In article ,
andrewrichardwainwright@googlemail.com (Andy) wrote:

> *From:* Andy 
> *Date:* Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> On 29 Apr, 16:17, Svenne  wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:17:17 +0100, Fred  wrote:
> > >True Blue wrote:
> > >>> However it poses a real threat to the rich, famous and 
> > powerful. It
> > >>> means that their worldly goods and status mean absolutely 
> > jack shit.
> > >>> After all, it's just a game. The ruling elite want us to 
> > believe in
> > >>> them- fear them, worship them. They want us to think this 
> > world is
> > >>> real.
> >
> > >> .....ahhhh.....there it is - the real thrust of the post 
> > emerges from all
> > >> the leftist self-righteousness: envy.
> >
> > >> "jealousy, fear and hate"? Look who's talking!
> > >     LOL, Like being back in the sixties, a stroll down memory 
> > lane, the
> > >age of aquarius ----------- blah blah blah. Tooting Popular 
> > Front!
> >
> > I think the Tooting Popular Front was Communist rather than Hippy.
> >
> > As for the Sixties and tha Age Of Aquarius, that was the last best
> > chance this planet had. Not much of a chance, but it was there 
> > even if
> > it was soon over.
> >
> > Nixon won in '68, the Sixties were over and humanity blew it. Now 
> > we
> > have weapons, wars, greed, consumption and planetary wide 
> > plundering
> > and  environmental degradation. We are on the cusp of this planets
> > sixth Extinction Level Event, completely man made. All there is 
> > to do
> > is watch its unstoppable unfolding with macabre fascination.
> >
> > We are probably the last priviliged generation. It's a pity about 
> > the
> > kids, though, we've betrayed them badly.
> >
> > Svenne
> 
> There was an American political commentator, who had something
> intersting to say on this. Words to the effect that "In the 1960's
> there was a lot of radical change. And some people got scared by it,
> and clung on to the past that at least they understood. Thus a 
> counter-
> revolution was born. The great shame is, all the freedoms that we
> passionately fought for, we might have to fight for again"
> 
> Two great examples of this
> 
> Capital Punishment in the USA. Bringing it back did not have any 
> major
> effect on reducing crime (effective detection and prosecution have a
> much greater deterent value than the sentence itself- after all, how
> many criminals actually plan to get caught?)
> The only purpose it served was as a "show of strength" by 
> reactionary
> conservatives to placate their supporters.
> 
> And now we have the same with the recriminalisation of cannabis in 
> the
> UK 
Cannabis is already criminalised in the UK. Your terminology is inexact.

(and other parts of the EU too). Will have bugger all effect on
> anyone except win the praises of cheap supermarket tabloid editors-
> the stupidity of it is that few of those support the government
> anyway. It's trying to look "tough", to appeal to reactionaries.
> 
> 
> Take the words "soft" and "tough". This is reactionary talk. Then 
> take
> the words "humane" and "draconian" which is progressive talk.
> 
> When a supposedly "progressive" party, such as Labour as it 
> originally
> was, adopts "reactionary" phrasing it amounts to passing the ball to
> your opponent. It allows the party's opponents to set the agenda. 
> And
> if that agenda is a Conservative party one, then the Conservatives 
> are
> going to win the next election!
> 
> Clinton did it, so did Blair/Brown.
> 
> Power without principle is worse than principle without power. It is
> actually a better bet politically to lose an election and stick to
> your guns, rather than desparately trying to cling to power by 
> selling
> out what you believe in. At the end of the day it is the grassroots
> supporters and activists who get the voters to come out. Going
> backwards in terms of adopting opposition policy and ideology, just
> because it happens to be more fashionable at the time is a bad 
> thing,
> as the rank and file party members will view this as "treason" and
> quit in droves. Opposition supporters will point out the "U-turn"
> nature of the administration, will view this as a weakness, and 
> stand
> an even lower chance of voting for the government.
> 
> I was very dismayed at the lack of either a general election or a
> party leadership contest after the departure of Tony Blair. Labour
> shot itself right in the foot with that one. It denied the party any
> chance to debate what it actually stood for. Once an administration
> has run out of ideas (97-2002) in Labour's case, it becomes a lame
> duck, and the longer it stays a "lame duck", the longer it will take
> to rebuild the party to election winning form when it is finally
> kicked out.
>