Apathy in the UK – Handing power back to an unchanged Labour Party…?

Nothing new at the start of 2013… No time to post anything during the latter half of 2012, but it turned out to be a pretty flat year, no significant changes in the overall state of affairs. Certainly no apocalypse, not even a revolution, well not in the West…

A brief review of the year; the Coalition has stumbled along, the UK economy has effectively flat-lined, Europe is still clinging on to its lower regions, the US is still coming to terms with itself, as China appears to continue its rise and the developing world is continues to develop, rapidly… And all the while the Labour Party are still spewing out the same s**t they have been for past two years, well actually the past 20 years.

The Left haven’t changed, they never do, occasionally they grow up, but… Anyway, is the Occupy Movement still going…? ‘UK Uncut’ is still kicking about and some of the UK Left’s hypocrisy and idiosyncrasy were recently exposed within their protests… (The tax avoiding Guardian newspaper giving significant coverage to UK Uncut’s campaign against tax avoidance, “Anarchists” opposed to Government joined in with the protests, demanding a bigger state (though they claimed a means to an end…) and all of this was seen as it turned out that Starbucks were pretty much the biggest tax avoiders of all… Haha!)    

And Argentina is still banging on about a ridiculous claim on the Falklands Islands, no less ridiculous than Britain’s… 

    Obama and Kirchner get close?

    'They're thousands of miles away and it's not like they're hot...'

Like Hawaii.

So yes nothing new, I’ll just pick it up where I left off; the Coalition have had a ‘mid-term review’  

    Cameron leaves Clegg behind?

    'You're a f**king liability Clegg...!'

And Labourites were spouting the same old propaganda at the Fabian Society last weekend, so I will review the relatively unaltered British political landscape; the Coalition are roundly criticised for everything they do, often rightly so, but Labour can say anything they like, with few picking them up on their hypocrisy, (so is the nature of the Liberal-Left…) and they have remained around 10 or more points ahead in the opinion polls. 

How that translates to the ballot box is another thing and that was part of the last post, nothing much has changed since… There were by-elections, a Mayoral election and Police Commissioner (PCC) Elections in November (ridiculous timing) and again the results highlighted how misleading opinions polls can be and how empty Labour’s rhetoric always is, it showed the true state of British politics, quite far removed from Labour’s fantastical proclamations.

There was no way that even Labour could try to spin the PCC results, so they focussed on the low turnout, instead of John Prescott humiliation to a Tory in Humberside, funny that…

I bet there were some aides running for cover when the result was announced...

    John Prescott might get handy?

    'You won't like me when I'm angry...'

His wife would have taken the brunt of it, one way or the other…

    Prescott's finest moment?

    'Who's f**king next?!'

There was an apparent anti-Labour vote in the only Mayoral election in Bristol and they were always going to keep that on the down low… And what resulted from that loss was a reaction from Labour HQ which showed a glimpse of the truly offensive side of Labour’s politics and philosophy, the aspects that we will all suffer if things run their present course; their use of manipulation and their desire to control. But I'll come back to that.

So Labour put their energies into spinning the three by-elections results and cranked up the bullshit production to overdrive. Three safe Labour seats Croydon North, Middlesbrough and Rotherham, so safe that even at their ‘lowest’ in 2010 in the midst of economic crisis with Gordon Brown in power, they still voted Labour in their droves in these constituencies… To put it into context, even at their very lowest in 1983, in Middlesbrough and Rotherham, they still won by some margin. The common phrase for this is they ‘could put up a pig’ and enough numbskulls would still scrawl a cross on the ballot paper, just fortunate enough not to dribble too much and spoil the paper… Ah it sounds harsh, but come on where is the self-respect…?

That’s not to denigrate everyone in these constituencies, far from it, only 25-33% of the electorate turned out to vote; the total percentage of the electorate voting for Labour barely rising above 15%.

Yet Ed Miliband saw fit to translate the results as an endorsement of “One Nation Labour” (the s**t he’d been spouting a few weeks earlier and again at the Fabian Society last weekend)… 15%?!!

One f**king Nation?!! 

    Miliband - A face you'd like to slap?

    Oh, you just could…

All this talk of 'One Nation', almost makes you think Ed might be worried about Scottish Independence...

15% of those eligible to vote, this is the anger coursing through our streets…? Oh it’s palpable, in the public sector… It just doesn’t seem to be translating on election days. Because remember the country is on its a**e, so it appears, and this Government is widely despised, so surely it should be more than 15%? 40 plus percent of those polled, and then only 15% of those registered, in Labour Heartlands…

Or is that just the system, it’s a safe seat so why go out in the November rain…?

Whatever, it’s not a f**king endorsement of Miliband or Labour, or any kind of clear signal to anyone, about anything...! But what the f**k, the only result that matters is that Labour gain the seats, that’s First Past the Post…

Some 65-75% of the electorate had enough self respect to abstain, but what happens then? 15% of the electorate hold sway? How on earth can that be ‘fair’? To use a Labourite sound-bite…

This Government is certainly unpopular and many more than 15% do not and would not support them, or are in outright opposition to them, but they don’t necessarily support Labour. Yet that small percentage could see Labour return to power without having to do anything, no reform, no clear and effective policies, just the same old faces and ‘normal service’ resumed.

    The Labour Cabinet - The Usual Suspects?

    The Same Old Muppets...

People are angry at the Coalition Government; they should be incandescent with rage how cheaply power may be given back to Labour! If only they could do something about it… Like vote for a different party…? It doesn’t have to be the Tories.

Do average people even consider how cheaply power is given away in this country full-stop? Even at the height of their power New Labour didn’t get the support of over 30% of the electorate, in 2005 they had a useful majority of seats with only 22% of the electorate voting for them and how many of those voters were in Scotland and Wales…?!

22% and a strong enough Government, stronger than Major’s in 1992, they received the support of 19% of the electorate in 2010. Rock bottom with a hugely unpopular Leader… Only 3% between strong Government and Opposition? How is that right?

Not only that; more and more it’s looking like the same people are voting for Labour, keeping the party’s share of the vote consistent, and very little seems to effect their decision in placing their vote…

In my last post I looked at this situation, from the local elections. Some 15% to 25% of any electorate could easily be made up from local Public Sector workers, students and unionised private sector workers, or even Old Labour, not to mention the odd Liberal Lefty making their weary way in the Private Sector…

    'What do we want? 'Fair Pensions!'

    'When do we want them?' 'Next week if at all possible please...'

It’s an organised, vocal, minority, using their right to vote effectively and with little opposition, getting their way. Ultimately controlling the country; minority rule.

Becoming 40 plus percent when pressed in an opinion poll…

A lot of people don’t like either the Tories or Labour, but forgetting the recent economic records of both parties, it’s in part because of the similarities between them; from cut backs to benefits and pensions to the deregulation and privatisation in the economy.

There is great disillusionment with politics and people feel their votes are irrelevant. I think a lot of apathy does stem from some unrealistic expectations, of Government and in general, but that’s too deep an issue to go into now. Why though would people sit back and watch an unreformed Labour Party walk back into power?

They may not blame Labour completely for the economic crisis and of course the banks were more directly at fault, but Labour shouldn’t be excused and ultimately they will not solve the country’s problems; economic and social.

If they get back in with the support of their minority, with a few floaters, what more do they have to do than appease those supporters…? What more did they ever do???

And why would they change a system that can allow them access to power so easily?

The modern Labour Party is all about control, in almost every possible sense in fact; from controlling MPs and the party line to controlling the population through surveillance. But in order to achieve their objectives they have to maintain power and as I have pointed out the current system allows them easy access to Government. The First Past the Post system is now weighted towards them (though obviously the Tories still do ok…) and in what is supposed to be a “progressive” party, so a large proportion of them want to keep the current and would not consider Proportional Representation (they were divided over the Alternative Vote, which was only a watered down version of FPTP, but possibly the ‘slippery slope’ to PR…). This is the ultimate act of control from a party of progress, retaining the system that can see them hold onto power with the support of a minority.

    Labour's No to AV Campaign - 'What do we want?'

    'Consolidated power...!'

For a clear illustration of the more despicable aspects of Labour’s desire to control, we should return to look at what happened in Bristol following the election of George Ferguson as Mayor. Labour HQ put a stop to Local Labour Councillors joining in coalition with the new Mayor, apparently due to some petty grievances, and this shows a clear example of both their centralised control and their apparent aversion to consensus.

The confrontational politics of the British Parliament are archaic, yet Labour wants to keep it like that. PR would be a consensus inducing mechanism, to bring about a new political culture, true representation and a system fairer to every voter, but Labour wants FPTP to allow them to rule alone…

    One Electoral System To Rule Them All...?

    Labour delegates leave the conference...

The move by Central Labour was quite significant and a deliberate signal. The people of Bristol should be concerned, if Labour Councillors are to act along the lines of the national political system by deliberately opposing any actions of the Mayor, whether or not they will be on any benefit to the city. The Mayor becomes a failure and Labour can regain power…? It’s really not good…

But most people don’t notice these things and Labour get away with it, time and again. For some it seems it’s almost become a case of ‘better the Devil you know’, perhaps recalling the days before the current downturn and cutbacks, of course we don’t know what would have happened if Labour had won the last election…

A lot of people must think they’ll be better off under Labour, even if only in the short term; while Labour gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

An example of this was raised again last week, as the Tories removed Child Benefit from high earners, this was one of Labour’s master-strokes giving a little back to everyone, including millionaires…! How very fair of them, they taxed you more over £35k, but they gave you a few quid back if you had kids and that’s always nice. You’ll remember that come election time… They froze the personal allowance so hurting lower paid workers, but they kept shelling out child benefit to millionaires.

Labour has decried the changes but they haven’t said they’ll reverse it…

Miliband believes in “Universal benefits”, so every family is dependent on, or feels indebted to, a Labour Government and low paid single workers can help pay for it without a break (even if you’re saving to start a family, but how could Labour legislate for that in the tax system and still make them dependent on a handout…?)      

Labour criticism has in part focussed on the application of the changes and it does seem a bit of an odd set up by the Tories, but Miliband is happy to keep shelling out to millionaires to save on back office functions? Never bothered them before… A few extra public sector pen pushers or hand outs to millionaires?? (They’ve changed…?)

But Labour do have more specific plans to take away with the other hand from higher tax rate payers (>£150k), announcing a policy that would reduce their pension tax relief. 

Give with benefit, take away tax relief, but who will remember their pension while they get a couple of extra quid in the pocket now; it might win a few rich votes, but the key is apparent ‘fairness’ of benefits for all, while also taxing the rich. It’s the middle income votes he wants; the “squeezed middle”. So this is great, screw the top and bottom…!

Miliband has claimed there aren’t many millionaires as part of his justification for universal benefits, but it’s everyone up to, you f***ing kn*bhead… And part of it is the principle, normally Labour and the Left are very particular about their principles…

    A pair of Pragmatic Idealists?

    More commonly referred to as a pair of useless c**ts...

Labour are so transparent, it’s astounding. Almost as astounding as a family earning 50k+ making out they are being hard done by… Depends how many kids you’ve got I suppose...? 

The ‘all caring’, standing up for the working man or whoever the f**k is relevant at the time, is what the New New Labour party are all about. This is the angle they will take on issues like benefits, often emotive, talking about ‘hard-working families’, patronising and contradictory, when they also talk about taxing high earners. The ‘squeezed middle’ or ‘the rich’, whichever is the appropriate sound-bite at the time…

As I have said it is easier for Labour in opposition, they can say anything they like because they don’t have to back anything up, yet…

For various reasons and in these caring times…, Labour and the Left have found it easier to control the prevailing political agenda in recent times and push their point of view to the forefront of public consciousness, as seen with the tax avoidance issue, where the Left (and Labour are happy to join in) have tried to turn tax into a moral issue. As I remember from childhood, the tax man was the one of the most hated in the land; Inland Revenue employees roundly jeered on the likes of Bull’s Eye…

Who wants to pay more tax than they have to? When an ISA is tax free savings and the self employed actively work to reduce their tax payments; at what point does avoiding tax become ‘immoral’?

Labour did nothing about tax avoidance in power, all of the situations brought to light recently, from Starbucks to Vodafone, occurred under Labour. Yet they have happily jumped on the moralising band wagon and few look back at their record.   

    Convicted MPs - Labour taking the moral high ground?

    Well it's not like they were cheating their taxes...!

The recent benefits cap is no surprising benefit to Labour, but another example this week which plays well into the hands of Labour is news such as high street chain Jessops going into administration. It’s incredible the number of people who directly blame this Government, apparently ignoring competition from the internet and supermarkets, the prevalence of camera phones and all the other factors involved in a particular business model failing.

HMV followed Jessops, but that has been coming for a long time and well documented, the whole music industry has been in turmoil for years. And it turns out Blockbuster have quickly followed HMV, but who knew they were still kicking about...?  

There is an underlying feeling that the situation would be better if Labour was in power throwing some money around and perhaps more concerning it seems to be a belief that the Government should somehow support such companies, to save their businesses and therefore the jobs. How is that ‘fair’? Forget the banks being ‘bailed out’ for a moment; it would be unfair to the bailed out company’s competitors, whether big or more strikingly, small; the independent traders, who will never get such Government support.

If someone thinks Government is there to simply preserve the high street and everything else as they remember it from childhood, then that is a worrying outlook…

    Newport's empty shops after the economic downturn.

    Actually it was pretty much the same before the downturn...

The feeling is underlying in Britain and there are a lot of expectations, but there’s a subject to tackle another time, on too large a scale, one which I’ve baulked at for most of last year…

At the next election many voters will be swayed by a feeling that things could be better under Labour and Labour are very could at propaganda, they learnt the tricks up to 1997 and they have not laid off since. The rest of the electorate will just stay at home; because they hate the Tories, might feel betrayed by the Liberal Democrats and maybe see Labour as the patronising bunch of c***s they are. Perhaps…

    Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, all having a laugh?

    What a choice...

There are other parties and people should vote for them. Obviously UKIP are polling well at the moment, but the way that is panning out and with a poor turnout, a higher proportion of the vote for UKIP will simply hand power to Labour, without a struggle.

I wouldn’t really advocate voting UKIP (certainly not in the current circumstances) and definitely do not recommend voting for the BNP, although far more people voted for these parties in the last election than the Green Party and the Greens got most of their votes in one constituency, to get themselves one voice in Parliament.

There are always other parties in every constituency and I would still advocate voting for the LibDems, despite their decision to go into Coalition, which was a mistake. But then it could be said that they have tempered the Tory Government, who knows what it would have been like had the Tories won a majority in 2010, raising the tax threshold was one of the LibDems’ flagship policies, and Labour having regained power doesn’t even bear thinking about…

    Brown reflects.

    'It should've been me...' 

A broad spread of votes with perhaps a few unusual MPs and completely disproportionate numbers of seats in Parliament would have to give weight to the argument for Proportional Representation. I’m not writing now specifically to make the argument for it, I did bring it up in posts around the last election and I will make a case for it again. The fact is it would put an end to minority rule and parties only concentrating on swing seats, MPs only have to actually promote the views of certain vested interests.  

We don’t need and shouldn’t have compulsory voting, but not voting in the next election is not an option, it would be throwing power away, giving it back too cheaply to the same old New Labour Party.

    Miliband has tried to move Labour forward?

    The past is never far away...

    Brown and Kinnock catch up...?

    'And the stupid f**kwit will do anything we say!'

Mystic Rambling – Is Sean Penn out of his depth wading into the Falklands affair?

24/2/12 As I was finishing and publishing the post below, Sean Penn having taken a breath and thought about his comments, has written for the Guardian and responded to his critics and the "transparently corrupt and non-diligent propaganda machine that is much of the British press". It often takes a week, as it did for this post...

Mr Penn raises the effect of the oil deposits on the situation, as mentioned in the post below, but again does not seem to consider that the desire for control exists on both sides of the dispute. He also mentioned immigration which I alluded to at the end of the post, but I don't know the specific details of the immigration policy and this is obviously the tricky ground, especially when you take into account a possible oil rush.

He seems to focus more on 'UK support' for Pinochet in Chile, when he needs to focus more on the "legitimacy of Argentinian claims" and the motivation for the claims.

I can understand his calls for dialogue but not the way he's doing it. From his Guardian article (and overlooking possible sarcasm 'God Save the Queen', etc) it does seem he's a principled and intelligent man, I'm just not sure he's being very objective here, as discussed below:

There is a simple answer to (the title) question, but these are complicated matters, as it is with so many things. The world economic situation and Britain’s position in the world are extremely complex. In some ways the sheer enormity of the situation has led to a lack of posts on this blog, along with the problem of limited free time…

However, old Sean has popped up and raised an issue that appears simple on the surface - Sean Penn accuses Britain of 'colonialism' over Falklands, but it's actually a lot more complicated than he’s assumed.

It does also relate to the wider issues of Britain’s place in the world, as well as the Left’s view of the world. So while there has been a torrent of abuse and criticism directed at Sean Penn from a variety of mostly British commentators, I’ll still add my thoughts on the matter, he really has shown himself up and consequently highlighted a lot of problems.

Sean Penn

Problems...

Sean Penn has chosen to wade in just as tensions rise higher than they’ve been since the war. The 30th Anniversary is approaching, Prince William has now been stationed on the island and there is the apparently significant deployment of HMS Dauntless.

The Prince is only posted for search and rescue and perhaps one could question the timing, but the truth is that it certainly doesn’t alter the circumstances of the islands and the reasons for the dispute. Some MPs might be visiting, but surely that can’t bother the Argentinians..? Must again be the timing, it’s a sensitive issue…

It is very sensitive, on both sides of the dispute. So why did Sean Penn stomp in with his size nines??

Well clearly he thinks it’s an uncomplicated black and white issue. He’s rocking around South America taking photo opportunities with political leaders, as he does.

Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez

Old muckers...

Sean Penn and his dad, apparently...

No, it's the Uruguayan President, apparently...

Sean Penn and the Argentine President, Cristina Kirchner


And asked to comment about the Falkland Islands, the situation is clear to him:

“The world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology”

He called the Islands ‘the Malvinas’, he was in Argentina of course, but still it is apparent he knows little about the situation, or at least doesn’t understand it, hasn’t thought it through.

This has become increasingly clear as he responded to the criticism of original comments, calling it “hyperbole” and went further to condemn the insensitivity of Prince William’s deployment to the islands.

Politicians, Journalists, Bloggers, and a multitude of internet commentators pointing out specific details and criticising his partisan contributions to a very complicated matter is “hyperbole”, but Mr Penn accusing Britain of a “ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology” during a period that he does recognise is sensitive; well he must believe that’s appropriate and reasonable…

The legacy of colonialism is central to the issue of course, the imperialism that he so despises is fundamental.

“My oh my, aren’t people sensitive to the word colonialism, particularly those who implement colonialism."

And therein Sean Penn highlights his lack of understanding and how wildly he is missing a crucial point.

We have the UK that once ruled over a something like a quarter of the earth’s land masses and now oversees a few small territories dotted around the world, having relinquished control of almost all of its colonies and only retaining influence where the populations still desire it.

And then there is the claim from the former Spanish colony that wants to take control of originally uninhabited land, now populated by people that would like to remain under British control.

So who’s trying to “implement colonialism” now?

The Argentine President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has stated that Britain is a colonial power in decline, certainly in comparison to Argentina seeking new dominions; a colonial power in the ascendency…?

The Leader of Argentina

Your Majesty...

And when David Cameron recently accused the Argentinian government of colonialism, they certainly seemed a bit touchy. Sensitive one might say, Mr Penn?

A little upset and they seem to believe that their claim doesn’t relate to colonialism. As if their colonial population prior to 1833, was ‘essentially’ indigenous and not at all colonial. There is a clear case of double-think going on with many Argentinians, the paradox is should be obvious.

In this article, written in response to Cameron’s comments, it states clearly that the word “original” was removed from a statement about the removal of the pre-1833 population. Former, not original, but such detail is trivial semantics it appears…

It seems one form of colonialism is better than the other for Sean Penn, amongst others. “Archaic” colonialism is out, but the neo-colonialism of former colonies is fine by Sean..!

Except that of the USA, of course…

And along that line we come to crux of the issue, the reason for the passionate claims, and counter-claim; oil.

Sean Penn has actually rather cleverly been dragged into territorial claim motivated by oil.

If it weren’t for the possible presence of a large amount of oil in the vicinity, ‘Las Malvinas’ really would be nothing more than some windswept rocks in the South Atlantic. They’d be the ‘Falklands’ to everyone; populated by a few crazy Brit farmers and fishermen. Not the apparently extreme affront to the national sovereignty of Argentina.

Falklands Islands or Las Islas Malvinas?

Whatever you call them, they're bleak...

Here the BBC lay out the respective claims.

Why aren’t the Argentinian government’s claims imperialistic?

In response to Sean Penn’s comments a number of examples of other similar territorial situations have been pointed out, mostly to illustrate the absurdity of many of the aspects of the Argentinian claims. Each situation is different, but they are relevant; why are some originally uninhabited islands with a settled population that has determined its own nationality fundamentally different to any other similar example?

Not to attempt to try to list all of the possible similar cases, but it is worth mentioning some. One that probably got the most coverage last week was this Telegraph blog post: Sean Penn should return his Malibu estate to the Mexicans

The US did annex a number of states from Mexico following the US-Mexican war. I don’t believe that Sean would defend many of the acts perpetrated by US Governments, in the more distant past as well as in recent times, but it’s still technically relevant(the British historian, Dan Snow, directed a question to Sean Penn on Twitter about the circumstances of Guam, but it was pointed out that he probably wouldn’t attempt to justify such American overseas actions).

One of the main arguments that the Argentinians use is that self-determination is not applicable as the former population was removed by force, citing a UN resolution (so post 1945, in fact 1960 for the particular resolution).

The Mexicans would have a good case, maybe someone should tell them..? Maybe Sean didn’t know? He likes Latin America it seems and dislikes US foreign policy, so should be happy with that kind of ‘regime change’…

Many will simply say this is ancient history, but it was still extremely relevant less than 100 years ago, in part bringing about the US entry into the First World War – The Zimmerman Telegram. And with the Falklands we’re talking about force applied nearly 180 years ago whereas the Mexican-American war ended 164 years ago.

If they’re using a relatively modern convention to settle a dispute that began over 100 years before United Nations was founded, how far can we go back? And what other examples can we then include? Certainly the former Mexican states.

Do the Spanish want Jamaica back? It was taken by force (damn British pirates...) and therefore self determination of the current population doesn’t apply…?

Is it just that the Spanish don’t actively raise their potential claim? As with Mexico and their former territories, because they should probably think about staking a claim…

Is it that a treaty was applied at the time? Surely effectively agreed under duress, due to the act of force that is now crucial to the stipulations for sovereignty? Where does current international law stand on such treaties signed following acts of perpetrated long before the international mandate of the UN existed?

If the Argentine forces of Galtieri had been victorious in the 1982 conflict and some sort of terms and handover agreed, would that have applied under any international law?

As far as I can tell looking at any summary of the islands’ history, the Argentine ‘population’ that was ‘forcibly removed’ in 1833, wasn’t much to speak of and so I doubt anyone thought it warranted a treaty. Who knew how things would pan out..?

The Spanish seem to get involved a lot… There is the ongoing issue of sovereignty over Gibraltar. Acquired by force many years ago, but the current population have determined that they want to remain British.

But it’s so close to Spain??? In fact, so close, it’s practically in Spain..!

Gibraltar

So close...

Unlike the Falklands… Where it’s just that Argentina is the nearest country.

South America, the Atlantic and the Falkland Islands

So far..?

And proximity as a claim? Can it really be that simple?

A lot of your everyday average internet commentators (Argentine, British and others) have stated that they believe such islands should be ruled by the closest nation, so again regardless of the inhabitants’ wishes. Well if there were some crazy turn of events and a selection of these people were given power, there’d be a few island states getting ready for some interesting regime change…

The Canaries Islands (once more the Spanish and again taken by force many years ago), the Channel Islands (oh wouldn’t the French love that..?), the Faroe Islands (closer to Britain, but also close to two nations other than the sovereign power) and Greenland (though granted we’re talking autonomy, but what does it matter what the people want..?), Bermuda, Guam, Puerto Rico and there’s more…

Hawaii was mentioned a lot in the recent reactions, it is relevant, in terms of proximity (although no major nation is closer than the US) and the way in which it became part of the USA. And though they did have a choice in officially becoming a state; in the referendum they didn’t have the choice of becoming independent.

Many of the internet based advocates of the Argentinian claims, used examples such as the Hebrides and what if they were under Argentine rule? The world would be a vastly different place for one thing, but in response one could use all the examples above and the Hebrides are inhabited by peoples other than those of the hegemonic state of the UK. They might become independent soon, determined by them and their mainland cousins.

What if the Faroe Islands were controlled by another state? What if Ireland….. No, the Argentinians ruling and populating, because that would the equivalent, the Hebrides, is a ridiculous example; the course of history has led us to this point.

Proximity in itself should almost be irrelevant when you look at all of the different situations in the world. And many of the possible examples have had an indigenous or ancient populations, the Falklands didn’t. But it seems in the righteous world of Sean Penn and Argentine politics this is overlooked.

They talk about the use of force, but what happened to the indigenous populations of the Americas? What are their rights now under international convention..?

What happened to the aboriginal people of the Americas happened for hundreds of years, before and after whatever exactly happened to the tiny colonising population of Las Malvinas.

Again the double-think becomes apparent. It seems to be some belief that as this is an independent former colony wanting to takeover the land of a colony still ruled by the Mother country, under an ‘archaic’ system; then it is a righteous cause.

If the people of the Falklands had gained independence, would that change the situation? Of course, if it had happened some time before 1982 and the UK had not intervened, then we wouldn’t have ended up talking about UN conventions for actions taken well over 100 years ago, in 2012.

On a much smaller scale the situation of the two nations is in some way similar to that of the US and Canada; the US became independent and Canada remained as a dominion. Canada was on their doorstep, not fully independent until 1982, an affront to their freedom and sovereignty, they should have invaded..! Maybe gone into cohorts with the French, again…

Invade Canada..?

Oh they did...

None of it is as clear cut as some believe. And again how far could you go back with the principles of the Argentinian arguments?

The US, Australia, the original tribes of Britain, most of the world outside Africa… Even in Japan, though few would think about such a case. Land often taken by force, territory annexed, etc, and now things have changed.

Despite the many examples throughout history, in the present day the Falkland Islands do remain an oddity, something of an anomaly. Although there are notable ongoing disputes throughout the world; between Russia and Japan over the Kuril islands, Kashmir and it’s not even worth going into the Arab/Israeli dispute here… There’s Tibet and the Tamils in Sri Lanka, how’s international law working out in those areas???

None of them quite have the characteristics and profile of the territorial disagreement in the South Atlantic.

The presence of oil and the accompanying propaganda have certainly inflamed what must seem such an insignificant dispute to many around the world; the population is after-all very small.

(There has been some scoffing from Americans about the reaction to Penn's involvement, the comparison to the former Mexican territory must seem ridiculous…)

It can seem a clear-cut issue to many, with the colonial history and geographical set up, but it is more complicated. Nowhere near as simplistic as the Argentinian government claims; citing the relevant aspects of history that suit their argument.

It is developing into the same patriotic fervour and clamour for territory that an extreme Right wing government whipped up into a war. Now it’s a Left Wing government, it’s fine? To Sean Penn at least…

It’s not a black and white issue and it is clear the British Left are unsure where to stand; many are not drawn on it. The Guardian the main mouth piece of the Left in the UK did not set out a clear opinion on the dispute itself but commented on Sean Penn and his freedom of speech - Sean Penn has every right to wade in on the Falklands

But there is an uncertainty in the Left, the lack of opinion made this clear. They can see the factors I’ve laid out, this not a simple anti-colonial issue.

Probably more importantly though, whatever their specific opinion is, they know it’s a vote loser. Sure fire. It was a vote winner for Thatcher in 1983 and don’t Labour know it.

Michael Foot and Margaret Thatcher

No contest...

I think a lot of ‘principled’ Leftists, in and out of Labour, would rather the Falklands were handed to Argentina, if only to stop the nagging conscience, but few would utter it out of their circles…

Some Left wing and anti-British commentators will use the standard simplistic view of history; British Empire = bad, everything opposed = good! Except America; was good, independence from Britain an’ all that, but now bad… America boo!!!

As I say there has been limited opposing opinion in Britain, but it’s there and for a moment I thought it would be clearly exposed on BBC Question Time (16/2/12). However, I didn’t see the programme and can find no further reference than this remark on Twitter. John Prescott in un-spun mode, no advice, no stage management, possibly letting his anti-Tory, Leftist apologist conscience get the better of him..? Til they shut him up???

Labour out of touch with the public opinion..? Never let it be said…

Lord Prescott

Always in touch...

Sean Penn’s politics are perhaps a little different to those of the British Labour party and the Liberal Left in the UK, but his background is different and he’s not afraid to speak his mind on topics that in the US can adversely affect his image.

He’s clearly an idealistic man, who knows perhaps in his mind there is no contradiction; if he could bring it about maybe he’d happily give California back to the Mexicans? Handing the whole of the United States back to the Native Americans might be a step too far and into clear contradiction…

Though there is indeed a lot of hyperbole surrounding the issue, propaganda and passion on both sides of the debate, we all have to hope there can be some resolution without permanent and damaging division, worst of all conflict. No-one can want another war.

The fact is the world is changing and there are huge power shifts occurring. The South American continent, particularly the big three of Argentina, Brazil and Chile will be able to wield more influence. There is also a power issue underlying it as well as the oil and I think as time goes on, with the road Britain is on (as many gleefully indicate; ‘in decline’) it’s hard to see what will happen to the Falkland Islands, especially with such a hard existence surrounded by relatively hostile neighbours. Although as things stand, oil money can be a real game changer either way…

And it’s only a small population, the balance could be tipped perhaps (I haven't look into those technical details) and there you go Argentina..!

(The issue of immigration is raised in his article in the Guardian "The legalisation of Argentinian immigration to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands is one that it seems might have been addressed, but for the speculative discovery of booming offshore oil in the surrounding seas this past year". As it stands the Islanders and the authorities are holding the right to maintain the islands as they see fit)

It’s also true that in this changing world with territorial disputes in the subcontinent and China, two of the new power houses in the world, I’m not sure about Sean Penn’s patronising ‘the world today’ statement. That’s the world he sees, the world the Left imagine outside of the hegemonic and imperialistic American dominated West.

I used to like his films… He does try to raise important issues and perhaps his heart is in the right place, he has apparently done a lot of good work in Haiti, but in this case he’s taken a side assuming the opposing arguments are based along the same lines as his usual perspective and his firmly held assumptions.

He sidles up to the relevant politicians using his position and high profile, but how many people does he help and does he further his fundamental causes?

Hard life Sean?


And I didn't mention Team America once!

The Falklands issue will continue of course and will reach a peak this year around the various anniversaries of the war. There is certainly more to write, this post was meant to be brief…

I wonder what the Occupy Movement think of the Falklands/Malvinas issue..?

There is no Alternative Vote - Electoral Reform & Reforming Labour

(A little behind the news, but catching up by the end, read on…)

Following on from my last post; so what happened to reforming this **** electoral system?

Referendum result: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

Clegg, on his way out...

Walking away from reform..?

Well come on, let’s be honest, it wasn’t much of a reform. It was the Tories meeting the LibDems halfway on reform and even Labour weren’t hugely keen on it. The fact is it was still based on the First Past the Post system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

You got your first vote and you could leave it at that, but if you were so inclined to rate as many of the other parties as you like, then it was a mish-mash, an amalgamation of voters’ after- thoughts, leanings and general persuasions.

The advocates said it would make MPs work harder as they had to get over 50% of the vote, giving them a stronger mandate as well, but it’s not really over 50% if they don’t reach that mark with first preferences. It’s crawling over the line with a vague nod of approval from someone else’s supporters; “aye you’re not so much of a c**t, here’s a number two”.


Number one or number two?

And because the candidate with the lowest vote drops out and their second preferences are redistributed and counted first, you could be taken past the post with the second votes of the extremist parties or the general nut cases; the Monster Raving Loonies or Respect… And who cares about their preferences, should any of them count at all…?! No, I’m only joking, I think we should have proportionality (just leaving out the nutters at the end of the day...).

The fact is, it was a s**t system. It wouldn’t make any difference in a huge amount of constituencies, wouldn’t get rid of the jobs for life attitude in the safe seats and wouldn’t make them work any harder. It would really only affect the existing marginal seats, perhaps creating a few more and they already work pretty hard in those anyway. Overall there would still be a similar discrepancy between the popular vote and seats won in parliament.

No actually, it was absolute f***ing b**locks! Half of the supporters only wanted it as a path to further reform and Proportional Representation, probably most of the LibDems. That’s hardly going to persuade a lot of voters who don’t have much interest in politics. And if your supporters can’t even explain it one or two simple sentences then you’re f***ed, simple as that.

And they couldn’t; “you simply rate the candidates in order of preference, then the candidate with the fewest votes drops out and they’re second preferences are redistributed, until someone gets over 50%.” Now that’s not a direct quote and it’s actually not that bad.., but if you don’t even have much idea about the current system works, that’s basically gibberish. And to explain it properly you need much more than that.

It’s not really that complicated, but when I first heard a description of it, I didn’t get it. I had to read into it. Well this is Britain, in the 21st Century; people ain’t gonna research the topic if they’re not that interested in the first place.

The FPTP system is simple and that would have had an effect. Though there are so many problems with it, a lot of voters wouldn’t fully appreciate that and it is relatively easy to understand, the alternative presented was not. I don’t know that there’s a deep core of conservatism in this country but faced with such a choice, in hindsight the result was obvious.

It’s not as if the Yes vote had a good example of it being used successfully, which would have been handy. They have it in Australia… They also have compulsory voting. Our forefathers fought for our right to vote they fought for our freedom, so let’s force people to exercise that right (on pain of a small fine...), the lazy ignorant f***ers..!

It seems slightly contradictory and though it does do a lot for turnout, it doesn’t sit very easily. We can learn nothing from them…

Obedient Australians voting...


I’ve heard the argument that with everyone obligated to vote, it will make MPs work harder to consider the needs of all of their electorate, because they will certainly be judged by all of them. At the moment they just concentrate on the swing voters, the groups that could tip the balance, as well as their core support.

So we are forced to do something we may not feel inclined to do or even to turn up to deliberately spoil your paper, so that those f***ing grabbing, sponging, duplicitous, lying, cheating, useless, clueless f***wits have to start doing the job they are paid to do and made a very conscious effort take up?! No, I’m sorry they should be doing their job properly, they are under public scrutiny and they should be doing the correct amount of begging and pandering to us for our votes, and ultimately at least trying to deliver for every constituent.


Grabbing f*****s!

The fact that the turn out is averagely ridiculously low simply illustrates their consistent and abject failure (as well as the s**t electoral system). They should be making the changes and start being persuasive, not dictatorial.

No, I believe the only system that we should adopt is some form of nationwide proportionality. Each vote will count and they will have no option but to campaign for every vote, whether you turn up or not, they can’t take the risk. Conservatives moan about the lack of local representation, so if you just throw the German system at them and there you have it; a combination of FPTP and PR. It’s a good example because it’s successful on a large national scale, but the regions here also have similar systems; in Scotland and Wales.

The German system truly combines the systems and provides the best aspects of both, AV was a fudge and a really bad one at that. I guess Nick Clegg had no option but to take it and could see PR on the horizon; they were heady days last May…

Summer love in..?

Nick Clegg doesn't see the funny side...

One of the main arguments against AV from the No campaigners was it leading to more Coalition Governments; ‘you think this Government is s**t, well that’s all you’ll ever get! You want that do you? Do you?!!’ And that's coming from the main party in the current Government… They claim FPTP gives us strong government and that it’s a good thing.

A proportional system would bring about hung parliaments on a regular basis (though the SNP did just manage an outright majority and Labour were close in Wales), but they manage to run countries successfully all over the world with such systems. And though many conservatives would have us believe it, foreigners aren’t all living in near anarchy; eating horse meat with their hands and defecating in the street. Not all of them…



I don’t think the last 30 or 40 years are illustrative of strong government working in this country, no matter what some might say. It may have worked in the past, but times have changed.

The two main parties have done very well out of the system and that is the truth behind their arguments. And for all their claims of being “progressive”, some of the strongest defence of the current system comes from Labour - http://labour.no2av.org/. They do extremely well out of FPTP, how else could they have commanded a very reasonable parliamentary majority from the 2005 general election on only 35% of the vote? And many Leftists now sneer at the Tories for only have, er, a little over 35% of the vote…

“Progressive majority” sod that, there’s not even a need for it when they can manage to hold sway over the whole country with a commanding parliamentary majority with the backing of a little over 40% of the electorate. Change? Who likes change..? They’re on somewhere between 40-45% in the polls at the moment and they do well out of constituencies boundaries and the active electorates within their winnable seats, so they could very well again soon. They only bleat on about this progressive majority when they're falling short.

Everyone’s favourite propaganda tool Ellie Gellard was a firm no in the referendum, as clearly stated on Twitter that AV was the ‘wrong change’, and she gave a simple reply to my question about whether PR was the right change; “No”. It seems she’s not much a fan of reform, another ‘progressive’ there…



Without Labour’s whole hearted backing, AV had no chance. Clearly they’re horribly split on reform and it’s obvious why, they actually do the best out of FPTP, even though Tories are its strongest advocates.

Labour first mentioned AV in early 2010, knowing full well Labour would lose the impending election. They were fighting for survival, it was just a handout to LibDem voters and to keep the possibility of reform in mind for any deserting ‘progressives’, but it was transparent and to my mind distasteful (Peter Hain all over...). Clutching at straws, if they’d had any real interest why hadn’t it been at least mentioned some time before?

Apparently Blair was not a fan of reform (again, I wonder why..?), but f*** the financial crisis ‘getting in the way’, they dealt with enough equality s***e in the time Brown had ('manifesto pledge', give a s***..!). There would have been time for a serious debate on reform. But no, it was something close to an aside, a few months before the election.

So I took an instant dislike to the Alternative Vote…

Whose bright idea?

I don't know, but I don't like it one bit...

And it seems many were of the same opinion, not many were keen on it. Potentially it’s put back reform for years… Not very progressive...

Lord Prescott

Man of the people...

(What does our John think of Clegg's Lords reform?)

And what would happen to the ‘progressive majority’ if Scotland were to go its own way? Labour’s hopes would take a severe dent in England, 1997 is long forgotten. Without Scotland and also Wales, Labour’s support is drastically reduced as has been clearly identified many times and Labour would end up relying on their major urban strongholds in England.

2010 election results:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election_results_in_England

Before it became startlingly apparent how incapable and incompetent the Labour party are, the figures in England would have seemed concerning, but they are essentially the result of years of political incompetence and it’s long been the underlying reality in England.

Considering the abject failure of the party and that they were led by Gordon Brown, the figures for Labour in England are actually not bad, but that’s been the whole point, the dependency they created reaps its rewards. Now it’s the idea of a Leftist majority holding the rest of the country to ransom that's concerning; inflating the public sector, taxing and pressuring the low end of the private sector, continuing Labour’s years of incompetence and negligence.

Scottish independence does seem unlikely on current polling; there are apparently more people in England that support independence! Economic reasons may form the core of the reasons for that apparent anomaly, but the political reasons I’ve just mentioned also form a part. I wouldn’t actually want Scotland to go it alone but I do believe that it is only fair that the West Lothian question is addressed.

Anyway they’re not going to have a referendum for a few years yet, so who knows. For now the status quo remains.

Judging by the last few elections and recent polls, it does appear that a majority support ‘progressive parties’ (though Labour slipped back again recently), but it is relatively slim and propped up by Labour’s regional support, and the fact is; it only includes those polled and those that voted, though they talk as if it's the whole nation. The underlying picture is not so clear, nor is the homogeneity between the supporters of these parties apparent.

Many Liberals are left leaning and a lot of their support in the recent elections is going back to Labour. However, if Labour and the Liberals were ever to work together, the landscape would certainly change again and could rally support on the right.

PR would increase the chances of a progressive alliance occurring, but that sort of reform seems to have been set back years by the recent referendum. So any Leftists hoping for such an enlightened future have many of their ‘progressive’ comrades in the Labour party to thank for that…

Labour say 'No' to reform


Labour add 'substance' to the debate


Well done Labour...

For now Leftists look around and they see a ‘majority’ agreeing with them, at the anti-cuts protests, in Universities, in the public sector, amongst the Liberal Left urban middle classes, so they think that is the norm.

The Students United

Will never get any work done and cause a public nuisance..?

They also see the lack of numbers at Rally Against Debt, so they must be the majority…

The Rally Against Debt in London

Minority men?

They can easily find the support they’re looking for on the internet, there is a definite left wing leaning on many social networking sites and of course you can easily surround yourself. These sites do now have a wide age range, but they are still pre-dominantly younger and statistics and time have shown that younger people do lean more to the Left. It’s one reason Labour and the Liberals are keen on lowering the voting age, to maintain that majority and keep pace with the tendency to become more conservative as one gets older…

Is what you see on Twitter or throughout the internet representative of the UK at large? Maybe in years to come, but not necessarily now.

Only a year ago there was a clear example of the different worlds inhabited by sections of the British population, when so many Left leaning internet users agreed with Gordon Brown, in calling Gillian Duffy “bigoted”. As I wrote at the time they must move in some high minded circles if they think what she said was worthy of being branded ‘bigoted’ in such a way.

Brown and Duffy discuss the demise of 'Old Labour'

'You're a bigot...'


'Now f*** off'

In the same election 1,500,000 people voted for UKIP or the BNP, 5% of the turnout and making them the 4th and 5th largest parties. Again not very progressive and as I also stated at the time, many more votes than the Green Party, who gained a seat.

In South Wales the working classes are still predominant and support for Labour and anti-Tory sentiment is still strong, but it’s not the same in throughout England, amongst what were the working classes. While there is still a lot of traditional support for the various parties, the political breakdown in the UK has changed drastically. It’s not as simple as it appears to a lot of people, particularly the supporters of the very visible and vocal groups such as UK Uncut.

I don’t think the Liberal Left see, or they simply don’t accept, the reality of the situation. They certainly don’t admit it, for obvious reasons. The numbers are tight but the majority are not up in arms about the cuts, they may not be happy but that's not the same thing. A large number of people are going to lose out from spending cuts and we’ve seen a fair number of them on the streets and hear them in the media; the vocal minority (vocal, mobilised, time on their hands…). But many of the rest, they appreciate the significant problems that occurred under the last government and the need for change, even if many of them also lose out; individually, in the short term.

Many are simply silent, obviously a large number of people regularly don’t vote at all. Surely if they are angry about the cuts and this government, they know what they can do? They are simply not motivated, they might not support the Government or the Tories, but they must have some understanding of what is happening and they did not make the effort to support the opposition. If they are inclined to vote Labour, then Labour activists are doing a shocking job of mobilising voters…

'Hello... Do you like me..?'

'Why not?'

There will be fluctuations, when certain cuts bite and of course depending on how the economy performs, but maybe a good percentage of people are thinking that we should give this Government some time. That change is needed and at the end of the day what’s the alternative? Labour were planning cuts anyway. We would have screwed from both ends with them, but there you go. Hopefully they don’t get the chance any time soon…

It’s not about supporting the cuts (as I mentioned previously Rally Against Debt et al are essentially extreme), few people actually want public services to be cut. What a lot of people want is for the bureaucracy and inefficiency to be cut back.

But who make the cuts? The bureaucratic and inefficient…

The likes of UK Uncut and the public sector unions don’t want any cuts at all, not at all, and want higher taxes; that is not the majority opinion.

Anti cuts protestors

Majority men (and women)..?

These people think the nation is with them, particularly the working classes. Of course many are, but the vocal and visible Liberal Left are far removed from the working classes, classes that have changed in nature over the last 30/40 years.

What do the likes of Laurie Penny and Ellie Gellard know about the working classes?

Laurie Penny a.k.a. PennyRed

A striking yet familiar look...

Ellie Gellard a.k.a. The Stilettoed socialist

'Fair for all', but definitely fairer for our Ellie...

What does 'BevaniteEllie' have in common with her hero?

Ellie and the Browns

Not what you know...

They’re just two examples from the new generation of Left wing activists. There are thousands and thousands of them in the media and on the internet; they live in a world that bares little resemblance to the world of many of the people they claim to speak for.

When Labour were in power they didn’t fundamentally improve anything for their former core support. Throwing money at problems doesn’t necessarily solve anything.

Deal done

Job done..?

Do they have any idea?

As I was writing this post and after the recent failure at the polls, Miliband and Labour are already talking about 'Blue Labour'. Judging by the emphasis it's obviously an attempt to reach out to some of the groups I've indicated, working classes they've neglected and members of their former core support that have deserted them, many moving to the right of the political spectrum.

It's just New Labour all over again, trying to be all things to all men! They're reaching out for support they've lost including the middle ground that holds the key to their chances of getting back into power. It didn't take them long and I'm not in the least bit surprised, but one of the many concerns is when they've failed so many people in the working classes and in their strongholds, they will never focus on and actually solve their problems, because they've maintained their support.

It shouldn't be about the people who've deserted them, it should be about the people they've deserted.

Particularly low paid workers in the private sector. Dependency maintained a strong core of support for them, but I think some people really do need to look past what is happening under the current Government and take a good look at the Labour party, what they've done and what they've become.

I don’t think Labour are going to change or become a credible party any time soon.

Not for a long time...


The future's bleak Ed.