Bernie Laverick

"Once union power led to Britain's reputation as the basketcase of the west" and "Union power may have made the country almost ungovernable in the 1970s" And was it not precisely that attitude which led to this…? "Progress went into reverse the moment unions started to lose ground" "there is no longer a countervailing force to stand up for people at work" "If unions had been stronger over the past 20 years, we would not have slid back to the same level of wealth inequality as 1937” In other words, when unions fight for higher wages, lower hours or better conditions they are a “basketcase” and “ungovernable”: but when the toothless liberal elite are faced with the seemingly relentless juggernaut of an unbridled free market they pitifully squeak: “Where’s the cavalry?” Make your mind up Polly! So where did you stand during the 1984/85 miners’ strike? I really don’t recall the picket lines being staffed by the SDP (a proto-type New Labour model that split the anti-Thatcher vote and won her two more elections!), or of them warning the country of the calamitous consequences should the miners lose. I also have no recollections of either yourself or your SDP ‘comrades’ berating Kinnock for not giving them any political or moral support. I do remember the SDP leaders constantly banging on about extremist union leaders and “bully boy pickets” and how laws should be introduced seriously limiting their power! You see, it’s very easy to be pro union when they are dormant: a little less so it seems when they take action to defend their livelihoods. Too greedy and stupid when they go on strike - too timid and docile when they don’t! Keep the unions out of the kitchens while we educated liberal chefs prepare them an ethical and politically correct dish from some tired, left over ingredients. We tell them they are there to eat what we cook and if they don’t like it we’ll prevent them, by statute, from doing anything about it. However, as we clever chefs have now been replaced by a “rampant” hamburger stand we’ll express disgust with those same unions for not storming the kitchens to get us all our jobs back! That is basically the sub text of your post. I agree with almost everything you have said: the irony being that you yourself are a major contributor to this state of affairs. Your right wing, pro-market SDP was the midwife of New Labour. And even as an embryo New Labour was always anti trade union and totally committed to “rampant global capitalism”. New Labour is YOUR party. This is what Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins, David Owen, (and that other dreadful little man) fought for when they created the breakaway SDP. You created it! You take the responsibility!

Did the labour Party oppose the second world war? I don't remember that! Or the Falklands war? Or Korea? Did it make a principled stance over Vietnam? Which war did the Labour Party in power EVER do ANYTHING about stopping? No corruption in the old Labour Party? Did you really write those words? It was riddled with corruption at every level, particularly local government. Did you seriously not know this Derek? You seem to paint the old Labour Party almost as an evangelical whirlwind of campaigns and progressive activity; a fresh and vibrant force in British politics and COMPLETELY different to how it is now. It was nothing of the sort. Its leadership was always dominated by the Conservative establishment, as it is now, it's just a question of degree. That you mistake that 'degree' as a fundamental and irreversible shift is shoddy beyond belief. Since the fall of Communism, and therefore the perceived notion that there is no alternative to Capitalism, there has been a major shift to the right in most of the traditional left of centre parties facilitated by the ensuing political inertia on the one hand, and on a continuing economic boom on the other. This has now come to an inglorious end. Whereas a whole generation gave up looking for any meaningful alternative to the rampant free market, the coming period will see many young workers groping for political solutions. Some will come face to face with their own Trade Union leadership who, as Capital's Labour lieutenants, will try and stem the flow of industrial action. It is but one small step from there to the ranks of the Labour Party which I predict will see an increase in workers membership particularly when Cameron reveals his true agenda. But Derek has a major problem here in that he HAS to paint Labour as dead and buried because his party, the Socialist Party, has invested every last crumb of its credibility on the premise that there has been a "fundamental change"; that it is totally and utterly incapable of attracting new workers to its ranks and only they, the Socialist Party, can now lead the masses to the promised land. They can never admit that Labour may once again become a focus for many workers who, given the impending political tornados, may look there first for a solution and would be easily drawn to a radical vibrant and far seeing socialist/Marxist organisation. If there's one there to recruit them! The strategists of Capital want nothing better than to see the Labour Movement dissipated, its memory wiped clear and its party permanently sanitised so as to never become a serious threat whenever it gets elected. They want two major parties (one ever so slightly to the left of the other) but both passionately supporting the principles of the Free Market. A bonus would be if a left wing group or faction could assist in that process by setting up a smaller, weaker alternative to Labour. Just enough that it splits the unions and the working class; just enough that it removes what’s left of the left from the Labour Party, and just enough that neither will ever gain any control! Great strategy Derek!

.

Soon we may see the unedifying spectacle of a rush of workers moving into Labour Party activity (as P Taaffe always said would happen) but being wooed out by the same P Taaffe to form a miniscule sectarian fringe party. You couldn’t write it!

I think "black-hat" man is problematic. Here he is with constraints around him. Does his size change (along with the people to his left) or is this an optical illusion? Hey Chris it’s funny you should say that because I was going to post yesterday with a similar observation. I know how contentious this is on here so I thought twice and concluded it must be an illusion. But then I examined the woman in orange/pink just to the right of Black Hat Man and she does even stranger things. Note that in frame 98 we see a plump lady with a rather wide hips, yet by frame 167 she is lithe and shapely. How strange? I know Kennedy had a dizzying effect on some women but this one seemingly shed 5 kilos off her backside in 3.7 seconds! But what does it mean? I’m sure there must be a logical explanation for this; an illusion, or trick of the light maybe? It’s just that…how many of these anomalies, illusions, tricks of light, etc... exactly how many are there on this film? Even those that don’t support any form of alteration must concede that for one very short film there sure seems to be an awful lot of things just not quite ‘right’. I’m always very suspicious when researchers conclude something contentious in a photo is probably just a trick of light. For instance, how bizarre is it that the ‘trick of the light’ in the famous Badge man photo should show a Dallas cop firing a rifle? Just another coincidence I guess. I mean, of all the images a trick of the light could show –literally trillions! – an elephant juggling three rabbits, Napoleon playing a violin, Bart Simpson punching Julius Ceasar etc… but no, this trick of the light shows, of all things, a Dallas cop firing a rifle in exactly the spot where many people testified they saw smoke and heard a gunshot. Has anyone kept a count or a record of all these coincidences? There must be thousands! I honestly don’t know whether the Z film has been altered and I don’t have the necessary skills, training or facilities to conduct my own investigation into the matter. In the main I have to rely on the informed opinions and research of those that regularly post on here. Not having enough (any!) technical knowledge of the subject matter I feel a hostage to those opinions, but rarely does a thread on Zapruder not resort to insults and petty fighting, which just makes it all the more difficult for keen students to develop a grasp of the ideas being discussed. So I’m going to do a little experiment. It’s not very scientific and it’s outcome would probably prove nothing but it may be a worthwhile exercise. I have a couple of 8mm films of two family holidays in 1965 and 1966: I haven’t a clue what they were taken with (Kodak I think) but needless to say the outcome is certainly not Hollywood standard. Its quality is remarkably similar to the Z film. I’m going to look for signs of alteration! I want to see if on this hand held, relatively poor quality movie I can spot Mum or Dad losing 5 kilos in 3.7 seconds. I want to see whether I can spot a gunman lurking in some foliage: see people’s heads snap backwards or forwards at ludicrous speeds; and I want to know if any of the family insists that weren’t actually standing where they said they were at any given point. I’d like to see if I can spot all the children NOT looking at Punch and Judy or any other such anomalies that could be interpreted as Agfa (the film developers) trying to mess with our heads! Does anyone reckon I’ll find anything anywhere near as weird? No neither do I.

MIKE REGAN And for Bernie Laverick to suggest racial motives to a guy who lost but a single Marine during his duty as a squad leader and has spent year upon year racked in survivors guilt over an incident that took place outside a small Village named Cam Lo near the DMZ, is nothing less than ludicrous. I had assigned this Marine to defend a position after we were ambushed. And defend it he did, but lost his life in the process. To date, I wish I could go back in time and take on that particular position myself. The Marine's name is Jimmy Armstead, an African American kid from Queens, New York and nary a day goes by that I don't remember him in my prayers. And the others who were lost from the platoon. Mike that tragic incident has jumped out of every post you've made so far. So I apologise wholeheartedly for the napalm jibe; it was poor taste and in light of the above, downright cruel. But isn't it precisely that pain, a ripple from a disastrous foreign adventure, further reason someone like yourself would be more questioning of our military. How many of those incidents are taking place right now Mike? Would you wish how you feel on another young American just doing what he's been told to do? How much more should be asked of you before you ask, "how much more should we be prepared to give?" You are obviously very proud of the American Marines: believe it or not but so am I. My Mum spent years of the 2nd WW huddled in a bomb shelter terrified, almost traumatised with the thought of invading Nazis, praying that it would all be over soon. Britain could NEVER have won that war without the American marines, so I thank you from saving my country from German Fascism. That said I still have the right to criticise when I think that both our governments engage in illegal wars that result in death and destruction without the consent of the people. I still have the right to criticise those who promote such actions when they make postings on a public forum extolling their virtues. These are not slurs but legitimate concerns for the future well being of both services personel (YOU!) and of course for the people they are then ultimately unleashed on. As for the racism, just read it all again Mike. I don't believe my accusation was ungrounded. However, I really don't want to stir this up any more than it has been. The above quote is more than enough for me to back off.

I wouldn't disagree with you David but what is the be done? (as Lenin said) Do we work within the system to try to change it? Do we boycott the current system and build another of our own? Do we throw the towel in and resign ourselves to our fate? Hi Maggie! I'm afraid as individuals there is very little we can do. After 300 hundreds years of intense capitalist competition, most of which has been enormously progressive - certainly as far as developing the forces of production are concerned - we have reached a logical conclusion; fewer and fewer people own more and more of the wealth. It was always going to be that way. It couldn't possibly be otherwise. I wonder at what point it became expedient of that few to completely sew up the political stystem in order to preserve/extend their powerful and privelleged position? As we can witness, this elite (who control the press, the army, the police, the education system, the political system etc...) will fight like vicious tigers to preserve their dominant economic position. And their number one enemy is US! Because we can stop it at any time: and they know it! It is a secret war, a war fought by all those who have everything to lose against the rest of us who would have everything to gain. The weapons they use are powerful. Their strategy deadly! Scatter the masses and isolate them. What did Thatcher once famously splutter: "There is no society; just individuals and their families." This gives a crystal clear view of that strategy. You're on your own! Live with it! Compete hard with your neighbour, your workmates and your friends: keep your head down and just look after yourselves. Throw into this rigged 'Free' Market stock, a few twists of racism, a good dollop of sexism, fold in some whipped patriotism, squirt with a bit of fear and allow to simmer until near boiling point. And that's where the Labour Party and the Democrats come in... Their job being to turn the heat down for a while. How can it be changed and what to? Sorry Maggie, I haven't a clue! Bernie

Hi Peter, Who knows what conclusions will be drawn by millions of people in the coming downturn/recession: I know this, that the American working class has a proud history of struggle and is probably the most powerful force on earth...including their military. No army could control millions of citizens acting as one voice, and many of its ranks would naturally sympathise with the people anyway. The elite fear this like we all fear death! Their aim at all times is to split the pack up, atomise them, attack their organisations (unions), give them distractions, sport, tabloids, sex, sexism, violence, shiny xmas baubles...anything...as long as it dilutes their attention; as long as it doesn't lead them to the conclusion that together, they are a mighty power, that united they don't have to accept the lies and the corruption and the wars and the starvation: they never want people to learn that as ONE acting towards a common goal things CAN be changed. And that is the biggest conspiracy ever. Maybe when that conclusion is drawn by a critical mass, and these things tend to move at alarming speed, we could very well see a total shake up of the USA. And then the world truly will shake! Bernie

Some intersting points Derek but I have to strongly disagree with point 2 The serious question is whether capitalism can succeed - the present global crisis in food prices and finance markets should put a serious question mark over this. There will be no final collapse, no apocalyptic judgement day or ultimate crisis. And what's going to happen? Would we all wake up one morning to discover that the crisis of capitalism has reached such proportions that from today it is abolished. If only it could be that easy. If all we had to do was wait until things got so bad we'd just casually skip an evolutionary step and zoom straight into socialism. It's never going to happen because capitalism will never just 'come to an end' no matter how many starve, or how many die in wars. No Derek, this is a fight that has to be won. People have to be convinced and that will take events events events. Rough lessons are going to be learned over the coming period as the world tips into yet another global catastrophe and people try to make sense of why their lives are spiralling out of control. WHO has the power to change things? Who are the most powerful group of people on the planet? I say it is the battalions and legions of organised labour who have yet to draw the conclusions that this system can never provide even the basics of a good life for their families. Soon they will have to draw those conclusions and and take the appropriate political action. Overthrowing governments is easy. It's what you replace it with that matters. Within seven days a unified action of strikes and civil disobediance would bring even the toughest government to its knees. Look at the USSR, Rumania, E Germany etc... brought down by mass action of all those who DO everything in this world. When they decide NOT to then that world comes to a full stop. No the question isn't HOW we change direction: it's WHICH direction do we take. But when I look at the deluge of so called Trotskyite and Marxist sectarian grouplets (SWP Socialist Party, AWL, CPGB et al...) all strutting and posing (with their 50 or so membership) and squabbling with each other it just makes me despair. Let's hope this generation of young workers sweep these old fashioned and outdated organisations to one side and build a genuine party of the working class - one that they deserve and have been denied so many times.

It is so obviously a film studio somewhere on Bodmin moor. Because where are the stars? The sky is totally devoid of stars! Even their ham-fisted attempt at making Bobby Moore appear to defy gravity is so transparent. There is another photo taken from the opposite side at exactly the same moment by a Ms Mary Moorman and you can see the studio props the team are all looking at!

This is all spoken like a true serf, Bernie. Thanks for that... Like I said in my post, I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Even though those end results can always BUY opportunity like private education and much more. Your logic is riddled with contradictions. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who has worked harder or been more successful than myself, nor do I want any of their money. You apparently do And this noble stand is in response to this? Bernie Laverick: "I commend you for your achievements, I really do. I have immense respect for people who are driven, work hard, overcome all obstacles and achieve their goals". Once again you mistakenly equate success with money, and yes Chris, trust me, that really is shallow. And no I don't believe YOU are a part of any conspiracy...I believe that IT is a part of you! The 'dangling carrot conspiracy' for want of a better phrase, the need to get on, to "succeed" and to earn as much as possible and pay as little back in taxes. I don't think that is an unfair assessment Chris. It may be an unflattering one and this is why you have concluded not to respond further. Fair do's...we'll never agree on anything. But I just wanted to clarify and underline that my political beliefs, despite your cheap implications, are not based on jealousy or envy: I guess for some folk, believing that there should be more equality, less poverty, more democracy etc can only possibly be as a result of envy. I mean, why would anyone REALLY think about others? Nope it must be the envy!

Taxation is an interesting subject and one that receives less attention than it perhaps should. I have no objection to taxation providing I have some control over how the national purse is distribued - i.e., fairly and equally. But I don't. It is spent corruptly by the corrupt in support of the corrupt dogma of selfish madness we call capitalism. And isn't this the nub of the whole thing David? That we have no control over how it is spent - despite us living in a democracy! To me this is an acceptance by us all that whoever we vote for they will always promote the same agenda as every previous government. And if that means war taxes or taxes to pay huge subsidies for the recently privatised utility industries, or taxes to bail out greedy bankers then so be it: there's not a jot we can do about it. With a couple of exceptions most people posting on this topic are broadly in favour of some radical power shift that both neuters the dominance of capital and gives further empowerment to the millions. The one question on this thread that hasn't been posed, surprisingly, is HOW do we achieve it? Who has the power to stand up to this powerful elite? What group of individuals within a society have enough authority or credibility to effect such a momentous change? What happens when all those that drive the buses, produce the food, make the car wheels, fix the roads, drive the ambulances, nurse the sick...what happens when they, as one, withdraw their co-operation and make demands with one united voice? Let us digress and take a peek at the recent breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1990. Where was the KGB? Where were the huge army and the police? Where were military intelligence and the Interior Ministry? Where were the 15 million Communist Party members while their system was being systematically torn asunder? Where were they all? How come these hugely powerful and chronically influential forces, when they were so desperately needed, couldn’t even raise their heads above the parapet? They were reduced to mere onlookers as millions of workers with one idea in their heads resolutely smashed apart the so called ‘Communist’ system. This proves one thing: that when a political idea takes root it can spread like an unstoppable bush fire until it reaches such critical mass where upon it transforms into a reality. In this case the ending of totalitarianism. Too bad that that immense power, courage and resolve only had the limited brief of ending a system as oppose to creating a much better one. And too bad that now free market economics runs riot in Eastern Europe life expectancy has plummeted, poverty is endemic and ruthless criminals pose as respectable business men, some becoming multi-billionaires in less than a decade! (No doubt they must have worked hard!). But hey, half a billion people that didn’t use to drink Coca Cola now do! So all’s well that ends well! Isn’t that the nub of the West’s REAL hostility to the old Soviet regimes? After all, business is business. Half a billion new customers just sitting there: not to mention all the natural resources up for grabs. So make the sheeple think we have to oppose this because it's inhumane and "against human rights" (which it was) whilst really wondering how much richer they will become when it collapses. Look, our media, politicians and ambassadors have no qualms about propping up ruthless gangsters in Africa or South America or anywhere else; as long as they are allowed to do good business in these places who cares what they do. We supported Sadam in the 80’s: we’re not saying he just ‘changed’ in the 90’s are we? Wasn’t he always a ruthless dictator? Only when he became an impediment to business and political stability (and therefore economic stability) in the region did he have to go. Then piously the West could pose as ‘liberators’ liberating a country from a dictatorship they themselves created! My small prediction for what it’s worth? We are moving into a dangerous period of sudden changes and sharp turns; there will be events events events and they will come at frightening speed. There will be a profound radicalisation among the youth in particular who will grope for ideas and ways in which to transform the world into a better place. On the other hand we could be witnessing the fag end of humanity, as competition implodes in on itself and with no organised, united resistance we drift into a series of major world wars culminating in the annihilation of every living thing…And here’s Tom with the weather….

John- There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of results. To the extent that the government reduces one person's ability to fail, it reduces another person's ability to succeed. I was born in East St. Louis, Illinois (check it out on Wiki). We lived in an adjoining "smokestack" industrial town, where not only did we not have money, but there was no money to be had. I am a graduate of a heavily integrated public high school and 3 state universities. Along the way, I cut grass, cleaned tables, washed dishes, worked in factories, washed cars, worked in funeral homes (doing everything), and worked retail. I have been denied a job as a result of the color of my skin. These experiences have helped shape and mold me. The opportunity to have a successful career doing good work for people who need legal assistance (in my case, as a tax lawyer) has driven me for the last 29 - 30 years, when I started law school. I don't want the government deciding what I am worth and compensating me accordingly. I respect people, like you, who think differently, but the above is my philosophy and my motivation. It has been a lot of work and a lot of fun. I regard myself as more blest than deserving, and I am happy to have had the opportunity to experience the journey, including the many lean times and the numerous menial low-paying jobs. I continue to work long hours, because I like what I do for a living. I don't want the government reducing my opportunity to succeed by taking even more of my earnings and redistributing them to someone who doesn't share my work ethic. Taxation is nothing more than the governmental taking of the earnings of one person's efforts, at the threat of imprisonment, and spending and re-distributing such person's earnings as it sees fit. I concur with the holding of the Supreme Court (I forget the decision, but it is quite old) that the power to tax is the power to destroy. I think that the government should use it more sparingly. I don't see how someone can argue that the goverment is overreaching in most matters (with which I certainly agree), while, at the same time, arguing that the government should take more money from its citizens on the threat of imprisonment. Taxation is an onerous and omnipresent form of governmental intrusion. It drains our national productivity. It keeps our levels of living down much more than it enhances them. If I wanted help with anything, the last party I would turn to would be the government. I don't want to pretend to work, while the government pretends to pay me. I want to have the ability to succeed or fail without any governmental "help". How apt. That we are discussing a topic entitled "the Conspiracy Against Socialism" and we have a contribution posted by someone that epitomises the very essence of that ‘conspiracy’. The above post tells us everything about why socialism i.e., fairness equality and peace, is unlikely to succeed in our lifetime. Why should we pay taxes? This seems to be the subtext of your contribution. Oh yes you add the caveat that ‘some’ tax must be paid but seem quite adamant it should be a rock bottom bare minimum. Taxation is an onerous and omnipresent form of governmental intrusion. And Taxation is nothing more than the governmental taking of the earnings of one person's efforts, at the threat of imprisonment, and spending and re-distributing such person's earnings as it sees fit. Well, that IS the basic essence of a Parliamentary democracy is it not? You seem aghast that this state of affairs should be allowed. An elected government making decisions on the nation’s finances! Whatever next? That’s what we elect them to do! But never mind that that "one person's efforts" has to be educated for at least 12 years; that that individual’s chance of survival has monumentally increased as a result of public sanitation works and a fully funded health service: that whatever may happen to such a successful person should they encounter unforeseen disasters (bankruptsy, Wall St Crash, Sub-Prime crash etc…) would still at least enjoy free healthcare and housing rights and a state pension, along with millions of low paid workers who could never afford a private one! All this is paid for by taxes. I don't want the government reducing my opportunity to succeed by taking even more of my earnings and redistributing them to someone who doesn't share my work ethic. Clearly the word “success” here DIRECTLY equates to “amount of money”! Personally I find that embarrassingly shallow. However, like others, I commend you for your achievements, I really do. I have immense respect for people who are driven, work hard, overcome all obstacles and achieve their goals. But what a pity you have zero empathy with others who maybe don’t want a high-flying career, (who don't want to be middle class ‘professionals’, or earn their living by squeezing the pips out of folk needing legal assistance), or who don’t want to set academia aflame and who don’t want to own more and more and more…. These people are commonly known as workers. And these are the people that DO everything in this world. They have absolutely no political representation despite many attempts over the years yet these are the people who lay those golden eggs everyday. The golden eggs all those smart Harvard and Eton boys trade, swap and gamble with everyday, on the floors of the stock markets around the world. Of course the workers only get paid the shell while those that scoop huge chunks out of the yolk whinge about the relatively small amount they have to give back in onerous taxes! They earn a fraction of a lawyer’s wage but does that mean they don’t work as hard? Tell that to the fish-filleters I used to work with, who, in order to take home a half decent wage, would stand in the freezing cold for twelve hours a day until their hands were blue and crippled by the age of 50. Maybe they should re-educate? But fish will still need filleting! Buses and trains will still need driving; trash will still need to be removed; roofs will still need fixing; goods will still have to be transported… Someone has to do it! However much the carrot of re-education is dangled not EVERYONE can “succeed”. And not everyone wants to. So why should they be financially and politically disabled? Why shouldn’t they share in the enormous wealth that, in the main, they, and only they, themselves create through their mind-numbing and relentless toil?

I've given my definition (in the political sense) of the word ‘modernisation’ but I'm still waiting for yours. I can only conclude you agree with my analysis: that it is nothing more than an outright acceptance, in this so called democracy, of pandering to the huge vested economic interests of the very rich and powerful. Maybe I along with the majority of the British electorate have more gumption that to be tricked by buzz words. Wow! Chris you must be the only person in the UK who doesn’t think that the role of a politician is to trick people. Are you saying that people don’t routinely complain of our MP’s duplicity, that they always talk the straight truth; that they don’t use words cleverly so as to squirm out of an unforeseen circumstance? So every government in history has been elected entirely on the merit of its electioneering strategy and not on mistruths, exaggerations and/or fear? Buzz words, spin, marketing strategies are fine for the short term, because in the short term people can be tricked. It may win an election or two but it’s substance people want to see. For example: “Tough on Crime- Tough on the causes of crime”, a famous sound-bite from Tony Blair when he was the shadow Home Secretary. But ask any one of the millions of people who have been a victim of a rocketing crime wave in recent years just what does that sentence mean? They were buzz words Chris, part of the modernisers’ jargon. And people believed them. Unfortunately people with socialist beliefs are unlikely to see a Socialist Government in the UK or the USA in the foreseeable future. I agree with you, but almost certainly for very different reasons. From the tone of your contributions I get the feeling a socialist government is the last thing you would want to see. Of course if it followed the path of the old Soviet Union then I would agree with you. But like with all apologists for new Labour (read New Thatcherism) who are dazzled by, and in awe of, the free Market there is this haughty confidence that it will never be a popular idea “It would be chaos!” and “It would never work!” and “People are too greedy” etc…. Hmm, Lord forbid, under socialism there may be foreign wars, economic chaos, millions dying of starvation, millions displaced or homeless; there could be a wholesale pollution of the planet and there would always be a small powerful elite who did nothing but lived like kings. “That’s what would happen under socialism!” Imagine how awful that would be? We’d NEVER want to see that now would we? No best stick to what we know and just ‘modernise’ it every now and then.

Firstly Chris, Neo con is a specific political direction: "modernisation" is nothing more than a buzz word to trick the people! I did ask what modernisation actually meant but you chose not to even attempt an answer. The only time ‘OLD’ Labour enjoyed a workable majority anything like ‘New’ Labour was in 1945! That's right when it had a radical socialist agenda! Chris believe me the Atlee Government was anything but modern! Wasn't it the 1945 Government that introduced the NHS and nationalised - amongst other things - all the utilities? The same recently privatised utuilities who are now ripping everyone off? I asked: Why is this ‘modernised’ New Labour Party so unpopular Chris? How do you square that circle? Thatcher was once popular; she became unpopular in the eyes of the BRITISH ELECTORATE and was booted out by Conservative MP’s even though she still had the backing of grass roots Tory party members. IMO Politicians propensity to sleaze is directly proportional to their length of time in office. No Chris, it's not sleaze that people are concerned with, it's the lying, the deceit, the political bankruptsy, the inability to make sense of our economic system, the callous disregard they show to low paid workers, to the old and to the sick. That's why they are so unpopular. No one could bring themselves to believe that Labour would be or could be as cruel as the last Conservative Government. That's where modernisation has got you Chris. It's made them unelectable for another generation! Copy and paste to your BIO! It never ceases to amaze me how many people who spout full visibly from our public servants seem reluctant to share detailed bio’s on this site. Firstly what I expect from my public servants and what you should expect from me are clearly two different matters. I have no problem placing my Bio details on this forum, I simply haven't got around to it yet. You asked me what I did - I told you. But like with the word "modernisation" I see you also struggle with definition of "reluctant!"

IMO if the Labour party had not ‘modernised’ the BRITISH ELECTORATE wouldn’t have voted for them. 3 General Election wins. Never in the history of British politics had the Labour party enjoyed 3 consecutive mandates from the BRITISH ELECTORATE. Again we hear the ‘spin’ word “modernise”. What does that mean if not capitulation to neo con free market economics? Here is the theory (believe me I heard it often enough during the 80’s) - “The Tories are popular and winning elections…therefore…we should become just like them and maybe we’ll win one”! Incidentally Chris, yes you’re right, Labour has won 3 elections in eight years (1997 – 2005): but between the years 1964 to 1974 it won FOUR! And yep, that was WAY before they ‘modernised’. This is where we differ Chris. To me a political party has a set of core values, beliefs and principles and decides on its policies accordingly. A political party should have a road map of where it wants to be and how it’s going to get there: it should have its own vision of a brighter future and it should be able to inspire and lead and be inclusive to its core supporters and beyond. However, New Labour has disregarded all that and decided to simply open up a tacky market stall and just ASK passers-by "what would you like to hear?". Moods change according to the political and financial circumstances – core values don’t. People can tend towards knee-jerk reactions – political parties should be able to see around the corner and explain the bigger picture. A political party’s job is to lead and inspire not ask. Alex Ferguson’s job is to create good football that the crowds turn up to see: he doesn’t ask them…he shows them! And if he gets it wrong then out he goes. Labour has got it wrong every time. Never once has it even attempted to transform society or take on the vested interests of the top 200 families that dominate the economy. Never once! Of all the political formations over the last 100 years that is the ONLY avenue still left untried; every Labour Government has bowed to the immense pressures placed on them on day one, from the banks, the stock market, the judiciary, the media etc… rather than seek to defend the interests of the people who put them there. I repeat Chris, New Labour won in 1997 because the despised Tories lost. It really is that simple. And the proof is the humiliating plummet in support for New Labour: never before has a government been held in such universal contempt. Surely a devastating defeat at the next election will seal this debate; it will prove outright that ‘modernisation’ hasn’t worked, that it was pure luck it coincided with a similar contempt for the Tories in 1997. Why is this ‘modernised’ New Labour Party so unpopular Chris? How do you square that circle? IMO if they would have continued with the expansionist policies of Arms and Space related activity’s Not much longer. However if they would have walked away from the direct competition with the worlds only REAL superpower, maybe a few years longer. Bernie the bottom line is, whether you like it or not: Planned economies don’t use their resources as efficiently as Market economies. By the way, what do you do to ‘earn a crust’ looked up your Bio, not much there. Chris I wasn’t in any way lending even the slightest sliver of support for the Soviet Union; I despised that system more than the winner-takes-all free market rip off. I was merely making the point that had the people been given an ‘opposition’ party to temporarily vent their anger, they may have been lulled into thinking that they had a choice over their destiny. It would have been an enormously powerful social tool. I believe this is the purpose of the Democrats and New Labour: to lull people into thinking we live in a democracy. Like high class magicians they dazzle the audience with a well-rehearsed patter, hoodwinking them with deft sleights of hand, tricking them with mirrored images, but most important of all - screening the rich theatre owners counting all the money! It seems though that New Labour have now run out of tricks: either that or the audience has seen them all before. Over to Clinton or Obama, what will they pull out of the hat? 10 to 1 it’s not a rabbit, more likely it’ll be McCain! My job Chris encompasses many disciplines including distribution, logistics, engineering maintenance and customer liaison: sounds impressive eh? OK, I’m a van driver! And yes, it’s a white van. But in my OWN time I write plays, comedy sketches, do a bit of acting and sing/play guitar in a couple of bands. I earn enough out of these activities to keep me in van driving!

Well said Bernie! It was like that here (and maybe there) with Special Branch infiltrating all the local left groups and parties. There is abundant circumstantial evidence that the entire executive commitee of the Communist Party of Great Britain had (and probably still have) strong links with the intelligence services. How bizarre is that? Part of their day to day activities would certainly have included recruitment, raising finance, producing radical agitational literature, forging links with Union activists, exposing the hypocracy of the Labour Party etc... No wonder some of the big wigs in MI5 sat down for a moment and questioned the strategy of creating the very 'problem' which they were designed to neuter! So The Weekly Worker, mouthpiece of the CPGB, now spends all its time and energy in dishing out gossip and misinformation on all the other left wing groups; its sole effort is to sow confusion and demoralisation among what remains of the left. It is no more than a Stalinist tabloid designed to confuse. Fair play, these MI5 boys have done their homework and understand how best to manipulate the left into a political desert. But then there's always the danger of one of these agents going 'native'! And if as a result of economic turbulence over the coming period many new faces join these organisations, some will be inspired to do just that.

"A viable alternative to the Tory party"!? Did somebody really just write those words? New Labour are neither alternative nor viable and very soon they will receive an electoral thrashing for neglecting their core political base by "moving …to the centre". And what do New Labour apologists really mean when they say "the centre”. Do you mean an unprincipled acceptance of the neo-con political agenda, whether that’s illegal wars, rampant privatisation, tax cuts for the rich, slavish subservience to big business or any other such “needs of a modern market economy”? Because that's the reality. New Labour now has its grubby little fingers over every millimetre of this “middle ground” but it doesn’t seem to have done its popularity much good. When it does all eventually go bottoms up (and recent polls spell a humiliating disaster for this most pompous of governments) who will their apologists blame then? It used to be the “Loony Left”; they always had them as the scapegoat for previous Labour Leaders’ futile attempts to show big business “how to run the capitalist system”! Here’s a delicious irony. Neil Kinnock spent most of his leadership struggling to expel The Militant (a small left wing faction inside the Labour Party) on the grounds that it was an “entryist organisation” with ideas “alien to democratic socialism”. Year upon year was spent hounding this tiny organisation, even when unemployment was at an all time record, the miners were fighting for their lives and millions lived in fear of the dole, Kinnock, leader of the Official Opposition, saw fit to persist in this hounding, goaded on by the press, and goaded on by his bloated ambitions, until finally, he received his just reward – two election defeats! Ah yes, the irony… Here’s Kinnock valiantly kicking out left wing, predominantly working class, “entryists” when all the while the left wing party he ostensibly ‘lead’ was stealthily being taken over by right wing, predominantly middle class, Tory entryists! You couldn’t write it! The role of the Labour party was long ago transformed from a radical socialist campaigning organisation to no more than a safety valve; a ‘legitimate’ way for workers to let off political steam, to stop them from drawing revolutionary conclusions, but always harnessed by a right wing leadership and herded by future promises of a vague ‘socialist’ mirage: promises they had no intentions of fulfilling, even if they had the power to do so. By bowing to the inevitable dictats and irrepairable contradictions of a free market economy the Labour Party ultimately (and knowingly!) create despair and disillusionment thus preparing the ground for a new Conservative Government, who then have the authority to push the political agenda further and further to the right. And so it goes on… So be warned America: Hilary or Obama won’t make a jot of difference. They’ll be no more than a breathing space, a consolidating period, holding the fort for the next wave of assaults from a re-charged Republican Party who will have a legitimate mandate to go even further than this time. Iraq? Iran? Small potatoes. Try China. Or Russia. But first a dose of ‘liberal’ democracy is needed to lull the masses, to disillusion them with false promises, so that the right can return with a vengeance. Terrifying!

Nice one Duncan, sounds great! Clearly I did miss something... Like not making sure I started my post before you'd ended yours! Bernie

John, could you PM me with your link to your website, and i'll return the favour. Your inbox is full Thanks Duncan Am I missing something here? What is the purpose or advantage of this site and why is one's ethnicity required for membership? Do all members have to use a JFK related nickname? And is it just a space to post any related articles and videos? Like I say I'm obviously missing something....

I've read a few places that Tippit was a "marksman." http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtippet.htm Well, that's really only one place, but who's counting? Also on that page is this interesting tidbit, that got it right(!) but didn't carry it far enough: The reason for Officer Tippit's murder is simply this: It was necessary for them to get rid of the decoy in the case - Lee Oswald. Now, in order to get rid of him - so that he would not later describe the people involved in this, they had what I think is a rather clever plan. It's well known that police officers react violently to the murder of a police officer. All they did was arrange for an officer to be sent out to Tenth Street, and when Officer Tippit arrived there he was murdered, with no other reason than that. That's the most concise and logical reason I've heard yet. I'm beginning to realise that the biggest hurdle in this case is being able to seperate the staggeringly complex from the staggeringly simple! In the scheme of things, alongside whatever else was being orchestrated that day, the Tippit shooting must have been the easiest task for the conspirators to perform, even though they actually made a sloppy ham-fisted job of that too. Still digging though Duke...