Forgive the long absence. I have a new tedious desk job, staring at the screen 8 hours a day so I am less inclined in my free time to type up my rantets.
The Labour leadership election is upon us. The press seems to be paying it precious little attention. Well I supposed many are fed up to the back teeth with politics and want a break – the world cup is on too.
Anyhow, I think Diane Abbot would be about the best choice for Labour. She is too left wing but could moderate. Much though I abominate her views she is honest and genial. She was a total hypocrite over sending her son to a public school. I do not object to her doing the best for her child but I do object to her trying to stop anyone else doing the same thing. It was like Blair with his children at good Catholic state schools – breaking Labour policy to send them across boroughs. Lord Falconer and Trevor Philips had their children in public schools, as did Ruth Kelly. But I digress.
Let’s face it the fact that she is a woman and black is very attractive to Labour. These pieces of biodata are no unattractive to me – just neither here nor there. There’d be a lot of ethnic minority people (and right-on whites) and feminists (male and female) who’d vote for her to see the first non-white PM and the second female Premier, a first for Labour.
David Miliband, an oily shit if ever there was one. A conceited square. A policy wonk wanker. Why does he have a reputation for being smart? He was angling to depose Brown a couple of years ago but nothing happened. His brother Ed is a little more alluring as a leader. Ed Balls has a silly voice and sillier name, I cannot see people warning to him.
I think David Miliband will get it and lead Labour to failure.
Andy Burnham would be a decent choice for Labour. His political views are not extreme unlike la Abbot.
Thank phuq that that merkin John McDonnell did not get to stand. He is a cheerleader for the Provisional IRA. The Provos were ultra-nationalist, militarist, sectarian murderers. It is hard not to see them as fascist. They attacked the UK – one of the most liberal and democratic countries in the world.
Think of when the Provos started their assault on freedom in 1969. Think of all the barbarous regimes around the world – the totalitarian tyrannies like Mao’s China. McDonnell of course believes that the United Kingdom was the most deserving of destruction.
I was chatting to some guys from the International Marxist Group in Oxford yesterday, selling their multicoloured pamphlets. They said that if Saddam had not decimated the Iraqi Communist Party then the Commies would’ve had a good chance of seizing the commanding heights in Iraq. I find this unlikely. I recall how one Commie Iraqi is buried beside the Big Red himself, Dr. K. Marx.
My Trotskyist interlocutor (not Trotskyite, please – that is a pejorative suffix, -ite) said the CIA opposed democracy in Iraq because otherwise a Castro and not Saddam may have run Iraq. Of course – Castro is well known for permitting opposition and multiparty elections! Anyhow I said that Saddam and Castro were strikingly similar. Both were proteges of Moscow. They sponsored terrorism abroad, they built up a cult of the personality. I must admit that Castro was no psychotic and made more astute tactical decisions.
Castro – the Maximum leader, he of the omnipresent image, “The Commander gives the orders” says the billboards with his 10 foot high image.
The one thing I can agree with the Trots on is that the behaviour of the Israeli government is often reprehensible. Yes I need to add the disclaimer that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not against Israel per se. It should not have been created but of course I acknowledge its right to exist. Compared to its neighbours it wins the beauty contest every time for respect for human dignity and self-criticism. But nonetheless it has attacked the Palestinians fairly indiscriminately.
I view the attack on the ships resupplying Gaza as illegal. I did see footage of the men on the ships fighting Israeli soldiers. It is not all a one way street but as usual the Israeli action was disproportionate. But they are backed to the hilt by the US. The US has this moral blind spot – letting Israel get away with anything. Was it Pat Roberton who called Capitol Hill ‘Israeli occupied territory’? I always get him and Pat Buchanan mixed up.
Israeli does not for the US. This enrage the Muslim and Arab worlds. It hacks off a lot of the Third World and the left generally. Far better for the US to have a godo relationsip with a billion Muslims that 14 million Jews in the world. The Mohammedans have the oil. Suggests that the US is not all into self-interest.
Trouble is that Obama is even more in hoc to the Zionist lobby than a Republican. People call one a Nazi for even alluding to the incontrovertible fact that there is a Zionist lobby. What is the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee then?
The day after Obama got the Dems’ nomination he was cheered to the rafters by a Zionist caucus calling for the use of ‘all possible means’ to prevent Iran getting a nuke. Tip – that means he’d go to war against them.
A war against Iran would be a hard sell after Iraq. A harder fight too – the land is 4 times bigger than Iraq and the population is 3 times bigger. It has a semblance of democracy and the regime is more popular than Saddam’s. The country is not riven by ethnic or religious fissures. The ethnic Azeris are still Iranian patriots in the main. The military has not been degraded in any way. The country’s topography is very mountainous. I would think very carefully indeed before embarking on a conflict there. The US could win, easy. But are they prepared to take the pain? Are they willing to see that many thousands of their boys and girls die? A multiple of their death toll in Iraq? I think not.