Michael Foot is best known for having led the British Labour Party to the greatest defeat in its history, in the 1983 election. After the 1979 defeat of James Callaghan, Foot was the choice of the far left of the Labour Party and so helped produce the “longest suicide note in history” as the 1983 Labour Manifesto was called. It openly called itself a programme of socialist reconstruction.
It offered, at the height of the Cold War, to scrap Britain’s nuclear arsenal, withdraw Britain from the EEC, nationalise more industries, raise taxes, and return to the economy being run by diktat by meetings between government, unions and business. It promised massive increases in welfare, and new bureaucracies across many aspects of life, including consumer shopping advisory centres!
Foot was unashamedly socialist, he took on Margaret Thatcher and the result was a split in the Labour Party, as moderates fled to a party that eventually merged and formed the Liberal Democrats.
Had Foot won the 1983 general election, it would have been a disaster both economically and strategically for Britain. It may have been a turning point in the Cold War, as the UK stepped to one side, and the West would have been weakened, heightening Reagan’s resolve, but isolating Britain. The withdrawal from the EEC would have further isolated Britain, as investment would have dropped away, and the long slow decline of post war Britain would have accelerated once more. The dream of so many on the left was not wanted by the majority of voters. His election would have emboldened the likes of Constantin Chernenko, and would not have provided sustenance for the Solidarity movement in Poland, but rather the intellectual pygmies that ran their criminal states east of the Iron Curtain. He would have eviscerated friendship between the US and the UK, and frightened those on the front line of the Cold War. A socialist wet dream of accelerated decline, economic deception and surrender to the Soviet threat.
The 1983 election, in the height of recession and high unemployment, saw the Conservatives pick up an additional 58 seats, Labour losing 60 and the SDP/Alliance (which would become the Liberal Democrats) picking up 12 more seats. It also saw Gordon Brown get elected to the seat of Dunfermline East, his second attempt to get elected. You may think Labour in the UK today is far removed from that of Michael Foot, but Brown still espouses much of the philosophy of Foot.
Foot, you see, once said this:
We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.
He didn’t believe people existed for their own purposes, to pursue their dreams, their endeavours, but for others. He was a committed altruist. He believed good only came from helping others, he believed in redistributing wealth, he didn’t care how it was created. Therein lies the practical failings of the man.
Morally he expressed the view that people existed for the sake of others. I would condemn that, but then why pick on him? He was, at least, open and honest about his principles and convictions. The likes of Gordon Brown are not, yet they have the same philosophical approach. Conservatives do as well, as do almost all across the political spectrum. The belief not that your life is your own and your purpose is to pursue your values, but that your life has an unchosen obligation to provide for others.
Fortunately Michael Foot did not get to impose democratic Marxism on the UK. Sadly, whilst a man of principle and honesty, he still, fundamentally, held the belief that is basic to what most politicians believe in – that the individual does not primarily exist for his or her own purposes. That philosophy, as important in all major political parties across liberal democracies, has not died with Michael Foot - all he did was espouse it more openly, consistently and radically than others.
Curious, you see, that the 1983 manifesto did include a national state owned broadband network...
04 March 2010
03 March 2010
EU screws Britain on Olympics
Reported this morning on BBC TV news.
EU law prohibits the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics from setting aside tickets for sale only to Londoners or UK citizens/residents - because it would be discriminatory.
So despite UK taxpayers forking out £6 billion for the Olympics, those paying for it aren't entitled to privileges regarding ticket sales.EU law prohibits the organisers of the London 2012 Olympics from setting aside tickets for sale only to Londoners or UK citizens/residents - because it would be discriminatory.
Yep, another reason why the EU goes so far and beyond what is useful....
Democrats don't understand the Tea Party
Now I've seen it all, arch statist in the US Congress, Nancy Pelosi is claiming to share some of the views of the "Tea Partiers".
"that's why I've fought the special interest, whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether it's on pharmaceuticals and the rest" she said according to the Daily Telegraph
So apparently it IS having an impact, when a party which has made the careers of hundreds of vested interest supporting, pro-protectionist, pro-subsidy, pro-government intervention politicians thinks it has to listen. In fact, the Democrats have such a disgusting filthy tradition of corrupting politics in the US that they deserve nothing but contempt, and of course many Republicans are little different.
So much which is great about the United States has been corrupted by the relentless growth of government, fueled in part by the ambitions of the vile little thieves in both houses of congress, constantly demanding other people's money for their pet projects, pet industries and pet lobbyists, and demanding protection and regulation to mollycoddle industries, unions, government agencies and the like.
Nancy Pelosi has always been part of the problem, opposing moves towards balanced budgets, supporting the endless expansion of Medicare and Medicaid and the welfare state.
What's important is that the Tea Party movement has struck a chord, with millions who are sick of politicians thinking they are spending their money, and thinking they can keep doing it.
What it lacks is a single individual to rally behind politically and to take the message consistently forward.
"that's why I've fought the special interest, whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether it's on pharmaceuticals and the rest" she said according to the Daily Telegraph
So apparently it IS having an impact, when a party which has made the careers of hundreds of vested interest supporting, pro-protectionist, pro-subsidy, pro-government intervention politicians thinks it has to listen. In fact, the Democrats have such a disgusting filthy tradition of corrupting politics in the US that they deserve nothing but contempt, and of course many Republicans are little different.
So much which is great about the United States has been corrupted by the relentless growth of government, fueled in part by the ambitions of the vile little thieves in both houses of congress, constantly demanding other people's money for their pet projects, pet industries and pet lobbyists, and demanding protection and regulation to mollycoddle industries, unions, government agencies and the like.
Nancy Pelosi has always been part of the problem, opposing moves towards balanced budgets, supporting the endless expansion of Medicare and Medicaid and the welfare state.
What's important is that the Tea Party movement has struck a chord, with millions who are sick of politicians thinking they are spending their money, and thinking they can keep doing it.
What it lacks is a single individual to rally behind politically and to take the message consistently forward.
26 February 2010
US turns back on UK over Falklands
The Falkland Islands have a mixed history of differing claims to sovereignty. The French first established a colony there in 1764, the British established one on another part of the islands in 1765. France and Spain were in Alliance, so France handed over its colony to Spain in 1767. This effectively put it under the same colonial administration as Argentina.
Spain attacked the British colony bringing the two countries on the brink of war, which was settled by Spain capitulating and letting the British settlement be re-established. However, Britain abandoned the Falklands in 1776 leaving it all to Spain (although also leaving a plaque asserting British sovereignty). Spain similarly abandoned the islands in 1811, also leaving a plaque. From this point on for some years, the Falklands ended up being under no effective control, but being a harbour for various fishing, whaling and other vessels.
Argentina gained independence in 1816, and in 1820 had sailed to the islands and asserted sovereignty over them. Between then and 1833, merchant Luis Vernet sought permission to settle there from both the Argentines and the British. He received assurances, and the Argentines appointed him Governor in 1829, to British (and US) protest. However, by 1833 Britain had re-established itself on the islands and ordered the Argentines to leave, which they did. A British colony was established and has remained relatively undisturbed, notwithstanding the more recent Falklands War.
Argentina claims it was first, as it inherited the French then Spanish settlements, and was forcibly ejected from the Falklands. The UK claims that it has a parallel claim, that the Spanish abandoned the Falklands (like the British did), and there was no indigenous or Spanish/Argentine colony established before the British colony. Moreover most of the current population opposes Argentine sovereignty.
In essence, for all of the debate the population of the Falklands do not want to be governed from Buenos Aires. Arising from this are claims to exploit the Exclusive Economic Zone around the Falklands for energy exploration. The beleagured Argentine government is seeking to distract attention from its own economic mismanagement by confronting the UK over this.
The Obama Administration's response? Neutrality.
According to the Times ""The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region"
The leftwing Argentine government, beleagured by high inflation, is challenging British attempts to take advantage of the UK EEZ as it surrounds the Falklands.
Argentina's claim will no doubt have the backing of the cabal of socialists that now run many Latin American countries, none of whom give a damn that most Falkland Islanders want to remain British.
The bigger point is that the "special relationship" is over. The Obama Administration is reverting to the form REJECTED by Ronald Reagan, the realpolitik preferred by the State Department.
Who will know if John McCain would have done the same, would George Bush have just thumbed his nose at Britain given its close support in Afghanistan and Iraq?
One thing IS sure, from the DVD set gifted to Gordon Brown to this, there can be no question that the Obama Administration doesn't think the UK deserves consideration beyond that of just another friendly country - like Argentina, France or South Africa.
Spain attacked the British colony bringing the two countries on the brink of war, which was settled by Spain capitulating and letting the British settlement be re-established. However, Britain abandoned the Falklands in 1776 leaving it all to Spain (although also leaving a plaque asserting British sovereignty). Spain similarly abandoned the islands in 1811, also leaving a plaque. From this point on for some years, the Falklands ended up being under no effective control, but being a harbour for various fishing, whaling and other vessels.
Argentina gained independence in 1816, and in 1820 had sailed to the islands and asserted sovereignty over them. Between then and 1833, merchant Luis Vernet sought permission to settle there from both the Argentines and the British. He received assurances, and the Argentines appointed him Governor in 1829, to British (and US) protest. However, by 1833 Britain had re-established itself on the islands and ordered the Argentines to leave, which they did. A British colony was established and has remained relatively undisturbed, notwithstanding the more recent Falklands War.
Argentina claims it was first, as it inherited the French then Spanish settlements, and was forcibly ejected from the Falklands. The UK claims that it has a parallel claim, that the Spanish abandoned the Falklands (like the British did), and there was no indigenous or Spanish/Argentine colony established before the British colony. Moreover most of the current population opposes Argentine sovereignty.
In essence, for all of the debate the population of the Falklands do not want to be governed from Buenos Aires. Arising from this are claims to exploit the Exclusive Economic Zone around the Falklands for energy exploration. The beleagured Argentine government is seeking to distract attention from its own economic mismanagement by confronting the UK over this.
The Obama Administration's response? Neutrality.
According to the Times ""The Obama Administration “is trying to split the difference as much as it can because it knows that coming round to the British position would again create a lot of ill will in the region"
The leftwing Argentine government, beleagured by high inflation, is challenging British attempts to take advantage of the UK EEZ as it surrounds the Falklands.
Argentina's claim will no doubt have the backing of the cabal of socialists that now run many Latin American countries, none of whom give a damn that most Falkland Islanders want to remain British.
The bigger point is that the "special relationship" is over. The Obama Administration is reverting to the form REJECTED by Ronald Reagan, the realpolitik preferred by the State Department.
Who will know if John McCain would have done the same, would George Bush have just thumbed his nose at Britain given its close support in Afghanistan and Iraq?
One thing IS sure, from the DVD set gifted to Gordon Brown to this, there can be no question that the Obama Administration doesn't think the UK deserves consideration beyond that of just another friendly country - like Argentina, France or South Africa.
French sexualise smoking some more
The Independent reports on the scandal in France of anti-smoking ads.
It was designed to make smoking look bad.
What it does is make it look like a sexual act of submission. It implies that smoking is like giving fellatio, which isn't exactly an uncommon act among teenagers.
In other words, it has linked it to a taboo that is likely to make it even MORE appealing.
The images (ones including men are here) could spark mimicking, so that a girl smoking might be seen as teasing sexually - imagery that I'd have thought would be exactly the opposite of what was the goal.
It was designed to make smoking look bad.
What it does is make it look like a sexual act of submission. It implies that smoking is like giving fellatio, which isn't exactly an uncommon act among teenagers.
In other words, it has linked it to a taboo that is likely to make it even MORE appealing.
The images (ones including men are here) could spark mimicking, so that a girl smoking might be seen as teasing sexually - imagery that I'd have thought would be exactly the opposite of what was the goal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)