« Chinese invasion certain | Main | Strength boast proves weakness »

August 26, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kay Tie

"Bush signed Guantanamo into existence, Obama gave himself a year to close it, thrashed around, blamed every other country for not helping him and still hasn't closed that despicable place."

Technically, Guantanamo has been a marine base for a very long time (pre Castro). George Bush was of course responsible for the new use to which it was put.

"He is as worthless as his predecessor but smiles easily, speaks nicer words and is willing to put some effort into his lies and you are blinded to the reality."

I share your assessment. I thought he might be a lot better than he's turned out to be. Not closing Gitmo has been a huge failure.

HuwOS

A good candidate is one with strong principles and the ability to get his ideas however unpopular at first glance across to people.
A bad candidate is one who has no strong principles but has the ability to appear to be all things to all men and so be electable.

Bush signed Guantanamo into existence, Obama gave himself a year to close it, thrashed around, blamed every other country for not helping him and still hasn't closed that despicable place.

He is as worthless as his predecessor but smiles easily, speaks nicer words and is willing to put some effort into his lies and you are blinded to the reality.

Paul Flynn

No regrets, Huw, on my admiration for Obama. Compared with his opponent and his predecessor he is still the best in my lifetime of American Presidents. But even Presidents have limited powers in trying to change direction on a system that is largely controlled by powerful vested interests. Obama first move was to take on the lobbyists. They have been fighting back ever since. It's hideously difficult to end wars but very easy to start them. Declaring an exit date was as far as he could go in a country where a fifth of the population believes that Obama is a Muslim.

In the Labour Leadership election, I wish we have a choice between perfect candidates. Perhaps half a dozen 'Obamas'. But that is not how it is. I am comfortable with my choice based on ability and electability. That's David Milliband.

HuwOS

Paul seems blinded by the fact that Milliband can say one thing out loud but hint at thinking the opposite when he whispers in Paul's ear.
He has the same blindness to Obama, although naturally Obama doesn't have to do his own whispering, such is the nature of real power.

Admittedly we are all glad that the U.S. is no longer headed by a man whose lack of intelligence made your ears bleed when he spoke, a man for whom many would have preferred death, than have had to listen to another mangled ignorant statement.

But we cannot be pleased by a man who is awarded peace prizes while conducting multiple wars, particularly one who would accept such prizes, Obama is merely America's Blair, serving the orthodoxy while mouthing hints of change.

It seems Paul is vulnerable to the standard behaviour of those on the right,
especially those with the ability to couch the unreasonable in terms of reason.
The ability to say the right words while doing the wrong things.
The people who label actions as something people would like to see while performing actions that nobody wants.

KayTie is both right and wrong about the requirement of a plan for hope and optimism.
But KayTie is wrong, because she still thinks that the Labour leadership has none, her inability, much like Paul's, to recognise that Labour is no longer a party of the left is what blinds her.
She sees no left wing proposals from Labour so believes that because they supposedly represent the left, that therefore the left has nothing to offer.
The fact is there is nothing radical coming from Labour is because their policies are pretty similar to the Tories.
There are minor differences to facilitate brand marketing but nothing that is qualitatively different and nothing that strays too close to centrist never mind left wing thought.
It is a pattern we see all over the western world but the pattern was set and comes from the US, where the policies of the major parties are fundamentally the same but the style and presentation is different.
Politics there and now here is reduced to cola wars, but it is astounding the division that can be whipped up between near identical products.

Kay Tie

"We all lived in hope Huw in 1997. Some of us have re-kindle it. Ever optimism. It's possible."

Don't you have to have a plan in order to be optimistic? I don't see anything coming from Labour. Nothing like the ideas discussed here. Nothing other than bland platitudes.

Are you optimistic because you trust that the eventual leader will kick off new thinking?

Paul Flynn

We all lived in hope Huw in 1997. Some of us have re-kindle it. Ever optimism. It's possible.

Harry Barnes

Meanwhile, back to the Labour Leadership Campaign - see the contestants Manifestos @ http://dronfieldblather.blogspot.com/2010/08/manifestos-of-intent.html

HuwOS

"Sleaze is re-born."

I think the phrase is,
it never went away you know.

The flame was kept alight by the right wing cuckoo's at the helm of your party Paul.

The difference of course between Labour and the Tories is, no one expects the Tories to be unsleazy no matter what they say, but back in '97 we had hopes that Labour would be different.

Still, in time all things balance out and now we have no such hope.

The Labour party is over Paul, unless the left take it back, still I expect it is too late for that now, the creeping roots of the right and all the personal greed and desire it embodies have broken up the foundations.

It is a sad thing that the entire edifice will probably have to be demolished, thanks particularly to Blair and the mindless idiots who let him lead and then let him continue to lead what once had been, the Labour party.

The comments to this entry are closed.