exercise by Blairites and their followers who they co-erced into joining their coup as a massive custard pie in the face. They have really wasted some important months when they should have been attacking the Tories on
Our new PM Theresa May and how she has gone back on many of David Cameron’s policies – which should really trigger a general election but as the Labour party were in no fit state to fight one they got away with it/
The re-introduction of Grammar Schools.
The possibility of Scotland holding another referendum to leave the UK.
China building our nuclear power station and security issues around this.
So many other items to mention.
This is what satirist Jonathan Pie thinks about the re-election of Jermey Corbyn.
This year he won with 61.8% of the vote to Smith’s 38.2%. Last year he won with 59.5% of the vote against the other 3 candidates.
This must tell you something. Maybe that the people and the Labour members want him as their leader no matter how much the press attack him all the time and try and portray him as unelectable?
Are the Blairites mad, do they not realise that the Labour party and the part of the country who are left wing actually WANT Jeremy Corbyn as the leader. Not some air brushed, PR managed, speaker phone in a suit, controlled by HQ who says what he is told to, and has no real opinions or beliefs of his own?
We don’t want constant US led war, like a puppy on a lead.
“Lets go bomb this country now UK our Special Friend”, and then afterwards whilst the people are all still fighting in a civil war, or forming new terrorist groups we can later control for our own ends, we can let all the US corporations get the oil rights such as Halliburton.
Plus all the contracts to rebuild the roads and hospitals that we bombed for no reason in the first place can go to US companies formed for exactly this reason.
Special Friend? The only thing special about our relationship with the USA is that we get to sleep in the wet patch afterwards and have little say when the “special” part is about to start.
We don’t want to to give banks money at 0% interest rates whilst we all have to suffer with 10%+ or if your stuck then WONGA or 1 of the hundreds of pay day loans that have sprung up much more.
Is that not a sign something is wrong?
When the public have to pay 1000s of % APR for their money? Do you know the pay day loans interest rates at the moment.
WONGA – 1,177% APR
Satsuma Loans – 1575% APR
Sunny – 1,299% APR
Square Today Short Term Loan – 1265% APR
I could go on, but that seems wrong to me, especially when all these payday banks are owned by the same main banks at the top anyway. It seems to be one of our only growth industries in the UK at the moment along with online Bingo, Poker and Gambling sites. That doesn’t say much for our economy does it?
If your a normal person, I consider myself normal believe it or not, then we don’t want our economy to built on services that milk the common person so that big banks get even richer and the poor poorer. No, we want to re-focus it so that we have a skilled manufacturing base, a decent job for university and apprentices to enter into after work not fill the shelves at Lidl.
We want high tech, high skilled people and a way for those who have fallen off the track due to ill health or long term joblessness to get back into those jobs through free training. Not punishment by taking away benefits because they have an extra room in their flat, or they don’t have a computer so that have to spend their meager benefits on bus fares into town to use the library to search for jobs as they currently have to do.
Call me stupid but we don’t want to privatize everything from education to the NHS. Privatising the National Railways when you think about it can’t be competitive anyway due to not having the ability to have 2 trains running on the same line at the same time to the same place. Isn’t that what competitiveness should all be about?
Unless you are going to allow each railyway company to build their own tracks through the country (which would take decades due to planning permission and all the rest) then you should make our railways a decent public transport option for the nation by making them fast, on time, reliable and cheap. If you did all that more people would leave their cars at home, help the environment and use the trains like they do in Spain and France.
Why is it in Spain I could travel overnight and back to a place the same distance as London for a couple of pounds on a clean railway when here it costs me the best part of twenty pounds, and more if it’s overnight?
No it has to be all about money and putting it into the pockets of companies after we have sold the rights for a few billion. It’s a stupid mentality only dreamt up by the Tories and Blairites.
The same goes for education. Education should be for life. People should be able to re-skill throughout their lives without forking out thousands in loan repayments. You should be able to go to University for free, another Blairite scheme that has just expanded the cost of education to those that can afford it again and again.
Cut the amount of money we spend on a useless Trident scheme that relies on US GPS (so they could turn it off if we went rogue), and the trillions we have spent on wars over the last decade and we could easily afford free education for all for life.
If you are unemployed you should be able to get onto any workplace training scheme or educational course you want for free.
It costs a lot more to have a jobless person claiming benefits for their home, pocket and council tax for years on end than it would for a year or two at a college.
We also have to admit that some of the things Blair and his cronies and followers did that were very bad for the country and it’s future as well as the world’s e.g Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and voting in the Tories time again won’t sort that out.
PFI was a nightmare for a start, one that will cost over £200 billion in the next 35 years. This will lead to hospitals and schools going broke if not already due to these huge debts they are with debts for the next 20+ years. Yes we may have build a lot of new schools and hospitals due to PFI, but the one thing we didn’t build was houses – why not?
Was that because we couldn’t find a way to allow the private sector to milk the taxpayer as they do with the others. Currently schools and hospitals have to pay contractors up to £100 or more to change a single light bulb if it breaks in a classroom instead of just calling out their handy man to do the job for them.
I remember being at school with a handy man who did all the odd jobs around the place and we all loved him more than the teachers.
He did everything that needed to be done and he cost a hell of a lot less than what schools are currently paying for fixing anything broken at the moment.
Just think of the waiting time for the private contractors to arrive for one, and then the inflated costs all to fill their pockets. What is the point apart from a one off payment from the private company to fill whatever gaping hole the treasury currently has and then face decades of debt?
Of course it doesn’t worry the MP’s who put it into action as they will be long gone by then. They are probably working for the same companies who are running the PFI schemes they helped push through parliament with their votes no doubt.
Also I don’t want to bail out the banks without jailing the directors as Iceland did. The people who led us into the 2008 crisis in the first place should be punished like any other criminal. I want some justice for all this mess and austerity everyone is facing.
Why are we giving banks money at 0% when we could be making National Bonds for investments in house building that will return a nice profit for investors, much needed jobs flooding in and most of all provide the housing people need?
These are all things Jeremy Corbyn wants to do. I can’t find a fault in it so please leave your comments to what is so stupid about these policies please.
From the Guardian
Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to “wipe the slate clean” after winning a convincing victory in Labour’s bitter leadership battle, securing 62% of the vote.
Speaking after the result was declared in Liverpool, Corbyn thanked his rival, Owen Smith, and urged the “Labour family” to unite after the summer-long contest.
“We have much more in common than that which divides us,” he said. “Let’s wipe that slate clean from today and get on with the work we’ve got to do as a party together.”
Corbyn secured 61.8% of the vote to Smith’s 38.2%. The victory strengthens his hold on a party that has expanded dramatically since the 2015 general election and now has more than 500,000 members. In last year’s contest, he won 59.5% of the vote.
Corbyn won a majority over Smith in every category – members (59%), registered supporters (70%) and trades union affiliates (60%).
View the original article at the main Dark Poltricks web site at Dark Politricks where you can get even more #altnews and daily politics away from the lamestream media
What do you feel about President Obama getting a second term?
By Dark Politricks
Now President Obama has been re-elected as President of the USA does the thought fill you with joy or dread or is it more a case of choosing the least bad option of a bad bunch.
It seems that the 3rd party candidates from the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Justice and Constitution Party hardly made a dent in the political system that seems to be sewn up tightly by the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans who control the Presidential process.
If you voted for President Obama do you honestly believe he will finish off, or even start, the “Hope and Change” that he promised the first time round. Or will he just continue business as usual.
Allowing the banksters of Wall Stto continue to steal money from the tax payers, devaluing any savings people may have by continuing to have incredibly low interest rates and allowing any reforms of Wall St such as the Dodd-Frank act to be watered down by the powerful lobbyists. People who seem to be able to control the levers of power to their advantage whoever sits behind the oval desk.
Will he continue building the high tech police surveillance state in which more than a million people have top secret clearance and the war on terror is expanding constantly filling the military industrial complexes pockets with more cash with every civil right crushing, constitution ignoring act he signs into power.
Acts such as the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA that give him dictatorial powers to kill and indefinitely detain US citizens or start wars without having to pay attention to congress as he did in Libya.
Will he continue to back Jihadists and al-Qaeda linked rebels fighting in Syria as he did in Libya all because the enemy of his enemy is his friend or will he actually grow a pair of balls and decide that morals and ethics are something that America should be an example to the rest of the world who used to believe America was the “good guy”.
Will he continue to back Israel as they break international law, execute on tape American citizens, and subjugate the Palestinian people by blocking any bill in the UN with a veto and then attack countries such as Russia and China who do the same when they try to prevent another NATO war in Syria.
Will he even dare to cut the bloated and gigantic Defense budget that is bigger than most of the other countries in the world put together.
A budget that means huge military bases and missile shields that are more of a political statement than any proper aim to defend the US public and only again serve to fill the military industrial complexes coffers.
Just imagine all the things that could be bought with that money – you could even pay for a proper health care system instead of creating a mandatory purchase from insurance companies – a system hated by liberals and conservatives alike.
Does anyone think Obama is a true liberal or as many Republican message boards and blogs like to call him a Marxist or Communist – people who have never obviously read a dictionary. Or is he just a slightly less right wing version of the Republicans. Both are big government parties, the only thing that differs is how much they move the line and what the big government spends the money on.
Whoever won the election we can be sure that the continuation of the Amerika we have all grown to fear will continue and systems like the TSA’s porno scanners and TRAPWIRE that monitor US civilians wherever they go will continue to feed into the rising police state system that seems to be expanding forever. A true liberal would be curtailing these excesses not expanding them.
Let me know what you feel about the result of the election with this poll below and leave your comments in the comment section if possible.
Our beloved dear leader has just set the ball rolling for the media frenzy that the next month leading up to the general election will surely become. I wonder whether we will have any memorable moments like election campaigns of recent years such as My Blair being harangued by Grannies and Single Mothers or when Two Jags Prescott dished out two jabs to a passer by who had thrown an egg at him.
Labours campaign seems to be nothing more than “yes we have fucked the country up and loaded us up with insurmountable debt but do you really trust the Tories to do any better”. Seeing that the Tories themselves have rebranded themselves as the new caring sharing kind considerate conservatives as opposed to those posh public school boy snobs in the pockets of the fat cats in the city who thought nothing of putting whole swathes of the North of England onto the dole queue for a generation during the last recession, its a fair call to say we don’t actually know what this opposition are really capable of. The Lib Dems are really trying to capitalise on the recent expenses fiasco and drum home the fact that both Labour and Tory will make plenty of public platitudes about cleaning up the house and reforming the way business is done in the commons but behind closed doors they are doing all they can to keep business as usual. The Tories want to keep their big paying donors and Labour really need to keep the Unions money flowing in so any real attempt at party finance reform is going to be a hard challenge to mount.
However much I would like this election to be fought on things that matter to me such as personal liberties, Internet freedom and the phony war on terror that has led us into this high tech surveillance state that UK under Labour has become the election is going to be fought around the economy and nothing else will really get a look in.
Apart from arguing over which party will be more “financially responsible” and cut services that little bit more carefully or who will start cutting a few months sooner there is little difference between the parties. The Lib Dem’s realise they are in a potential king maker situation as recent polls still show a hung parliament as the most likely outcome and therefore they are trying their best to look like the responsible mature political party they believe the electorate is looking for rather than the Liberal party we used to know and love. This was a party that at their annual conference voted to make it official policy to legalize marijuana and end jail terms for possession of other drugs including coke and smack. That was a party I could respect but I don’t hear anything sensible coming out of Nick Cleggs mouth apart from wanting proper reform of government and a change in the voting system.
I was hoping to hear more about the freedom bill which was the one key item that people opposed to the wholesale destruction of centuries old freedoms and rights could back with pride. I am counting the days until I actually hear a front bench Lib Dem mention this bill on TV but I have a strong feeling that they will be too scared of the Daily Mail / Express brigade calling them soft on terrorism and the causes of terrorism to even mutter the words civil liberties in the next month. I hope I am wrong but it hasn’t happened yet.
So the next month is going to be speech after speech of politicians promising the earth knowing full well they only have a small pockets worth of soil left in the kitty to dish out anyway. All parties know we are in the shit and whoever gets in is going to have to either savagely cut spending or increase revenues through taxes or exponential growth.
If I was in power for one week only I would do the following:
I would enshrine into law a new Bill of Rights that will encompass everything in the Human Rights act, the US and French constitution and more. All laws introduced by Labour and the previous Conservative governments that have removed liberties and introduced new powers to council busybodies to spy on the people will be repealed.
A new law will be introduced that states that any future government who tries to repeal or modify any right contained within this new document to the detriment of the people is to be considered a crime of treason punishable by our old punishment for traitors the hanging, drawing of the guts and the quartering of the body to the four corners of the land. There should be no higher crime than one that treats the people as nothing more than consumers, tax payers and subjects to the crown.
Talking of the crown the Royal family will become unroyal within my week of power and the constitution would be rewritten so that the crown becomes a figurehead in name only. I can think nothing worse than moving to a presidential style system as we will surely suffer years of being lorded over by ex prime ministers such as they do in other European countries. Do you want Blair back? No I didn’t think so.
The Queen is a good figurehead, she is a funny sarcastic old granny that keeps her mouth shut and her views to herself (unlike her son). What I cannot stand is the fact that purely through their birthright they are treated in law and in person above every other citizen of this country. I resent paying my tax so that they can move from palace to castle all year round. Yes they may bring the American tourists in but they can do that without all the special benefits and they have enough money in the bank to live their lifestyle without scarce tax money going to waste paying for their luxury.
The House of Lords would become political party free. Believe or not this house of old fogies actually does a good job in debating and amending government legislature and in fact on more than a few occasions they have been the only bastion of sense standing between a house full of people desperate to buy your vote and very bad law. Making this house electable would most likely just multiply by two the problems we already have in the commons. Having a life peerhood removes the requirement to have to pander to popularism and short term views. Removing political parties totally from this house would hopefully make this chamber even more able to debate on what’s best for the country rather than the party in question.
Political parties would be funded from the taxpayer and small donations only. Anyone could start a political party and the amount of funding they receive would be directly relational to the amount of seats they have. Lobbying would be a criminal offense on par with bribery (it usually is in all but name) and ex government ministers would be prevented from joining any company directly affected by legislation brought in under their time in power.
Term limits would be introduced to prevent jobs for life however as good moral upstanding politicians are a rare breed and the few we do have we don’t want to loose I propose a compromise. When a term has been reached in the MP’s constituency seat there is nothing stopping them from running again in another constituency as either an independant or for another party. This would prevent parties from just shuffling their players around the board and it would also hopefully enable those politicians of high calibre to stand for office on principle and their fellow man’s best interests freed from the constraints that party membership brings to honest votes of conscience.
The situation at home for the English is also unfair in terms of devolution for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but not England. The English deserve to be treated the same as our neighbours and we should have an English parliament. All members of regional parliaments would also be members of the national UK parliament which would meet at regular intervals to debate matters affecting the whole country.
The economic state of our country isn’t too good to say the least. We need some sort of legal handcuffs to prevent any future government from breaking the bank in future. When the economic cycle is bringing in growth there should be a minimum amount of GDP that is put into savings so that when a recession comes we don’t have to borrow so much.
This fund could also be used for the national good and taxpayers could have each received a payout worth thousands when the recession hit which would have helped stimulate the economy without driving up national and personal debt. This fund would also be available for those who wish to retrain to join another profession as the courses currently offered to the unemployed are feeble excuses which are ignored by business and mean little to the student.
The big banks need to be split up like Vince Cable’s suggestion into high street lenders and casino type traders that would never ever be kept alive under any circumstances if another banking crisis were to occur. The banks we have taken over should be controlled more tightly so that lending to small businesses is resumed and we should keep our stake until the amount we as tax payers invested is paid off not once but twice over.
Why should we offload the stock as soon as possible just to keep up the premise that we actually live in a free market economy. We should make the banks pay us large percentages of their stupidly high yearly profits each year as punishment for wrecking the economy and only once our national debt is paid off and the coffers full again should we relinquish our stake.
I would save money by scrapping the National ID Scheme, Trident and any other huge computer project that is seen by the IT industry only as a way of milking ridiculous amounts of money from taxpayers. Let the IT students in their final year at college all band together and develop any new system required by the government. It will probably be built quicker and perform better and cost a few billion less than any existing contract we have with EDS.
I would bring billions of new tax revenue into the coffers by legalizing and regulating all drugs. We have a system at the moment where literally every month a new chemical compound is realised onto the market to bypass current restrictions and stay technically within the law only for it to raise a few stories in the press for being “linked” to some deaths and then get banned a month or two later. The current drug advisory board is loosing members faster than a hospice football team due to members quitting over government interference into their decisions. It’s clear the only people who think the current drug laws are working are Daily Mail readers and the politicians who are scared of them.
Drug addicts who commit acquisitional crime to pay for their habit will get a free prescription from their GP. Insurance premiums will be cut, burglaries and other theft related crimes will be cut in half. Drug dealers will go out of business and Police will be freed up to spend their time investigating proper crime which will not include road traffic offences! Addicts will be offered help along with their prescription and those convicted of a crime that would usually send them to our overcrowded prisons would instead go to special detox centers where they can be rehabilitated and then helped back into the workforce with the following idea.
I would set up a national company called UK LTD which would be a company of the people for the people. All taxpayers would be shareholders in this company and all profit available as dividends which will be paid out each year as a tax rebate. The company would engage in all forms of business and it would have first dibs at any tender put out by governmental departments, councils or any institution or educational facility that is funded through tax payers money.
The company would hire as its employees those people that find it hard to get employment elsewhere such as ex prisoners, long term unemployed, disabled, single parents, students etc. No longer will these groups of people be able to claim that they cannot get a job as this companies mandate would ensure these sections of the workforce get preferential hiring. As well as the ability to work on government contracts the company would be free to enter the market like any other company and there would be no rules limiting the type of business it engages in.
The primary motive behind this company is not to corner the market or nationalize business but to ensure there is always a job for the ex prisoner who won’t be given a chance by any other employer or to offer the unskilled worker who has been on benefits all their life a way into the job market.
If there is a choice between a pure free market which means, as it did in the 80’s when Maggie shut down the mines, that large swathes of the country don’t or cannot work and the huge costs associated with that. Such as social security and long term unemployment benefits, the social cost of deprivation and poverty, the high crime rates and the desperation and lack of hope this all brings to a community out of work. Or ensuring that there is work for as many people as possible even if that has to be subsidised in some sort of way then I choose the latter. When one adds up all the extra costs unrelated to the actual job per-se then it’s surely in the countries best interest to go down the second route.
The amount of business that is generated by government contracts is quite large so if we are choosing to have a large government we might as well as ensure as many people benefit from it in the most enterprising way possible. The employees become useful members of society, gain a trade and new skills which they can take on to future jobs and the government doesn’t waste immense amounts of money paying inflated prices to private firms who all know that at the moment a government contracts equals lots of profit for little cost.
Pull out of Afghanistan and pay the Opium farmers a fair wage to buy their product for use on the new regulated domestic market.
Don’t ever follow America blindly into wars of aggression ever again and any decision to go to war cannot be taken by the government alone without a vote. Those who have a desire for war will be offered the opportunity to experience it first hand by being allowed the honour of leading the troops in the first attack of any war they create. I always find that it’s people with little experience of real violence who are so desperate to wish it on others. If they are given the chance to see what real violence smells, sounds and looks like close up then maybe we would live in peace.
Our policy towards Israel and Palestine needs to be fair and balanced. We cannot support Israeli occupation of lands that are in breach of numerous UN resolutions and we should arrest any specified Israeli government ministers who enter our country and bring them to the Hauge for their war crimes committed in Gaza. Sanctions should be imposed on Israel until they lift the blockade on Gaza and we should pressure the USA as much as possible to stop them vetoing any UN resolution that is passed against Israel as its this behaviour by the bought and paid for Congress that has prevented any meaningful action from being taken to resolve this conflict.
The Falklands islands, although far away and a place we shouldn’t have even taken in the first place, are occupied by British peoples who claim our home as their home and have no wish to live under Argentinian rule. We should do all we can to prevent another senseless war from occurring over these South Atlantic rocks but if we are to keep an armed forces equipped and ready for battle at a moments notice then it should be for the defence of our people and not imperial wars of aggression in the search for natural resources.
The EU is one of the most undemocratic political entities ever created and the people of the UK have been denied a vote on our membership of it for too long. We voted in the 70’s to join a common market not a political entity but over time this is exactly what its become. I would offer the people a referendum that offered a the following choices:
carrying on as we are but with future votes on any major legislation.
leaving the EU altogether.
renegotiating a relationship on the same terms as Norway. Free trade, free movement but no political union.
The railways should be nationalised, fairs dropped by multitudes of 10 and investment into fast track railways extended quickly. It’s impossible to have proper competition on the railway system unless you could have multiple trains run by different companies running the same route at the same time. Only then could customers choose the fastest, cheapest and cleanest train to take to work. As this is not possible there is no point in keeping up the illusion of competition and we should take control of the whole system and run it in the public interest.
If the environment is such an important issue to politicians then instead of pricing drivers off the roads we should make the incentive to use public transport so tantalising that drivers flock in their thousands to sell their cars and buy yearly train tickets. However instead of trying to make train fares competitive our politicians believe that the only option is to make road use so prohibitivley expensive that it becomes cheap in comparison. We know this isn’t working as its currently cheaper to fly from Heathrow to Glasgow than get a train!
This one might sound a bit far fetched but it’s all technically possible. A large fleet of automated Johnny Cab type taxis should be implemented which would be shared amongst users. Many people currently buy cars and only drive to a few destinations such as work, school, shops etc. Because our current public transport system is so useless its impossible to get one bus or train from your house to your destination of choice. Therefore to reduce the number of cars on the road people would be encouraged to buy into a scheme where they can hire a Johnny Cab at their chosen time for a low public transport type price. Taxis are too expensive as they need to pay the drivers and owners wages. An automated vehicle using GPS and all the other wiz bang technology already used in Japan would be just the ideal replacement.
Instead of forking out thousands for a car, paying hundreds in road tax and fuel duty and having the cost of insurance just to spend 30 mins a day in the car, a hire on demand scheme would allow users the freedom of car travel at the cost of public transport and at the same time we would be helping the environment by reducing the number of cars on the road.
So there you go, a short list of the key policies I would implement if I had a week to rule the country. I have many more ideas up my sleeve but I don’t want to drown you all in detail just yet. I doubt I would do any worse as leader than Brown has over the last decade and I doubt whoever gets in next month will do any better and this is what scares me about our current political system
Tell me what you think of my policies and let me know how you intend to vote in May.
Beverly K. Eakman JBS
Thursday, January 21st, 2010
The media, mainstream and otherwise, are enthralled over former Republican State Senator Scott Brown’s victory over his Democratic rival, Massachusetts’ liberal Attorney General Martha Coakley, in securing the Senate seat vacated by the late, iconic fixture Teddy Kennedy. Unsurprisingly, the GOP is energized and the Democrats overwrought by this unexpected turn of events.
But Brown’s win is not likely to foreshadow any a sea-change in American politics. Just as President Barack Obama’s campaign promises of a new era of transparency, an end to earmarks for pet projects, and no tax increases for those earning less than $250,000, those promises turned out to be the kind of propaganda anybody with a functioning brain knew they would be, Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts will not result in a massive return to constitutional principles.
Even if Brown were totally sincere about a return to constitutional ideals — his pro-choice views and support, in theory, for increased government control over medicine notwithstanding — the problem is that America’s entrenched government bureaucracy has gone over to the dark side. It is filled to overflowing with liberal-leftists. Any career constitutionalist bureaucrat is a pariah who will not be promoted, no matter who is running the Administration. That fact is not likely to change, for a variety of reasons, among them:
Government employee unionization, which leans left;
The double-standard applied to political correctness, vis-à-vis liberals and conservatives (the difference between Harry Reid’s gaffe concerning candidate Obama’s “light skin” and lack of “Negro dialect” compared to Trent Lott’s oblique racial allusion at the late Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party is but the latest example);
Political appointees overseeing agencies and increasing staffs of liberal new-hires (as opposed to conservative appointees who commit to slowing growth and decreasing staff, thus in this case handing the liberal-left the advantage);
Ongoing conservative whine-fests, as opposed to bold, new initiatives to address the nation’s problems;
A liberal-left Governor’s Association, from which many candidates emerge and from which state counterparts to federal legislation are spawned;
Mandatory workshops for government-employees typically aimed at promoting political correctness;
A government culture that recruits and trains “change agents,” mostly aimed at ensuring a liberal-left status quo among citizens’ groups (“stakeholders”) and state and local affiliate organizations (e.g., police and sheriff’s departments, state education agencies, child protection service agencies, immigration offices, etc., all of which have counterparts in federal agencies and receive money from them);
Public education and teacher-training systems that have aggressively promoted Marxist socialism for some 40 years, coupled to the people’s failure to retain substantive knowledge that at least embodied a few key contributions and ideas that eventually led to cherished American virtues. (How many parents or teachers, for example, can recite, off the top of their head, anything noteworthy about staples of our culture that everyone once knew: philosophers Aristotle, Disraeli, Sir Thomas Hobbes and the authors of the Federalist papers; artists Toulouse-Lautrec, Renoir, Bonnard, Manet, Monet, Degas, Van Gogh, Sisley and Cézanne; or literary greats like William Makepeace Thackery, Robert Louis Stevenson, Robert Browning, Oscar Wilde, Cicero, Emily Brontë and Honoré de Balzac, to name just a few?);
Failure of traditionalists and constitutionalists to insistently preserve American ideals in the media, coupled to the leftist media’s expansion and near-takeover of entertainment and news. (Why did we not place key constitutionalist advocates on the Boards of some of these organizations?);
Public acceptance of appeasement and non-confrontation across-the-board (also known as “working within the system,” even when it’s rotten); and,
Ignorance concerning the elements of real debate (most people believe debate to be a contest of memorized note-cards, bereft of any technique or understanding).
It is obviously a little late to recapture any of the above, much less re-institutionalize those things that were once considered part and parcel of “the public welfare,” political appointments being just one part.
Yes, there are pockets here and there of good sense and real intellectual prowess, a few examples being found among the Tea-Partiers, homeschoolers and readers of this Website.
Scott Brown’s stunning underdog victory over Democrat Martha Coakley to become Massachusetts’ next U.S. Senator is a crushing blow for the Obama administration’s big government agenda – not because Brown has an R next to his name, and not because of Judas goats like Glenn Beck who will attempt to hijack genuine populism once again – but because his victory was thanks to the 51% of Independents who are now the majority in the state.
“The victory caps a dramatic surge in recent days as Brown, a state lawmaker from Wrentham once thought to have little chance of beating a popular attorney general, roared ahead of Coakley to become the first Republican senator elected from Massachusetts since 1972,” reports the Boston Globe.
“In a race that became the center of national attention, Brown’s win is widely seen as a vote against the president’s agenda from one of the most reliably Democratic states. And in a particularly ironic twist, Brown, in succeeding Edward M. Kennedy — the late liberal lion who deemed health care “the cause of my life’’ — may well be the 41st vote to prevent the Democratic-led plan from moving forward.”
The manner of Brown’s victory proves that the result isn’t just a product of the two party monopoly see-sawing back and forth. Voters who are sick to the back teeth of government taking their liberties whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office are now slowly becoming the majority. The partisan sideshow of Democrat versus Republican is gradually starting to implode as Democrats and liberal Independents quickly wake up to the fact that Obama’s promises of hope and change were completely hollow and that the man is little more than another stooge for the military-industrial complex in the same vein as Bush.
Brown’s victory cannot be spun as anything other than a victory for self-governance and a complete rejection of the Obama administration’s nanny state agenda.
However, this bombshell sea change can only mean something in the long term if Judas goats like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others are prevented from hijacking genuine populism and diluting it down to more meaningless political partisanship, as they did with the tea party movement.
Big government media pimps are devastated by Brown’s victory because, as many observers are saying, it likely signals the death blow for Obama’s socialist health care agenda.
“It’s that rare election where voters know exactly what they’re voting on. If they’re with Democrat Martha Coakley they get health care reform. If they go for Republican Scott Brown it’s deliberate, premeditated murder for health care!” screeched Matthews.
Matt Spetalnick Reuters
Monday, January 18th, 2010
President Barack Obama went on a rescue mission on Sunday to try to save an endangered Massachusetts Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate whose defeat by a Republican could imperil Obama’s sweeping healthcare overhaul.
Obama appeared at a campaign rally in Boston for Democrat Martha Coakley, whose 30-point lead in the polls in December has vanished and who is now in a tight race with Republican Scott Brown before Tuesday’s election.
Speaking to 1,500 supporters gathered in a basketball arena at Northeastern University, Obama ridiculed Brown for his populist campaign tactic of driving around Massachusetts in a pickup truck and attacked him for not supporting a bank bailout tax Obama proposed last week.
“We asked Martha’s opponent, what’s he going to do, and he decided to park his truck on Wall Street,” Obama said. “Let me be clear: Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty.”
One year after his election, Barack Obama’s approval rating is lower at this stage than for any US president since Eisenhower. So why has the optimism surrounding his victory disappeared so suddenly?
Every Wednesday at 4.30pm they come: a small steady human trickle rolling down a ravine in Prestonsburg, western Kentucky towards the Town Branch church. They come in pick-ups, on foot, alone and with families. Some stop for just a few minutes. Others linger. They come for food and warm second-hand clothes. They come because desperation in this part of America has become a routine part of life.
More than a quarter of the families in Prestonsburg live in poverty; half of the children in Floyd County, where it is situated, are on food stamps. This Appalachian coal mining area has never been rich. But no one can remember when it has ever been this poor either. It sits on the old Route 23 – the country music highway of which Dwight Yoakam (a Floyd Country native) sang in Readin’, Rightin’, Route 23. It was the road that took people north to factory jobs in places such as Detroit and Cleveland and “the good life they had never seen”. Now those cities are broke and there’s nowhere left to go.
“We’re getting more and more people coming here as time goes by,” says Tom Price, who helps administer the church’s Feed My Sheep pantry. “The bottom’s just fallen out of it all.” He blames it on Barack Obama. “Is there a direct correlation [between Obama’s victory and the region’s bad times]? I don’t know. But I do know a lot of people are hurting.”
A week may be a long time in politics. But a year has not been enough for the Democratic president to meet the expectations of his candidacy, deal with the situation he inherited or defuse the barbed charges of his detractors. For many the change that Obama promised when he was inaugurated a year on Wednesday has ended up being a change for the worse. Unemployment is rising, houses prices are falling, unpopular wars are still raging. After 100 days only Ronald Reagan had higher approval ratings for his first few months in office than Obama. But as his first year draws to a close nobody has had lower ratings at this stage since Dwight Eisenhower.
Keith Bartley, Floyd County’s Democratic chairman, says one key reason why Obama’s such a tough sell here is because of the effect of his cap and trade policy on the coal industry. Lt Governor Daniel Mongiardo, the Democratic frontrunner in Kentucky’s senatorial race later this year, says he would not want Obama to come and stump for him on the campaign trail, particularly because of his environmental policies. “With some of the positions he has taken, especially on coal, no. He certainly can’t come into eastern or western Kentucky and help. Nor would I want him to.”
But the disenchantment goes beyond one region or one industry. The official narrative of Obama’s inauguration – the fairytale most of the US media told itself and that the international community wanted to believe – was that after a rancourous campaign a divided country came together to celebrate the historic election of its first African-American president. The reality was always quite different. The editor of the Grayson County News Gazette in Leitchfield, a small town 230 miles west of Prestonsburg, recalls that the day after the election much of the area wore sombre faces. The week he was elected gun sales across the country leapt about 50% compared with the same period the year before.
For all of his aspirations for bipartisanship, after the first three months Obama had the most polarised early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The gap between how Democrats and Republicans rated him at this stage was greater than George Bush Jr’s in 2001 and twice as high as Richard Nixon’s during the height of the Vietnam war in 1969. This was partly because Democrats loved him so much – but it was also because so few Republicans were willing to give him a hearing. Obama didn’t create that partisan divide, he inherited it. Not only has he not been able to cure it, but his presence seems to have exacerbated it.
Truth be told they never really liked Obama much in Floyd County. He won only 5% of the vote against Hillary Clinton’s 94% in the primaries. But until recently they did love Democrats. In the 2004 election John Kerry won the county with a 25-point margin. In 2008, John McCain took it by 2 points – the first time a Republican had won Floyd in living memory. That’s to say following hurricane Katrina, the failure in Iraq, the collapse of the economy and the unravelling in Afghanistan, a sizeable portion of Floyd’s voters took a look at Obama and decided that this time, for the first time, they would turn their back on the Democrats.
Back at the Feed My Sheep food pantry Cindy Hernandez has just picked up her groceries and is rifling through the secondhand clothes. She has no doubts about why Obama struggled in a county that is 98% white.
“That’s because Obama was black. Let’s get real,” she says with a laugh.
“You mean people are prejudiced in eastern Kentucky?” asks Tom Nelson, the church’s pastor who seems genuinely upset by what she said.
“You do not believe that?” replies Hernandez.
“I know some are, but not altogether,” says Nelson. Fearing I should get the wrong impression Nelson suggested I talk to Price.
“I voted for McCain,” says Price. “Because, well I voted for the old white guy. At least he’s American.” A few days earlier, the chairman of the Republican party in Jackson County, Arkansas, insisted electing Obama is destroying America in the same way electing Nelson Mandela destroyed South Africa. “Handing it over to the wrong people.”
To ask where racism ends and politics begins in all of this is to set up a false dichotomy – America’s politics has always been steeped in race and racism is a political force. The psychic scars of centuries are not removed in one election or as a result of one person. Indeed they may be deepened and made even more raw as a result of them.
The movement that has emerged to oppose him is almost exclusively white. In Little Rock, Arkansas, a city that is 40% black in a state that is 80% white, an anti-tax Tea party rally of several hundred had not one black attendee – apart from an anti-abortion speaker. The doubts they have cast about his Christianity and his birthplace (some claim Obama wasn’t born in America) are really proxies for race – a bid to cast him as the ultimate “other”. At an anti-healthcare reform rally in Washington in September several racist placards were spotted. One bore a picture a lion and the words, “The zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin’ African”; another said “‘Cap’ Congress and ‘trade’ Obama back to Kenya”.
But while racism might inform the intensity and shape the nature of the attacks on Obama they do not drive them. Obama’s administration has raised taxes on the rich, expanded public spending, pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq and argued – if only halfheartedly – for universal healthcare. Conservatives have good reasons to be against him that have nothing to do with race.
“It’s hard to specify a single source for the opposition,” says Rev Wendell Griffin, a Baptist pastor and judge in Arkansas. “Part of the opposition to Obama is philosophical. There is in every society a strand of thought that glories in the myth of rugged individualism [and] he challenges that notion. He believes that the idea of a government is to have a concern not just for the individual but for the society as a whole. Some people don’t like that.” Griffin went on to list racism, economic desperation and the fact that he is no longer an underdog as other reasons.
His rightwing dissenters may be eccentric and racially exclusive but they have also proved highly effective. They have a populist message that excoriates Bush and the bank bailouts as well as Obama and a TV channel – Fox News – to which they are devoted and which is happy to promote their work. A recent poll showed that if the Tea party – a protest movement set up earlier this year to rally opposition to the stimulus bill and “big government” – were a party it would beat the Republican party.
Every week a “9/12” group meet at the non-alcoholic All Bar None in Lexington, Kentucky. This was an initiative started by Fox presenter Glenn Beck, in order to return America to the values of patriotism and godliness that he says America embraced the day after 11 September. Fourteen showed up the night I was there. A straw poll revealed that none of them blamed Obama exclusively for America heading in the wrong direction, with all preferring to blame the entire political establishment. Half believed Obama is a Muslim, just one thought he’s a Christian and the overwhelming majority thought he was a communist, socialist and Marxist. None believe that he was born in America; most said they did not know.
“A lot of information about Obama’s background is missing,” says Abigail Billings. “The media in America is not doing any research. They’re not asking any questions. They’re not reporting any longer. They’re now opinionated talk shows. They’re no longer offering factual news coverage.” They all watch Fox News.
Many on America’s left are also disgruntled with Obama. They believe the healthcare reform, without a public option, will be inadequate, that the war in Afghanistan will unravel, the stimulus bill was insufficient to kick-start the economy and that his economic team is being run by Wall Street. But unlike the right they have so far failed to turn their disillusionment into a potent political force.
“I’d have thought in the past that if Charles Manson ran against a Republican in Floyd County he would win,” says Bartley. “But Charles Manson could beat Barack Obama here right now. Thousands of miners out of work, the entire local economy in the tank. But he’s got a couple of years where he could turn this round. If he does that he could win. If he doesn’t, Charles Manson could come in and win.”
Part one of Gary Younge’s documentary Opposing Obama will air 1 February on BBC World Service at 10am, 3pm and 8pm GMT
Here in the UK we are gearing up for the general election which must be held by next June. The general perception of the outcome seems to be that the Tories will win but the size of the defeat is still up for debate. It could range from a very small majority to a massive swing to the right on the same magnitude as Labours historic win in 97. Therefore with the result of the election in all probability decided already is there any point in voting for anyone other than Tory at the next election?
The recent history of elections has shown that a large segment of British society is prepared to vote outside the main 3 parties in what can be termed by those who expect conformity and consistency in voting patterns “protest votes”. In the recent European elections UKIP, the BNP and the Greens all managed to win seats. History shows that elections to the European parliament have always been a way for the British public to vent frustration at the current UK government at the same time as not having to worry about the consequences of their actions due to the very limited power that the EU parliament can exert over EU policy.
In very basic terms a protest vote to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) tells Gordon and co how unhappy you are about the rapidly expanding power of the EU, the broken promises about referendums on the Lisbon treaty and the general lack of democracy that the EU in its current form entails.
A vote to the racist British National Party shows the government that your concerned about uncontrolled immigration. Free flats to asylum seekers and long waiting lists for nationals. Overcrowded NHS services and jobs being taken by those willing to work for a much lower wage than the British worker is used to.
A large percentage of people voting for the BNP probably didn’t even consider themselves as racist or even agree with the majority that the party believes in, however the protest vote seems to have worked. Since the European election Labour has started to sound a lot tougher on immigration. At the last election when Michael Howard tried to make immigration an election topic he was deemed to have lurched to the right and it was considered as a major reason for him losing the election. However it seems times have changed and more importantly Labour is so far behind in the polls it doesn’t want to be losing votes to those parties that are willing to tackle the question of immigration.
Limits on the number of non EU immigrants have been brought in with a new point system. A system to ensure that newly advertised jobs must be offered to nationals first before going to foreign workers has been introduced. There is a new UK Border Agency to secure, monitor and control entry into the country. Asylum claims have been speeded up and more people are getting deported but more importantly than that the dialogue used by Labour politicians has changed from a purely “immigration is good for the UK” standpoint to one in which Gordon Brown can say in a speech that he wanted “British jobs for British workers”. In fact since the BNP started winning council and European seats numerous Labour ministers have spoken publicly about how Labour dropped the ball on immigration and have to tackle this topic if they are not to lose more ground to the BNP.
Therefore it seems that the threat of the BNP gaining support from disillusioned working class whites has had the effect of making Labour reconsider or at least re-market its policy on immigration in such a way as to reach out to this constituency which they used to consider their core supporters. However they haven’t moved to tackle the other and more importantly larger group of protest voters which are those people who voted for UKIP.
The Conservative party has always had a problem with its MP’s in that on the topic of Europe and they are split between Eurosceptics and Europhiles with both policy and rhetoric swinging between these two points of view. With David Cameron and William Hague as Foreign Secretary the Tories seem to be trying to reach out to UKIP supporters with their recent European policies. They have broken away from the major centre right group the in the EU parliament the EPP and created a new anti-federalist reformist group along with some other right wing parties from Eastern Europe.
They also tried to appeal to the majority of the British public who were outraged at Labours broken promise of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty by promising a referendum of their own on the treaty. However due to the fact that the treaty has now been implemented across Europe due to the Czech republic finally signing it they decided to drop this promise much to the outrage of public and MP’s alike.
Both main parties have now broken promises to hold a referendum on Europe. This is a vote that the British electorate are itching to have seeing that the majority of people have never been asked their opinion on Britain’s role in Europe. Even those people that did vote in the last referendum in 1975 only voted for whether the UK should join the EEC which was wat the time a free trade zone and not a political entity with federalist superstate trappings. Therefore a large proportion of the British people feel betrayed by this rail-roading of the country into a Euro-State something that right or wrong they feel they should be asked about.
Therefore a party like UKIP with the charismatic Nigel Farage as their leader has a good chance on capitalizing on this growing resentment and anger at broken promises. Add to this the public outrage with the recent MP expenses scandal which has tarred all the major parties at Westminster and it might just be the right point in time for people to consider making a protest vote at the next election and for it to actually count for once at a national level.
Nigel said in his recent conference speech that UKIP would be putting candidates up for every seat in the next election. This means that everyone has a chance of expressing their anger at the increasing lack of democracy within this country by voting for a party that would offer the country a chance to finally express their opinion on the matter. People might consider that UKIP is a one policy party and I would tend to agree however this one policy is one that matters to anyone who cares about democracy and our place within Europe.
The EU is a blatantly undemocratic entity which has just been proven by the recent installation of the new EU president Herman van Rompuy and Foreign Minister Baroness Catherine Ashton. Both of these people have been put into powerful positions without the consent of the people of Europe. There was no election which enabled the people of Europe to choose for themselves the right person for the job. Instead these two people, who have never won any kind of election on a national level, were chosen by our EU leaders for their own reasons.
Poll after poll has shown that the majority of British people want to belong to a Europe of nation states where each country has full control over its own economy, law and borders. They believe in free trade and movement of goods, services and people across Europe but they don’t want a federal super state. Although our politicians are very good at telling us that the EU is not turning into a federal super state it sure does seem that way.
The EU has given itself all the trappings of a country with a European national anthem, a flag, a president of Europe, soon to be embassies around the world and a seat at the UN as well as all the shared laws rules and regulations. Many people all across Europe see the formation of a single federal entity as desirable and I am someone who can definitely see the benefits that being part of Europe has brought to the UK. However on a point of principle the people of this country should have the chance to decide on what kind of relationship they want to have with Europe.
Therefore I am seriously considering using my vote at the next election to vote for UKIP. I live in a constituency that always unfortunately votes Tory and has done for time memorable. Therefore a vote for any other party is wasted anyway as there is no chance that Labour or the Liberals would manage to capture this seat. However even if UKIP doesn’t win many seats if they can get enough votes to show the probably new Conservative government that the country considers the EU question important enough to vote for a single issue party like UKIP then because the Tories are so split on this issue there is a good chance the Tories will have to consider giving the people a vote on the matter.
Recent election results have shown that protest votes do work. Even if the party in question is not elected the large percentage of votes they collect means that the public’s decision has an effect on the behaviour and policies of the major parties, especially those parties who have shrinking support or small majorities in parliament. Every vote counts and these main parties require the votes of not only their core base but those people in the centre as well as those people who are considering changing their vote from another party. The good thing is that people who are concerned about the lack of democracy that our current position in Europe entails as well as the lack of democracy at home by not giving the people the right to choose their own destiny, exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
Probability theory states that UKIP will not win the next general election and the Tories will. A victorious Tory government with a large majority are less likely to be influenced by public unease over Europe than a small majority that is scared of losing every seat. Therefore if you are unhappy with the current state of British politics, angry at the greed shown up by the expenses scandal and concerned about Europe and the lack of democracy then I would urge you to think about voting UKIP in the next election. Even if they do no win we maybe able to influence government policy by showing the level of support for a party that wants to give the British public a vote on their own future in Europe.
Dark Politics is a site dedicated to reporting on the darker side of politics including the war on terror, the high tech police state, privacy and Internet freedom as well as civil rights, freedom of speech and social justice.
Please visit the main site www.darkpolitricks.com for the latest news, more articles, cool features and much more.