Friday, February 11, 2005


Today the first moves were made, by the unchallengable leader of an utterly dominant political party, towards the imminent elections in which his political opponents stand absolutely no chance of winning. This leader has advocated the imprisonment of people he perceives to be "enemies of the nation" without trial. He has continued to advocate the use of violence against those with whom he disagrees despite international condemnation.

Who am I talking about? Robert Mugabe or Tony Blair?


That is why there is a Backing Blair banner above this post. The idea behind the campaign seems strange at first. Think about it longer, it starts to make more sense. And even if you don't agree with the methods, it is surely impossible to have lived in Britain during the last four years without admiring the motives. Check it out.


Anonymous grrogg said...

"...the imminent elections in which his political opponents stand absolutely no chance of winning."Yeah, so? There's a fundamental difference here between Blair and Mugabe: Blair's opponents are going to lose because they're tools who nobody wants to vote for. Mugabe's opponents lose because he kills them. Can you see the distinction? Subtle, I know.

Lefties have some weird notions: If the majority vote for a candidate, and he wins the election, this, to the left, is proof that the system is not democratic.

Nobody ever explained to you what "democracy" actually means, did they? It means that the candidate who gets the most votes, gets elected. Deceptively simple, I know!

The fact that Blair has a problem with habeas corpus is another matter entirely. It might be wise to hang him from the nearest lamppost. But it's your country, not mine; do as you like.

Even if you don't hang him, he won't last forever. There'll be some other bozo along one of these days. I personally guarantee it.

(By the way, even though I say "he" in paragraph three above, the statement can be taken to apply equally to wymyn, persons of gender, transgendered persons of identity, or whatever other demented menagerie of complex pronouns you happen to get off on.)

2/11/2005 09:00:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

Here's a tip: don't take things so literally.

And for the record, your definition of democracy is "deceptively simple" because it is indeed simple. You describe a first past the post system - there are other forms of democracy which many judge to be significantly more valid, in that they enable society to be more accurately represented in whatever form of elective assembly there happens to be. But never mind, eh?

But what am I saying? I'm evidently too much of a fucking moron to be able to understand anything at all. And I'm probably a communist to boot.

2/11/2005 09:24:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

Oh yeah, and for the record: "the candidate who gets the most votes, gets elected."

So you had fun with President Gore, did you?

Bloody hell...

2/11/2005 09:29:00 pm  
Anonymous grrogg said...

Avoiding the question, eh? Valid point there about the Electoral College. Glad to see you thinking about it, because the EU is going to be awash in disproportional-representation schemes of that nature, for the same reason we are here in the US: You've got to get Luxembourg and Spain on board. In our case it was Delaware and Rhode Island, but the same principle applies: The little guys don't want to get swallowed up, and they're in a good bargaining position.

Anyhow, here's the point again, stated more rigorously: Your problem with the British electoral system appears to be the fact that the candidate who gets elected according to the rules, is the one who gets to hold office. Fair summation?

If that was not your point, then what was your point? Blair is a legally elected asshole. Mugabe is an unelected asshole. There's a difference. I suggest that you compare Blair to Satan instead. Or maybe Rameses II. The parallels are striking! Both of them sat on chairs! WTF? Why not Del Shannon, or Harvey Keitel? It's childish.

But that's "too literal". Not nuanced enough, or whatever.

Okay, so the post is just meaningless noise, and wasn't intended to be anything else. I can't imagine why you bothered typing it, if that's the case, but I suppose your only form of amusement is flinging feces through the bars of your cage... God knows you're not wasting time any more egregiously in flinging feces at Tony Blair than I am in flinging feces at you.

In closing, I'm not sure why you're howling about communism, but as long as you're enjoying yourself, just keep on flingin', brother! Right on!

2/11/2005 10:19:00 pm  
Anonymous grrogg said...

PS The feces-flinging thing wasn't meant to be a play on your nickname. I didn't even notice the name until after I hit "Publish". Wouldn't have changed it anyway; there's something infinitely satisfying about the phrase "flinging feces". Morning, noon, or night -- it's always a good time to accuse people of flinging feces!

But you, in any case, are obviously a fascist mass-murdering child-molesting international war-criminal with bad teeth, bad breath, a single-digit IQ, forty-seven teeth, no chin, no forehead, nine toes on one foot and seven on the other, and an enormous tattoo of a target on your ass labeled "Mother". I can prove these things by irrefutable logic because I am far more handsome than you. YOU LOSE.

2/11/2005 10:26:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

Of course...

The point, which you seem singularly to have missed, is that the sole reason that Blair is going to be re-elected is because there is no viable opposition in the United Kingdom. Without a viable opposition, democracy fails the citizens who rely upon it to improve and safeguard their lives.

If you bother to re-read the first sentence of this post, you'll also see that the emphasis is on "the unchallengable leader of an utterly dominant political party". If you bother to visit the Backing Blair website, you'll see that one of the slogans is "No Alternative" - because in Britain there simply isn't.

Who else can we vote for? The Lib Dems - with no experience of government? The Tories - with no policies and a poor track record? The point is that we have no choice. Labour is the only competent party at the moment. That doesn't mean we have to like it.

In future, before you jump to conclusions, stop and think for a bit. Perhaps check the sidebar to this blog, where you will find numerous posts on the problem of the lack of an opposition in Britain. That might give you a better indication of my motives.

This isn't about getting rid of Blair so much as about reviving this country's once active democracy and encouraging participation in an election which promises so far to have the lowest turnout since 1918. The Backing Blair campaign is actually being supported by a number of Labour party members who certainly don't want to see Blair lose. They do, however, want him to have the kind of democratic checks and challenges which have been utterly missing in British politics since the collapse of the Conservative party in 1997.

If you can come up with arguments why that's bad, fine. If, however, you refuse to grow up, I shall (despite my aversion to censorship) start deleting your comments - purely because you bore me.

2/11/2005 10:58:00 pm  
Blogger Matt said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/12/2005 01:12:00 am  
Blogger Matt said...

As to Zimbabwe, the best thing to do at the moment, if you're in the UK, South Africa, or anywhere else it might be on sale, is to support 'The Zimbabwean' newspaper. Make sure the free press continues to be 'a palladium of all our liberties'.

2/12/2005 08:57:00 am  
Anonymous Phil Hunt said...

The point, which you seem singularly to have missed, is that the sole reason that Blair is going to be re-elected is because there is no viable opposition in the United Kingdom.Actually, there's lots of opposition, and Labour's share of the vote is likely to go down. But the opposition is split between several parties, which is why labour is likely to get an overall majority.

Unfortunately, many (most?) british people seem to thing that Labour's assault on civil liberties is a good thing. These people should be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, or perhaps they could be put under house arrest and held incommunicado. Then threy might realise why Blair, Blunkett, Clarke etc are bad for the country.

2/12/2005 01:42:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

Phil - hence "viable".

A large majority of the country's population are opposed to Blair, but for a number of different reasons - and so the votes of those who disagree with Blair will be split, as you say, across various parties. There will also be a large number of people who can't bring themselves to vote Labour, but don't want to vote for anyone else either, so will abstain in protest.

Because of all the abstentions and the split in the rest of the anit-Blair vote, Labour will be back in - probably with yet another large majority. That will not reflect the will of the country.

That's what the Backing Blair thing is all about. I don't particularly agree with every detail (for example, I reckon that if you've got a Labour MP who has been vocal in their criticism of the government - Robin Cook, Frank Dobson, Glenda Jackson etc - voting to keep them in will cause Blair more trouble than reducing their majorities or voting them out), but the basic aim is simply to weaken Labour's support to make Blair and co re-think the route they're taking the country down.

Will it work? God knows - but it's about time we tried something...

2/12/2005 02:16:00 pm  
Blogger Jarndyce said...

_Who else can we vote for? The Lib Dems - with no experience of government?_

The only way we are ever going to get the Lib Dems out of this catch-22 is to vote for them. The we see their stripes, in the real world not at one of their sandal-wearing, tree-hugging party conferences. They are the only party that have (fairly) consistently opposed Labour's attacks on civil liberties since 9/11. A recent (BBC? can't remember) poll claimed that 37% of respondents would vote LD if they thought they might win. Therefore, if anyone thought they would win, they would win.

Plus, I just can't back this campaign. The site engine says I should vote Con to unseat Diane Abbott. I don't want either to be honest, but I have voted for almost every other party but Con in my voting years. It's a record i intend to keep.

2/12/2005 02:50:00 pm  
Blogger Nosemonkey said...

J&J - I know exactly what you mean. But the difficulty is the Lib Dems don't seem to have enough serious politicians among their ranks. I have voted for them before, and no doubt will again. I just think they need a period as the official opposition to build up experience before they make it into power properly.

As for the Backing Blair campaign, I also know what you mean. My local MP is Glenda Jackson, who has been consistent in her condemnation of the war and ID. I agree with her on most issues.

But the only time I have ever voted Labour before was in the last London mayoral elections - and that was only because Ken had by then gone back into the Labour fold and remained a better option than Norris. If I go for Glenda this time, it'll be the first time I vote Labour in a General Election at precisely the time I don't want to give the party leadership any indication that I support them.

However, as Dianne Abbott has the 56th safest seat in the country, (unlike Glenda, who's borderline at 297th), you can probably get away with a protest vote where you are. If you feel that bad about it, write to Ms Abbott telling her that you're voting for someone else not becaus of anything SHE's done, but because of what Blair's done. After all, the aim is to get Labour MPs wanting to see Blair as an electoral liability more than anything...

Those organising the campaign may well shift their focus at some point - only targetting seats with overly loyal Blairites etc. The aim is not to destroy Labour, but to undermine Blair's support within the party.

2/12/2005 03:05:00 pm  
Blogger ken said...

People like Diane Abbot are worth voting for, it’s the Nu Labour people who are not.

2/12/2005 06:28:00 pm  
Blogger Jarndyce said...

Ken - you mean hypocrites like DA who wax lyrical about properly funded state education (which I agree with) then send their little darlings to selective/private schools because their case is 'special' (which I don't)? She shares this at least with much of the New lab hierarchy, so she's not always a lone voice in the wilderness...

2/13/2005 10:38:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

(Mostly) Britain
(Mostly) Europe)
Regional Expertise
New Blogroll Additions

Archives by Date

02/23/2003 - 03/02/2003 | 03/02/2003 - 03/09/2003 | 04/25/2004 - 05/02/2004 | 05/09/2004 - 05/16/2004 | 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004 | 08/29/2004 - 09/05/2004 | 09/05/2004 - 09/12/2004 | 09/12/2004 - 09/19/2004 | 09/19/2004 - 09/26/2004 | 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004 | 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004 | 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004 | 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004 | 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004 | 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004 | 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004 | 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004 | 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004 | 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004 | 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004 | 12/12/2004 - 12/19/2004 | 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004 | 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005 | 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005 | 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005 | 01/16/2005 - 01/23/2005 | 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005 | 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005 | 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005 | 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005 | 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005 | 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005 | 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005 | 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005 | 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005 | 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005 | 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005 | 04/10/2005 - 04/17/2005 | 04/17/2005 - 04/24/2005 | 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005 | 05/01/2005 - 05/08/2005 | 05/08/2005 - 05/15/2005 | 05/15/2005 - 05/22/2005 | 05/22/2005 - 05/29/2005 | 05/29/2005 - 06/05/2005 | 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005 | 06/12/2005 - 06/19/2005 | 06/19/2005 - 06/26/2005 | 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005 | 07/03/2005 - 07/10/2005 | 07/10/2005 - 07/17/2005 | 07/17/2005 - 07/24/2005 | 07/24/2005 - 07/31/2005 | 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005 | 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005 | 08/14/2005 - 08/21/2005 | 08/21/2005 - 08/28/2005 | 08/28/2005 - 09/04/2005 | 09/04/2005 - 09/11/2005 | 09/11/2005 - 09/18/2005 | 09/18/2005 - 09/25/2005 | 09/25/2005 - 10/02/2005 | 10/02/2005 - 10/09/2005 | 10/09/2005 - 10/16/2005 | 10/16/2005 - 10/23/2005 | 10/30/2005 - 11/06/2005 | 11/06/2005 - 11/13/2005 | 11/13/2005 - 11/20/2005 | 11/20/2005 - 11/27/2005 | 11/27/2005 - 12/04/2005 | 12/04/2005 - 12/11/2005 | 12/11/2005 - 12/18/2005 | 12/18/2005 - 12/25/2005 | 12/25/2005 - 01/01/2006 | 01/01/2006 - 01/08/2006 | 01/08/2006 - 01/15/2006 | 01/15/2006 - 01/22/2006 | 01/22/2006 - 01/29/2006 | 01/29/2006 - 02/05/2006 | 02/05/2006 - 02/12/2006 | 02/12/2006 - 02/19/2006 | 02/19/2006 - 02/26/2006 | 02/26/2006 - 03/05/2006 | 03/05/2006 - 03/12/2006 | 03/12/2006 - 03/19/2006 | 03/19/2006 - 03/26/2006 | 03/26/2006 - 04/02/2006 | 04/02/2006 - 04/09/2006 | 04/09/2006 - 04/16/2006 | 04/16/2006 - 04/23/2006 | 04/23/2006 - 04/30/2006 | 04/30/2006 - 05/07/2006 | 05/07/2006 - 05/14/2006 | 05/14/2006 - 05/21/2006 | 05/21/2006 - 05/28/2006 | 05/28/2006 - 06/04/2006 | 06/04/2006 - 06/11/2006 | 06/11/2006 - 06/18/2006 | 06/18/2006 - 06/25/2006 | 06/25/2006 - 07/02/2006 | 07/02/2006 - 07/09/2006 | 07/09/2006 - 07/16/2006 | 07/16/2006 - 07/23/2006 | 07/23/2006 - 07/30/2006 | 07/30/2006 - 08/06/2006 | 08/06/2006 - 08/13/2006 | 08/13/2006 - 08/20/2006 | 08/20/2006 - 08/27/2006 | 08/27/2006 - 09/03/2006 | 09/03/2006 - 09/10/2006 | 09/10/2006 - 09/17/2006 | 09/17/2006 - 09/24/2006 | 09/24/2006 - 10/01/2006 | 10/08/2006 - 10/15/2006 | 10/15/2006 - 10/22/2006 | 10/22/2006 - 10/29/2006 | 10/29/2006 - 11/05/2006 | 11/05/2006 - 11/12/2006 | 11/12/2006 - 11/19/2006 | 11/19/2006 - 11/26/2006 | 11/26/2006 - 12/03/2006 |

Blog Pimping

«#Blogging Brits?»
Is my Blog HOT or NOT?
Eatonweb portal
Who Links To Me
Technorati profile

Rate Me on!
the best pretty good okay pretty bad the worst help?

Politics Blog Top Sites

Top of the British Blogs
blog search directory
Advertise on blogs