Labour turning Wales into a one party state

Row breaks out as Labour backs proposals to elect all AMs by first-past-the-post @walesonline:
http://t.co/aI285ee
via @AddThis

Labour is desperate to remain in control of the principality. The worst piece of political gerrymandering is currently being considered in Wales – rigging the electoral system.

Our favourite socialists are considering methods to ensure the Welsh remain under their influence. After losing Scotland, Labour officials are more determined than ever to ensure the heartlands stay under their control and occupation.

The possibility of this occurring is very slim – Labour does not have a majority in the Welsh Senate. Legality will be questioned if the socialist executive proceeds without a referendum. It would certainly encounter hostility and protests from the population.

Peter Hain is utterly ludicrous for presenting this to the Westminster government; another example of how the Opposition, under Ed Miliband, have a institutional hatred for democracy and freedom. We can have democracy – but only under their rule, according to Ed Miliband.

Read Full Post »

Thoughts: Marxism and the Arab Spring

Economic prosperity and social stability are interlinked. Growth and employment opportunities provide means for tranquility, within a nation, and means for the individual to accumulate wealth and savings. But when economies fail and governments’ struggle to maintain control, social unrest occurs; in extreme cases, a black swan event, a revolution might result.

The Marxist theory of historical materialism articulates the economic bases of societies and its ever changing relation with an expanding or altering mode of production. As Marx himself said, “Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.” And when the mode of production is no longer capable of furling the aspirations of society, a revolution must manifest. History depicts struggles and liberation movements, rebelling against-what Marx described-bases and superstructures. Superstructures are an expression, or avatar, for the mode of production and society itself. What contemporary anarchists renamed ‘the system.’ And history shows what happens to Ancien Régime when its avaricious behaviour and irresponsibility infuriates the citizenry.

Resistance and uprising, in the Middle East, began in December 2010. Unemployment, high inflation, poor living standards and corruption were the catalyst – especially in Tunisia; where the Arab Spring began. The economic situation and lack of productivity became a perfect reflection of the political establishment; failure to share the vast wealth more evenly led millions to revolt against their government. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Bahrain and Yemen experienced a great tempest of political and social unrest. The main criticism was the economic prosperity was only held by a minority, and the political class had nothing but tempt for its citizens. It was no coincidence that the governments, in each nation, were soaked with financial benefits and yet the population were starving. In order to attract investment, from global corporations, protesters believed government officials took either bribes or constructed generous taxation for foreign investors. In February this year, the media reported on the personal wealth of Hosni Mubarak (Former President of Egypt) and it was in the region between $40 – 70 billion. How was it that these Presidents’ and Prime Ministers’ had accumulated vast wealth, but the population witnessed poor living standards? The political establishment become a superstructure and the avaricious nature of politics is a product of the economic environment.

To understand the Arab revolts and the catalyst behind the events, it best to look for a historical comparison; most notably, the French Revolution. Historians tend to focus predominately on the Committee of Public Safety, Robespierre and The Terror. The causes of the revolution tend to be forgotten. In a way, the French Revolution is more important to understanding the Arab Spring than the American War of Independence.

Revolutionary France is one of the most significant periods of European history, along with the English Civil war, in my opinion. The causes for the revolution are deeply fascinating and rather complex. There are countless stimuli’s for the uproar, especially the crippling debt from strengthening the United States in the War of Independence. But the most fundamental component (in my opinion) was the famine of 1788-89, which saw the price of bread rise by a near 70 percent. Many of the poor and destitute struggled to survive and thus the infamous ‘bread riots’ occurred. The first signs of revolutionary intent in the air. Mass urbanisation of the cities helped fuel the hunger, due to over crowding and the high demand for employment. The hunger and poor living conditions are a breeding ground for civil unrest; we’ve seen this in the last six months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. When a significant population, collectively, faces catastrophic decline in income and prosperity, it is likely to become hostile to the state. Governments become vulnerable when the people become poorer and hungrier. Once held moderate views are easily manipulated by subversive thoughts, if there is a prospect for a better tomorrow.

The nobility of the French regime, with its gluttonous and avaricious behaviour, infuriated the population. Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, were far from popular figures within the kingdom – especially his spouse. Their need for vast wealth and extreme expenditure, did not help the nation finances. Participation in the American War of Independence diverted the nation towards bankruptcy. France was broke. But the aristocracy was immune and unaffected; which was a great irritation to the peasant classes. And, similar to the present time in Northern Africa, the people had enough. Revolution was in the air.

The reason for selecting the French Revolution as a historical comparison was down to Karl Marx. He routinely wrote about the events of 1788-89, most notably in the Communist Manifesto. It was very productive in explaining the theory of historical materialism; the French Revolution enabled him to articulate and define his theory, without devolving into complex and structured language. History is a good tool, which Marx exploited effectively.

But, fundamentally, the authenticity of Karl Marx’s theory – was he right? Well, no. Karl Marx was gifted in understanding the present time, circumstances and historical precedents. However, the solutions were always misguided or completely wrong; Britain never experienced revolution, which Marx believed was inevitable. The working classes never aspired for revolution, majority wanted to be apart of the wealth creators not confiscate it from the rich. It is humorous to watch the modern left rally in solidarity with the Arab protesters, who are rebelling against socialist-esque regimes. Egyptians demanded reform and transparency, none of them sought to completely destroy the system and build a new nation. Which completely contradicts Marx.

The Arab Spring might have given birth to Marxist nostalgia, but there is no justification to suggest a Marx inspired or remotely socialistic reasoning. This utopia, which Marx believed in, never transpired and probably never will. Arab Spring revolutions will resort in either two outcomes: a bloody and more brutal regime (as we saw in France and Russia) or prosperous nation (the United States or India). Either way, these revolutions have once again injected more life into a forgotten political theorists and philosopher.

Read Full Post »

In defence of Tony Blair…

I wrote this blog post months ago, but decided to republish it after Tony Blair has been appearing on our television screens this morning. The former Prime Minister was commenting on the Arab Spring and the effects on the region. Seeing I’m quite busy with another project, I’ve decided to share an old post on my sympathies with Blair and liberal interventionism.

One of the most controversial and divisive figures in British political history, responsible for countless debates on his actions and conduct in office; Only Cromwell, during the English Commonwealth, has divided historians and academics more. Regarding the character, that is Tony Blair, one cannot help my see a very thoughtful and moral narrative – which the former Prime Minister tried to construct.

I am a Liberal Democrat, who is not afraid to support and advocate the principle of liberal interventionism based on the merits and insight of the infamous “Blair Doctrine.” His [Tony Blair] Chicago speech of 1999 is arguably one of the most stimulated, articulate and carefully defined manifesto on how to build a more united international community. The cohesion of this new, broad and interconnected geopolitical consensus was – in the words of Blair – undermined by factions, who sought to obstruct the new world order. These antagonists gained the title “rogue nations” and shared a common denominator. Almost of all these regimes were ultra reactionaries and lacked basic democratic and human rights, including evidence of ethnic cleansing of minorities. UN sanctions, with all the potential to create and obstruct economic activity, were not truly productive in some cases and only played into the hands of the government. In order to defend and promote the liberty of the people, the international community did not only have to become a vox populi for the voiceless but military intervention should be a desired method. If the citizens could not defend themselves then it was up to us, the international community, to defend them.Contrary to popular belief, Tony Blair did not advocate cultural imperialism nor the creation of Western client states. It was the duty of the nation to decide on creating the foundations of a civic and democratic government – not for us to impose it. We, the international community, only provided the means to remove the regime. Tragically, though, the Project for a New American Century did alter the doctrine and insisted “pro-American” governments must emerge after the liberation. The neo-conservative movement did more damage, than good, in defending and advocating true liberal interventionism. Blair always believed action must be meditated by a powerful United Nations and not individual countries, but the unwillingness of Europe (regarding Iraq) made him contradict his passion for international unity and reluctantly abandoned a UN route – over Iraq.

Tony Blair is no war criminal. Jean-Pierre Bemba, the former Vice President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a true war criminal; Bemba instigated and administrated rape, murder, torture and ethnic cleansing in the Central Africa Republic. The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Nothing Blair ordered can be described as a war crime or a crime against humanity, he cannot be compared to Bemba or the military junta in Burma. If Blair’s conduct in the Iraq War constitutes a war crime then so is Winston Churchill for the fire bombing of Dresden; President Truman for the nuclear strikes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is another name added to the list, if one argues the former Prime Minister is a war criminal. Throwing around the term “war criminal” without no understanding of its meaning only helps to devalue and regulate the term meaningless. War crimes are meant to shock humanity and represent the most heinous crimes of them all, not a term that a protest group could randomly use to condemn an opponent. Using the title of “war criminal” loosely does not help the anti-war movement or strengthens their cause, it only helps to weaken their argument.

Saddam represented everything a liberal should despise. His reactionary, Stalinist, totalitarian administration used chemical weapons against his own population and neigbouring countries. Dissidents were publicly hanged to warn anyone that resistance would not be tolerated. Elections were rigged, with Saddam gaining 99% of the poll. The Iraq War, especially the after events, were disastrous and resulted in massive ethnic and religious violence, but Iraq is giving both a fragile democracy – that will flourish in time. Yes, Blair was not perfect, but there is one significant difference between him and Saddam. Blair had a Thatcher room at Downing street, Saddam had rape rooms under his palaces.

Read Full Post »

Coalition criticises the Archbishop of Canterbury for having no mandate

The Church of England is being criticised for encouraging a radical program without a mandate. Coalition officials point out the agnostic nature of modern Britain and tolerance to equal rights; which is contradictory to Christianity.

Prime Minister’s Official Spokesmen condemned the unelected presence of the Archbishop in the upper chamber and his stewardship as the most significant landowner in the United Kingdom. The spokesmen finished by referencing the incompatibility between organised religion and democracy.

Read Full Post »

IMF: UK does not need a ‘Plan B’

The Treasury will be very pleased this afternoon. ‘Strong fiscal consolidation…remains essential’ is the key message from the International Monetary Fund, which is a direct contradiction of Labour’s position. Ed Balls perpetuated the need for a slower reduction, but the IMF-in its report-advocate a faster tightening, with tax cuts, if slow growth does occur.

‘Too fast and too deep‘ mantra of the TUC and Labour is officially dead. The opposition needs to mature on economic issues before Ed Miliband finds himself even more isolated. Arguing against this report will be difficult, but Labour are already starting to.

A smart policy, for Labour, would be to call for fiscal loosening on the poorest households in the United Kingdom. The IMF presented this idea in the event of slow growth. Instead, though, the opposition’s economic team are administrating populist policies and rhetoric. Reducing bankers’ bonuses will not liberate the deficit – not even make a dent.

Michael Foot wrote the longest suicide note. Ed Miliband is proceeding with the longest suicide attempt in history.

Read Full Post »

The GOP War on Democracy

Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is among one of the most undemocratic politicians in the Western World. The manner, in which he is stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights, would’ve made Franco applaud with admiration. His ‘repair budget’ achieves no real significant means of combating a $3 billion budget short fall, but instead targets political rivals and the opposition bases. Without increasing tax revenue, Walker’s cuts are draconian and depict European austerity as timid. Traditional Democratic voters, supporters and unions are among the worse off under his budget.

Far from very democratic.

Protesters have established ‘Walkerville’, a tent city, in and around the capital grounds to put pressure on the governor to stand down. Sadly, Walker has countermanded bipartisanship and authorised the authorities to use force to expel any dissidents. Including elected officials. And yet, media supporters-such as FoxNews-continue to push GOP propaganda against ‘the enemy within.’ According to Fox, these protesters are ‘Marxists’, ‘extremists’ and ‘trying to destroy American values’ – but what about the great American value of freedom?

Wisconsin is not an isolated incident. Throughout the United States, the GOP is using the fiscal crisis to eliminate all opponents that threaten their agenda. It’s a Trojan horse for the Christian Right and corporations to influence political decisions, which were historically left for the people of America.

President Reagan once championed the defence of collective bargaining rights for Polish unions under Soviet occupation. Yet, he’s GOP children wish to strip Americans of theirs.

Read Full Post »

Netanyahu has no desire for peace.

President Obama desires a two state solution based on the pre-1967 borders; prior to the war in the region. The European Union have actively held this position for decades and it is a welcome for the United States to final recognise it. Israel, unsurprisingly, rejects any notion of restoration of these borders due to ‘lack of considerable recognition to demographic and security changes.’ This translates into Israel refusing to abide by international law on illegal settlements and occupation of the West Bank.

Fabrication of historical aspects, deliberately pandering to religious schisms and myths is how Israel justifies illegal settlements. Messianic prophecy and religious nostalgia should not be acknowledge, or tolerated, in geopolitical negotiations. The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, is a highly controversial figure, who objects to any peace deal. Lieberman is an ultra nationalist, proud Zionist, reactionary and a leader of a hostile political vanguard. He’s made the analogy of Arab members of the Knesset being comparable to Nazi collaborators; passionately believes Arab citizens must swear an oath of loyalty to Israel in order to achieve citizenship; Palestinians need to acknowledge Israel as exclusively and only Jewish – before a peace deal can be even discussed.

The Arab Awakening provides real prospects for Israel and the possibility of stable neighbours, who will embrace democracy and human rights. At the same time, though, these revolutions provide a great danger: Israel will no longer be, in the words of David Cameron, that “lonely beacon of democracy” in the region. The Palestinian question will inevitably be resolved and the Israeli political establishment understands this reality. The status quo cannot continue. However, the current regime in Israel will not remotely consider peace until after the 2012 presidential elections in the United States. An Obama second term might resort to actions of President Bush Snr, in 1991, and withhold aid until Israel stops settlement building and returns to the negotiating table. But election season prevents Obama from even considering such strong diplomatic pressure.

Netanyahu is protected and knows the United States veto will continue at the United Nations; there is no fear of the United Nations recognising Palestine. The Israeli Prime Minister was received like a glorious Caesar by the American Congress and applauded rapturously for ridiculing the President of the United States in his own capital. A Republican controlled Congress will never vote in favour of restricting or blocking aid to Israel – Netanyahu knows this. And because of that, Israel can continue obstructing all possibilities of peace. Of course, Israel has legitimate concerns about Hamas-and rightly so-but it cannot use it as an excuse not to discuss terms with secular Arabs. The Jihad philosophy of Hamas and the aspiration of restoring the Islamic caliphate is supported by a tiny minority; not all Palestinians desire an exclusive constitutional Islamic state of Palestine. Growing ambitions in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and other Middle East nations further dispel the bloody Jihad movement – these nations want Israel to be treated equally, not destroyed.

The Arab Spring was a moment for Israel to defend the Arab people. Israel could’ve shown it is a true moral force in the region, not an oppressive one. This was the opportunity to reject all misconceptions about Israel. Instead, Netanyahu chose not to. A Palestinian state brought about by Israel would politically destroy all extreme elements in the region. The ‘little Devil’, in the words of Iran, would’ve provided freedom – not the fundamentalists in Tehran. But Netanyahu does not see it that way. Him and Lieberman still believe in a one state solution with autonomy, not independence, for the Palestinian people.

Read Full Post »

Where on Earth is the UN?

The main arbitrator of global peace and justice is nonchalant to the events in Yemen. Question: How many individuals need to die in conflict, before the United Nations even considers calling an urgent Security Council meeting?

Read Full Post »

There is nothing liberal about President Obama

As Europe suffers a hangover from President Obama’s visit and excitement from the media returns to normality, the ‘Leader of the Free World‘ remains unquestioned by Europeans. The message of ‘change’ still resonates in European capitals and has become the new mantra of our politicians.

However, one aspect of the President’s character remains unchallenged; a wall of silence has befallen the media and the adoring crowds: Obama is far from a liberal President.

The British coalition government have managed to achieve the following within 12 months;

1. Prohibiting the creation of national ID cards.
2. Ending child detention.
3. Reducing the period of detention, without trial, for terrorist suspects.
4. Scrapping DNA database.
5. Regulating the use of CCTV.
6. Eliminating hundreds of thousands from the British tax system.
7. Reducing the influence of the state in education.
8. Pupil premium.
9. Liberalisation of the monstrous health system.
10. Credible deficit reduction strategy.

Prime Minister Cameron is desperate to align himself to liberalism and claim he is a liberal, but his American counterpart is still viewed as the head of international liberalism. Obama supporters proudly highlight the draconian policies of President Bush – with analogies to Nazi Germany. They claim Obama restored the great American values and accumulated the wealth of democracy. Instead of taking the claims at face value, let us analysis Obama’s actions as President of the United States of America;

1. Renewal of the US Patriot Act.
2. Legal immunity for telecommunications corporatioons, which participated in unconstitutional wiretapping.
3. Continuation of the death penalty.
4. Failure to achieve his campaign promise of readdressing the relations between Native Americans.
5. Increase of drone strikes in Waziristan.
6. Guantanamo Bay is still operational.
7. Military trials have restarted at the Cuban detention camp, too.
8. Capricious attitude on gay marriage.
9. Appointing a cabinet of former Wall Street and lobby associates.
10. Fiscal and economic decisions that contradict economic liberalism.

President Obama is a brand; an advertisers perfect dream. His first term continued his cult of personality from the campaign, which prevented the media from inquiring election positions and failure to implement.  Majority of his Presidency has been a continuation of the Bush-Cheney era because he is still rather timid and inept in foreign affairs.

He is nothing but an apparatchik for Chicago Democrats; which is allegedly a notoriously corrupt segment of the Democratic Party.  Many of Obama’s advisors originate from Chicago and were instrumental throughout his lucrative career. Critics argue a liberal President would seek to remove the Washington norm of the ‘old boy network’ when appointing individuals to key advisory or governmental positions.

Obama, in my humble opinion, has done nothing to prove he is a liberal or remotely aligned to the teaching of liberalism. And yet the world still adores him.

Read Full Post »

Arab League supports Palestinian UN recognition bid

An ideology that divides the world into those who are worth more and those who are worth less, into superior and inferior beings, does not have to reach the dimensions of the German genocide to be wrong.
Amira Hass, Israeli Journalist

The Arab League have endorsed the Palestinian Authority policy to gain recognition of state hood, on 1967 borders, from the United Nations. Sarkozy is understood to be considering French support, with the British yet to determine a position; the French Foreign Ministry have commented on a possible European Union recognition, too, on a Palestinian state. Which would be a powerful endorsement.

I will not lament over the struggle for self determination. It has been a tragic history of deceit, destruction, war and broken promise, but this is the first real prospect of a meaningful conclusion.

If Israel remains a obstacle to peace then considerable sanctions will be required. Israeli policy on the occupied territories is an apartheid doctrine. United States political assistance prevents any acknowledgment of human rights abuses at the United Nations; State Department own documents share the same assessments as the UN, but the condemnation is never public.

David Cameron, at the G8, placed himself in the vanguard of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. It’s time for Cameron to recognise the Palestinian homeland.

Read Full Post »