SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
the virtual return of the prodigal devil.....
This week, as UK Labour’s destructive leadership contest intensified, former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair staged a remarkable intervention in which he single-handedly sought to save the party from political oblivion. Blair’s dramatic intrusion into Labour politics took the form of a 5,600 word essay – in which he denounced Keir Starmer, criticized leadership contenders Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting, and, more importantly, set out a radical political manifesto that he believes the Labour Party must adopt if it wishes to remain a viable force in UK politics.
Tony Blair emerges a fake ‘savior’ of UK’s Labour Party As the party implodes under inept leadership, the former PM has come up with his own ten commandments – which will only poison it further By Graham Hryce
The fact that Blair felt the need to act in this unprecedented manner – since resigning as Prime Minister in 2007 he has rarely intervened in UK politics – is, in itself, indicative of the severity of the existential crisis that has recently engulfed the Labour Party. In his essay, Blair accuses the party of having lacked a credible policy program for decades – and he is especially critical of the Labour left, referring pointedly to “the infinite capacity of the Labour Party for self-delusion.” Blair rightly claims that Starmer has “no coherent plan for the country” and describes Burnham as a good junior minister when he served in Blair’s own cabinet – faint praise indeed – but is brutally dismissive of his Corbynite economic agenda. Blair is also critical of Streeting for lacking policy coherence and for wanting to re-join the European Union. These criticisms are perfectly valid, and Blair is correct to refuse to endorse any of the talentless contenders for the Labour leadership. But Blair has a more fundamental and telling criticism to make of Labour – namely that, unless the Party moves beyond political squabbling about changing leaders, and adopts a radically new coherent policy agenda, the Party is doomed to extinction. According to Blair “if you can’t agree on your policy direction, then there is no point in changing your leader”. This criticism is also valid. Blair, who has never suffered from false modesty, then proceeds to set out his personal agenda for Labour’s political salvation – which he grandiosely terms his “ten-point plan.” It appears that Blair, who believes that God has guided his political maneuverings in the past, has this week cast himself in the role of Labour’s savior – with his ten-point plan apparently being a secular version the ten commandments, that will lead Labour into the promised land where electoral success awaits it. Blair’s plan is a remarkable political manifesto for a former Labour Prime Minister to have drafted – although it is fully in keeping with Blair’s own globalist prejudices and elitist world-view. Blair describes his plan as a “radical centrist” political agenda, and he urges Labour to:
Blair’s program, in essence, seeks to re-establish Britain as a sovereign nation state, with a revived economy based upon the free market and radical technological innovation – free from the constraints of the welfare state, net zero ideology, as well as EU and international agreements and obligations – and cravenly committed to support America’s foreign wars. This, of course, is a deeply conservative agenda – not a centrist one – as the ultra right-wing former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has gleefully pointed out this week. He has described Blair’s ten-point plan as a “manifesto for the right,” urged Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch to adopt it immediately, and praised Blair for revealing himself to be nothing less than “an authoritarian Tory.” Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting have, with some justification, responded to Blair’s dramatic plan to ideologically transform Labour by accusing him of “overlooking how inequality is shaping modern politics”; “misunderstanding the root causes of populism’; and advocating a delusional, elitist agenda based upon mere “technological optimism.” Interestingly, neither Burnham or Streeting responded to Blair’s conservative policy program by enunciating a coherent counter program of their own. There is, of course, no possibility of Labour adopting Blair’s conservative ten-point plan – or, indeed, any viable political agenda that may result in them staying in power for long. The current Labour leadership is so inept and divided that it is incapable of formulating or agreeing upon any coherent, let alone credible agenda – hence both Burnham and Streeting’s wishy-washy and vague recent policy pronouncements.
In any event, Blair’s plan would only result in electoral disaster for Labour – because it would drive working class Labour voters in the northern “red wall” seats into the waiting arms of Reform, and cause more progressive Labour voters in the south-east to flee to the Greens and the Liberal Democrats in droves. That Blair should have put forward a conservative elitist political manifesto should come as no surprise. Rees-Mogg, like Blair a politician of religious conviction, sees Blair as “the one sinner who has repented.” That, however, is to misunderstand Blair – who has not repented of anything. It must be remembered that Blair – unlike Gordon Brown – never had any genuine connection with the Labour Party of the 1980s, or, more importantly, the trade union movement. Blair created the modern Labour Party in the 1990s – together with Peter Mandelson, now sadly of blessed, if fading memory – and he was always a determined opponent of the left wing of the Party. Indeed, one motive for his intervention this week may have been to destroy Andy Burnham’s chances of becoming Prime Minister. Burnham once sat in Blair’s cabinet – at that time wearing Armani suits – and it is difficult for even a political Pope to forgive an apostate, especially one who, decades later, adopts the heresy of Corbynism. Blair was always an avid supporter of globalization – embracing all of its elitist irrational ideologies, including catastrophic climate change – and throughout his ten years as Prime Minister he advanced the economic interests of the then emerging global elites. Blair has always been something of a pragmatist, and his recent about-face on net zero simply reflects the fact that the green energy titans have recently been displaced in the West by the Tech Giants as the rulers of the new technologically based global economy. Politically, the tech titans are all authoritarians – witness the totalitarian screeds of Peter Thiel, the mentor of J.D. Vance, and Elon Musk’s support initially for Reform, and more lately (Nigel Farage does not appreciate being dictated to) for the even more right-wing Restore Party. This probably explains, at least in part, Blair’s recent shift to the political right. It may also be relevant that Blair’s think tank, the modestly named “Tony Blair Institute,” receives substantial funding from the powerful Big Tech corporations. On one issue, however, Blair has remained absolutely consistent – his unwavering support for America’s wars of foreign aggression. From Kosovo to Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Gaza Blair has always been an enthusiastic warmonger, and ultra loyal supporter of whoever happens to reside in the White House at any given time, no matter what political party has elected that esteemed personage to that high office. In this week’s essay, Blair took time out to pointedly condemn Starmer for failing to provide support for Trump and Netanyahu’s ill-advised and failed war with Iran – incidentally, one of the very few principled decisions ever taken by that now unfortunate lame-duck Prime Minister. What then has been the effect of Blair’s extraordinary political intervention this week? I suspect not much – other than to intensify the existing divisions and chaos within the terminally moribund Labour Party. Prior to this week the Labour Party had thrown up one unimpressive “savior” – Andy Burnham – and now it apparently has two rescuers determined to save it from political oblivion. But any credible political party with a viable future has no need of even one “savior” – and only a party in its political death throes could create two such misguided and politically redundant redeemers as Burnham and Tony Blair. https://www.rt.com/news/640695-tony-blair-uk-labour-saviour/
PLEASE VISIT: YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005. Gus Leonisky POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951. RABID ATHEIST. WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….
|
User login |
critical....
Black people lack the ‘cultural power’ to be racist against whites – British schools
A UK school curriculum is pushing critical race theory in an initiative likely to incite more hatred than it resolves
BY Robert BridgeStudents are being taught that black people cannot be racist towards white people as part of an educational initiative aimed at, yes, countering racism.
According to teaching materials adopted by a group of Sheffield schools and introduced by Notre Dame High School, teenagers are explicitly taught: “Black people can be racially prejudiced towards a white person which is wrong and totally unacceptable. However, this is not racism. Racism is racial prejudice plus power. In the UK, white people hold the cultural power.”
In a lesson plan on “being anti-racist in our actions” for children aged seven to 11, a portion of the curriculum is devoted to “empathy building” including “privilege”.
It says: “In Britain, white people are likely to be privileged by the colour of their skin. This privilege arises because they are much less likely to be affected by racist behaviour, including bias, discrimination and verbal and physical abuse.
“Privileged people have a responsibility to reduce racism by: being aware of it; improving their own language and behaviour; challenging their friends’ language and behaviour; reporting incidents of racism; providing support to those who have been harmed by discrimination.”
The initiative pushes the idea that all white people enjoy “white privilege,” despite the fact that this is glaringly untrue. There are large segments of the white population that are impoverished and discriminated against on a daily basis. At the same time, many white people are the target of violence largely due to the color of their skin. In short, the term is highly divisive and unjustly generalizes and alienates disadvantaged white communities.
Another part of the teaching focuses on white-on-black racism. Students are asked: if racism against blacks is overblown, then how can it be explained that black people are 10 times more likely to be pulled over in their car than white people? Or why is it that black people are being flagged as possible shoplifters every time they walk into a store? Why are the majority of people behind bars in many British towns and cities black when black people are in the minority?
In a question-and-answer section that seems to accept that all of this is the consequence of racism, students are asked: “What is happening? Why is this an example of racism? If race isn’t real, how do you explain this? Has the concept of race led some people to believe that some groups of people are different to others?
“Are certain racial groups being treated differently? Are there other possible explanations for this?”
But is this treatment of black people simply the result of racism and skin color? Or is it more due to the realities on the ground which show that, per capita, black people are more prone to commit crimes than white people? Could it be that it is the black crime rate that largely causes racism against black people? This is not to suggest that racism doesn’t exist, or that there are no police officers who unfairly target black citizens, but crime statistics don’t lie.
In order to resolve the problem, society needs to get to the root causes of black crime, which include economic inequality that black people disproportionately suffer from. Until we reach that day, reckless school lessons like the ones being introduced in the UK risk inciting violence against white people, and thankfully there are British politicians who are able to see the inherent dangers of teaching materials like these.
Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott has called on the government to intervene and make sure no school uses these materials.
She said: “It is deeply alarming that children as young as seven are being exposed to divisive identity politics in schools under the banner of ‘anti-racism education.’
“These materials teach children that black prejudice against white people cannot be described as racism, present contested concepts like ‘white privilege’ as unquestionable fact and encourage pupils to see themselves primarily through the lens of race.
“It is hugely damaging and exactly the kind of Left-wing ideological nonsense that should be nowhere near our classrooms.
“Labelling children by race and teaching them to focus on what divides them will only foster resentment and deepen division.”
Parents in the United Kingdom are beginning to push back against an educational system that seems more interested in indoctrinating students with critical race theory than providing a solid education. Children should not be spending their childhood thinking about their peers’ skin color or whether racism against white people exits. In reality, when left to their own devices, children do not place any importance on other children’s skin color and play happily together. It is only when meddling ideologues intervene that children begin to believe there is a problem.
https://www.rt.com/news/640668-uk-schools-black-racism/
READ FROM TOP.
PLEASE VISIT:
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
RABID ATHEIST.
WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….