Why The Blairites Back The Tories Against Red Ed

From NMS
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why the Blairites back the Tories against Red Ed By
Published: 02:05 BST, 29 September 2013 | Updated: 02:08 BST, 29 September 2013

Why are Peter Mandelson and the Blair Creature trying to help David Cameron win the next Election? Like all sensible people, I take no sides in the louse versus flea versus bedbug contest that British politics has become.

But I believe the remaining deluded, tribal voters should be urged to think hard about what they plan to do in May 2015.

If it is really true that David Cameron is in any way conservative, why would Lord Mandelson and Blair of Baghdad be so keen to help him?

They obviously are very keen. Both men submitted themselves to a fierce discipline in the days before 1997, vowing that nobody at the top of the Labour Party would attack  a comrade in public. Those  who broke this rule were severely punished.
Blairite Peter Mandelson, pictured left, and Blair himself, right, are trying to help David Cameron win the next election rather than Labour's Ed Miliband

So, when Ed Miliband came out with his energy price freeze, Lord Mandelson's immediate public attack on it was a conscious, deliberate, thought-out attempt to wreck his own party's Election chances in 2015.

Then along came Anthony Blair, who could easily have hidden himself away at a self-help congress for loo-roll makers in Malaysia, or in the first-class compartment of a long-distance jet.

But no, he was instantly available, to refuse to comment in such a way it was clear he, too wanted to torpedo his own party.

Well, Mr Blair has always done what he was told, by Lord Mandelson and Alastair Campbell and George W.
Bush and anyone else who could offer him glory in return for obedience.

But Lord Mandelson, right back in the days when he still had that moustache, was always the beating heart of the New Labour project.
The Tory's David Cameron as a far better Heir to Blair than 'Red Ed' Miliband

And the New Labour project came out of Marxism, just as he did.

His Lordship remains very cagey indeed about his time in the Young Communist League, just as Blair was evasive about his time as a Ban-the-Bomber during the Cold War. They are cagey because it still matters. It wasn't a youthful indiscretion they shook off. This is important.

Silly, unobservant people on Left and Right missed the point of the Blair government.
They judged it by outdated measures, such as union power or nationalisation. But the intelligent Left had long ago moved on from that.

The real project was much more revolutionary: The plan  to ‘rub the Right's nose in diversity' with irreversible mass immigration; the rapid deepening of our commitment to the EU; the constitutional and legal reforms which removed many traditional safeguards for law and liberty; the sexual revolution; the legal ban on selection by ability in schools; the stupid  liberal wars; the huge expansion of public spending; the writing of political correctness and Human Rights into British law; the break-up of the UK.

This wasn't just an attack  on everything conservative-minded people hold dear.

It was also an attack on old-fashioned British socialism, which for all its faults cared about the poor.

Instead of worrying about unemployment, council housing and low wages, New Labour actively worked to turn this country into a low-wage, globalised economy, floating on a wave of credit.

A lot has been said about how the Blairites accepted Thatcherism - which is true.
Thatcherism wasn't conservative either. Much less has been said about how the Tories, under Michael Howard and then David Cameron, accepted Blairism.
RELATED ARTICLES Share this article Share
It was only when they agreed they would not try to undo any of the Blair legacy that they won the approval of the Blairite BBC, and the Blairite Murdoch press, and were allowed back into government.

And so now we find that Mandelson and Blair view David Cameron as a far better Heir  to Blair than Ed Miliband.

So  much so that they're prepared to wreck their own party to say so.

If the Tories offered you any hope, Peter Mandelson would hate them, not help them.
  Another awful massacre - and another killer on ‘happy pills' Aaron Alexis during his gun attack who was taking an anti-depressant

Last week I speculated that the Washington Navy Yard mass killer, Aaron Alexis, might have been unhinged by cannabis.

I still think it possible. This very dangerous drug is virtually legal in much of the USA and Britain, and is strongly correlated with severe mental illness.

But I have now learned from the New York Times that Alexis was certainly taking a  so-called ‘antidepressant' called Trazodone, nowadays prescribed for insomnia.

These powerful pills are given out by doctors who often don't know anything about them,  on the weakest of excuses. There's no hard evidence they do any more good than sugar pills, but lots that their so-called ‘side-effects' where can i buy trazodone prices be very severe.

The US National Institutes of Health, in an ‘Important Warning', ringed twice in red on their website, say that people who take ‘antidepressants' (especially teenagers and young people) can become suicidal.

They add: ‘You should know that your mental health may change in unexpected ways when you take Trazodone or other antidepressants even if you are an adult over age 24.
You may become suicidal, especially at the beginning of your treatment and any time that your dose is increased or decreased.'

Again and again, these mass killers are found to have been taking such pills.

How many more must there be, before we have a proper investigation?
The General Medical Council, which hounded Andrew Wakefield out of the profession for an honest, well-intentioned mistake over MMR, has given up efforts to discipline doctors allegedly involved in the mid-Staffordshire NHS scandal, in which many died.
What scale of values is in operation here?
The BBC's relentless campaign to make us metric continues apace.

A Radio 4 report on Rolf Harris's court appearance last week said  he walked ‘50 metres' from car to courtroom.

Did he?

Did they measure it exactly? Wouldn't most people say ‘50 yards'?

The BBC is protected by a special exemption from Freedom of Information requests on the subject of measurements in reports

Apart from anything else, it's quicker, and yards are still in common use on road signs all over the country.

The Corporation is protected by a special exemption from Freedom of Information requests on this subject.

But all the circumstantial evidence points to a policy to use metres, kilometres, kilograms and other foreign measures, wherever possible. By what authority do they do this?
Having spent some formative years in the charming Devon hamlet of Crapstone, and then in the lovely Sussex village of Funtington, I feel for the people of Varteg, South Wales.

Their village faces a name change at the hands of Welsh language zealots, who argue the letter ‘v' doesn't exist in Welsh and so must be replaced by ‘f'.

I'm all for preserving Welsh. But wouldn't it have a better chance if it adopted some extra letters - not just ‘v' but ‘k' and ‘x', so Wales could have banks and taxis like the rest of us? In return we English could adopt my favourite Russian letters, ж (zh), ц (ch) and Щ (shch), which would brighten things up a lot.

If you wish to comment on Peter Hitchen's blog,