Hello Craig

Can’t You Sleep?

Tony

Craig,

I find this argument convincing. The 1974 coalition certainly did the Liberals no long-term favours. And you’re quite right, disciplining Liberals should be as effective as herding cats, and Democrats should act democratically.

In my squeaky little mouse kind of way I am trying to say – we are down here and we too are humans and can speak

Tony

Agree whole heartedly with Craig’s likening us to herding cats. Like any good democratic outlet, suppressing discussion should be impossible

As for a coalition with the Tories to deliver a “stable” government, they appear to be tearing themselves apart already. Can’t say I’m sorry.

Incidentally, some have criticized us for reacting badly to Nick’s negotiations with Cameron because this is the sort of getting along with others we will have to do if we get our wish of electoral reform. It seems to me that getting a rainbow coalition to work would certainly lay that ghost to rest. Isn’t it worth a bash for that reason?

Also, we shouldn’t base our decision on who to work closely with based on what the party has been in the past, we should base our decision on what it will be in the future. We have a far better chance of helping those within the party who would like to see an end to the bad old days of Nu Labour if we join with them now.

Sorry, I meant “Clark’s” likening us to herding cats

Fortunately it seems to be impossible to suppress discussion – I was delighted to see the demonstrators in favour or proportional representation.

In the necessary arguments about what happens now, it’s vital to remember the shambles at some polling stations (running out of ballot papers and sending voters away, illegally turning away voters without polling cards, omission of registered voters from the register, queues which in some case meant that voters waited two or three hours before being turned away and denied their vote). Combined with the fraud investigations into postal votes in several constituencies, there’s an urgent need to address a crisis which undermines democracy, if it doesn’t destroy it entirely.

So what does it all cost? The translation into financial terms is fascinating:

A voter denied a vote is probably entitled to £750 compensation.

It costs £5,000 to challenge the result of an election, even if there’s a prima facie case that it was reached illegally. (This amount is refunded if the challenge is won.)

Nick Clegg’s current price on eBay seems to have stalled at £999,999 – it seems that no-one is prepared to go over the million mark. See http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290433096884#ht_500wt_1182

To paraphrase El Presidente:

Time for you plebs to shut up now, while your lords and masters put together a blue-blood stitch up.

Craig, if the LDs do join in a Coalition with the Tories, will you leave the Party? I think a lot of ordinary LDs will be disgusted and will leave the Party. Remember that the Conservative Party of today is not that of Harold MacMillan/ Rab Butler/ Ian MacLeod.

“There is a fundamental ideological divide between liberals and conservatives”

That may be so for the politician, but I don’t think it’s the case with the voters. Many Conservative voters are quite taken with some Lib Dem policies. e.g. The £10,000 tax threshold for one. I don’t think that represents an ideological divide. What about opposition to ID cards? A lot of agreement there too.

Also, when you refer to the nasty party or the stupid party, what are you saying about the 10.7 million people who voted for the Tories? They’re certainly not all rich and privileged. Are they all nasty or stupid? There are more than half as many again as voted for the Lib Dems. I suspect there is a complete ideological spectrum between beard and sandals Liberals and upper class twit Tories, but most are in the middle.

That seems reasonable grounds for some sort of agreement.

Perhaps you should come out of your political bubble and meet some real people for whom party allegiance and ideology are not the be all and end all.

Clegg will be making the mistake of the century if he enters coalition – we should pull the plug on the Tories after 2 Budgets, next spring.

Craig – have you heard about the evangelicals who stopped Evan Harris in Oxford West? Apparently it was pro-lifers and others who flocked there to elect the Tory (though they of course failed in Sutton & Cheam).

Significant?

You’re right, Julian. I know a lot (well, some) wonderful Conservatives who are ‘old-style’ conservatives – like old-style C of E vicars – not ideologues, esp. in local politics. But the Party as a national organisational and political entity has moved far to the Right over the past 35 years. The dominant people are forceful right-wing ideologues. I think people like the ones I mentioned above (and in my last post) would be shocked at today’s Conservative Party.

Chris, that’s exactly an illustration of what I mean. Economically and philosophically, the Conservative Party does have more in common with the Hard Right in Europe and the rightwing of the Republican Party in the USA than it did in the past.

And how in the name of… was Thatcher/ Major less statist and oppressive than the Labour Government? The Labour Govt merely continued in this Conservative (misnomer; Rightwing authoritarian would be more accurate) trajectory.

Wouldn’t this kind of “working with the enemy” thing be the norm if we actually got PR?

(PR is not the only form of electoral reform, of course. It annoys me that almost all people and reporting act as if it is when things like STV would also make things far fairer (and put an end to anti-democratic tactical voting). Personally, I’d be happy with PR or STV, but people should not be allowed to use objections to PR to dismiss electoral reform entirely.)

Anyway, it’s fine for the LibDems to say that certain issues are deal-breakers if the Tories want to form a coalition.

The LibDems certainly should not hand power to the Tories without getting something substantial back in return. Electoral reform is the thing our country needs the most. (And not an inquiry or referendum on electoral reform but an actual, legal commitment to some form of it. Anything else *would* be weaselled out of or sabotaged by Murdoch.)

Electoral Reform is also not in the Tories’ interests. The left (including pseudo-left, like Labour) is far more divided than the right.

So I will fully support the LibDems if they reject the Tory offer because it doesn’t give them electoral reform.

I cannot, however, support the idea that the LibDems should never, under any circumstances, work with the Tories. I hate the Tory party but if we’re asking for things like PR, and yet refusing to work with people we disagree with, then that seems like cognitive dissonance.

This is typical of party politics Craig because party politics is significantly anti-democratic.

The party gets empowerment from the grass roots as was the case on Thursday. After that, the party tries to cut-loose, saying things like “You have spoken” (as if we were only allowed to speak once), or “we have accepted your mandate to govern”. I’m sure yourselves can recall similar expressions attempting to distance the party from the supporters who do NOT want to be disengaged by the party machine. It happens in many walks of life where power is wielded by just the few, and when it comes to things like war and graft, it gets deadly serious!

who here thought of their vote as a penitential shot at having the ‘right’ to determine an general arc of direction that they lives over the next five years? More importantly perhaps, who is satisfied by that?

Was it really our intention to mandate what would resemble in many ways a 5 year dictatorship? Why should we accept that? Who has the right to set up that condition? Is that “democracy”, or the level of democracy that we want?

Likely, Clegg sees this as his ONLY his best chance of power. Surely Clegg or anyone else didn’t believe a poll following a presidential style debate showing how well they did in that debate would actually mirror the GE. Surely nobody looked at that one variable to the exclusivity of the remaining ocean of variables.

Clegg will NOT turn down this opportunity and forve Cameron into a minority govt, but of course he should.

Here’s the latest bulletin from Matthias Chang…

/////

Edmund Conway, the Economics Editor of the Telegraph, UK revealed that the American economist, David Hale had met with Mervyn King and that the latter confided that, “whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be.”

Edmund Conway went on to paint this ghastly future for his country:

“… no-one yet comprehends just how tough the next five years will be. For obvious reasons: we have not experienced anything like it in our lifetimes. We have been insulated from the full pain of the financial/economic crisis so far by unprecedented low interest rates and by the bank bail-outs. At some point, the anaesthetic will wear off and we will face a period of austerity that may well make the ruling party so unpopular that it effectively becomes unelectable for decades. There will be strikes; there will be stagnation; there will probably be a double dip of some variety. But this time the pain will be unmistakably imposed by the politicians.”

To read more, please go to http://www.futurefastforward.com

/////

On the looming austerity, Ian Hislop said something interesting on election night, like “why not share the horribleness?”. Cameron will try and blame the Lib Dems for the Camerons failings. The Cons are not even conceding much ground on PR. An all party investigation of the issues of PR is a stalling tactic. The Cons will be feverishly watching the polls. When/if they go up in the polls, druggie Dave will try and collapse the coalition and try and win the election. As a new PM (and Balls/Milibend as Labour leader would pose no great challenge methinks) Cameron would be in a strengthened position.

Clegg will gain nothing from a Con alliance. And the way his praise pacified the crowd without a hint of what was being discussed was quite masterful, so I think Clegg is going to collapse talks with the Tories and form a difficult govt with the much weakened Brown.

Of course this is conventional analysis, and Clegg WILL soon have the blood of innocents on his hands when he continues the wars against people in their own lands bravely fighting off Imperial scum.

This election was the first time I voted for the Lib Dems. If they support a Tory government it will also be the last time I vote for the Lib Dems.

Sorry Plaid, I still quite fancy you, and will probably give you my vote next time.

Yes, politicians of all stripes cooperate with one another on many things all the time – we don’t hear much about it, but that’s the norm of everyday interaction in the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and at local level throughout the country. That’s not the point. The point is whether one party is willing to enter into government with another and in my view, the LDs would be foolish to do so with the Conservatives.

A reading of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7717659.stm

and the Wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Scott,_Baroness_Scott_of_Needham_Market

would indicate that she ticked all the right boxes to get to the top of her own party and that she could easily be at home in either of the other two parties.

‘A plague on all their houses’.

This is what the Greeks are facing. Coming our way soon?

This is the sort of scenario we are facing who ever takes over.

The BBC reports that as part of the IMF/ EU bailout Greek leaders are proposing the following measures:

Marr’s guests on BBC 1 now are guess who Lord Pantsdown and the execrable Gove.

Those ‘selected’ to review the Sunday papers (who the hell buys them anyway?) are

Lady Helena Kennedy (Lab peer)

Matthew Paris (was a Con MP/now Murdoch footsoldier)

Rory Bremner (for the comedy angle)

Off out for a walk in the drizzle. The dog won’t mind it.

Write off public debt. Enforce corporate taxation. Stop subsidies to the UK arms trade…no, better still, freeze pensions and cut the public sector.

?

It seems to me the parties are putting on a really good show for the public this weekend. I’ve no doubt the outcome will have been decided weeks if not months ago.

Hague’s letter is part of the plot.

lol at marys post 9:10am

Funny how the govt austerity measures hardly nudge their way into the private sector. Kinda shows you who’s really in control.

lwtc247 at May 9, 2010 9:46 AM

The private sector has been suffering austerity for some considerable time.

The problem is we can barely support our selves let alone a burgeoning public sector.

If the Tories will accept Lib-Dem tax reforms, specifically taking the first £10k earnings out of tax (& NI), that would be a boone to small businesses.

I would go further and take the public sector out of tax. Pay teachers, doctors, police, civil servants net. Just a thought.

“Let us stay in opposition.”

In related news, the markets (you remember them, the things that we are now pretty much the only thing stopping us from following Greece) tanked at the threat of a minority government.

I doubt very much that the libdems would do nearly as well as they did this time around if they were seen to be the ones scuppering a functional government.

I voted libdem both for the national and local elections and am proud of it. But people need to wake up to the fact we all will be neck deep in it if those markets crap out. Folks need to see the bigger picture here. Sure, yank support once things are on course if you must and force a new election. But pulling a stunt like this right now could leave us in a state not unlike Russia under Yeltsin. We cannot afford another election right now.

An interesting post from captainsherlock:

Becket Miliband Dark Actors in BBC Dr. Kelly Snuff Film

James:

We believe that Dr. David Kelly threatened to expose the ‘dark actors’ behind the 2001 outbreak of UK foot and mouth disease and attacks of 9/11, and, to protect the ‘Wag the Dog’ actors, Margaret Becket and David Miliband bought a carbon-offset contract on Dr. Kelly from the BBC World Service to be paid on delivery of a snuff film as proof of his death..

“The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom in 2001 caused a crisis in British agriculture and tourism. Over 10 million sheep and cattle were killed in an eventually successful attempt to halt the disease. Cumbria was the worst affected area of the country, with 843 cases .. By the time the disease was halted by October 2001, the crisis was estimated to have cost the United Kingdom £8bn ($16bn). On 8 April 2001 the Sunday Express reported that a test-tube of the virus had been stolen from a lab at Porton Down in Wiltshire 2 months before the crisis. The paper claims to have seen documents confirming sheep in Wales with the disease as early as January. It was suggested .. that Animal Rights activists may have stolen the virus, however this is unlikely since it is a Level 4 bio-weapons facility and therefore guarded by the military”

“After the 2001 general election, [Margaret] Beckett became Secretary of State at the new Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, created after the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was abolished in the wake of perceived mismanagement of the foot and mouth disease epidemic in 2001. The new department also incorporated some of the functions of the former Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions (DETR), and was known by its initials, “DEFRA”.”

“In 1994 Miliband became Tony Blair’s Head of Policy and was a major contributor to Labour’s manifesto for the 1997 general election. After Labour’s victory in that election, Blair made him the de facto Head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit, a position which he held until the 2001 election .. Following Labour’s third consecutive election victory in May 2005, he was promoted to the Cabinet as Minister of State for Communities and Local Government within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister .. On 5 May 2006 following the local elections Tony Blair made a major cabinet reshuffle in which Miliband replaced Margaret Beckett as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Miliband has said he believes agriculture is important for the UK’s cultural heritage, economy and society and also for the environment. He has said disease control should be balanced with animal welfare .. Miliband is an advocate for international awareness of climate change and believes the cooperation of all nations is needed for environmental reform .. He believes EU should go further in two areas: a low carbon global economy and global action on climate change .. By switching over to a low carbon economy, he plans to tackle climate change. He .. announced the Government’s plans to legislate for carbon reductions at the United Nations General Assembly.”

Our research suggests that Becket or Miliband ordered the Kelly snuff film through Sarah Jones, then head of the BBC in-house legal department and a former employee of Magic Circle law firm Allen & Overy, a carbon-offset broker with the Legal Sector Alliance.

“Before we get into the latest astonishing developments, here is a quick summary of who Dr. Kelly was and what happened to him: 1. Dr. David Kelly worked for the Ministry of Defense/U.K. as an expert in bio-weapons. He was also one of the key UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. 2. He became concerned about the US/UK claims of WMD in Iraq in the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003. Much the same way that former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson became concerned about US claims of yellowcake uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger. Like Wilson, Dr. Kelly became an anonymous source for a journalist. In Kelly’s case, he met with BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan. 3. The MoD leaked Kelly’s identity (just like Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity was leaked) to the press. 4. A Parliamentary committee tasked with investigating the planted intelligence on Iraq asked Kelly to testify, which he did. 5. Several days after his testimony and while preparing for a trip with his wife, Dr. Kelly was found dead in a park nearby his home, which was ruled a suicide. On the day he “committed suicide” he had sent an email to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in which he said “many dark actors playing games.” 6. Leading physicians and first responders who arrived at the park and inspected Kelly’s body did not think he committed suicide, even going so far as to sue the British government to prove their case.”

“Dr David Kelly was befriended by Mrs Mai Pederson, an undercover US intelligence agent. Dr Kelly, a leading weapons expert, was found dead by police in the woods near his home after being named as the insider who spoke to journalists about the lies told by the UK and US governments to justify the invasion of Iraq. Mrs Pederson was “one of the very first people to know that Dr Kelly’s body had been found.” As a US military intelligence spy, Master Sergeant Mai Pederson was trained to attach to people identified as targets, befriend them, gain their trust, infiltrate their life, and then exploit them as directed by her superiors. She was a specialist in seducing male targets. Her husband, US Air Force Sergeant Mr Jim Pederson, described his wife’s standard mode of operation: “She has always been a spook of one kind or another. She is invaluable in this job because she doesn’t look as though she’s in military intelligence. She goes to interrogate someone and she’s tiny and beautiful, and she flirts with them, and just sits down and chats. Before they know it they’ve told her all sorts of stuff.” As well as basic combat skills, Mrs Pederson’s training as a spy and assassin would have included sophisticated cover-up techniques, and in particular how to make murder look like suicide. As Mr Pederson boasted: “She was proficient with a gun and basic unarmed combat and worked under-cover for long periods ?” called TDA for Temporary Duty Attachments ?” in Egypt and, I believe, Iran. She was a very complex character.”

“Evidence relating to the death of Government weapons inspector David Kelly is to be kept secret for 70 years, it has been reported. Dr Kelly’s body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the Government’s claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes. An inquest was suspended by then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who ruled that Lord Hutton’s inquiry could take its place. But in the event, the inquiry focused more on the question of how the BBC report came to be broadcast than on the medical explanation for Dr Kelly’s death.” .. No credible expert believes that Kelly killed himself. Yet Lord Hutton continues to not only force the suicide claims down the throats of the medical experts who examined Kelly’s body and of the British public, he has also now sealed all of the records. If Kelly killed himself, then why are the medical records being sealed?”

They can run but they cannot hide .. http://abeldanger.blogspot.com/

why do people rant on about the same things on forums but do nothing more. If you feel like that create controversy. I thought Libbys would have a restraining effect on tory plans.

Read Tenet’s 13 Feb 2003, report, first 2 pages. Has no one picked this up yet?

“I thought Libbys would have a restraining effect on tory plans.”

That’s pretty much how I saw it – The Torys prepared to make savage cuts in order to save the economy, tempered by the even hand of the libdems to protect as much as possible the people who work within it.

In many ways I saw a Tory/Libdem pact to be the best possible outcome.

Given what I’ve read from many on the libdem side, I’m half expecting some people to start bleating about “betrayal” and breaking off to form their own sub parties…

@scousebilly

Citation needed.

@the_leander

captainsherlock posted here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100038729/camerons-first-stupid-mistake/comment-page-3/#comment-100294839

However, more of his and other “agents” work may be found at the url cited, i.e. http://abeldanger.blogspot.com/

Hope that helps.

@ScouseBilly

Having looked through all I see is a lot of claims that have no backup. None of which have anything to do with the topic of this particular blogpost.

I don’t often disagree with Craig’s posts, but personally I would take pretty much any deal likely to lead to real electoral reform – Tory or Labour. I can’t see how that could be possible without agreeing to join some sort of coalition. Neither will there be another chance to have this position of leverage for a generation. Once this moment has passed, getting electoral reform will be impossible again (without a mass insurrection, anyway!).

Looking at the long game, getting reform is more important than how long any coalition lasts, what its policies are, or even the result of the first election under the new system.

It’s also worth pointing out that while joining a coalition is likely to result in the Lib Dems being blamed by the electorate for its instability and nasty policies – that doesn’t mean the Lib Dems won’t also be blamed for the instability and nasty policies resulting from *not* joining a coalition. Just see what Liam Fox is already saying for more details.

The top 10% have over twice the amount of wealth needed to pay off the debt. They caused it they should pay for it.

the_leander at May 9, 2010 11:04 AM

I used to think that about captainsherlock’s missives too.

However, unlike many in the blogosphere, his work does “join up” if you stick with it. I thought I’d post this taster for anyone interested. I know Craig takes an interest in the Dr Kelly affair and thought I’d drop it in here. I guess if Craig shares your view, he’ll remove it.

FWIW the captain believes all our political leaders are “compromised” and will do as they are told. He has some interesting stuff on the “magic circle” of law firms role in our politics. Don’t forget Mrs Clegg has a senior position at DLA Piper one of said magic circle.

jungle -

a coalition with the Tories which uncluded real electoral eform would be a different thing – but I don’t think there is any chance of that. Some fob-off proposal perhaps.

I accept that once we have PR coalition will become the norm – but that is a different situation. Under FPTP coalition is political suicide.

“However, unlike many in the blogosphere, his work does “join up” if you stick with it.”

No, it really doesn’t. Unless he backs up his points, it is nothing more then groundless speculation that seems to have long crossed the border into moonbattery.

Like I said: Citation needed.

Any referendum,presuming the negotiators be stern enough to stand up to the large parties and recognise their current power, that does not include STV as an electoral reform option, is akin to a 10″ blade in the back.

To impose a new electoral system, despite the political ineptness of the public on this issue, rigging and intimidation of voters choice, not to talk about outright corrupt practises, endured and fostered by the electoral commission in this country, is balatantly untennable.

Whats fathomable by the Irish and Scots should also be a choice for us, otherwise they might as well stop talking now.

I have conducted and helped in my last election, my body is reeling from stress and too much adrenalin, something I do not wish on anyone.

My best regards to Craigs wedding anniversarry and happy belated birthday to Cameron.

the_leander at May 9, 2010 11:23 AM

You are free to think what you like.

Craig at May 9, 2010 11:20 AM

Three times in the past, Labour have “promised” electoral reform to the Liberals/Lib-Dems and failed to deliver.

Unless the Tories make a substantive concession, I agree a coalition would be suicidal (at least for the Lib-Dems). However, would a Lib-Lab coaltion really work, after 3 false promises, with a fractional and fractious majority including others and above all dropping it’s moral high ground viz a viz Iraq?

Reading mary’s account of Greek austerity measures, another has to be flagged up, i.e. the pensianble age is far lower there thananywhere else in Europe, I believe it is 57, something that should be aligned with other countries.

Scousebilly’s account does not mention the brilliant UN negotiator, Brazilian diplomat Jose Maria Bustani, fired some weeks before the attak on Iraq, a man who was just about to sign up Saddam to the chemical weapons treaty.

This in stark contrast to the 600 million loan to saddam by the allies supporting his Iran Iraq war, some 48 hours after he dropped mustard gas in Halabja gassing hundreds of Kurdish people, an episode that must be remembered and seen in the same context as Dr. kelly’s death.

There was a sytematic erradication of positive consent seeking, and a drive to cover up black ops, whilst seeking to perpetuate a war on terror by conspiratorial means.

Worth pointing out that the reason Dr Taylor lost in Wyre Forest was because the LDs were stupid/venal enough to field a candidate against him. A bit much when you consider that Taylor mostly voted with LD in the Commons.

Tory majority: 2643

LD vote: 6040.

“There is a fundamental ideological divide between liberals and conservatives.”

but why did you ever believe that clegg was ‘different’.

he came about because regime change , as with the tories , required war mongers and neo con apologists. the media facilitated this regime change.

the city and media with vested interests know in this respect there is no change regardless of prime minister..

but lets not forget … all this is because of ‘serving the national interest’ … ‘the city’ … ‘the economy’ .. ‘to bring about change’ ..

does clegg really think that the libs have anything to gain whilst he sells out on behalf of the war party ..

The Tories will collapse a coalition govt BEFORE sealing any law bringing in PR. PR is NOT in their interests. Isn’t that a near cerr? Why on earth would the Tories do something that would forever limit their power. If Clegg is being told the by Tories they will, I am convinced they are would be lying. Druggie Dave will watch the polls like a Hawk. The house of cards will fall when he gets what he things is a substantial lead. Leo put it well…

Leo (7:43) made a good point too which nobody(?) has picked up on…

/Wouldn’t this kind of “working with the enemy” thing be the norm if we actually got PR?/

And how exactly will PR stop the wars? Doesn’t anyone frigging care?

Believing the Tories can be coaxed into a long and sincere process of actually _producing_ PR, is a fantasy noir. I imagine even ‘going through the motions of having a commission to ‘look at the issues of PR’ would be costly exercise, something a Tory chancellor would eagerly stick his cutting dagger into.

“This is what the Greeks are facing. Coming our way soon?”

except the the uk is potentially ground zero for the financial meltdown, it being the major financial center of the world.

we have yet to witness the true scale of the fraudulent ponzi schemes the city has involved itself in, the true scale is not even in the 100′s of billions ..

just remember the ripa and terrorism laws were not a matter of chance – just as the housing /credit bubble wasnt.

Just saw Michael Heseltine on the telly discussing the horse trading and he made the valid point that electoral reform was not a big issue this election. If the voters had wanted it they would have voted liberal. They didn’t.

The liberals are going to have to make a stronger argument for PR. Right now the only reason they appear to want it is to get more seats.

If the liberals had a majority would they still argue for it ? Judging by the email above I think not.

P.S. I didn’t know druggie Dave did ‘fake tan’

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47805000/jpg/_47805907_untitled-1.jpg

Blair and co were sent to infiltrate the labour party, mission accomplished.

Clegg and co were sent to infiltrate the libs, mission about to be accomplished.

“the true scale is not even in the 100′s of billions”

What if I were to tell you that the 500 trillion is the amount of bad debt that is currently floating around the world economy at the moment and that this is what is panicking the financial world?

@ Chris Marsden: any links for the overthrow of Evan Harris? (good bloke, shame)

@ Ingo; sorry, hope you’re recovering; what was that about Jack Straw running Clegg’s leadership campaign, again?

Craig,

Come off it. You as ever epitomise the ideal being the mortal enemy of the sensible.

If you had your way and there was a change to the voting system to bring in more ‘proportionality’, we’d end up with exactly what we have now, ie Lib Dems and Conservatives busy haggling over who gets what job.

OK, the relative weights of what the two parties brought to the table would be different, but the substantive outcome in policy terms might well be little different.

So if Lib Dems are not prepared to take responsibility now and ‘leave opposition’, what is the point of them?

Elsewhere in Europe there tend to be coalitions between parties. In the UK there are coalitions within parties. It looks as if many Lib Dem voters might default to Labour if a Tory/Lib Dem deal emerges. Good. A heavy internal Lib Dem split will clear the way to a clearer two-party situation being restored in due course.

Charles

Crawford

At last,ALMOST a good post from you Crawford, well done.

Charles,

no, it is much more practical than that. The Tories will not offer PR, and under the FTPT system the Liberals will get hugely punished for a coalition at the next election. Once PR is established, yes coalition will be the norm and more politically survivable.

But Charles, you are clearly supporting the Conservatives, on your interesting ‘blogoir’, so this attitude is hardly surprising.

As for your comments about an ‘opposition’, you may indeed have forgotten the point of having one, but that’s possibly because the Conservatives have entirely failed to provide one. The outcomes for Iraq, if the Lib Dems had held power, or had even formed the main opposition, would certainly have been ‘substantive’; don’t you think?

un ‘interesting ‘blogoir’

No wonder Crawford doesn’t want PR, he is so far up the backside of the tory party he could not survive in a non methane environment.

“What if I were to tell you that the 500 trillion is the amount of bad debt that is currently floating around the world economy at the moment”

I would tell you that that is much more than the total amount of ‘real’ money in circulation. Yet the taxpayer is supposed to pay off these notional debts with real money. It’s called theft. Notional debts should be settled with notional money.

‘I would tell you that that is much more than the total amount of ‘real’ money in circulation.’

That was my point.

“I would tell you that that is much more than the total amount of ‘real’ money in circulation.”

That was one of the main points I took from R4′s election coverage – Peston coming in every now and then, telling us that the only important point was to come up with something that wouldn’t cause “the markets” to “take fright”, because they can bring about the end of the world any time we don’t play ball.

We can arrange the deckchairs however we like, just so long as we give the iceberg whatever it wants. How is it not going to be an even bigger iceberg next time we come this way ?

This is the second election I’ve voted Lib Dem, and like the last time it was largely a protest against New Labour, though this time I also felt that the Lib Dems could exert a good and tempering influence.

But the country needs a stable government, and if the Lib Dems don’t succeed in doing a deal with the Tories and we have another election, whether in 6 weeks or 6 months, I may well vote Tory. If many people think like me, the Lib Dems could be decimated and any chance of sharing power or electoral reform gone for the foreseeable future. That prospect doesn’t bother me, since I’m against PR anyway.

How come the rich are getting richer?

How come the poor are getting poorer.

Does that answer your question?

yep.

I will take the party to the right and you will obey!!!!

The LD will become the left wing of the conservatives, and you will follow.

“How come the rich are getting richer?”

Because their profits belong to them but their debts belong to us.

‘Because their profits belong to them’

Because our profits belong to them.

Does the word ‘Privatisation’ mean anything to you?

Time for your to leave the Libs Craig. Where next? Respect is a busted flush. The Greens seem to accept all comers. Perhaps you could start your own party.

The notion of a party without discipline made me laugh out loud. What are you, ten? The thought of a Lib-Tory pact is also highly amusing – hopefully both parties will fall part as they try to contort themselves into some kind of coalition. Meanwhile Labour can gloat from the sidelines. Very amusing.

And I see on Charles Crawford’s thing that he’s quoting Theordore Dalrymple (financial expert? not when I looked) saying that the voters of Greece mostly deserve everything they get because they were stupid enough to accept government bribes in order to fuel their ‘economically unjustifiable’ lifestyles.

ATHENS, Nov 13, 2007 (IPS) – A third of Greeks live close to the poverty line or under, a new survey has found.

Crawford doesn’t allow the truth to get in the way when he is on full rant flow.

The various permutations as to which parties will form the next government are really just a lot of froth.

This was the no-choice election in case you guys missed it.

Whether it’s Brown,Clegg,Cameron or the bleeding Queen won’t make a ha’porth of difference.With or without the “election” you are all about to be dispossessed.

Since you can’t see the wood for the trees after several weeks of meaningless frenetic activity you misconstrued because the corporate media sold it to you as “democracy” and the free flow of information check out:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18948

-for a more realistic account of where we are now and why.

Ever wondered why there’s no “banker” on a chessboard? Well it’s because the banker controls ALL the pieces!

Poor Nick Clegg. He should have sat back & let the parties come to him with their best offer, not immediately announce that he was going to try and support the Tories first, I think.

You’re right Craig. A minority government or coalition involving most of the parties except the tories would represent over 60% of voters. In terms of what’s democratic and representative of the election result that’s little different from the 59.1% that you get when you add the total share of the vote for Lib Dems and Conservatives.

The Lib Dems are diametrically opposed to the Conservatives on many issues (e.g electoral reform and on putting off public sector cuts till after an economic recovery).

Nor has Cameron offered the Lib Dems anything more than an all-party commission on electoral reform. No guarantee it’ll decide we should have a referendum on P.R. No guarantee he’d accept it’s reccomendations as binding.

Brown has to resign to allow a Labour-Lib Dem-Nationalist-Alliance-SDLP-Green minority government – and the Labour party needs to make a public commitment to a bill for a referendum on PR being passed this year.

I once saw a nice kind Arab man who suddenly changed as soon as one Sky News gang reached over to him with the cameras and mics. The attension of the camera crew suddenly excited him and the next thing I saw was him shouting “Jihad” and all other stuff that might look good on Murdoch Media.

The Lib Dems might be having such moments

‘I once saw a nice kind Arab man who suddenly changed as soon as one Sky News gang reached over to him with the cameras and mics.’

‘next thing I saw was him shouting “Jihad”

Did they whisper something in his ear and hand him a some cash.

‘The Lib Dems might be having such moments’

They are indeed.

‘And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.’

‘Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.’

King James Bible

Not in London and Brussels behind the closed doors you don’t.

Wonder what is being stitched up?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8670553.stm

Having just been gubbed in an election, I feel some sympathy for Brown despite all the things he’s done so badly wrong. Anyone getting involved in politics has to face up to the fact that if it doesn’t go bad from the start or in the middle, it will eventually.

Just hope we finally get PR – probably won’t make any difference to how many votes i get if i stand again, but it would let people vote for what they actually want rather than for what they dislike least.

Well I can’t help feeling totally vindicated by the result of the election. This feeling of vindication is exceeded only by the disappointment of my fellow Scots falling for the ‘Vote Labour to keep the Tories out’ line yet again.

Did the Clegg bounce ever really exist in anything other than the mind of the pollsters?

I am sure there are many principled people in the LibDems but your problem is that, despite their posturing, your leaders are not principled in the least.

The LibDems will do a deal with whoever offers them power and it will end in tears as it eventually did in Scotland.

It might be worth it if PR is part of the price for their support but if the LibDems do not take the chance to secure PR now then they will deserve everything they don’t get in the future.

Commiserations to Duncan McFarlane.

This is his most interesting biography where you can see that he assisted Craig in Norwich North.

http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/election/about-me/

It is tragic that politically active and independent minded people like him and Craig stand no chance of getting elected in the existing system.

Thanks, Mary.

Duncan, I respect you even more now. I’d read your letters in The Herald but hadn’t realised the whole story was so rich and impassioned – what a wonderful account. Good on you – and keep on!

From the ‘Voting Tree’ thread.

“What I say to people on the doorstep is we will only cut your throat slowly, the others will cut your head off” was a comment of New Labour MP for Blyth Valley in the North East, Ronnie Campbell, in a local paper.”

I thought I would go and find out who the good people of Blyth voted for

Name Party Votes % +/-

Ronnie Campbell Labour 17,156 44.5 -10.5

Jeffrey Reid Liberal Democrat 10,488 27.2 -3.9

Barry Flux Conservative 6,412 16.6 +2.7

Steve Fairbairn British National Party 1,699 4.4 +4.4

James Condon UK Independence Party 1,665 4.3 +4.3

Barry Elliott Independent 819 2.1 +2.1

Allan White English Democrats 327 0.8 +0.8

Majority 6,668 17.3

Turnout 38,566 60.0 +3.8

Thats where you went wrong in Norwich north craig, not telling people what they wanted to hear.

there are many things which need explanation, here are a few;

The “crisis” which we are all now apparently facing has suddenly arrived along with all this debt and nobody could see it coming? I mean it’s not like the volcano in Iceland which is a natural event and could not be predicted although the warning signs were there earlier in the year. Suddenly we have to come to a decision over a weekend or else the financial markets will get very cross and we will suffer financial “meltdown” whatever that is. So how did we get to this crisis, whose fault is it ?

So we had a gerneral election and there wasn’t a mandate given to any party by the public, ie by the rules in place no party got a majority in the Commons. However the three main parties take it upon themselves to do some horse trading amongst themselves in secret and we the public are expected to wait in silence until they decide what’s best for us! Surely what we have is not a hung parliament but a constitutional problem. The election didn’t deliver what is was supposed to, a strong stable governement. What we need now is a fundamental look at our democracy, a proper written constitution and a new election based on a different system. The present system is not fit for purpose, a new one is needed and it should not be decided by any of the political parties working in isolation. We can not continue with a 19th century system which is leading us to third world status. If any time was ripe for a revolution it is now.

“Surely what we have is not a hung parliament but a constitutional problem”

No, it’s a problem of power having been ‘outsourced’. The country is being informed that people with huge amounts of money will make our choices unviable unless we make their interests our priority.

If any issue is unsuitable for a referendum… it’s the complex issue of electoral reform and the adoption of some form of proportional representation.

How on earth are ordinary people to make any kind of rational decision about it?

What do people know or understand about PR? Which system is best? A simple question about whether one wants PR or not is close to meaningless. Or will there be multiple choices available on the ballot paper? Will small parties that receive less than 5% be excluded?

There are a great many complex and un-answered questions relating to PR which are not suited to a referendum, in my opinion.

In the current situation I’m not even sure that PR is a good idea. It might be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. The two-party duopoly replaced by chaos.

Maybe the Liberals should just merge with Labour and form a new National Progressive Party instead?

ultimately then it is these hugely monied people who have most to lose if we don’t play ball with them.

leander wrote-”But pulling a stunt like this right now could leave us in a state not unlike Russia under Yeltsin”

why? if yeltsin was a hero for the british and american media .public and govt. then why not a yeltsin like man and situation for britian? what is good for a goose——-”

or is it that really the much praised yeltsin(by the anglosaxon) was really an agnet to ruin Russia to the cheers of parasitic anglosaxons ?

In his critique of Popper’s Open Society thesis one writer takes issue with Popper’s assumption that all critical thinking has as its raison d’etre the gaining of a better understanding of reality.

While this may be the case with science it does not,he insists,apply to politics where the primary purpose of all discourse is to gain power and then to stay in power-

“Those who fail to understand this are unlikely to be in power.The only way in which politicians can be persuaded to pay more respect to reality is by the electorate insisting on it,rewarding those whom it considers truthful and insightful,and punishing those who engage in deliberate deception.In other words the electorate needs to be more committed to the pursuit of truth than it is at present.Without such a commitment,democratic politics will not produce the desired results.An open society can only be as virtuous as the people living in it.”

In the “Ostrich Election” just passed only a few of the politicians who have engaged in deception were punished by the electors;the great majority remain in the corridors of power.The new intake will be as swiftly corrupted as were the old.

The electors remain mired in a fog of self-deception and delusion little understanding that the quality of their lives is about to depreciate markedly.

And the writer who came in this book to be so preoccupied with the nature of reality? He was one of those who made a killing from people’s propensity to mistake the virtual reality of synthetic financial products for the real thing:George Soros!

Like the politicians he describes and the synarchy he represents Soros will no doubt escape and even profit from the financial collapse that will be the doom of us lesser mortals.

Again – I smell a coalition with the Tories, then the Conservative driver will be deciding where he takes the honourary passenger in the back seat.

No one would have forced the passenger in, but he was keen to have the ride.

The medialens editors put this up. Nicely savage. They asked if this is the way that Cohen used to write.

Nick Cohen curiously honest on the media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/09/david-cameron-proportional-representation

Oh, get away with your cries of doom. We’re alive. We can all eat. We’re on the internet, not down a coal mine. We wanted a balanced parliament. We got a balanced parliament, with the Lib Dems holding the centre, one hopes. It’s not over yet.

writerman, it took me three days and making 2 people go through it with me very slowly to understand the STV. If I can manage it, though…

We’re on the internet,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19005

@ Charles,

You are so predicatble: ” Elsewhere in Europe there tend to be coalitions between parties. In the UK there are coalitions within parties. It looks as if many Lib Dem voters might default to Labour if a Tory/Lib Dem deal emerges. Good. A heavy internal Lib Dem split will clear the way to a clearer two-party situation being restored in due course.”

Thanks Mary and Suhayl.

I realise now that my ‘about me’ page said there were people in “all parties” who are in it for the money and status – and that all party leaders tend to be dishonest.

That’s very unfair. There are none in the Greens, Solidarity or the Scottish Socialists who are in it for the money or the status – and very few in the SNP – and Sheridan, Fox and Caroline Lucas most definitely are not dishonest. I didn’t intend to imply any of that – i put the site together in too much of a hurry.

and most Lib Dems are in it for reasons other than money or status too – most of the careerists and the corrupt gravitate to Labour or the Conservatives and are encouraged to become corrupt as they have ‘safe seats’

Avebury a real liberal?

And there was me thinking Avebury was a British intelligence asset.

Since the late 1970s Lubbock’s “centrifugalist” geopolitical agenda have seen him lend devoted support to terrorist groups from the Afghan resistance to the Soviets,the Khashmiri rebels against India,to the Shining Path narco-terror group in Peru!

All these groups share with British intelligence a desire to break up and destablize large nation states that

stand athwart Anglo-US imperial ambitions.

Peculiar liberal sort,our Eric!

Oscar – completely agree – if Clegg doesn’t demand a referendum on PR as the price of any deal with anyone the Lib Dems will not survive.

People voting Labour to prevent Tory cuts is sort of understandable in that Tory cuts will be even deeper (and especially in Scotland where they have almost no seats) but misses Alastair Darling’s open statement that there would be cuts “harsher and deeper” than under Thatcher if Labour was re-elected.

@ Duncan McFarlane,

” Oscar – completely agree – if Clegg doesn’t demand a referendum on PR as the price of any deal with anyone the Lib Dems will not survive.”

So – the Liberals have a barganing chip if they are willing to play a principled game.

Murray is a principled man – but – politics for the most part lacks principle and runs on expediency.

Murray, a good man, wants to and has shown that he stands on principle. The Liberal hierarchy will stand on expediency – that is what I perdict.

If I am incorrect – I would be happy to buy all the bloggers on this thread a pint at the local.

@ Craig,

” UPDATE

Having just seen a papers review on TV, it is striking that precisely those newspaper groups which launched the most furious and concerted election attack on the Lib Dems, are now urging that they join the Tories in government. That in itself should signal that it is a very bad idea for the Lib Dems.”

I wager that the Liberals will do what is expedient. It is called “politricks”

This is precisely why we should get rid of political parties and vote for the actual policies.

That would be more of a reform than any alteration in the vote-counting system.

i doubt it’d benefit them to be in the same position they were in in the Scottish Parliament in the past – with very little influence on government policy as a junior partner, but held responsible for all government policies by the voters as part of the government.

‘Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.’

Albert Einstein

yes – in other words if you have a lot economic inequality (roughly equalling socialism or progressive liberalism), you won’t get much political equality (democracy).

Nye Bevan said it long ago – socialism is impossible without democracy – and vice versa.

(though it’s not necessary to call it socialism to have economic equality – and many governments and parties that have claimed to be socialist have been the opposite (e.g Stalinist, Maoist) just as many of the worst dictatorships talk most about democracy.

‘and many governments and parties that have claimed to be socialist have been the opposite’

Well done Duncan McFarlane for seeing the obvious that so many fail to see. The world has never seen socialism, it has always been destroyed, disfigured, distorted at birth and used (as you point out) as a tool to promote more suffering. Socialism remains a dream.

(doh – i said socialism or progressive liberalism roughly equal economic inequality though. Actually they roughly equal economic equality – or economic inequality equals a lack of socialism or a lack of progressive liberalism)

In the last half hour or so Patrick Wintour has put some interesting material on the Guardian website which no doubt will appear in the paper tomorrow, which goes some way to clarifying the difficulties facing Clegg, who has now said he will make a decision within 24 hours. Wintour makes it sound as if he will go one way or the other, thus rejecting Craig’s idea of sitting on the sidelines.

I am inclined to agree with Craig, as the Tories are full of crap and Labour are unfortunately toxic at present owing to the fact that nearly ten years ago the entire parliamentary Labour party, virtually, resigned their political credentials to go along with the one genuine Neocon in the party Tony Blair. They finally got rid of him and replaced him with a guy with the communication skills of a rhinoceros.

However if the Libs decline to dance with anyone no doubt we will have another election in six months and who do we vote for then?

I voted Libdem this time because Clegg said a few refreshing things, in a half hearted way about bankers and human rights. But the Libdems don’t begin to have a solid platform.

And what would it take for the Labour party to become credible again?

By the way Craig, regarding the above, I suppose its too much to hope that your £100 is still going? (March 27)

If the Lib Dems get PR out of a deal with either Labour or the Conservatives then they would gain seats even if it lost them half their votes (which it wouldn’t).

They currently have 59 seats (under 10% of the seats) on 23% of the vote. If their vote was only 12.5% under P.R (and it’d likely be much higher) they would get roughly 81 seats.

New Labour have served their purpose for the neocon agenda they will take the blame in the mind of many in the electoral. At the next election the princes of the universe will get their majority to rule us all.

It would I think suit the princes of the universe if it is a lib/lab coalition (which would not last long). Things will be far worse very soon and that will make people much more likely to vote tory.

Lots of people who got rich under Thatcher and Blair want to be David Cameron.

Why not sell Eton educations? It can’t be more difficult to fix than absolution and parliamentary honours. Carve a few more gilded names on the school’s list of Old Boys/ Girls. All those noxious twerps who voted for the fat-head should contribute to his barmy, sell everything that’s not screwed down, recovery plans, by contributing from their ill-gotten gains.

I voted Liberal,because on the eve of the election I met the sleaze-merchant who is my nasty New Labour M.P. and managed to twist his ear a little. He came back with an increased majority and the satisfaction of the Tories winning.

Anyway, I want my 10,000 pound tax threshold please. The daft Tories think that everything they voted for should now drop into their hands. No, you don’t have a mandate for getting your own way and you have to compromise. The Tories realise that they will have less distasteful compromising to do with the LibDems on board than if they have to slog out every case in parliament.

Parky – “ultimately then it is these hugely monied people who have most to lose if we don’t play ball with them.”

They have plenty of other countries that will.

Far more important than PR is to establish who the government in power gets its orders from.

Richard Robinson,

yes. That is why I can’t see an answer without some international co-operation between governments.

Ruth,

I think that international capital is now more powerful than national governments. National governments could change that, by co-operating with eachother in changing their national laws. But many individuals comprising governments are corrupted by capital, they work as advisors, they get more of their money from business than from being members of government.

Yes, there are cabals that orchestrate things, but at the highest level there doesn’t need to be. What is good for Big Money is the same the world over; Big Money One doesn’t have to compete with Big Money Two, it’s too risky and dangerous, why take on such a powerful foe when you can more easily ans safely exploit and manipulate weaker entities, such as governments and the people they consist of?

Ruth,

that’s why we need electoral reform. Democracy itself needs to be strengthened. Most of the UK constituencies are safe seats, those MPs can do as they like without risk of losing their lucrative positions. They are also sitting targets for Big Money, who work upon them over decades.

Corruption of the intelligence services will also play its part. Who better to discover the weaknesses of the members of government, to aid in the manipulation? And all cloaked by secrecy, justified in the name of “the national interest”.

No, Nick’s not very liberal at all.

There are reports that he joined the Tories whilst at university and his wife is the daughter of a right wing Spanish politician, in a party which was formed by an ex-Franco minister.

Then he’s got all these right wing policies.

Why the fuck didn’t he just stay in the Tories and we could a proper liberal leader?

There are traces of spookiness about it all.

we in america don’t have many areas in politics where we have an advantage, but hsving a two party system certainly is an advantage in cases like that facing the uk today. in every election the leadership is either republican or democrat with no coalitions needed.

‘we in america don’t have many areas in politics where we have an advantage, but hsving a two party system certainly is an advantage’

Really, and there was I thinking you only had a one party system with two right wings…silly me.

I smell a rat.

That jumped up little snot aka Michael Gove is giving off warning signs… giving public[!] displays of apparent bending over backwards to the LDs. Could be true – but I very much doubt it. I think he’s preparing for a possible collapse in talks in case the LD’s cont join with the Tories.

“We treated the LD’s with great respect and I even offered to give up a cabinet post. The LD’s have destroyed a potentially governable alliance. Bad baf LD’s, the NuLabLab pact has no legitimacy. Zeig heil! “

This is the funniest thing I’ve seen or read in many a year.

Definitely the most smackable face in the Tory party:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/27/article-0-02CADB2400000578-486_468x421.jpg

“Under FPTP coalition is political suicide.”

I think this one of the most important points made. Some commentators are making the comparison with Scotland, asking what’s so bad about coalition or minority government when it works just fine up there? But the context is entirely different – Scotland has PR (of a sort) and nobody is throwing away a chance of a future majority by entering (or refusing) a coalition now. Nobody has any chance of a future majority – coalition or issue-by-issue deal making are the daily norm.

I wonder if it is now weighing on Lib Dem minds that their refusal to enter coalition with the SNP ran into a pretty severe instance of the law of unintended consequences: it began the ongoing erosion of their reputation north of the border, and allowed the SNP government to gain popularity.

There is one interesting possible outcome, though. If the SNP fair poorly in the Holyrood elections next year we could have a Lib/Tory coalition in London and a Lib/Labour coalition in Edinburgh. Double double, toil and trouble..

The Einstein contribution rises head and shoulders above the baby-talk.

The facile commentary re-the realignment of various vacuous politicians entirely misses the point made by Einstein re-the role of finance capital.

The prime role of the central bankers in shaping our political system made the left-right paradigm that so animates the political posturing of the babblers entirely irrelevant decades ago.

Contrary to what the babblers and leftie sap-brains imagine this is just as Marx envisaged.Their understanding of “communism/socialism” as the righteous dispossession of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat is based on a myopic surface reading of the great man’s work.I mean where they’ve done any reading at all,that is!

While finance capital held pivotal peak position in the economic system described by Marx he did not envisage that level of the pyramid being swept away in the revolution.

Far from it!

The dispossession of the bourgeoisie would be carried out by the proletariat.Dictatorship,a central bank and income tax would follow.

But what would become of international finance capital?

The financial oligarchy would dominate the societies where the masses had been victorious.All the world’s property would fall into the laps of the oligarchy now controlling all the states’ resources in a world republic.

Not a word of this-the real plan-was mooted in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital naturally.

Just how far we are from Marx’s plan being fulfilled is not yet clear-but it may soon come to fruition-Cameron,Clegg or Brown notwithstanding!

Marx envisaged the capitalist system destroying itself once wealth was concentrated in so few hands that the majority had no stake or way to survive in the existing system.

The problem with that is that he envisaged this happening by revolution, not reform – and most violent revolutions lead to new dictatorships, hijacked by a minority.

Socialists don’t need to be Marxists either. Marx’s analysis of capitalism was brilliant, but his views on how socialism would come about were vague, unrealistic and utopian.

In reality the only system that works is a compromise between the free market and socialism – that eliminates poverty through a welfare state, good public services and some nationalised industries to bring in revenues, but also allows a well regulated free market that lets people better themselves and provide for their children through working harder or being more innovative (and of course none of that will work if we destroy the environment we all rely on for survival)

could it be that Gordon brawn was not that popular as tonay bastard balir the war criminal or margatert thathcer the crying b–ch simply because he-that is gordon branw was a gentlemen in heart and the british elelctorate especially the enlgish elelctorate donot like real gentlemen but want propspective war criminals and psuychopaths like tonay bastard blair(who msut be picked up and killed after fair trial outside uk) ?

is that the reasomn john nmajor was aslo not liked? as much as war mongerer thathcer or war criminal churchill bastard?

even today 80 people were killed in iraq and there was no talk about iraq in enlction. who is going to pay for that blodd trehced crime in iraq if not the british and americans?

brawn rightly said that that woman was bigoted but the BBc media _which is racist to the core-aincluding all british media dogs were barking on other side -on the side of racists.

the election isn uk is a joke and disgusting show of insult to democracy.

the types of people which british like is shown by a few examples–

“The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no idea of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the split of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this split. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as inevitably as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganise production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.”

Friedrich Engels

from “The Origin of Family, Private Property and State” (1884)

Avatar – it’s simpler than that – he’s Scottish and a few inches left of centre – that’s enough to turn most of the English media against him

Anonymous – I would love to believe all of that quote from Engels – and he was a very eloquent writer. The reality is that we have states controlled or influenced largely by billionaires and huge multinational firms – and that the struggle is to recapture it from them, or at least equal their influence over it. Doing without a state altogether would currently result in pretty much direct rule by the corporations – or annexation or installation of client regimes by force by more powerful states.

Duncan McFarlane

How about this as the only way out?.

Form our own independent commune?. Cut ourselves off from all this insanity. Can’t come up with anything else. How about you?.

Right now it doesn’t sound like a bad idea.

I do remember reading about Bismarck shelling the Paris Commune and then Napoleon III coming in to finish off the survivors though.

Something like that happened to a large commune in the Midlands back in the 1920s/1930s if I remember right. They had everything going for them…The government sent in a large police force and…do I have to tell you what happened then?.

I think the government of the day said the commune had WMD, as an excuse for sending the police in. Well it was something like that.

What is not well understood by those who still buy into the absurdly anachronistic left-right paradigm is that Marx’s intention was that it was to be international finance capital and its control of gold that would dismantle the old system and then come from behind the scenes to run the post-revolutionary system.

This applied whether it was state capitalism or market capitalism that ensued.

The history of revolution in the twentieth century suggests that international finance could be used to meet the infrastructural needs of both Bolshevism and Nazism.Thus the Harriman interests in the Soviet Union helped develop Georgia’s mineral resources and Schiff was happy,along with other central bankers,to save Hitler from defeat at the polls in 1932.

The goal of international revolution was war followed by the expropriation of the landed interest and the middle classes.

The mobilizing appeal of Marxism derives from its theory of liberation or potential for human freedom.However Marx and those who channelled and controlled his output,the East India Company Haileybury economic school,took an extraordinarily cynical view of human freedom.

They saw it merely as an empty mobilizing slogan much like the slogans of Liberty,Equality,and Fraternity which would necessarily be discarded as soon as the reins of the state fell into their hands.Once the mob could be convinced that monarchs and Tsars were merely state managers who could be thrown away like a worn out pair of gloves then the revolution could begin.

One by one the nation’s representatives would be deposed and delivered into the power of the central bankers in whose hands the power of appointment thenceforth resided.Administrators with servile tendencies without experience in government would be putty in the hands of the financiers.

With the aristocracy being the revolution’s first victims,for it was they who were targetted by those who drove on the frenzied mob,the people would fall under the rule of cunning profiteers and upstarts.

The synarchy,the real drivers of revolutionary change,would ultimately create a universal economic crisis through their control of gold.The crisis would propel the jealous and expropriating mob to do its work.

During the transitionary stages the dumbing down of the public brain and their loss of the capacity for reasoning would allow them to be driven by senseless and inherently contradictory opinions and phraseology.The confusion of the public thus would sap their morale and render them incapable of any meaningful political participation.The real directors of affairs would operate well beyond public purview.

Resolving the crisis by means of their much vaunted initiative and resolve would prove quite beyond those charged by the financiers with the task.

Recognizing the power behind the scenes would start from the very moment when people torn by dissensions,smarting under the insolvency of rulers who were merely puppets of the central bankers would desperately cry out for the real managers to run the system for them.

Certainly none of this is vouchsafed in Marx’s works but in his more candid moments in his letters to Baruch Levy he divulged that this was the very essence of the plan:

SUPER GOVERNMENT RUN BY CENTRAL BANKERS.

Wake up and welcome to the NWO paradigm!

All of which goes to prove that no-one need be surprised to learn that the said,Karl Marx was the NYT’s London correspondent.

His NY-based editors were both,like Marx himself,Illuminati Freemasons.

The guys who read this blog probably think the Illuminati are based in Blackpool!