Friday, 6 February 2009

The Mask Comes Off

Finally some lickspittle in the Establishment confirms what we all knew, that the media work solely for the interests of the existing political class, and that the election of BNP Euro MEP's will result in a National Government. In other words the
One Party State will finally drop the pretence that it is a democracy and the three parties of Labour Tweedledum, Tory Tweeldledumber and Liberal Tweedledumbest will unite in order to prevent the British people reclaiming their nation from the parasite scum that presently control it.

So much for democracy.

These Establishment dogs that piss on our national democracy are the scum that have destroyed this nation - and now the mask comes off and wesee them for the self serving scum and anti-democrats that they truly are.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/06/comment-kettle-labour-politics



Darling, Clarke and Cable in the cabinet? Don't rule it out

Another disaster for Labour in this European elections, and the drums will beat for a national emergency government
Comments (…)

* Martin Kettle
*
o Martin Kettle
o The Guardian, Friday 6 February 2009

Not even his greatest admirer would claim that Sir Patrick Cormack is one of the big beasts of the political jungle. But the pompous and long-serving Conservative backbencher is neither a fool nor lobby fodder. On occasions he says something that speaks to the mood of the moment in a way that eludes more calculating and partisan politicians. This week at prime minister's questions was one of them.

On the face of it, Cormack gave Gordon Brown one of his easier moments: would Brown invite David Cameron and Nick Clegg to Downing Street to seek common ground and national leadership on the economic crisis? Brown's practised response was emphatic: that approach had been tried but had not worked; the fault lay with the Tory party, which last autumn had offered co-operation one week, only to withdraw it the next. If the Tories changed their mind again and supported government policies, co-operation could resume.

In a House of Commons context this exchange was no contest. It recalled Neville Cardus's remark about the cricketer Archie Maclaren and his ability as a batsman to dismiss the ball from his presence. And yet, as the economic news gets ever worse and as Labour's brief late-2008 poll recovery recedes into the memory, it seems to me that Brown's show of Maclaren-style hauteur will look less and less politically convincing, while the earnest, one-nation patriotism of Cormack and MPs like him may become increasingly attractive.

No one thinks that Labour's ratings or Brown's personal standing are likely to climb any time soon - if ever. At best, both are flatlining in current polling. At worst, they could slide back towards the depths of last spring. The 2009 political calendar offers a few openings for ministers to take charge of the agenda, such as the G20 London summit and, more significantly, the budget, out of which a popular political leader might hope to conjure fresh support. But these are overwhelmed by the overriding expectation of unremittingly destructive economic news until well into 2010, and by the looming disaster for Labour of the European elections on 4 June.

These elections will be the pivotal moment in domestic politics this year. From Labour's point of view the only question now is how bad the results will be: bad, very bad, extremely bad or catastrophic? In the two previous European elections during Labour's rule, in 1999 and 2004, the voters have used such contests to make a protest. Labour took only 27% of the vote in 1999 and 22% five years later. In that sense, Labour has little to lose this time. It holds only 19 of the UK's current 78 seats in the parliament - so is close to rock bottom.

Yet it really could get even worse for Labour. In the month before the 1999 elections, Labour was on 51% in ICM's national opinion poll for the Guardian and was then clobbered in the ballot box. In the month before the 2004 contest, Labour was on 37% and got clobbered again. In each case more than a third of Labour's supporters deserted the party in the European contest. If Labour slips under 30% in the polls by May 2009, and if the desertion rate is of the same order this time - both of which are realistic possibilities - we can expect the party's share of the vote in this year's European contest to fall into the teens for the first time ever in any nationwide electoral contest. With a general election no more than a year off, that result will immediately push the panic button.

But it won't just be the size of the defeat that will have that effect. It will also be the quality of it. In both 1999 and 2004 it was possible for Labour to brush off the scale of its reverses by citing its continuing strength in the polls and by pointing to the damage that Ukip and the Liberal Democrats were continuing to inflict on the Tories. This time, however, the Tories look set to make significant gains, while Labour also faces the prospect of a large electoral spike for the BNP - who may win several European seats - among some of its hitherto core support.

For all these reasons it seems highly probable to me that the political mood in the week following the European elections will be dominated by two questions. The first, grindingly familiar, will be whether Brown can continue as leader in a general election that may threaten Labour's survival as a national party. The second, a phenomenon not known in British politics since the days of Oswald Mosley, will be the lurching fear that a rightwing nationalist and protectionist upsurge, driven by economic hardship and anti-foreigner feeling, threatens the stability of the whole political system.

What happens after that? Experience says that Brown, his authority further undermined, will nevertheless hang on, because that's what happens and because there is no plausible challenger who could turn things round for his party in the available time. Experience also says that the political class, including the press, will draw its wagons together to ostracise the BNP, while at the same time the parties themselves, especially Labour, wrestle conscience and self-interest as they struggle to find protectionist strategies to reclaim the working-class nationalist vote.

Yet experience says a third thing as well. It says that, amid steepling economic decline and haemorrhaging governmental weakness, pressure for some kind of government of national unity can only grow. Right now, the only people who talk in such terms are backbench mavericks such as Cormack and Labour's Frank Field - and in Field's party Ramsay MacDonald still casts a long shadow. In six months' time, though, advocates of a genuine government of all the talents - an economic national emergency cabinet including Alistair Darling, Ken Clarke and Vince Cable - may suddenly find themselves with an audience.

By then, the momentum of events - together with increasing calls for the Brown government to go, for the BNP to be resisted and for the economy to be saved - could have put a national government on the agenda. Only this week, a shadow cabinet minister told me, half jokingly, that the Tories could never serve under Brown but might, for the good of the country, be compelled to serve under some other Labour leader. After all, if a grand coalition can work for Germany, why is it so unimaginable here? No, I don't think it will really happen either, but these are new times and I no longer rule it out as I once did.

martin.kettle@guardian.co.uk








Add to Technorati Favorites

4 comments:

Wolfblood said...

It's time we stopped tying ourselves up with debilitating sophistry by referring to our enemy as seperate entities. Our enemy, the enemy of the British, is, by its own practice and admission, a single entity; anti-British, anti-nature, anti-white and anti-human.
The EU Fascist Conspiracy!

Andastre said...

Yes it is abhorrent to watch what we thought was our democratic rights being dismantled piece by piece, in fact the establishment are flushing our democratic rights down their giant totalitarian toilet and showing no more regard for them that one would show for a turd!

However, in their depseration to prevent the people legitimately electing the BNP to represent them, the more that the establishment hack away at our democratic rights, the more that they remove democratic principles by stealth, the more they hasten their own destruction.

The fundamental modus operandi of this Marxist-fascist totalitarian regime which we are supposed to believe is a democratic system, is that they always seek to operate invisibly. Because they know that it is the rapid demise of any a totalitarian regime to become obvious to the people, because ultimately the people will rise up and overthrow such regimes - this is a law of nature. People will always resist obvious oppression. Therefore for decades they have been operating below the radar, undetected, save for the voiceless few.

But now the establishment is torn, how does it handle the rise of the BNP? Does it act illegally and immorally preventing the BNP from political power and thus making themselves completely obvious as undemocratic, and reveals them for the totalitarian mind-benders that they are? Or does it play the long game and allow the BNP to take its place in the political system, this would keep their sinister intentions invisible from the general population but would carry the price that the BNP would now have greater political power.

My view is that they will continue to act undemocratically and therefore ensuring even greater support for the BNP. The simply fact being that these so-called politicians simply cannot operate with a long term strategy, they are too locked into their immediate world of their narcissistic egos where instant gratification and self-interests is all powerful. The establishment politicians cannot plan for the future, because they do not have a conscience for the future, they are here today, gone tomorrow merchants, lining their pockets frantically whilst they can. And it is this exytreme short-sightenedness that will ultimately be their undoing.

In all cases where an establishment Lib/Lab/Con politician is faced with the dilemma of weighing the future needs with the needs of the present, they will opt for the needs of the present. And this is not so much due to political expendiency, no it is their innate patholigical instinct for instant gratification which motivates them, political decisions come after that fact.

This is why they are doomed to fail - because the greater the pressure exerted upon them by the rise of the BNP the more their mask slips and they reveal their true totalitarian face, they simply do not understand any other way. They are the politicians of reaction, and such people are extremely unstable in pressure situations - desperation for them equates to poor decisions.

Therefore, all the BNP need keep doing to exerting pressure upon the system, this will case the system to react, and in its desperation it will react with unthinking measures which will reveal its true totalitarian nature.

Pressure, pressure, pressure and watch their house of cards fall.

Anonymous said...

It looks as though an all party emergency government is being contemplated to slay the BNP dragon.

Anonymous said...

The "conservative movement" is no longer in any sense rightist, save for its alliances with multinational corporate wealth, which is only rightist in the Marxist sense of favoring interventionism to expand its markets and influence.

The farce of democracy that we now have—which is a pluralistic society spinning into a multicultural one, run by meddlesome bureaucrats, inventive judges, and a multitude of social engineers—has nothing to do with serious self-government. It is a social experiment that is spinning out of control.


http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=54