[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why the British Should Not VOTE FOR BLAIR?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:21 am    Post subject: Why the British Should Not VOTE FOR BLAIR? Reply with quote

DON'T VOTE FOR BLAIR


Tony Blair is the Key Mullah Supporter & Against Freedom in Iran


With the General Election in Britain just 9 days away, freedom-loving Iranian and American should put pressure on Tony Blair for his role in support of Mullahs and acting as Mullah's lobbyist in Washington.

We urge everyone to give Blair and Jack Straw who is acting as Mullah's Pimp a thumbs down at the Britain general election and DONT vote for Tony and Jack eventhough we may not agree completely with other British Politicians.


How Do We See Blair Support for Mullahs?
Tony Blair & Jack Straw As The Key Supporters of Mullahs indirectly means
= Supporting Terror Master
= Atomic Mullahs
= Atomic Hezbollah & Dirty Bomb for EU3
= No security for anyone in London & UK
= Support for Rapist and killers of Zahrah Kazemi
= Supoort for over 120,000 political execution
= ....


DON'T FORGET and DON'T FORGIVE JACK & TONY

BBC Persian World Service Reported (6/10/03) Jack Straw is Against Regime Change In Iran and Biggest Supporter of Mullah's Regime

اختلاف بريتانيا با آمريکا بر سر ايران
جک استرا، وزير خارجه بريتانيا، تاييد کرده است که کشورش با ايالات متحده آمريکا بر سر ايران اختلاف نظر دارد.
آقای استرا به کميته روابط خارجی پارلمان بريتانيا گفت بريتانيا خواهان تغيير رژيم (در ايران) نيست.
او گفت مقامات لندن بسختی در تلاش هستند تا به آنچه که وی مذاکرات و تماسهای سازنده با ايران ناميد، ادامه دهند.
اين درحالی است که آمريکا، ايران را بخشی از "محور شرارت" می داند.
مقامات آمريکا ايران را متهم به تلاش برای دست يابی به سلاحهای هسته ای می کنند.








Blair’s Ritual Dance
Blair and Jack are counterpart of Mullah’s deception.

Quote:


http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200411290913.asp

No serious person can believe that the negotiations are going to block, or even seriously delay, the Iranian race to acquire atomic bombs. The European posturing is the Western counterpart of the Iranian deception, a ritual dance designed to put a flimsy veil over the nakedness of the real activities. The old-fashioned name for this sort of thing is "appeasement," and was best described by Churchill, referring to Chamberlain's infamous acceptance of Hitler's conditions at Munich. Chamberlain had to choose between war and dishonor, opted for the latter, and got the former as well. That is now the likely fate of Blair, Chirac, and Schroeder.




The British under Blair's government Deported Dying Iranian Asylum Applicants for Execution to their Mullah Buddies Yet Again! Evil or Very Mad

http://www.sundayherald.com/40451
Execution threat for hunger strikers facing deportation By Neil Mackay


Tony Blair & Jack Straw Support for Islamric Clerical Regime means they are supporting the following and can be considered as criminal and Mullah Mafia supporters :
1. Execution, flogging, stoning and amputation of limbs in public.
2. Mass killings of political prisoners.
3. Assassination of political dissidents outside of Iran.
4. Political serial killings in Iran.
5. Construction of many new prisons holding thousands of political prisoners.
6. Political oppression.
7. Promotion of international and domestic terrorism.
8. Violation of human rights in every category.
9. Lack of civil liberties.
10. Improvement and growth of Iran's Cemeteries.
11. Killing and imprisonment of journalists.
12. Violation of women's rights.
13. Censorship and closure of publications.
14. Forcing Iranians to flee the country resorting in five million refugees throughout the world and "brain drain".
15. Oppression of religious minorities.
16. Filtering the internet.
17. Jamming out of country satellite TV and radio stations.
18. Stealing Iran's wealth by the Mullahs and transfer of funds to abroad.
19. Destruction of Iran's Economy.
20. Widespread poverty throughout Iran.
21. Severe Inflation.
22. Devaluation of Iranian Rial.
23. Increase in unemployment.
24. Increase in the crime rate.
25. Promotion of corruption, prostitution and addiction.
26. Housing crisis in Iran.
27. Malnutrition, retarded growth and increased rate of depression among Iranian youth.
28. Public health crisis in Iran.
29. Making Iran an international "embarrassment".
30. 1979 Occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding hostages for 444 days.
31. Conflict with neighboring countries.
32. Iran-Iraq War resulting in millions dead, wounded, handicapped and homeless.
33. Destruction of Iran's Airline Industry.
34. Causing economic sanctions against Iran.
35. Producing weapon's of mass destruction.
36. Inability to get Iran's fair share of natural resources from Caspian Sea.
37. Promoting regional conflicts in the Middle East.
38. Destruction of Iran's industries.
39. Lack of technological advancements.
40. Air and environmental pollution crisis in Iran.
41. Destruction of Iran’s agriculture.
42. Destructions of fine arts, theater, cinema and music in Iran.
43. Promoting Islamic Fundamentalism.
44. Closure of Iranian Universities under cultural revolution for three years.
45. Attacking University campuses to kill and crack down on students.
46. Violating the constitution of the "Islamic Republic".
47. Hiring hooligans to beat and crack down on Iranian citizens.
48. Improving and selling contraband by regimes elements for additional income.
49. Selling Iranian women as sex slaves in the United Arab Emarets.


Last edited by cyrus on Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:07 pm; edited 18 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:11 am    Post subject: Tony Blair is Against Freedom in Iran Reply with quote

DON'T VOTE FOR BLAIR

This picture says a thousand words!!!!


Tony Blair is a Mullah Supporter



Last edited by cyrus on Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:09 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

April 28, 2005


Exchange
IRIB TV
IRIB Radio



London stands ready to be Tehran’s partner in Business


TEHRAN — The Lord Mayor of London, Michael Berry Savory, expressed his party’s readiness to be Iran’s partner in every sector of business specifically in the maritime industry.

Attending a seminar held yesterday in Tehran and entitled the London – Iran’s First Port of Call, the lord praised Iran for what he described as quickly growing economy especially in the Pars Special Economic Energy Zone where he had paid a visit before attending the seminar. “Compared to my first visit to Iran since three years ago, the zone has been grown incredibly and the shipping fleet has increased under Mr. Afkhami’s management.”

Savory headed a delegation of British lawyers and businessmen to negotiate with Iranians to develop bilateral business cooperation.

He encouraged Iranian officials to bring industries out of the government monopoly and to remove bureaucracy to both accelerate industrial progress and attract private investment.

Meanwhile, the chairman and managing director of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line (IRISL), A. A. Afkhami summarized the performance of his organization in the past few years and named a number of investment opportunities available in the maritime industry.

He referred to the booming petrochemical sector which will need more investment to develop the ports and other facilities to export petrochemicals produced in the PSEEZ and other southern cities. Afkhami welcomed the partnership of the British delegation and expressed hope that the bilateral negotiation would come to result by the end of the seminar.

A number of Iranian officials, chairman of the Iran’s Chamber of Commerce Alinaqi Khamushi, bankers and businessmen participated in this seminar.

The gathering was organized by the British Embassy Tehran, in conjunction with Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and International Financial Services London (IFSL).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Khorshid



Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 459

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I LOVE the BBC caricature!


This is a post to inform anyone currently in the forum that ANJOMAN-E PADESHAHI (Monarchist) is about to conduct a protest against Mullah Khatami's visit to Britain and British policy towards Iran.

Could this be the signal for Tondar One? I don't know. You can watch what is happening live, right now:

mms://208.53.131.109/Live2

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberator



Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1086

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Khorshid wrote:
I LOVE the BBC caricature!


This is a post to inform anyone currently in the forum that ANJOMAN-E PADESHAHI (Monarchist) is about to conduct a protest against Mullah Khatami's visit to Britain and British policy towards Iran.

Could this be the signal for Tondar One? I don't know. You can watch what is happening live, right now:

mms://208.53.131.109/Live2

.




Khorshid-jaan,

Could you post us a report on the protest? I'm not able to view it.


Ba Sepaas
_________________
JAVID IRAN!



www.anjomane-padeshahi.org
http://aryamehr11.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, it really depends. If they sell weapons to Iran, I would agree with you, but if they invest in Iran, which leads to the creation of jobs, then I don't really see that as "feeding these filthy mullahs". People are living in Iran! They have to somehow earn a living. And while the mullahs are terrorist, murderer, etc, you can't possibly support the measures that would lead to the deterioration in the living standard of ordinary Iranians. Their living condition is bad as it is, we shouldn't make it worse for them.
Back to top
Rasker



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've read that the Liberal Democrats are seeming even softer on the mullahs than Blair is, trying to pin him down on barring any military action. Would the Conservativesthen be the logical voting choice? The Tories weren't at all helpful on the Iraq intervention, to my way of thinking. Anyone who follows British politics, feel free to speak up please. [Update, a higher proportion of Conservative MPs than Labor MPs voted in favor of liberating Iraq, but Tory leader Michael Howard has has done a Kerry-like campaign of ambivalence in an attempt to garner anti-Blair anti-war votes in this campaign.]
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!


Last edited by Rasker on Thu May 05, 2005 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rasker



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:23 pm    Post subject: For the people of Iran, vote Blair out - IRI press agency Reply with quote

Hmm, to complicate things, here is mullah's mouthpiece citing efforts to punish Blair for his participation in Iraq and potential to help Bush with Iran if necessary:

http://www.regimechangeiran.com/

For the people of Iran, vote Blair out, says new campaign group


London, April 29, IRNA
UK Elections-Tactical Voting
A new anti-war campaign group is seeking support for voters in Britain to vote tactically at next week's general election to prevent Prime Minister Tony Blair winning another majority for a record third term.

"We owe it to the people of Iraq and Iran to unite behind whoever can defeat New Labour," Strategic Voter said. "We need to set aside our various party-tribalism," it said in an advertisement in the Independent newspaper Friday.

The independent non-party peace group said it was aiming to "outwit" Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system that "relies on and inflames our macho Divide and Rule, Winner-Takes-All political system."
In its task to seek a 'balanced parliament,' it said it did not believe there was any 'One Size Fits All party' to vote for across the country and instead urged voters to tactical back the best- placed anti-war candidate in their constituency.

"The results we hope to see include: Blair decisively checked; Troops speedily withdrawn from Iraq; Racism and Islamophobia resisted and Public services and the environment defended board," it said.

On its webpage, Strategic Voter listed recommendations for each constituency, with the aim of steering towards a balanced (or "hung") Parliament. "We want to punish the government, but not finish up with a Tory majority either," it said.

A variety of campaigns have been launched by the anti-war movement that has grown up in Britain opposed to the Iraq war, including vote4peace, which is demanding 'No More Iraqs' and calling on Blair to tell the US it "can't attack Iran."
There is also the DitchBlairProject, the dumpBlair campaign, makevotescount, stolenvotes and many others, often with the support of traditional Labour voters and mostly intent on forcing the Prime Minister out of office as soon as possible by weakening his power.

A separate initiative launched, Spoil Your Vote, is aimed to encourage voters, opposed the current electoral and party system to use their right to spoil their ballot papers at the general election rather than waste their right by abstaining.

Its organizers are attempting to create a mass movement of protest votes to highlight the case for reform by using the obligation of the country's Electoral Commission to count and declare the number of spoilt ballots on polling day.

HC/1771
::IRNA No.033 29/04/2005 19:43 --End >>

So, what is a pro-Liberation tactical voter to do? See what these groups are doing, and try to cancel it out? Glad I just had the simple Bush-Kerry choice! Razz
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
perzopolis



Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shahriar wrote:
Well, it really depends. If they sell weapons to Iran, I would agree with you, but if they invest in Iran, which leads to the creation of jobs, then I don't really see that as "feeding these filthy mullahs". People are living in Iran! They have to somehow earn a living. And while the mullahs are terrorist, murderer, etc, you can't possibly support the measures that would lead to the deterioration in the living standard of ordinary Iranians. Their living condition is bad as it is, we shouldn't make it worse for them.



Shahriar - who are you? Really? Come on, you can't mean the things you're saying, or can you?

So you believe it is good to do business with the current govt of Iran. Dear Shahriar - the money does not go to the people. It never goes to the people. They get a little bit of bread, that's it. You mean to tell me the money gets distributed by Khamenei and friends to all the people? Come on - do you work for the mafia?
_________________
Freedom for the Iranian people! NOT EUROPEAN BUSINESS INTERESTS!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

perzopolis wrote:
Shahriar wrote:
Well, it really depends. If they sell weapons to Iran, I would agree with you, but if they invest in Iran, which leads to the creation of jobs, then I don't really see that as "feeding these filthy mullahs". People are living in Iran! They have to somehow earn a living. And while the mullahs are terrorist, murderer, etc, you can't possibly support the measures that would lead to the deterioration in the living standard of ordinary Iranians. Their living condition is bad as it is, we shouldn't make it worse for them.



Shahriar - who are you? Really? Come on, you can't mean the things you're saying, or can you?

So you believe it is good to do business with the current govt of Iran. Dear Shahriar - the money does not go to the people. It never goes to the people. They get a little bit of bread, that's it. You mean to tell me the money gets distributed by Khamenei and friends to all the people? Come on - do you work for the mafia?



Come on now perzopolis jaan. Don't put words in my mouth my friend!

What you are proposing, however, is sanctions and without further examination, your argument is very dangerous to the general well being of Iranians living under the mullahs. You have to remember that even though mullahs are dangerous to Iran, there are people living in Iran as well! Sanction is not the way to go with respect to Iran because it will not hurt the Islamic Republic, and it will only make things worse for the poor people!

Let's analyze the situation:

In autocratic states such as Iran, sanctions will not be very effective since the ruling party usually avoids or uses the sanctions to profit from the shortages created by sanctions. Rationaning of goods is usually the outcome of sanctions. In this situation, the people are left to deal with the consequences. General population will suffer!

In addition, sanctions on a country like Iran is very hard to enforce because business opportunities that attract the neutral countries in the world. The neutral countries don't like the sanctions and because of the existence of business opportunities, they will engage in black market operations where the ruling elite will be empowered by illegal sales and people will suffer.

Sanctions take a heavy toll on the public as well. In Iraq, 1.2 million children died. Many are still suffering the consequences of the sanctions because of malnutrition and other problems. The infrastructure is badly damaged and it will take years if not decades to restore and repair the damages of sanctions to that country.

In conclusion, there is no telling how long sanctions will last or when the mullahs will be toppled! In the scenario of sanctions, it is likely that only the people will suffer and the Iranians and the future democratically elected government of Iran will be left to deal with the mess.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To all UK members :

You have a big choice ahead of you (if you are 18+) tomorrow: DON'T Vote Labour or Conservative. They are both two sides of the same coin: spin politics, deciet, lies and scandal. Vote for the REAL alternative, people who really give a damn about killing iraqi civilians, giving value for money in tax spending, and more. The Liberal Democrats. Visit the link www.libdems.org.uk


THEY are the ONLY decent political party around, Blair and Howard are just disgusting. Go Charlie!
Back to top
Rasker



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking more closely at tomorrows British election, I would recommend the Tories, simply on foreign policy grounds, they are not as engaged as Blair in a policy of negotiating with the Mullahs. Blair, if he wins, I would hope would follow thru on his assurances of stern action against the regime if it engages in enrichment as a cover for its nuclear weapons program. The Lib Dems would be the absolute worst choice in my opinion, they are attempting to blackmail Blair into denying *any* possibility of a military option against the Mullahs or their nukes.

[edit: Upon more detailed reflection, in a choice between an isolationist pacifist Tory and a Labourite who supports regime change, go with that Laborite. Generally, go with whichever candidate is better on the regime change/democratic engagement issue - I don't think you will find any Lib-Dems who fit this. In a tie between Tory and Labour on the regime change issue, I can't give you any advice.]
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!


Last edited by Rasker on Thu May 05, 2005 8:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
irani



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rasker wrote:
I would recommend the Tories, simply on foreign policy grounds



aren't they rasist?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
perzopolis



Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shahriar -

What do you mean sanctions will hurt the Iranian people - dear sir, do you think that British investment in Iran makes jobs for the Iranian people? Absolutely not, the British and other countries send their own workers to do the job. You are saying that if the Mullahs suffer, the Iranian people will also suffer? That is a joke, as is the picture you use for the avatar. You are using a picture of a guy who said he would do all sort of miraculous things and he did NOT!

Stop playing games with your double talk - I fight for Iran constantly so be sure not to say my philosophy is dangerous to my people. I don't like distractors or doubletalkers.

Cut off all economic links to t he Mullahs and the Iranian people will do the rest!
_________________
Freedom for the Iranian people! NOT EUROPEAN BUSINESS INTERESTS!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rasker



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

irani wrote:
Rasker wrote:
I would recommend the Tories, simply on foreign policy grounds



aren't they rasist?


I understand the Conservatives want to limit immigration into Britain, I don't know if that can be called racist considering the third-world and especially Islamist tide that is threatening to engulf continental Europe.

Here a is a blog by a pro-regime change Laborite who is voting for a regime change supporting Tory and against a pacifist Laborite while hoping for a Blair victory, if you can keep this straight. He says a lot of bad things about the Conservatives generally though. He is a lot like Christopher Hitchens, an honorable Socialist who supported Bush on the Iraq/Counterterror/democracy issue. He also has some good advice on coaltion building which some of the members of this board should take to heart!

Voting intentions - the last word
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/

One regular correspondent, who is critical of my intention to vote for a pro-war Conservative against an anti-war Labour candidate in a Labour marginal, queries the limited character of my conclusion (I have cited only two constituencies where I would not support the Labour candidate, including my own). He argues that, given my premise, I ought to be arguing for far more widespread Tory voting, as a larger proportion of Conservative MPs voted for war in Iraq than did Labour MPs.

One new correspondent, who is very much concerned - and in an admirable way - with security issues, also criticises my reasoning. He is intending to vote for an anti-war Labour MP in another marginal, on the grounds that he cannot trust the Tories to support Blair in another contingency like the Iraq War. He also worries that if other Labour supporters follow my example, then there would be no Blair premiership for my pro-Blair Tory candidate to support. Finally, he notes that for all Blair's imperfections, he would be a better PM than the "bad Alf Garnett impersonator" who leads the Conservative Party.

I agree, of course, with every point made by my second correspondent. Blair is not merely an outstanding statesman, but the most important single figure in international relations in the world today. Having shown no obvious concern with foreign policy before becoming Prime Minister, he has been the most powerful force for good in the international order of any Labour politician since Ernest Bevin. By contrast, I have lost so much respect for Michael Howard in the course of his leadership that I would not even countenance tactical voting in his constituency to defeat the Liberal Democrats, who have hopes of the seat. I would not have thought this humanly possible, but Howard has proved a worse leader than Iain Duncan Smith. His populist campaign on immigration and asylum has besmirched his own reputation and that of his party; his feint towards the anti-war movement and his advocacy of greater state control of the universities (i.e. his opposition to student fees) fail even as electoral politics, being patently incredible.

The Tories' cynicism over Iraq and their (ironically) mendacious campaign to brand Blair a liar give weight to my correspondent's concern that the party could not be trusted to support a progressive foreign policy on matters of comparable importance to Iraq [poster's note: i.e. Iran. I entirely share that concern (which is, incidentally, why I don't agree with my first correspondent's point). The Tories are so heedless of ideological bearing that they campaign even against the White House - and it is worth recalling that no post-war British Prime Minister has been so mistrusted by Washington than a Conservative, Edward Heath, while the two worst crises in post-war US-UK relations have both been engineered by Conservative Governments (Eden, over Suez; Major, over Bosnia).

Let me therefore restate the reasoning behind my own decision. I seek the return of a Blair Government with a large majority. I share the revulsion of Christopher Hitchens towards "the cretinized British Conservative Party" and "am glad to have seen the day when a British Tory leader is repudiated by the White House". But those of us on the Left who support regime change must face up to the fact that that noble cause is not widely held. It is intuitively appealing - particularly as it seems to augur a way of avoiding costs, most particularly humanitarian ones - to argue that war must be fought only for defensive reasons in response to a clear and present danger. Blair's great insight as a statesman is to have realised the import of 9/11: defensive war cannot wait on the identification of a clear and present danger, because the threats we face are no longer solely from other states. But - and this is the one point on which Michael Howard has a fair case against the Government - the arguments for this strategy have been muddied by the tactical error of reducing them to a case about WMD, the gross failures of intelligence accompanying that decision, and the incompetence of - excepting Blair himself - almost everyone involved in the UK government and US administration in arguing the case for pre-emptive war. When the most powerful arguments for an interventionist foreign policy against clerical barbarism and Baathist totalitarianism are put not by public servants but by freelance writers such as William Shawcross and Christopher Hitchens, then - with due respect and immense honour to those outstanding participants in the revolutionary cause - we're in trouble. And we're in trouble particularly because Iraq is not an isolated issue; it is a precursor of a liberal foreign policy geared to the spread of democratic government in regions with no history of constitutional process. We have to do this for moral reasons, and because our security depends on it.

I am, like Hitchens, a left-winger and sometime Labour activist. Having campaigned for the party when it was unelectable and extreme, I am faintly incredulous but very pleased that the party once led by George Lansbury and Michael Foot is now the only party meriting support on defence issues. But the support inside the party is shallow. Just as the anti-totalitarian struggle in the Cold War depended upon a rapprochement between the forces of the moderate Left and the internationalist centre-Right - what was known in Germany as 'Militant Democracy' - so this struggle against another existential threat requires a broad coalition, and the encouragement of liberal-democratic internationalism across the parties and civil society. If we forgo this coalition-building, then we'll find that support for our cause evaporates - the Conservative Party's trajectory over the past couple of years being an awful warning.

My inchoate views on our responsibilities in this election are thus that we should be looking to change the Conservatives as well as defeat them, and to maximise the representation of liberal-democratic internationalists in Parliament as well as support the Labour Party. I am in this respect a single-issue voter: if we do not get our security policy right - by which I mean a militant defence and expansion of liberal democracy - then nothing else will matter. It is for that reason that I am prepared to support particular Conservative candidates, subject to one criterion: not only that the candidate should have supported the war in Iraq (a wide category that includes several who now loudly bemoan what they consider a mistake - such as the former Shadow Foreign Secretary, John Maples), but that he is the type of politician who would defy a party whip in order to support an interventionist foreign policy. I don't know if the Tory candidate whom I shall be voting for, Nicholas Boles, comes into that category: I know too little about him. But I think he probably is. I have found his answers to my questions on this subject to my liking, and he is on record in support of a statement on foreign policy principles that I share. On the other hand, my Labour candidate would certainly defy a party whip in order to oppose an interventionist policy (I know this because she has written to me to say so). I asked her for permission to quote her private message to me, for my Times column on this subject. As she didn't give it, I naturally respect her wishes - but I think it is in order nonetheless to say that her message included reference to a type of docile canine, which I took to be not merely a figure of speech but an allusion to the Prime Minister's conduct of foreign policy. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but I fear I am not. I have voted for some highly variable Labour candidates - and one despicable one - in past elections, but I will not vote for a Labour candidate who thinks in these terms when there are plausible grounds for believing that her challenger will provide principled support for the foreign policies of a third-term Blair Government. This, then, is my answer to my correspondent's caution that if all pro-defence Labour supporters acted as I shall do, then there would be no Labour Government to support. I specifically urge and hope that Labour voters elsewhere vote Labour. The constituency where I shall vote is a highly unusual case.

But in deference to my first correspondent I will name another case, and there may be others. I can say with certainty that the long-serving Tory MP for South Staffordshire, Sir Patrick Cormack, is the type of candidate who would defy a party whip in order to support a reputable foreign and defence policy. He's already done it. The only parliamentary division on the Bosnian crisis took place (at the Liberal Democrats' request: they were better-led in those days) in November 1992. In his magnificent book Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia, 2001, p. 275, Brendan Simms records:
The motion - condemning government action as 'too little, too late' - was defeated by 166 votes to 37. Only 206 MPs actually voted. Patrick Cormack was the only Conservative MP to vote against the government.

In the debates on the Iraq war, Sir Patrick was similarly principled in defiance of his party. As Tories pressed for a judicial inquiry into the war, The Times reported:
Mr Blair received help from an unlikely quarter. The senior Conservative Sir Patrick Cormack rebuked his own MPs over their behaviour since the war ended. He told the Commons that he was ashamed of the Tories for their obsession with silly details.

“It grieves me deeply that my party, which I am honoured to belong to, should have started nit-picking when it was so right to give support on the principal issue (of going to war),” Sir Patrick said.

“It also grieves me that those young men and women in the Gulf must be wondering if we have lost our marbles in this place, spending our time on these silly accusations which have no substance.”

Sir Patrick also has the distinction of having performed the not especially onerous task of exposing the cynicism of Liberal Democrat policy on the war. In the parliamentary debate of 18 March 2003, ahead of military action, he asked Charles Kennedy, who had been professing support for British troops simultaneously with an amendment requiring a second UN resolution:
Can I therefore take it that if the amendment is lost the right hon. Gentleman will vote for the substantive [pro-Government] motion?

Kennedy fluffed it. If you read down the Hansard report, you'll see he then loses control altogether, peevishly expostulating, "We do not need moral lectures from the Conservative party."

Sir Patrick will in fact not be facing election later today, because of the tragic death during the campaign of his Liberal Democrat opponent. This means that a by-election will be held in the constituency in a month's time. Given the circumstances - with an incumbent who is no foreign-policy theorist, but an honourable man with an independent political judgement, and when the overall result of the general election will already have been decided - I would support Sir Patrick, even without knowing the stance of his Labour challenger.

Taking all these things into account, this is what I hope for from the general election (which is not to say I think this scenario will happen in any, let alone every, particular). Not all of these wishes are of equal weight (e.g. point 5 in this list is a fundamental moral issue that goes beyond party politics):

1. A large Labour majority - of at least not much below 100.

2. The shoring up of the liberal-democratic internationalist contingents of both main parties.

3. Failure by the Liberal Democrats to win their target seats - though I am no longer so exercised by this prospect that I would advise tactical voting to defeat them; the Conservatives ought not to be supported even on tactical grounds.

4. Failure of the Nationalist parties to make headway.

5. Defeat for the pro-fascist parties, Respect and the BNP.

6. Defeat for all Independent candidates. The one Independent elected at the last election, Dr Richard Taylor, has proved not so much ineffectual as invisible: he even managed to miss the division on foundation hospitals (i.e. the single issue on which he was elected). Likewise the Independent candidate running against Tony Blair in Sedgefield on an anti-war ticket, Reg Keys. I have great sympathy for Mr Keys as a father (his son was killed in Iraq), but I would not patronise him by suggesting that a large vote or even an extraordinary victory would provide him with solace. He doesn't want solace: he wants what he sees as justice. That is not within the power of any British government to give, for the only injustice involved in our decision to resume (not launch - for the first Gulf War never formally ended) war against Saddam Hussein was that it ought to have been taken a dozen years earlier.

7. The return of David Trimble in Upper Bann.
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group