Skip to main content

Vote Labour you cynics, or you'll get a Tory government.

"I don't believe you."

"Judas", the cry goes out against MPs. But to quote Bob Dylan: "I don't believe you."

There is a double think at the heart of this debate on MP's morality. A lot of moral and immoral people are hopping mad about moats and duck islands and second homes and then you ask them:

"What's the solution?"

And they say:

"Well, regulation and punishment."

And then you ask them:

"Well wouldn't that destroy trust? Why can't we have another shot at an honour system?"

And the response is:

"No, it's human nature. You can't trust people to claim expenses honestly. Everyone given the chance, fiddles their expenses."

"Really? Well if that is the case then why are you so annoyed? If, in your philosophy, it is only human nature, then why are you so damn indignant about the MPs claiming extra in expenses?"

So at the heart of this debate are cynics having their cake and eating it. People who don't believe in honour systems frothing at the mouth because MPs misuse honour systems. How can one take these cynics seriously?

Clearly the whole row has been blown out of all proportion - it's a mystery to people outside Britain, to Italians and the French and even the Germans, why claiming for duck islands has come to the fore of British politics. There are very few cases of real corruption in the whole scandal. This whole thing is a strategy of the Tory party to start mud slinging in the hope that more mud sticks to Labour party than to the Tories.

_________________________________________

Most of the problem with New Labour in the first place was that they behaved like Tories. Their policies were watered down Tory policies. ...How can you show your disapproval for New Labour's Tories by voting for the real thing - for the people who will privatise education and the NHS?
_________________________________________

And the Tories seem to have done their calculations well. They have, irresponsibly, whipped up anger against our very democracy in the hope that they will win out. I don't support Brown, but do I give a flying fuck if he is telegenic or not or if he appears on youtube or if he has charisma? I don't give a damn about that superficial stuff. Do you? Celebrity politics? Yuck.

Those of you who are so indignant about Labour, are you Tories? Who the hell are you? Is it enough just to vote against Labour - like reactive kneejerks? Most of the problem with New Labour in the first place was that they behaved like Tories. Their policies were watered down Tory policies. But at least they were Keynsians - of a sort.

How can you show your disapproval for New Labour's Tories by voting for the real thing - for the people who will privatise education and the NHS. It doesn't make sense. The only thing you will prove by voting Cameron is that we are a nation that allows itself to be manipulated into stupidity. At the core of the Tory agenda is to take us back to the "golden era" of Edwardian world where everyone knew their place, to a new life of "Upstairs Downstairs". They want to reverse the gains of 1945. They will destroy the welfare state.

So many of you think you are being so "clever" and principled by voting against Labour. But if your complaints are about our uncomfortable closeness to US foreign policy, about tuition fees and privatisations and deregulation and all that crap, then no you are not acting intelligently if you vote Tory. How on earth can voting Tory put an end to all that? It will amplify it and make it a thousand times worse.

There is an awful double speak to a lot of what the posters say on these threads. Labour is awful - so vote Tory. What absolute nonsense.

Comments

  1. You could, of course, vote for neither of them, since voting only encourages the bastards and makes them feel entitled to exercise a power they cling to through coercion and violence.
    Your friendly neighbourhood anarchist,
    Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you vote for neither of them, the Tories get in, don't they Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous14:02

    Bless you for your efforts, especially in assisting Polly Toynbee today on the Guardian blogg. We need folk like you to so eloquently tackle the timorous lick-spittle types who seek comfort and morality only from the Tory press.

    God help us poor and old folk if another Tory government gets elected anytime soon - especially that horrible Bullingdon brigade of vicious thugs and bullies.

    Keep up the good work.

    Teigngreen

    ReplyDelete
  4. Teigngreen. Good to blog together.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aerogramme from Lisa and Richard

To: Mr & Mrs J. Hall, Box 49 Eikenhof (TVL) Johannesburg Afrique du Sud. 28.3.76 Dear John and Nola, Today a week ago we were still in New Delhi with Eve and Tony and the boys and the whole thing looks like a dream. We arrived on the 28.2 in New Delhi and were happy to see the whole family fit and in good health. The boys have grown very much, Phil is just about the size of Tony and the twins are above average. We stayed untill the 22nd March, as our visa ran out and we did not want to go through all the ceremony of asking for an extension. It also got hotter and I don't know how I would have supported the heat. The extra week would also have passed, so we decided not to go to all the trouble with the authorities and leave on the 22nd. I cannot tell you how happy we have been to see such a lovely family, so happy and united. It is rare to experience sucha thing and we have both all the reasons to be proud of them (when I say goth I mean you and us ). There is su

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov