Not Very Liberal 129


I received – along with other party members – a rather stalinist email from someone called Baroness Scott, President of the Liberal Democrats. Somebody should explain to her the meaning of each of the words in the party title, because her email said this:

We have all worked hard and for that I thank you – my travels around the country showed me just how much everyone has put in. We have achieved this not only due to that effort, but also by sticking to our fairness message. In order for us to maximise our chances of delivering our fairness agenda we now have to keep this discipline up, avoiding speculation as to what happens next.

Baroness Ros Scott

President of the Liberal Democrats.

By “speculation” she evidently means open and democratic discussion of what the party should no next. We can’t have that, can we Ros? All those people whose hard work you applaud are just meant to put the highheidyins in power. They are not supposed to have opinions on what is done with that power, or if they do they should keep them quiet.

“Discipline”, eh? Not a word culled from the Liberal lexicon, really.

One of the more depressing moments of the election for me was when that rather nice independent doctor from Kidderminster was replaced by – a Tory hedge fund manager. A representative of the most socially useful of professions replaced by a member of a profession which is parasitic and socially damaging. It seemed to sum things up, somehow.

There is a fundamental ideological divide between liberals and conservatives. That is part of the weft of British history. I can see no firm grounds for a joint government with the nasty party, or what John Stuart Mill dubbed the stupid party. I have seen no evidence so far that Cameron has offered any compromise on any policy with which the Conservatives were not essentially in agreement anyway, while insisting that the Lib Dems go along with Tory policy on matters like Trident and immigration.

Pace Ros Scott, there is no point in pretending that the Lib Dems do not have their own internal divisions. The truth is that Nick Clegg is personally less removed from the Tories than a great many Lib Dems, while the militarist wing headed by Paddy and bomber Ming will see advantages in a coalition with the Tories in overcoming internal opposition to the neo-imperial agenda.

I am not any more enamoured of a coalition with New Labour. Apart ftom Gove and a few others, most of the Conservatives are traditional conservatives, whereas Blair created New Labour as neo-conservative, which is altogether more objectionable. I view the New Labour leadership as war criminals tainted by torture. Let them rot.

A electoral reform referendum offered to the people by New Labour might well be lost just because of New Labour’s unpopularity. That would set back electoral reform for another 30 years.

The Lib Dems are not obliged to enter a coalition with anyone. Let us stay in opposition. Cameron can form a minority gvernment with DUP support. I still expect he can find a Sean Woodward or two to cross the follor for the sake of office. There are enough unprinicpled careerists in New Labour. Let Cameron stumble on for a couple of years, then let us reap the benefit when he falls. If the Lib Dems enter any coalition, they will face electoral disaster next time.

Amusingly, Sky News just interviewed someone in LibDem offices in Cheltenham who said “I am not going pontificating about what Nick Clegg should do. That’s up to the party leadership”. Ros Scott should be happy that someone reads her emails and is terrifically disciplined.

I had never come across Eric Lubbock’s blog, which is peculiar. Eric is a real Liberal, and wonderful campaigner on human rights and development issues worldwide.

http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/

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.


129 thoughts on “Not Very Liberal

1 3 4 5
  • avatar singh

    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–

  • Anonymous

    “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)

  • Duncan McFarlane

    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.

  • Anonymous

    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?.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    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.

  • Anonymous

    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?.

  • Anonymous

    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.

  • Apostate

    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!

  • Steelback

    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!

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.