Danny Turner: Bigger threat to world peace than Bin Laden……allegedly
Since I’m working over the next few weeks I thought I would write something slightly different in my blog but upon searching the internet came across this interesting piece that, with the permission of the author, I thought I would share with you all…………..
Danny Turner: Bigger threat to world peace than Bin Laden……..allegedly
Blah blah blah…..Danny Turner……..blah blah blah………always beats me at chess……blah blah blah………manic socialist.....blah blah blah………..tories are great…………blah blah blah………bloody immigrants………..blah blah blah……. crap since 1990……blah blah blah…….. bring back Mrs T…………blah blah blah
Comments (1)
Danny Turner wrote:
Richard Davies is a fucking lowlife degenerate. Him and his surrogate mother Thatcher have ruined my life. Take last week. I got up for work and found there’s no milk left to have with my coco pops. My mum said it’s because I had forgot to go to the shop the night before to get some but I ain’t having any of it. It’s that milk snatching woman. She’s even robbed me of my breakfast.
If that ain’t bad some smug git cut up the Turner mobile (aka my pink push bike) on my way to work. I started yelling at him and then he pulled me up and said I was under arrest for a breach of the peace. He didn’t appreciate my joke about all those thug coppers breaking up strikes in the 80’s breaching the peace. Bloody police. Thatcher’s private army against the working class I say.
Managed to talk him out of it though, yet the bugger made me late for work. That was another sodding shock. Arrive at the mine to hear the bastards have closed it. Some bollocks about a free market. My protests of “but I’m the great Danny Turner, those ungrateful taxpayers should think nothing of paying my wages” fell on death ears.
Mope around for the rest of the day down the job centre looking for some work but apparently registered Tory hater isn’t a valid qualification on a CV. Damm it the whole system is against me!!!
Things get even worse when I got home. My mum has rented out my room to an immigrant. Some Cuban fruit picker called Fidel Castro. Sounds like a nice guy to me even though it means I’m on the sofa from now on. What’s really wrong though is that Auntie Maggie is visiting with that little brat of a cousin Davey C. He thinks he’s so cool in his wimpy suit and the bow tie. “Call me dave, danny boy” he says. Cheeky git. What’s the point of private boarding schools just to allow them out on evening release?
By now I have had enough but when they both call me a lazy bastard for not having a job I lose it and tell them to get out. “I’m not for turning out the door young Daniel….I have just got here,” says Maggie…..the old cow. It’s at that moment, I reach for my Simpsons chess set and bash the bishop on their heads killing them both.
And now look at me. Life imprisonment for killing two Tories. Where’s the justice, the fairness, the equality in that?!?!?
Mind you things could be worse. They let me out my cell twice a week to go on the internet so I can read Rich Davies’ blog. What a treat!!!!
Friday 27 July 2007
Thursday 26 July 2007
A long way to go up the Mountain of Power
My judgment as a kid wasn’t very good. You can tell that by fact I decided to use my spare time to follow two organisations. These been Stoke City and the Conservative Party. Thus it seems I dedicated my life to one of misery and constant letdowns. The failings of the Potters are ones to talk about another day. The failure of the Conservative Party is far more important considering the missed opportunities and neglect of the last ten years.
In my opinion for any main opposition party to return to power they need three things. Firstly the current government needs to be discredited in one of two ways. This is either that it has put its people through active hardship due to bad policy or because they are seen as completely out of touch. In the last 30 years the governing party has only changed twice and it was exactly for the two reasons shown above. In 1979 with the Winter of Discontent, all the strikes and the general feeling that the country was not progressing, Labour was booted out and in 1997 the Conservative government had long gone past its sell by date and was heavily disabled by the numerous incidents of sleaze. The problem now the Conservative Party faces is a national feeling that with the new prime minister neither of those reasons is occurring to any level that would justify the Labour party to be a government in crisis. It was going that way if Blair had stayed on, but with Brown in charge this has obviously acted like adding a new set of batteries. Yet to get back into power the Conservatives can’t obviously sit around waiting for mistakes to happen. Not only does this appear idle but it increases the chances of them making mistakes.
The second part is a vision. Often something radical that the majority can feel comfortable supporting needs to be offered by the opposition. That requires policy. One of my main bones to pick on this is that somehow the party must choose between the policies of the centre ground and ones of the right. In my eyes, it’s never been the socialist policy or the conservative policy but the correct policy. In short its possible to offer a mixture of both. The best way of doing this is to consult the widest base of people possible and that’s why it’s good to see agendas like the “Stand Up, Speak Out” website been setup so anyone can give their opinions on policy. Policy must not be reactionary at all guaranteeing that we aren’t jumping on every passing bandwagon. A party needs a plan and to then stick to that plan. Chopping and changing leader or approach every five minutes won’t work.
The third ingredient is to relate that message successfully to the people. Labour didn’t just lose elections pre 1997 because they had bad policies but their public relations were appalling that you would have thought the Trotter brothers were in charge. Anyone remember Michael Foot’s car breaking down on television as well the more commonly remembered premature celebrations in Sheffield by Neil Kinnock? Cameron obviously has cleaned up on presentation to make sure this doesn’t happen but the party is still putting in own goals. The selection of Tony Lit is an example of this. On the surface this seemed a good choice as a candidate but surely that now infamous photo with Blair must have been cited as a problem at an earlier stage and someone somewhere in the Conservative Party must have realised that any Labour Party researcher with half a brain cell would have exploited it to as full extent as possible. If a party is making these mistakes with a relatively simple task of selecting a candidate how can they be trusted, some may ask, to run a country with all the dangers this one faces?
Beyond this the party has many deep rooted problems that would hamper its own success no matter who was the leader. The first is that it is seeking a huge surge of support from the most downbeat and uninspired electorate of modern times in the current political parties who I think can be split into the following sections. The first are those who simply do not understand the system of voting. I have many friends in this section. Haven’t got a clue what politics is about and don’t understand the meaning of the words like economy and taxes. These aren’t kids but people over 18 who just don’t get it. The second section are people who can understand the system but simply aren’t interested and see all politicians as the same. The next group are those on either the left or right of the centre ground who feel that their party be it Labour on the left or Conservative on the right no longer relate to them. The fourth group are party political and have made their minds up to align themselves with a particular party. That leaves only a final fifth of the electorate floating around with votes to be had by political parties. The point is to suggest that the party has massive problems attracting support from the electorate before they even think of drawing up policy because this country is so fragmented with the way it views politics.
The second is that the Labour/Conservative seesaw is still based around the country on divides that are not as relevant as they use to be. This is an economic one that can be casually referred to as the workers versus the bosses. But since all the main three parties accept free market capitalism and government spending from GDP at around 40% this is a done argument. The more relevant arguments now are open/restricted immigration, europhile/eurospectic, punishment/rehabilitation on crime and britishness/multiculturism. They are so many working class people who would ideologically back the right wing arguments on those four issues but because of old battles over areas like the Minor’s strike drift towards groups like the BNP and simply won’t vote Tory.
Another problem is that the two fastest growing groups in the electorate have special interests in the Labour Party. The first is immigrants who are more likely to back Labour than vote for the Conservatives. 2.5 million workers have come to the UK over the last five years. When your main opponent is importing voters, you have a big problem. Also when Labour can put voters on the payroll by employing them in a growing public sector, they do have a vested interest in voting for the party that believes in the largest amount of public spending in believe that this will mean more job security for themselves.
Overall, perhaps the best way of summing up the huge problem the Tories face is to take a look at the one fact on my facebook profile that best sums up modern Britain. Not my drunken pictures or lousy jokes but the fact that of the over 300 friends listed, a massive 50% have not listed a political belief. Not even when they have bland descriptions like “other” to choose from. People are disillusioned. They need a new hero who can inspire and motivate them. Whether that is David Cameron remains to be seen.
In my opinion for any main opposition party to return to power they need three things. Firstly the current government needs to be discredited in one of two ways. This is either that it has put its people through active hardship due to bad policy or because they are seen as completely out of touch. In the last 30 years the governing party has only changed twice and it was exactly for the two reasons shown above. In 1979 with the Winter of Discontent, all the strikes and the general feeling that the country was not progressing, Labour was booted out and in 1997 the Conservative government had long gone past its sell by date and was heavily disabled by the numerous incidents of sleaze. The problem now the Conservative Party faces is a national feeling that with the new prime minister neither of those reasons is occurring to any level that would justify the Labour party to be a government in crisis. It was going that way if Blair had stayed on, but with Brown in charge this has obviously acted like adding a new set of batteries. Yet to get back into power the Conservatives can’t obviously sit around waiting for mistakes to happen. Not only does this appear idle but it increases the chances of them making mistakes.
The second part is a vision. Often something radical that the majority can feel comfortable supporting needs to be offered by the opposition. That requires policy. One of my main bones to pick on this is that somehow the party must choose between the policies of the centre ground and ones of the right. In my eyes, it’s never been the socialist policy or the conservative policy but the correct policy. In short its possible to offer a mixture of both. The best way of doing this is to consult the widest base of people possible and that’s why it’s good to see agendas like the “Stand Up, Speak Out” website been setup so anyone can give their opinions on policy. Policy must not be reactionary at all guaranteeing that we aren’t jumping on every passing bandwagon. A party needs a plan and to then stick to that plan. Chopping and changing leader or approach every five minutes won’t work.
The third ingredient is to relate that message successfully to the people. Labour didn’t just lose elections pre 1997 because they had bad policies but their public relations were appalling that you would have thought the Trotter brothers were in charge. Anyone remember Michael Foot’s car breaking down on television as well the more commonly remembered premature celebrations in Sheffield by Neil Kinnock? Cameron obviously has cleaned up on presentation to make sure this doesn’t happen but the party is still putting in own goals. The selection of Tony Lit is an example of this. On the surface this seemed a good choice as a candidate but surely that now infamous photo with Blair must have been cited as a problem at an earlier stage and someone somewhere in the Conservative Party must have realised that any Labour Party researcher with half a brain cell would have exploited it to as full extent as possible. If a party is making these mistakes with a relatively simple task of selecting a candidate how can they be trusted, some may ask, to run a country with all the dangers this one faces?
Beyond this the party has many deep rooted problems that would hamper its own success no matter who was the leader. The first is that it is seeking a huge surge of support from the most downbeat and uninspired electorate of modern times in the current political parties who I think can be split into the following sections. The first are those who simply do not understand the system of voting. I have many friends in this section. Haven’t got a clue what politics is about and don’t understand the meaning of the words like economy and taxes. These aren’t kids but people over 18 who just don’t get it. The second section are people who can understand the system but simply aren’t interested and see all politicians as the same. The next group are those on either the left or right of the centre ground who feel that their party be it Labour on the left or Conservative on the right no longer relate to them. The fourth group are party political and have made their minds up to align themselves with a particular party. That leaves only a final fifth of the electorate floating around with votes to be had by political parties. The point is to suggest that the party has massive problems attracting support from the electorate before they even think of drawing up policy because this country is so fragmented with the way it views politics.
The second is that the Labour/Conservative seesaw is still based around the country on divides that are not as relevant as they use to be. This is an economic one that can be casually referred to as the workers versus the bosses. But since all the main three parties accept free market capitalism and government spending from GDP at around 40% this is a done argument. The more relevant arguments now are open/restricted immigration, europhile/eurospectic, punishment/rehabilitation on crime and britishness/multiculturism. They are so many working class people who would ideologically back the right wing arguments on those four issues but because of old battles over areas like the Minor’s strike drift towards groups like the BNP and simply won’t vote Tory.
Another problem is that the two fastest growing groups in the electorate have special interests in the Labour Party. The first is immigrants who are more likely to back Labour than vote for the Conservatives. 2.5 million workers have come to the UK over the last five years. When your main opponent is importing voters, you have a big problem. Also when Labour can put voters on the payroll by employing them in a growing public sector, they do have a vested interest in voting for the party that believes in the largest amount of public spending in believe that this will mean more job security for themselves.
Overall, perhaps the best way of summing up the huge problem the Tories face is to take a look at the one fact on my facebook profile that best sums up modern Britain. Not my drunken pictures or lousy jokes but the fact that of the over 300 friends listed, a massive 50% have not listed a political belief. Not even when they have bland descriptions like “other” to choose from. People are disillusioned. They need a new hero who can inspire and motivate them. Whether that is David Cameron remains to be seen.
Sunday 22 July 2007
Neo Conservatism: The endangered species of political thought
Sometimes it’s good to be unpopular. To be the odd one out in a group people and provoke debate rather than going alone with an uneasy silence. Yet you have to listen as well and then come to a reasoned judgement. That’s compromise without leaving principles behind. That’s what neo conservatism has to do now.
To label oneself as a neo con these days carries a similar social stigma as lighting up a cigaragette in a pub as well as possibly admitting you owned a spice girls cd as a kid (for the record I didn’t…..ahem). This isn’t a surprise. The three main political parties in the UK seem to have no time for it. The Lib Dems are completely against it, the Conservatives currently has much worse relations with their sister party (the American Republican party), which acts as the political base for neo conservatism, than it did in the Reagan/Thatcher days and the Labour Party is still incredibly split on issues related to it such as the Iraq war. The UK public seem to dislike it even more with support dropping across the board for neo conservative actions such as the war in Iraq. Even in its own backyard of the USA it is losing support and there’s a real risk that there won’t be a Republican President in 2008. Where does this resentment leave neo conservatism? The answer is dangerously close to extinction.
You know something is wrong when seemingly sane people in the UK actively believe that the USA is a bigger danger to world peace than Al Qaeda and associated groups such as Hamas as well as actively campaigning for a coalition defeat to the terrorists in Iraq. Whatever you think of the theory, if you destroy it as a politically active belief on the world stage then we are seriously limiting our options with dealing with this huge international threat. But equally the theory is not sustainable in its current form. Something needs to change both with neo cons and western none (or should that be anti) neo cons. It doesn’t surprise me that many of my peers don’t believe in neo conservatism. What does surprise me is that people believe the serious misinformation campaign that has been launched against it.
Since it came into existence the theory has had numerous successes. For a start its foundations are completely unconservative. This comes from the Trotskyist idea of permanent revolution of communism spreading through the world. The neo conservative alternative is of course democracy. Further evidence of this comes from individual influential neo conservatives who started their political lives with socialist tendencies such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman. By adapting left wing ideas and left wing figures the philosophy is able to see the argument from the other side better than a theory that has always been rooted in right wing politics. This broad view is its main strength. On a more practical side the main achievement comes from encouraging a strong change of attitudes during the cold war against the Soviet Union from one of appeasement to one of victory. By spending more on defence and challenging communism more aggressively wherever it emerged around the world the Soviet Union was led into a position of destruction. That also destroys a myth that the Soviet Union somehow killed off itself. It spent the money it did to try and keep pace with the USA and when it couldn’t anymore it failed. This was only made possible by Reagan and the Republican Party raising the challenge.
It was only when the approach of pre emptive strikes against emerging enemies of the West was reduced that we began to store up problems for ourselves. This short-sightedness can be blamed, I believe, upon the Clinton Administration. They ignored the threat for too long and allowed it to become too powerful. This is recognised by sources far more important than my thoughts, primarily the 9/11 commission and is one of the main reasons why the terrible terrorist attacks on the USA happened.
Yet whilst all the above reasons offer strengths for the Neo Conservative cause, there are weaknesses as well. Here’s what I think they are and what needs to be done to correct them:
1: Wars on the cheap:
The reason the West won the cold war was that it was prepared to invest in defence for the long term. In the short term this can be seen as a waste of money but if it cements a country’s position in the world order then it is well worth the investment. This didn’t happen at first in Iraq as the situation on the ground was misjudged in believing that the war would be a quick one. As we all know now that hasn’t happened and led to us having to spend more money than if it had been properly planned in the first place we would have had to spend
2: Alienation from the public:
After 9/11, 90% plus of people wanted to change strategy, to make it impossible for something like that to never happen again. That has now decreased drastically and left the theory looking like a closed group. This is not just people within the USA/ Britain etc but all across the Muslim world as well
3: Ideology no matter the cost:
Power sometimes brings arrogance and it is possible to exist outside the reality based world because of this. This is fine when it produces results but when it doesn’t it is seen as weak and ignoring genuine concerns of people on a practical level.
These three points leave big gapping holes that the enemies of Neo Conservatism can attack. Yet there are solutions and to implement them needs to brought about by brave and bold change.
1: Export free markets as well as democracy:
All western countries are successful when judged against there counterparts around the world not just because they are democratic but also because they exist as free market economies. Many states in the Middle East are run along complete or at least semi socialist lines guaranteeing the power of an elite at the top of society. It is naïve to think that an instant use of force is the only way to stop this. Economic change can bring change in a slower way by sidelining government and empowering citizens. The Neo Con needs to work with institutions like the IMF and World Bank to embrace these changes as much as possible.
2: Culture Wars:
The long terms history of Christian Conservatism is closer to the social conservatism of many Muslims than the liberal agenda pushed mercilessly in the West over the last 45 years. Bearing this in mind with the fact that the Neo Con agenda wishes to spread throughout the world it must have something to offer that is beneficial. Drug addicts, teenage pregnancies and mass abortions isn’t it and as long as groups like Al Qaeda can portray Western society as decadent then on a social scale the Neo Cons won’t be able to convince the people of the middle east that they wish to see a similar social culture to the one taught in the Koran. In essence, one must get their own house in order before looking to sort out others.
3: Africa:
This huge area will be the battleground of the next 100 years between the West and the Terrorists. Fundamentalism Islamic is spreading into the north east of this continent at an enormous rate and causing great atrocities in places like the Sudan. It is also used to control people. An example is education. Many African children still do not go to school so Islamic governments only offer schools that teach agendas such as Sharia law effectively brainwashing children who are desperate for an education. The Neo Con agenda is largely silent on this area and ignores the vast landscape at its peril. It is often forgotten that the origins of Al Qaeda were formed in North African countries close to Europe. History does repeat itself and the idea of gaining a base on your enemies’ doorstep appears to be nothing new here. Something must be done to stop this.
Those three objectives are no means the only things needed to change Neo Conservatism for the future. Much structural work needs to be done to win in Iraq and Afghanistan but the operation on the ground is pointless if the bigger theoretical argument isn’t won both at home and also with the majority of people in the Middle East who the philosophy is aimed at to liberate so they can enjoy the same quality of life and opportunity as we do in the West.
To label oneself as a neo con these days carries a similar social stigma as lighting up a cigaragette in a pub as well as possibly admitting you owned a spice girls cd as a kid (for the record I didn’t…..ahem). This isn’t a surprise. The three main political parties in the UK seem to have no time for it. The Lib Dems are completely against it, the Conservatives currently has much worse relations with their sister party (the American Republican party), which acts as the political base for neo conservatism, than it did in the Reagan/Thatcher days and the Labour Party is still incredibly split on issues related to it such as the Iraq war. The UK public seem to dislike it even more with support dropping across the board for neo conservative actions such as the war in Iraq. Even in its own backyard of the USA it is losing support and there’s a real risk that there won’t be a Republican President in 2008. Where does this resentment leave neo conservatism? The answer is dangerously close to extinction.
You know something is wrong when seemingly sane people in the UK actively believe that the USA is a bigger danger to world peace than Al Qaeda and associated groups such as Hamas as well as actively campaigning for a coalition defeat to the terrorists in Iraq. Whatever you think of the theory, if you destroy it as a politically active belief on the world stage then we are seriously limiting our options with dealing with this huge international threat. But equally the theory is not sustainable in its current form. Something needs to change both with neo cons and western none (or should that be anti) neo cons. It doesn’t surprise me that many of my peers don’t believe in neo conservatism. What does surprise me is that people believe the serious misinformation campaign that has been launched against it.
Since it came into existence the theory has had numerous successes. For a start its foundations are completely unconservative. This comes from the Trotskyist idea of permanent revolution of communism spreading through the world. The neo conservative alternative is of course democracy. Further evidence of this comes from individual influential neo conservatives who started their political lives with socialist tendencies such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman. By adapting left wing ideas and left wing figures the philosophy is able to see the argument from the other side better than a theory that has always been rooted in right wing politics. This broad view is its main strength. On a more practical side the main achievement comes from encouraging a strong change of attitudes during the cold war against the Soviet Union from one of appeasement to one of victory. By spending more on defence and challenging communism more aggressively wherever it emerged around the world the Soviet Union was led into a position of destruction. That also destroys a myth that the Soviet Union somehow killed off itself. It spent the money it did to try and keep pace with the USA and when it couldn’t anymore it failed. This was only made possible by Reagan and the Republican Party raising the challenge.
It was only when the approach of pre emptive strikes against emerging enemies of the West was reduced that we began to store up problems for ourselves. This short-sightedness can be blamed, I believe, upon the Clinton Administration. They ignored the threat for too long and allowed it to become too powerful. This is recognised by sources far more important than my thoughts, primarily the 9/11 commission and is one of the main reasons why the terrible terrorist attacks on the USA happened.
Yet whilst all the above reasons offer strengths for the Neo Conservative cause, there are weaknesses as well. Here’s what I think they are and what needs to be done to correct them:
1: Wars on the cheap:
The reason the West won the cold war was that it was prepared to invest in defence for the long term. In the short term this can be seen as a waste of money but if it cements a country’s position in the world order then it is well worth the investment. This didn’t happen at first in Iraq as the situation on the ground was misjudged in believing that the war would be a quick one. As we all know now that hasn’t happened and led to us having to spend more money than if it had been properly planned in the first place we would have had to spend
2: Alienation from the public:
After 9/11, 90% plus of people wanted to change strategy, to make it impossible for something like that to never happen again. That has now decreased drastically and left the theory looking like a closed group. This is not just people within the USA/ Britain etc but all across the Muslim world as well
3: Ideology no matter the cost:
Power sometimes brings arrogance and it is possible to exist outside the reality based world because of this. This is fine when it produces results but when it doesn’t it is seen as weak and ignoring genuine concerns of people on a practical level.
These three points leave big gapping holes that the enemies of Neo Conservatism can attack. Yet there are solutions and to implement them needs to brought about by brave and bold change.
1: Export free markets as well as democracy:
All western countries are successful when judged against there counterparts around the world not just because they are democratic but also because they exist as free market economies. Many states in the Middle East are run along complete or at least semi socialist lines guaranteeing the power of an elite at the top of society. It is naïve to think that an instant use of force is the only way to stop this. Economic change can bring change in a slower way by sidelining government and empowering citizens. The Neo Con needs to work with institutions like the IMF and World Bank to embrace these changes as much as possible.
2: Culture Wars:
The long terms history of Christian Conservatism is closer to the social conservatism of many Muslims than the liberal agenda pushed mercilessly in the West over the last 45 years. Bearing this in mind with the fact that the Neo Con agenda wishes to spread throughout the world it must have something to offer that is beneficial. Drug addicts, teenage pregnancies and mass abortions isn’t it and as long as groups like Al Qaeda can portray Western society as decadent then on a social scale the Neo Cons won’t be able to convince the people of the middle east that they wish to see a similar social culture to the one taught in the Koran. In essence, one must get their own house in order before looking to sort out others.
3: Africa:
This huge area will be the battleground of the next 100 years between the West and the Terrorists. Fundamentalism Islamic is spreading into the north east of this continent at an enormous rate and causing great atrocities in places like the Sudan. It is also used to control people. An example is education. Many African children still do not go to school so Islamic governments only offer schools that teach agendas such as Sharia law effectively brainwashing children who are desperate for an education. The Neo Con agenda is largely silent on this area and ignores the vast landscape at its peril. It is often forgotten that the origins of Al Qaeda were formed in North African countries close to Europe. History does repeat itself and the idea of gaining a base on your enemies’ doorstep appears to be nothing new here. Something must be done to stop this.
Those three objectives are no means the only things needed to change Neo Conservatism for the future. Much structural work needs to be done to win in Iraq and Afghanistan but the operation on the ground is pointless if the bigger theoretical argument isn’t won both at home and also with the majority of people in the Middle East who the philosophy is aimed at to liberate so they can enjoy the same quality of life and opportunity as we do in the West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)