Ed: a new era or more of the same?
Ed Miliband is "ready to lead"
Ed Miliband made his maiden speech to Conference yesterday as new Labour leader. Not “New” Labour leader, i.e. not new New Labour leader, just new Labour leader.
This is very important, because New Labour is dead. This Party is no more; it has ceased to be, etc…
But Mr Miliband is not a Norwegian Blue pining for the fjords. He is Red Ed pining to see his “new generation” of socialists transform Britain into a Mecca of equality.
Hey, wait. Isn’t this what New Labour was supposed to be about? But instead, the gap between rich and poor widened – and the coffers of the Blairs and Kinnocks grew exponentially.
That’s socialism the world over, though: the leaders promise equality, but make sure they themselves are far more equal than those who voted for them. But still they get voted back in. Voters still believe, “Oh, we’re sorry about the past, we’ll do things better next time because we care so much about equality and peace and reducing crime and improving education and health….”
Tom Harris insists that New Labour was much more than a PR gimmick,
But if, like me and many others, you believe New Labour is an indispensable political philosophy which embraces Labour as the party of aspiration, and not just as the party of the dispossessed, then New Labour – however it’s described, labelled and marketed – is here to stay.
His suggestion that Labour is the party of aspiration inspired some comments. This was mine (which wasn’t approved, even though I was polite and said hello),
Hello Tom,
I’m obviously not the only one almost to have choked as I read, “The party of aspiration.”
Those who genuinely do aspire to do something with their lives aren’t likely to vote Labour (if they have any sense).
So, what are Labour voters aspiring to, I wonder?
Being the fourth generation in their family never to work?
Being able to get a job on the minimum wage and give their mum £30pw housekeeping?
Scoring the winning goal in the World Cup final?
Do you really imagine, in your wildest dreams, that people who have genuine aspiration want to vote for a party which keeps a huge underclass as pets?
You should have set your alarm clock, Tom; it’s gone waking up time!
Red Ed doesn’t agree with Tom either.
The theme of the speech hinged on his repeated declaration of a “new generation” – one which he said would deliver change to the party and the country, with “different attitudes, different ideas, different ways of doing politics”.
He attempted to draw a line under 13 years of Labour government, admitting the party in power had been wrong to claim it had ended boom and bust, to encourage a culture of debt, to fail to regulate the City and to ignore concerns about immigration, and wrong to go to war in Iraq.
So we can now draw a line under the New Labour junta, can we? The million or so dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. The near bankruptcy of our country. The deliberate re-engineering of our society through mass immigration.
No sane person will ever draw a line under this utter treachery. Not before those responsible pay for their crimes instead of being rewarded with vast fortunes for going on speaking tours.
My last-but-one post detailed the ConDems’ equality chief’s vision of the socialist dystopia of forced equality she wishes to inflict on us. I reckon Miliband Jr could have given pretty much the same speech.
Critics have raised concerns about Mr Miliband’s stance on traditional marriage after he pledged last month to redefine marriage and impose it on society.
Mr Miliband says he is “angry” that there is a free speech law that allows people to express their opposition to homosexual conduct.
He obviously views people being allowed to express an opinion as such a danger that he is prepared to link it to extreme violence,
He wants the law repealed because he claims the protection would make it harder to convict murderers.
If we ever have the misfortune of having this man as Prime Minister, he might just ban us saying or writing a lot of things. This is what events are leading up to.
Ed Miliband’s conversion to the environmental religion is also very worrying indeed. My only contact with him was an extremely brief encounter on Twitter last November at the time of the climate change conference in Copenhagen when he was the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
Me:
Are you absolutely sure that your facts about ‘climate change’ are correct before promising away billions of pounds?
EM:
yes,at met office today.CO2 concentrations highest for 650,000 years.co2 link to temp. clear, scientific effect
Me:
So wait. It was much warmer in the Middle Ages, with lower CO2. What does this tell us about CO2 and climate change?
EM:
End of conversation. But he doesn’t need to know the answer. He’ll do as he is told. By climate change “scientists” and the EU and UN agencies and fakecharities and transnational corporations and all the usual suspects which have plagued our politics and our country for quite a long time now.
And finally, Ed doesn’t want to be called names anymore, such as Red Ed, Forrest Gump or Wallace. Tough, Ed. A tiny bit of childish fun is all you’ve left us with. Anyway, how else do you expect us to behave after thirteen years of New Labour infantilising us?
I think the Labour leadership treat the Public with thinly veiled contempt.They promised to lead us into the’promised land’but led us into the wilderness and left us there.( Having stripped us clean materially and morally.)
Now they want to do it again.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” (As someone said, Lincoln I think)
What a disaster for the nation that a Sixth Form Prefect should be anywhere near the levers of power. It is entirely possible that, when the wheels fall off the coalition in the not too distant future, this nasty little man will be El Presidente.
My only hope is that his ridiculous policies, bans, restrictions, taxes and general incompetence provoke a civil war, with hundreds of traitors executed for treason, starting with Blair.
E.V.
Shocked! Do you really want a war or is that some kind of christian hyperbole?
A new era with Ed – or more of the same? What have experience and history taught us? Every so-called ‘new’ thrust in a political party is merely an attempt reinvent itself and cover up the misdeeds and the treacheries of the past – only to quickly repeat or reinvent them. The State is the problem, and all of the political parties within the system (including BNP and UKIP) are part of the same old problem. Why does human nature have such a pathological sense of optimism? It’s like the serial divorcee who hopes “this time it will be perfect” before the ninth marriage.. sigh..
Len,
The contempt is becoming ever more thinly veiled and sometimes unveiled, even to their (former) core voters. The 10p tax debacle proves the contempt they have for the poor. They literally don’t even give a stuff about their own loyal, longsuffering supporters.
Politics is “them” and “us” to most people.
EV,
I hope we can have treason trials without a civil war, but you had me salivating at the thought of Blair going first. Knowing him, he’ll arrange a book-signing beside the gallows.
Rob,
I’ll let English speak for himself, but we have many traitors in our midst.
faulksguy,
Miliband trying to distance himself from New Labour’s evil will, alas, fool many. Eternal optimism. Eternal stupidity.
Rob,
We are way past the point of negotiation. The only hope for the UK is revolution. I doubt it will happen; most of the population appear untouched by their imminent demise.
Why are you shocked that I should wish to see war-mongering, lying, thieving, perverted, Marxist traitors executed?
E.V.
Oh dear, oh dear have you been taking your medication?
My question was specifically about your stated desire for civil war.
In one breath you call for revolution and with the next you condemn war-mongering traitors.
In case you hadn’t noticed, lying and thieving are not capital offenses even in the deepest recesses of the Mosaic law.
As for perversion, well I am sure you will be the right person to cast the first stone.
Shouldn’t you, as a Christian, be turning the other cheek, rendering unto Caesar and submitting to your Earthly masters? Or was my understanding really that warped? Please tell me which part of the bible endorses your point of view and why you just can’t sit back and wait for your god to come down and sort everything out for you.
The idea of a violent struggle doesn’t sit well with me, but objectively speaking I can see where EV is coming from. The treachery has been insidious in the way it has changed the landscape and provided the apparatus for totalitarian control. Orwell was correct.
Rob – if Christians were to follow the logic of your presuppositions, then people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany and the likes of Gyorgy Vins in Soviet Russia would have complied with the regimes they were under and have kept quiet. You actually betray a misunderstanding of biblical theology. Read Psalm 94 if you have a Bible – especially verse 16.
Rob,
Mis-applying scriptures that pertain to personal conduct and making them apply to the manner in which a nation should conduct itself is where you are going wrong. The NT is not a guidebook for the institution of a Theocracy, it is mostly concerned with the individual and their standing with God.
Romans 13 speaks of the kind of Government which has been instituted by God; it is one which rewards good and punishes evil. If it does not do these things, in fact it does the very opposite, I have no responsibility to obey its wicked commandments. Isaiah 5 speaks of God’s wrath over the utter perversion of morals instituted by a national Government and what happens to such a country. I have no doubt He thinks likewise concerning the UK. Do I need to begin to list the catalogue of evil that the Governments of the last 20 odd years have attempted to inflict on me, my family and my nation? Can you not see that the desire to see justice done to traitors, who have betrayed themselves, their people, their oaths and their offices, is no different to the desire to see murderers executed? The same scripture teaches that the righteous (non-Christian, btw) State is legally entitled to execute those who break its laws, and that it is entitled to ‘capitalize’ any number of crimes, so long as it is in line with its duty to ‘reward good and punish the evil’, so I do not agree that lying and thieving are not capital offenses if, for example, that lying involves the fabrication of ‘evidence’ and ’sexed-up dossiers’ that push a nation to war over oil or again, for example, if that thieving involves the theft of the money taken from the hard working to be given to not only those who refuse to work but also to organisations which promote sexual depravity or Islamic terrorism.
Turning the other cheek is again, a personal instruction. I am not instructed to turn the other cheek if, for example, someone were to attack my wife, or a child, etc. I am not ordered to allow myself to be struck without retaliation repeatedly. I believe that particular scripture is often used by Christians to excuse their own cowardice and by the opponents of the Christian to attempt to ham-string them in the face of utter national ruin. Should Churchill have turned the other cheek?
The Bible tells me to remove the obstruction from my own eye before I point out the obstruction in others’. Matthew 7 v 5. It does not tell me not to point out the faults of others. John 7 v 24 tells me to judge others, providing I do so righteously. There is no prohibition on pointing out evil or calling for its punishment.
As I said, the time for peaceful negotiation has passed. The only hope is that the people will be pushed too far (before they are pushed over a cliff) and remove the filth that masquerades as leaders.
Pain now, or excruciating agony later.
PS I can see why you are confused as what constitutes a Christian’s moral obligations when I hear the rot pumped out of the C of E, by wizards like Williams. As I said on another thread, perhaps you should re-evaluate your understanding of the Bible, as you appear to have got completely the wrong end of the stick.
E.V.
No doubt you know the bible far better than I do. I haven’t read it (except of course for small extracts) for several years now. How you decide to apply it to your life is up to you of course but I was addressing you as an individual so I don’t see how you can relate your struggle to that of Churchill’s. I’m afraid I will has to ask you to list those evils, or at least provide an example or two, as it is not immediately apparent to me to what you are referring.
In a democracy we do have the power to remove our leaders without bloodshed and you have the power to change society and instigate your laws if you can convince enough people to follow you. The problem you have is that only a tiny minority of people want to be ruled according to your blood-thirsty principles. If I am wrong then form a political party and you will sweep to power. Otherwise, as I said before, I am afraid you will just have to wait for the second coming.
BTW I don’t pay much attention to what the C of E says either.
Faulksguy,
I read the passage. Just another bible quote is not going to change my mind on anything unless you can first demonstrate that it really is the word of God. Verse 16 can of course be interpreted in a multitude of ways. It reminded me of the knights who overheard the king raging “who will rid me of this turbulent priest” and went away and chopped up the archbishop assuming they would be in his favour. Perhaps E.V. would approve of that! I can only point out to you what it says in verse 1 and suggest that it might be appropriate to keep that in mind when reading the rest.
Cheers, Rob
Rob,
I’m afraid I do not understand (my fault) your question on Churchill. Please elaborate.
PS. If you think you live in a Democracy, and that you have a choice of leader, you are mentally ill.
Rob,
Mpre than 78% of people entitled to vote in 2005 did not vote Labour. They got Labour. In what way is being ruled by the dole-dossing, immigrant, public-servant 22% democratic?
E.V.
Re Churchill, if I didn’t make myself clear it was my fault. My point was that I was talking to you as an individual citizen and not the leader of the nation and as you were saying that the N.T. applies to an individual’s standing with God, not the institution of government, then it should be applicable to you. I don’t know if Churchill was a christian anyway, he certainly didn’t harp on about it as far as I know so he’s under no obligation to turn the other cheek to anyone. Also he was doing the will of the people so he had the right.
Mentally ill? That’s a bit much isn’t it? I’ll check with my medicine man next time I see him though just in case.
I’ve checked the figures and they are for 2005: Labour 36%, Tories 33%, Lib Dems 22%. That is of the actual turnout of course which was 61%. I don’t see how you can make anything out of the fact that people couldn’t be bothered to vote except they couldn’t be bothered. If you were one of them then you should STFU. Labour won the election fair and square under the system we have.
“In what way is being ruled by the dole-dossing, immigrant, public-servant 22% democratic?” I really didn’t understand that sentence at all I’m afraid and I’m blaming you for that!
Oh I’ve got you now, you are saying that anyone who voted Labour is a dole-dosser, an immigrant and/or a public servant. Gotcha!
Rob,
36% of the 61% of the electorate that voted is 21.96% of the electorate. As I said, 22%.
A few of the evils instituted by various shades of Gov over the last few decades; the abolition of the death penalty, in exchange for the lie of life sentences, which at the moment average 11 years. This is despite regular polling showing 70%+ of people in the UK in favour of its reintroduction. The undermining of the institution of marriage, equating it to the socially destructive vice of homosexuality. The decimation of the economy which now means that the average man cannot support a wife and children, let alone buy a house, on his income alone. His wife must work, leaving the children to be raised by child care assistants/teachers. That child will be born owing £28,000, courtesy of the National Debt. The debasement of all levels of education in general and University education in particular, to the point where a person can obtain a degree without the ability to read, write or even speak properly. The invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan. The bombing of Serbia. Allowing Islam and its followers to become dangerously dominant and decrying all those who can see the perils of such a folly as ‘racist’.
If you want more, just let me know.
RE: Churchill. OK, I see your point on him being national leader, so I’ll rephrase mine. Should the millions of servicemen and women have turned the other cheek whilst being shot at?
RE: Shutting the F up because I refuse to vote for my own destruction. One reason why we continue to be ‘led’ by a rotating dictatorship is because many persons think that if a person doesn’t make the choice between one bunch of liars or another, they are automatically excluded from expressing an opinion. I’ll be fine with that, just as soon as the Gov stops stealing my money to pay for their insane projects and then expecting me not to criticise them because I haven’t voted for them. BTW I always attend the Polling Station and spoil the paper, just so I cannot be accused of laziness.
You haven’t answered my question on what is democratic about allowing 22% of people, not a small number of which are funded are funded by the 78%. I’ll try again; what was democratic about allowing Gordon Brown to become PM, when not one person voted for him in that capacity, not even the members of his own party?
The last paragraph of the above should read ‘…about allowing 22% of people to dictate the fate of 78%, especially as not a small number of which…’.
Sorry.
E.V.
I am not saying anyone should turn the other cheek, not even you! I just would have thought that, as a christian, you might consider it as it is one of the most well known sayings of Jesus. You seem to be telling me that if he said it, he didn’t actually mean turn the other cheek, he meant don’t turn the other cheek and seek bloody vengeance on those who wrong you. Well suit yourself, it’s your religion and you’re welcome to it.
I agree with you about spoiling your ballot paper, it is perfectly legitimate. I do think that if you have such strong views then you are entitled and arguably morally obligated to do a bit more about it than that though. There are no shortage of people who will agree will you about the wars, the national debt and levels of taxation. Opposition to the death penalty seems to be stronger than you imagine after having a cursory glance at some figures. As for homosexuality and islam, I think you’ll find that most people will see these as personal issues that have no place in law. Out of interest though, just how is homosexuality such a problem and what makes you think that islam is “dangerously dominant”? Is it just the halal meat issue pointed out a few postings ago?
As I am sure you are well aware of the first past the post system we have in this country, I won’t patronise you by trying to explain it. That is how democracy is implemented here but I seem to remember that electoral reform has been on the cards since the last election so we will see what they come up with. Out of interest though, how do you think things should be done? I am well aware that the system is very far from perfect but I do feel that we are inching towards a better society although we do have some major slip-ups for time to time. For example at least we are not fighting with our immediate neighbours any more and the threat of nuclear destruction has averted significantly. The expenses scandal and the bank debacle will lead to better regulation and more realisation that no-one can really be trusted. Still an awful lot of work to do of course but I don’t think you have any of the answers.
As for G.B. becoming P.M. well that was not democratic but no-one ran against him at the time and they paid the price for it clearly. Don’t forget that no-one voted for Churchill to be P.M. either (in his first term at least) although I accept the circumstances were entirely different.
I have some experience of the education system and I can assure you that, in my opinion, your assessment is way off the mark.
Rob,
My point on the turning the other cheek thing; I believe that particular verse if often taken out of context, by both Christians and non-Christians. Christ did say it, He did mean it and I think that it means I should allow others, under certain circumstances, to abuse, belittle or even strike me, without retaliation. It does not mean that I am to stand by and watch as others are similarly abused, it does not mean that I am disallowed from using violence as a defense, it does not mean I can walk idly by whilst my country commits suicide, or more precisely, while a gang of barely elected morons murder it.
Churchill was appointed by the King (the first time around) as he could see that Chamberlain was useless. Good thing too.
I did not ask how the system of elections work in this country, I asked why you thought it was democratic. Just calling it democratic, when it clearly isn’t, won’t work. Ignoring the wishes of almost 80% of the nation is not democratic. Having sociopaths become PM in a back room deal over coffee is not democratic. Of all the people who voted Conservative in the last election, how many were expecting to see Nick Clegg answering PMQ’s? Again, in what way is this democratic? The word democracy, as I am sure you are aware, comes from the Greek and means ‘rule by the people’. It carries with it the implicit idea that that rule should be by the MAJORITY of the people.
This is all basically a moot point with me, as I dislike democracy anyway, I just am tired of being told I should be grateful for living in one when I very clearly don’t. Just to answer your point, I believe monarchy is the best system. I add the rider that any person remotely related to the House of Windsor should be automatically excluded from accession. If we must have a democracy, then it should be ‘of the majority’. Political parties should produce manifestoes which are legally binding should they gain power. They should contain a timetable for the implementation of these policies; failure to implement the policies or to stick to the timetable should result in another election with all members of the party that failed to implement its manifesto barred from standing for public office for 5 years. No party is elected to Government without an absolute majority of the entire electorate. Voting should be compulsory, with a ‘None of the above category’. Should None of the above win an outright majority, all other persons who stood in the election should be barred from standing again for 5 years and another election is held with new candidates and new manifestoes. If no party wins an outright majority, coalitions would not be permitted. Changes would be made to the manifestoes and the election ran again, and again and again if necessary, until a party had so amended it policies to reflect the will of the people that it gained an outright majority. Anything less than this is not democracy.
Islam is dangerously dominant in large ares of the UK. Go to Sparkhill, in Birmingham. Stand on a street corner and explain to the passers by how you have scrutinised all religion and found it to be a sham, a method of mass control. See what happens. Then you will understand why it is dangerous. You won’t do as I have suggested of course, as you know already what will happen and why what I have said about Islam is true, you just don’t like to admit it.
Homosexuality is a problem for a nation when it becomes enshrined in law that any criticism of it and its devotees is a criminal offense, ludicrously entitled a ‘Hate-Crime’. It is a problem when persons gain an advantage in employment opportunities because of their perversion. It is a problem when children as young as 5 are instructed in the joys of homosexuality, against the wishes of their parents. History reveals that when nations give themselves over to decadence and open perversion, disaster ensues. See Rome, Greece, Sodom, Egypt, etc.
I too have experience of the ‘education’ system in the UK. One of my friends was Head at a private boys school, his wife a music teacher in the local State indoctrination centre. The plain fact of the matter is that children at the private school massively out-performed their State school contemporaries. His wife spent most of her time trying to control the class, instead of teaching it, and finally decided to leave after being shot at with an air pistol. I have not studied Physics for decades, and as an experiment in standards I sat a GCSE in the subject, just last year, with no preparation whatsoever and passed with flying colours. Employers of quality are now enquiring as to where the Degree the interviewee holds was gained. Oxbridge and a couple of others are considered ‘proper’. ALL others are almost useless, unless you are applying to work for the State, where a degree in Surfing or The Beatles is invaluable.